A fun exchange. Affirmative Action (ie racism and quotas)

[Kilmer17]

Anyone want to bet which way the SCOTUS rules on this one?

Say bye bye to racial quotas.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/04/cf.opinion.affirmative.action/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving one of the most divisive issues in the United States -- affirmative action. The justices will decide whether applicants to the University of Michigan and its law school were unconstitutionally turned down because they were white.

In order to achieve a more diverse student body, many institutions have policies that take into account an applicant's race, along with other nonracial characteristics, like where he or she lives, any socioeconomic disadvantage and athletic skills.

The high court's ruling is due by next June. Is affirmative action necessary to ensure a diverse student body?

Ward Connerly, the chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute and delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-District of Columbia, joined "Crossfire" hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala to debate the issue.

CARLSON: Delegate Norton, thanks for joining us. At the heart of one of these cases is a story of a woman named Jennifer Gratz. She applied to the University of Michigan. She had a 3.8 grade point average and she didn't get in, partly because she was white. Now if your daughter was applying to college and she didn't get in partly because she was black, meaning if her race counted against her, I think you would call that what it is, it's racism. And I think you'd call it that. Why not call it that here?

NORTON: Well, I wouldn't because in the University of Michigan case, it should be noted that there were whites who also did not get in whose scores were the same or lower than the scores of blacks who did not get in. The reason is that diversity broadly considered was added to a large number of factors.

Now, these factors included factors that let in whites with lower scores than this plaintiff. If diversity is what is a central value in this and every selective university in the United States, then it ought to be a compelling interest or seen as a compelling interest by the Supreme Court.

CARLSON: Wait a second. What you're saying is, if I understand it, that it's OK to count someone's race in his favor, and of course the flip side, the inevitable flip side of that, is it's OK to count someone's race against him. Now if there is a definition of racism, isn't it that?

Connerly: "I think diversity is a very important interest if you're talking about diversity of thought. I don't think that the diversity of someone's skin color or where their ancestors came from is compelling."

NORTON: When, in fact, you are looking at the entire grid of factors, and you're looking at groups that have been underrepresented in higher education for 200 years, of course, if you want diversity you must make race a factor. Not the deciding factor but at least a factor. Or else you're going to end up with the same kind of all-white student bodies that you've had...

CARLSON: Unless you commit racism against the white students.

BEGALA: Excuse me. Let me bring Mr. Connerly into this. The Supreme Court did rule on this precise issue about 24 years ago in a case involving the university on whose regents you sat, not at the time, but the University of California system. In the Bakke case, the court referred back to a case 30 years earlier which integrated my alma mater, the University of Texas law school. And it speaks directly to law school admissions, which is what's at issue here. Let me read you what the court ruled. It's supposed to be, as Al Gore would say, the controlling legal authorities.

The Supreme Court says, "The law school, the proving ground for legal learning and practice, cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts. Few students, and no one who has practiced law, would choose to study in an academic vacuum removed from the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views with which the law is concerned."

Isn't the Supreme Court right when they say that diversity is an important state interest?

CONNERLY: I think diversity is a very important interest if you're talking about diversity of thought. I don't think that the diversity of someone's skin color or where their ancestors came from is compelling. And that is exactly what the court is going to have to decide.

The nation is dedicated to the principle of equal treatment for every individual, not groups. And the whole idea that there is underrepresentation, I think strikes at the heart of what's wrong with the way most of these policies are practiced.

BEGALA: Well, Mr. Connerly, though, diversity of thought is sort of an ephemeral thing. I don't know how we can have a thought police to check that. In Michigan, the case at issue before the court looks not just at race, as Delegate Norton said, they also look at geography and if you happened by circumstance of birth to be from an underrepresented county. They look at socioeconomic status. They look at whether you can play football. And the University of Texas, by god, they ought to be looking at that, too.

Why is it that we have affirmative action for things like that, or say in the case of George W. Bush, it's called a legacy. He received affirmative action as the kind of over-drinking, over- privileged son of the moneyed elite. Why should they get affirmative action but not people based on race?

CONNERLY: There's a difference between affirmative action, Mr. Begala, and race preferences. In every instance that I've seen -- and I still serve on the board of regents of the University of California -- when race is being used, it is not being used as a teeny, weenie, itty-bitty factor. It is the deciding factor. And extra points are given to some people on the basis of their quote race and taken away from others.

