Archive for December, 2008
Don’t laugh. He’s serious.
When I saw the headline “A call to civil rights action in college football,” I thought the article would be a quirky and unexpected take on “affirmative action” in recruiting football players. That is, recruiting more whites to play on football teams for, you know, diversity’s sake. No such luck. Richard Lapchick’s article is decidedly uncool and totally expected.
Commenting on recent news about the paucity of black head coaches at 120 Division I-A schools, Lapchick, chair of a sports management program or some such, and advocate of racial bean-counting, declares the need for a “new game plan.” We have failed, he intones, because there are too few black head coaches in college football. I kept hoping he’d expound on the fact that 46 percent of the players are black. Again, no such luck.
Lapchick goes deep and invokes winningest Coach Eddie Robinson, who guided Grambling’s White Tigers, to bolster his claim that recruiting more black head college football coaches is a civil rights issue. He laments the low graduation rates among black ball players and that some illiterate players get scholarships. The implication is that only black head college football coaches care whether black players know how to read or will ever graduate. Lapchick said colleges need a rule akin to the so-called “Rooney Rule,” which requires NFL teams to interview black men for head coaching jobs. Lapchick’s “Eddie Robinson Rule” would require schools to do the same, and then some:
“Just as schools can lose scholarships under NCAA president Myles Brand’s academic-reform package, a system should be set up that would cost a school scholarships if it fails to interview a candidate of color when it has a coaching opening. There must be sanctions.”
Here’s my take on it. It wouldn’t hurt schools, private or public, to widen recruitment nets and add more “people of color” to the hiring pool. But hiring someone based on his skin color should be a no-go. Still, private organizations like the NFL can discriminate and prefer all they want. Taxpayer-supported institutions may not. If private colleges want to participate in racial bean-counting, that’s their prerogative. But you can’t be in the skin color game if you’re using the public’s money.
One wonders (I certainly do) what Lapchick thinks about the disproportionate representation of blacks on college football and basketball teams. Does he or would be ever apply his diversity expertise to recruiting more white players to these teams? Is he just as concerned about non-black athletes who can’t read and don’t graduate?
As is sometimes the case, commenters to articles and blog posts display more common sense and wisdom than the writer/blogger.
—————————————————–
One commenter writes:
“No college in America today is turning down good head football coaches because of the color of their skin! Everybody wants to win and build a credible program. Each university is going to hire the right man for that job. If you want more black head coaches in college football then tell more to interview and interview well!! This is not a civil rights issue.”
And this:
“This is by far the dumbest thing i have ever read on ESPN, Thank you ESPN for making america even more in to things about race than what is really at hand. i am positive that no guy goes in to a interview and gets declined because he is black. yeah okay so there are not alot of black coaches, whats next ? not enough mexicans in hockey? the reason is the same for both outcomes. no college should be forced to hire someone because of their race and if it becomes mandated that they do, whouldnt that be more racist than anything ? Richard Lapchick, never heard of you, and wish i never would have. i hope ESPN fires you because your not black.”
This one, too:
“What about Hispanic coaches? What about Native American coaches? What about Italian coaches? How about we just hire coaches for their ability to coach instead of their ethnicity. Tyrone Willingham’s next job probably won’t be because of his stellar win and loss record. How come there are not as many Caucasion running backs or wide receivers in the NCAA? Based on your logic the NCAA should come up with a rule that only 50% of running backs and receivers in the NCAA can be African American. The other 50% percent have to be Caucasion or something other than African American. How about we just try going with the most qualified person for the job.”
—————————————————–
In October, college coaches in Colorado signed a statement opposing Amendment 46, which would have barred the state from discriminating against or preferring people in government hiring, contracting, and admissions based on skin color. I contended, most sarcastically, that if these coaches really cared about “affirmative action,” they’d recruit more white players to colorize their heavily black teams. See Colorado Coaches Oppose Ban on Race Preferences.
Filed under: Diversity | |2 Comments
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) will host a conference called The Changing Landscape of American Higher Education, on January 9-11, 2009, at the Washington Marriott in Washington, D.C.
The conference will feature such speakers as Abigail Thernstrom, author of No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning; the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly, author of Lessons from My Uncle James; NAS’s Peter Wood, author of Diversity: Invention of a Concept; and Victor Davis Hanson, author, blogger, and columnist.
Panelists will debate and discuss several topics, including the contrast between government’s impulse to regulate and rapidly changing technology, and “Are the Dorms Being Politicized?”
Sound like a plan? Register for the conference here.
Filed under: Conferences, Ward Connerly | |1 Comment
A citizen of West Virginia recently responded to an article about University of Mary Washington (UMW) President Judy Hample’s “diversity” speech. UMW is on a mission to increase brown faces on campus by doubling funding and hiring a “vice president of diversity and inclusion.” (Source)
Hample has big plans for UMW. By not recruiting more blacks, she contends, “We are denying our majority students valuable insights and experiences that we don’t give those students an opportunity to live and to learn with in a population that is reflective of the overall society or even the local community.”
