The New York Times reports on a common phenomenon: the academic achievement gap between whites and Asians and blacks and Hispanics.
Among eighth graders who took the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test for entry into New York City’s elite schools like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech, only a small percentage of blacks and Hispanics received scores that would qualify them for admission. Among those offered admission, only six percent were black and seven percent Hispanic. Thirty-five percent of Asians and 31 percent of whites were offered admission.
In analyzing the results, the Times found “a significant gap” in performance and “a dearth of blacks and Hispanics” who took the test. Despite a 16-month test prep institute, the gap remains. The obvious result is that few poor and so-called racial minorities are represented at top schools.
Administrators may be tempted or feel pressure to narrow the gap by lowering standards for minority students, such as watering down the test and giving more weight to skin color and less weight to grades and scores. No matter what fancy name people want to use for this phenomenon, its plain name is racial preferences.
The American Civil Rights Institute advocates socioeconomic affirmative action in lieu of race and sex preferences. Rather than interpreting economic disadvantages to be racial in nature, admissions committees can achieve colorblind policies by taking into account that students of all races are faced with economic disadvantages. Helping people isn’t the problem. Discriminating against people based on the color of their skin is the problem.
According to the Associated Press, the Bradley Effect didn’t rear its head last Tuesday.
The Bradley Effect is the phenomenon of the discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election results. Voters tell pollsters they’re undecided or that they’ll vote for the black candidate, but choose the white candidate come election day. Whites who don’t want to seem racist may say they’re voting for the black guy but have no intention of doing so.
Pre-election polls were “generally accurate” in reflecting voters’ true intentions. The AP contends that the Bradley Effect, if a factor in the election, should have overstated Obama’s or understated John McCain’s votes, but that wasn’t the case. Obama won 52 to 46 percent. Various polls showed Obama winning 51 to 43 percent, 53 to 42 percent, and 51 to 42 percent.
Is the Bradley Effect thoroughly debunked? Regardless, one thing has remained consistent. An overwhelming majority of blacks vote for Democrats (95 percent chose Obama).
National Review Online asked a group of center-right thinkers if they believe Obama’s election is “good for blacks.”
The American Civil Rights Institute’sWard Connerly said yes it is, in the sense that blacks have arrived as first class citizens of a country that once enslaved and degraded them because of skin color. An Obama presidency also may alleviate whites of misplaced guilt.
Additionally, Connerly believes that Obama, as a married family man, might serve as an example to a community in which intact families are rare.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s (CEO) Roger Clegg said Obama’s election is a “powerful rebuke to the victim mindset” and that the biggest obstacle facing blacks isn’t discrimination but illegitimacy. Agreed. CEO’s Linda Chavez echoed Clegg’s sentiments:
“A President Obama could also take on issues that others have avoided: the breakdown in the black family, the latent racism inherent in holding blacks to lower standards than whites, the enervating aspect of perpetual victimhood. But while he might take on the first of these — he has experienced firsthand what it means to be abandoned by one’s father — I won’t hold my breath for him to endorse an end to racial double standards and preferences.”
I won’t hold mine, either, although the Wall Street Journal holds the view that Obama’s election is a sign that America is ready to move beyond race preferences and toward “colorblind opportunity” for all.
It matters little to me whether individuals learn to see beyond color. They can think and see whatever they’d like, as long as they don’t interfere with my rights. But government policy must be colorblind. Will this be possible with a black president in the White House? In an ideal world, yes. In this world…
Although 49 percent of Colorado voters chose to end the practice of government preferential treatment and discrimination, 50 percent chose to retain that practice. Amendment 46 narrowly failed to pass on Tuesday.
In contrast, Nebraska’s voters did the right thing by putting their state and local governments out of the skin color business. Initiative 424 passed with almost 58 percent of the vote. When asked about this victory and future ballot initiatives, Ward Connerly told the Associated Press that “it certainly strengthens the effort…The people of Nebraska, who have a motto of equality before the law, simply are reinforcing that.”
Nebraska’s new constitutional amendment will face court challenges.
After Initiative 424’s victory, Doug Tietz, director the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, told the SW Iowa News that “Democrats, Republicans, independents — they can agree that the government shouldn’t be playing politics based on race and gender…That’s the message of tonight. Nebraska believes that equality before the law is not only the state motto, it should also be enshrined in the state’s constitution.”
Nebraska’s government agencies and institutions will now have to review current policies to root out discriminatory and preferential practices.
Update: Steven Willborn, dean of the University of Nebraska’s law school, said it was okay that his school admitted under-qualified black students. With that confession on record, administrators at the law school and other state-supported schools in Nebraska will have to review programs to determine whether they violate the state’s new law.
Last month, the Center for Equal Opportunity released a study that documented cases of “severe discrimination” in the University of Nebraska law school’s admissions process.
In an interview with The Politico, Ward Connerly said he was hopeful that Barack Obama would support economic affirmative action and oppose race preferences.
“[Obama] is a very, very bright man who thinks through the nuances of issues and I cannot help believe he realizes the inherent flaw in race preferences. If you listen to him carefully, you cannot help but think he is really torn by this issue, and that he is leaning in the direction of socio-economic affirmative action instead of race preferences.”
Obama has hinted at supporting some form of economic affirmative action. During the campaign, he said that privileged children like his daughters didn’t need race preferences.
Perhaps the mere presence of a biracial man in the White House will get the country talking about whether race preferences make sense in 2008. If the majority of American voters are “tolerant” enough to elect a man like Obama, perhaps they’re ready to say race has no place in American life or law.
I don’t mean to be a spoil-sport or a pessimist, but I am not hopeful that an Obama presidency will do much to improve race relations in this country, nor will it signal the end of preferences. People will always look for the easy way out and put as little effort into improving themselves as possible. It’s much easier to point fingers, blame third parties, make excuses, and demand unearned benefits.
A black woman admonishes blacks who plan to vote for Barack Obama just because he’s black:
The same can be said for blacks who plan to vote NO on Amendment 46 in Colorado and Initiative 424 in Nebraska. Both would bar state and local governments from discriminating against and granting preferences to people in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on race and sex. Too many blacks believe that lowered standards and racial discrimination are OK as long as blacks benefit.
Melissa Hart’s “No on 46″ campaign paid for a radio ad that referred to Ward Connerly as a “carpetbagger.” One man impersonating Connerly said he’d “gotten rich off this scam for so long.”
Putting the government out of the skin color business – what a scam!
The ad was scheduled to run from October 28 until November 4. After the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative complained, calling the ad deceptive, KOA-AM and KBCO-FM station management asked the ad backers to change it. Hart’s campaign has submitted a new ad. (Source)
As you may recall, Hart herself called Connerly a carpetbagger, a derisive term southerners called northerners who traveled south after the Civil War to establish order and to help freed slaves.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the American Civil Rights Institute. This blog is written and maintained by La Shawn Barber. E-mail her at lashawnbarber@gmail.com