That is not affirmative action. That is a blatant system of race preferences, and that is something that I hope the court strikes down.

NORTON: Now, if it were the deciding factor, then it would be a quota. Quotas are exactly what the Bakke case 25 years ago struck down. It is one among sometimes dozens of factors. And unless you want an all-white university, listen to your college presidents, you're going to have to have that factor factored in.

Now, let me say this, because this is very important, and seldom mentioned when we talk about affirmative action. Affirmative action is a temporary remedy. If you want it to go away, then, of course, you've got to, in fact, do it and get it over with. If you do what Mr. Connerly is talking about, you're going to be doing something like it for god knows how long.

For example, even in California, you've had to go to a proxy for what proposition I think it's 209. Now, in fact, they have another way of getting minority students, because they were flushed out of the system by abolishing affirmative action altogether.

BEGALA: Well, Mr. Connerly...

CONNERLY: That's not a proxy. That is not a proxy. We've gone to a comprehensive review of all applicants looking at their grades and their standardized test scores, as well as their backgrounds. But it's not a proxy for race.

NORTON: It's a proxy, because it's where they were in their class at schools all around the state, including minority schools. So some of those children go to schools that are 100 percent black or Hispanic.

CONNERLY: But Congresswoman, anyone can be in their top four percent at the University of California. And what you're saying is that, in order for a child to learn, or a student to learn, they have to have somebody of a different color sitting next to them. If that is true, then we may as well wipe out all of the historically black colleges and all of the women's colleges, because they're all lacking in diversity.

[fansince62]

the left has always had a problem with its slippery moral grounds. why not just argue retributive justice - what delegate norton was arguiing in the first place? again, as noted elsewhere, this is about power and control over resources and not "doing the right thing."

[aREDSKIN]

The Democratic and Leftists mantra:

From those according to their ability to those according to their needs.

From the leftists and most democratics' glorious and thoroughly discredited grand pooh-pah.

Karl Marx.

AA is to a tough nut to crack. I can see the argument from both sides.

[Kilmer17]

Really? Shouldn't every person be judged on their merit and not their skin color?

[Riggo-toni]

On a side note - When Reagan pushed in the 80s to eliminate racial preferences in the private sector, he was rebuffed by none other than the pro-business right-wing National Association of Manufacturers. Seem strange? Well, think about it. These days corporations have to hire and promote people of all ethnicities or they face lawsuits and/or boycotts from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton groups. Unfortunately, in many sectors there is a paucity of qualified minority candidates. Companies often have to hire/promote less-qualified minority candidates over more qualified white candidates - which means they could then face lawsuits from whites who feel they've been discriminated against. Affirmative action programs give companies the only legal cover against this. Companies are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

There are 3 big problems with this kind of racial preference in higher education:

1)The first and most serious one, I think, is that it is like putting on a band-aid to cover a growing skin cancer. Black Americans, particularly those from urban areas, all too often do not get the same opportunities for a quality secondary education that suburban whites do. Our inner city schools are a disaster area. Everybody knows this, but nothing ever gets done to change this because it would require taking on the most powerful unions in the nation. We've all been brainwashed into believing the myth that a lack of funds is to blame - this despite the fact that the US spends almost 3 times as much as the OECD average per student for a school year that is 2 months shorter than everyone else's. When Afro-Americans score lower on the SATs, it becomes more convenient for the left to blame the tests, rather than admit the horrible failures of our K-12 system.

2) Failure and Dropout rates for African Americans increased drastically with the advent of racial preferences in admission. All too often, individuals of color have been admitted into programs for which they lacked the sufficient skills or educational background. Again, this goes back to my first argument- the failure to provide equal educational opportunities prior to college; but the error is compounded in higher education when individuals find themselves in programs in which they are unable to compete.

3)Marginalizing the true achievements of individuals. All too often, brilliant and successful minorities find their qualifications held suspect by those who secretly wonder if such achievements were facilitated by being held to a lower standard. I remember listening to an interview with Thomas Sowell where he talked about how as a photographer in Korea, even the biggest army rednecks came to him instead of the white photographer in his division whenever they had questions about cameras. They all figured if he'd gotten as high up in the army as he did as a black man in a white man's army, he must've known his stuff. He went on to get a PhD, and is a reknowned economist, but says his prestige faltered with the advent of affirmative action - despite the fact that he did all of his graduate work before racial preferences became a factor in college admissions.