Indeed, the “valuable insights and experiences” meme is one of the main tenets of the skin deep-only diversity doctrine. Lily-white students somehow are deprived of the enrichment of mixing with black people. Therefore, the creed reads, we must give these deprived kids an opportunity to be fulfilled and expanded by rubbing shoulders with others of another color. (Has anyone ever quantified these valuable insights and experiences?)
That’s not a bad thing per se, but it is most certainly a bad thing when universities lower standards for black students in order to achieve those goals.
From my vantage point, the important thing to “diversiphiles” is making sure brown faces appear on the admissions brochure. What valuable insights and experiences could possibly justify holding these students to a lesser standard and denying other students admission based on skin color?
Back to the citizen. Larry Buchanan dispenses with euphemism (bless his heart) and calls the quest for skin deep-only diversity by its proper name: discrimination. He writes:
“Beware, Virginia taxpayers. More of your money is about to be spent educating the children of people who do not pay taxes in Virginia…Some Virginia families will be discriminated against as their children are displaced and prevented from attending UMW in the name of diversity.
…
We will now have a full-time person on the university payroll whose job will be to further obfuscate the process and make it appear that race is not at issue. Race or ethnicity should never be a consideration in the student admission process, but we know it is when heads are counted and statistics quoted on the basis of race and touted as diversity.”
Filed under: Diversity | |Comments off
George R. LaNoue of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Kenneth L. Marcus of the CUNY Baruch College School of Public Affairs, released a 54-page paper titled, “‘Serious Consideration’ of Race-Neutral Alternatives in Higher Education.” (PDF)
Background: In 2003, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the University of Michigan’s law school could continue discriminating against applicants based on race. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor contended that our Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” and declared that in 25 more years, we won’t need race preference admissions programs. The court also stated that schools should give “serious, good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives” before making decisions based on skin color.
Foreground: LaNoue and Marcus ask, “What does it mean for a college or university to ’seriously consider’ race-neutral alternatives?” and attempt to answer the question. The authors say the Supreme Court’s ruling mandates administrators to seek race-neutral alternatives, but that the ruling offers no clear guidelines on how to formulate and implement alternatives.
The authors point to developments in the law since Justice O’Connor’s retirement, citing the Parents Involved case, in which the court struck down a policy requiring government schools to assign students based on skin color in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and Seattle.
The authors also cited “informal guidance” by extrajudicial sources, i.e., the Clinton and Bush administrations. For example, Bush’s Department of Education issued a report post-Grutter v. Bollinger that describes race-neutral alternatives, such as socioeconomic, geographic diversity, and comprehensive review.
Colleges and universities may voluntarily give up race-based admissions policies, or the people may do it for them, as they did in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska. Either way, preferences are on the way out whether led by the judiciary or the legislature.
Filed under: Judiciary | |Comments off
A Washington Post columnist recently wrote about a ruling we blogged about last month. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voided a law that established a five percent quota to award defense contracts to so-called disadvantaged small business owners. The decision may invalidate 8(a) of the Small Business Act contracting programs. (Source)
“The impact of the decision is unclear; the court’s focus on an old Pentagon rule to decide the case created uncertainty about whether the set-aside remains,” writes Joe Davidson. “But if the panel’s ruling stands, the implications for minority-owned companies that received almost $15 billion in fiscal year 2006 in Defense Department contracts could alter a long-standing program that allowed under-represented groups access to lucrative government contracts.”
Strike another blow for racial spoils.
So-called minority-owned businesses will have to get by on quality of service and reputation. Davidson believes businesses owned by racial minorities should get preferential treatment to “right a long series of wrongs that have accumulated over generations.” The problem is the people who receive government set-asides don’t have any legal claims to reparations-type of compensation, nor do the people penalized for being white bear any legal responsibility for discriminatory actions of the past.
But that’s my contention, not the Federal Circuit’s. (If I were queen of the world!) Davidson notes that Congress didn’t present strong evidence to show that the Department of Defense was a “passive participant in pervasive, nationwide racial discrimination” to justify preferential treatment to right racial wrongs of the past.
I would be eager — eager — to see evidence that minority-owned businesses didn’t receive certain contracts because the businesses are owned by blacks or women, and not because they’re not competitive. Good luck with all that.
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas | |2 Comments
Why should the son or daughter of a university alumni receive preferential treatment from the admissions committee over other applicants? Why should a black applicant receive preferential treatment over white or Asian applicants?
The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) opposes both kind of preferences for the same reason: they are unconstitutional.