[fansince62]

riggo...right on....especially point number 1....an equal starting ground is where we have failed miserably. and, yes, teachers are woefully underpaid. on the other hand, teachers unions have become so thoroughly politicized that large segments of the population refuse to back them. funny...I was just talking to a person where I work who is going to retire soon. because this person will have a healthy pension coming, they are going to teach at the high school level in an area where help is needed. folks speaking with their actions, of their own volition - that's what we need more of.

[Kilmer17]

Teachers are not underpaid, they are underworked. My wife is a Kindergarten teacher in Florida and makes 30k a year. With that she gets 5 weeks off during the school year (xmas, thanksgiving, spring and fall breaks etc). PLUS 10 weeks off during the summer PLUS 2 weeks of personal vacation. Essentially she works 3/4 of the year. Using simple math, her 30k would be the equivilent of 40k for a full work year.

The problem is 2 fold.

1- The union is out for political gain and not the betterment of the schools.

2- The kids. It's not just poor urban areas, it's in the uppercrust rich areas as well. Kids are coddled and teachers/admin are afraid of them and their parents.

There is no punishment in schools anymore. Everyone passes (or parents sue the school). Nobody is spanked or punished like they should be.

[fansince62]

kilmer...the adequacy of what one is paid is obviously measured, in part, against the financial obligations/style of life one wants to maintain. you may very well be right....I know I would never work for 30K. and I know many folks who teach because their income is supplemented and many who don't, but would like to, because the pay isn't good enough. otherwise....I agree with your points although I'm not sure I want anyone spanking my child.

[Kilmer17]

I dont want my child spanked either. BUt I do want the kid that's disrupting class and taking away time from my childs education to be punished.

If that happens to be my child, then he will have alot more to worry about than the paddle at school.

30k would be to little. But 40k for a recent college grad is pretty good. That's what the equivilant would be.

[Riggo-toni]

On a side note, or more accurately - addressing the initial topic presented here; I'd like to recommend the book Paved with Good Intentions. I believe the author's name is Jared Taylor. Anyway, it is the best critique I've ever read on the failures of racial preferences. Also, any number of books by Thomas Sowell are real eye openers, like The Economics and Politics of Race, Ethnic America, or Race and Culture

[fansince62]

riggo.....you're right...sowell writes some very interesting analyses

[gbear]

Riggotoni,

I think #1 is your root cause. If you can solve #1, the rest of the problems disappear over time. That's a problem, and it's more than just teachers. It's cultural too. However good teachers in the cities would help.

As for paying the teachers, someone pointed out that it's 30K for 3/4 of a year then extrapolated for a full year. Ever try getting a job for a week for spring break, a week here, a week there...? My entire family has been a teachers at one point or another. It's tough to find above minimum wage jobs for the summer, and outside of Christmas, the rest of the time off is useless for getting another job. So basically, you want teachers of K-12, your college graduates, to take minimum wage jobs for a large part of the year. Fine, but don't say that equals 40K a year.

The real problem is keeping the qualified/gifted teachers. My mom, my dad, my step mom, and my step dad have all been teachers. Half left for much better pay elsewhere. My Step-dad has worked at NIST in the summer for years allowing him to keep teaching, and he's an exception to this rule because he teaches at a college where the pay is better. My Dad still teaches highschool English. Two years out of college, I equaled his salary after 20 years of teaching. Five years out of college, I make 180% of his salary. We have the same education level, except I don't have to take additional classes to recertify.

Back to the original question: I don't know what to do. It's like playing monopoly and allowing some people a few turns around the board before you let everyone else play. Of course lots of good properties are taken before everybody else gets a fair shake. In this country, many minorities weren't allowed around the board for a few turns. I'm not sure what can be done to "right" things in a fair manner. All I can hope is the board keeps getting bigger to the point where the initial advantage is negligent (wishful thinking?) while trying to allow for fair play from now on.

[Kilmer17]

I think if you reread my post g you will see I was stating more that they were underworked. I'd prefer to see teachers work year round and get paid accordingly.

That being said, my wife is happy with what she does. She would rather work 3/4 of the year and get paid accordingly. Unfortunately teachers unions and alot of teachers (a broad generalization I know) want to work 3/4 of the year and get paid for a full year.