Inside Higher Ed briefly reviews the legal arguments against legacy preferences. Lawyers cite the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which some contend bars legacy admissions at government and private institutions. Specifically, the law states that all citizens have the same rights. Implicitly, the government is barred from conferring so-called hereditary rights. The post-Civil War legislation was enacted to prevent Southerners from discriminating against newly freed slaves based on heredity.
Other legal experts say the Constitution bars legacy preferences only at government institutions. Private institutions may legally use them, just as private institutions may continue factoring race into admissions decisions. The point, which shouldn’t be understated, is that the government may not treat citizens differently based on race. Private organizations have more leeway. Given our country’s sordid racial history of government-sanctioned and often mandated racial discrimination, it’s paramount that the government maintains a colorblind stance in relation to its citizens.
An argument against legacy (hereditary) preferences can be made under Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which reads:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
Some schools may be concerned that without legacy admissions, alumni support might decrease. That’s a possibility. Money is a strong motivator, and people expect their giving to benefit them and/or their progeny in some way.
In an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson, two students argued in favor of legacy admissions. “[M]any alumni, consciously or not, give because they hope that their children will be able to attend Harvard,” they write. “They also give because they want the Harvard that their children may attend to be as great as the one they attended. Such donations subsidize on-campus opportunities for all Harvard students—including the majority who are not legacies.”
Another (former?) student urged Harvard to end legacy preferences: “Coming from well-educated and relatively wealthy parents, our (future) children will already have an enormous advantage in the college admissions process. Should they ever decide to apply to and be accepted at Harvard, we would not want them to have any doubt in their minds that it is because of their abilities and future potential – not because their parents are Harvard alumni.”
If we want to be consistent in our arguments against skin color preferences, we must oppose legacy preferences for the same reasons. No individual should be discriminated against or granted preferences based on factors like race, sex, or whether his father graduated from the school and contributes a boatload of money every year.
(Photo credit: ABC News)
Filed under: Legacy Preferences | |2 Comments
…a lofty conference title to go with the lofty goal of “examining” racial disparities between blacks and everyone else. (Source)
I mentioned racial disparities last week and earlier today, a hot topic in the wake of the historic election of a biracial man as president of the United States of America. The burning question is how to close wealth, income, education, health care, and all kind of gaps between blacks and other Americans. What’s the problem, exactly? Do we blame white racism, the so-called legacy of slavery, black people themselves, or a combination thereof?
Well-meaning bureaucrats and dreamers and pragmatists have logged thousands of hours discussing, dissecting, and examining disparities. I contend that unless and until you get individuals involved in solving their own problems, such discussions don’t solve much.
The University of Iowa will try as it hosts the seventh annual Disproportionate Minority Contact Conference this week to “offer strategies for reducing these racial disparities.” The conference’s theme is “Fair and Equal Treatment Under the Law.” The implication is that blacks are treated unfairly and unequally under the law.
I’d like to be a fly on the wall to hear the “strategies” for reducing gaps. What was accomplished, one wonders, during the previous six conferences? Did the suggested strategies result in narrowed gaps?
Let’s look at the numbers. Black men make up about seven percent of the American population, yet account for over half of violent crimes. Blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population, in juvenile detention, in school suspensions, and among out-of-wedlock births and abortions. In Iowa alone, blacks are jailed at 13.6 the rate of whites, although they make up a mere 2.5 percent of the state’s population. Five percent of Iowa’s students are black, yet black students account for 22 percent of school suspensions. What gives?
No one wants to hear “poor impulse control” or “unstable home life” or “lack of residential fathers” or “failing to value education.” They’d rather hear “institutionalized racism” and “unequal justice” and other such things.
Solutions should be directed toward individuals, not institutions and organizations.
Filed under: General | |2 Comments
According to William Reed, president of Black Press International and writing for “ethnic media,” our country will never achieve “an idyllic post-racial” state until we close any and all wealth, income, education, and health care gaps that exist between blacks and everyone else. (Source)
Reed contends that the “culture of victimization,” which I and others believe is strongly correlated to these gaps, is a faulty premise. He criticizes conservative commentator Mychal Massie and his “ilk” for “insisting” that blacks themselves bear the burden of reducing these gaps. The victim mentality perpetuates the cycle of underachievement.
Well, that’s how I see it.
What Reed and other black liberal types fail to grasp is this: to change the way people think and behave, to give them an incentive to improve themselves, you must empower them. Part of that empowerment is to “own” your part in failures and underachievement. It does little good, in my view, to point fingers elsewhere and discourage people from taking responsibility for their actions, actions which not only perpetuate and widen the gaps, but that are passed on to future generations. Self-defeating behavior begets self-defeating behavior.
I am part of Massie’s “ilk” and share his belief that blacks themselves mainly are responsible for their lot in life, and the culture of victimization indeed keeps them from success.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
||Next Entries »
