Archive for February, 2009
To anyone who’d listen, I’ve been saying it for years: so-called affirmative action, aka race preferences, is inherently racist and demeaning. But perhaps it takes a high school senior to really drive the message home. Young Ravi Ram displays more intelligence, or maybe just more honesty, than most adult social engineers and “civil rights” crusaders. He writes:
“Affirmative action is based on the belief that members of minority groups are inherently underprivileged and therefore, in order to compensate for their inferior positioning, must be given certain advantages…Thus, while affirmative action appears on the surface to be a mechanism against racism, under further scrutiny it emerges as a system based on racism itself.”
From the mouths of babes!
Although Ram gets his name wrong, he accurately quotes Ward Connerly: “People are competing very well on their own without preferred programs, and (unfortunately) they carry the burden of people saying they got there by preference…It is time that we allow those people to walk with dignity.”
It takes a lot of courage to go against the grain, especially at a young age. Pressure to conform to peers is great. It’s not small feat to stand by what you believe, no matter the consequences. I’m certain Ravi Ram has heard his share of “Racist!” and “Self-hater!” insults. I would advise him, however, to learn to distinguish between affirmative action, which is not discriminatory, and race preferences, which are. The terms are used interchangeably but mean very different things.
Filed under: Ward Connerly | |Comments off
One problem with the obsession with skin deep-only diversity is that no one has ever quantified or proven that diversity provides the kind of educational benefits that justify discriminating against one racial group in favor of another.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted an interview with James Sidanius, author of a study purporting to show the benefits of skin color diversity. The researchers focused on 2,000 entering UCLA freshmen in the fall of 1996. They were surveyed the summer before they entered the school and every year until they graduated or at the end of their fifth year at UCLA.
Sidanius, a professor of psychology of African and black American studies at Harvard University, admitted that so-called diversity policies didn’t have “profound effects” on the students attitudes. “Thus, in broad terms, the students left the university with largely the same social and political views that they entered college with.”
Sidanius qualified his answer: “However, three facts show that this does not mean that there were no theoretically expected changes. First, in general, students did become less politically conservative, ethnocentric, and racist over four years of college.”
Side note: The implication is that being conservative in political outlook is a bad thing. And ethnocentrism, Sidanius seems to be saying, is synonymous with racism.
Other findings:
- Black students with “high personal-identity stereotype threat” who thought they were admitted under race preferences had lower grades than students not under this perceived threat;
- Students of Asian descent prefer to be identified by country rather than the general “Asian” label;
- Students’ involvement with race-based social groups can lead to stronger ethnic identification and “an increased sense of ethnic victimization.” (In plain English: minority-focused social groups and organizations can foster an everybody-is-out-to-get-us attitude and, in my opinion, a stronger tendency to point fingers at third parties rather than doing the hard and often humbling work of looking inward.)
The interviewer asked Sidanius whether a similar study conducted during the Obama administration, as opposed to a study conducted 12 years ago, would have reached similar conclusions. He said he couldn’t be certain, but added that “there is probably a substantial number of whites who might believe” we’ve entered a so-called post-racial era, where race becomes less important.
Filed under: Diversity | |Comments off
Commenting on the University of California’s (UC) new admissions policy, which is a thinly disguised effort to get around a state law that bars the government from preferring or discriminating against any person based on factors like race and sex, the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly told San Jose Mercury News that UC “has essentially lowered its standards.”
Any reasonable person can attest to this fact, but many are reluctant to talk about it in public. The aim of the less rigorous admissions policy is to expand the pool of applicants to include more minority students who may not have taken two SAT subject tests, a requirement the Board of Regents eliminated. The new policy states that applicants with a 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam will be considered for admission.
The article also notes that Asian organizations are angry about the changes, which will negatively affect students of Asian decent applying to UC. “They contend that subject tests are a better indicator of college readiness than the SAT I, which favors American-born students over immigrants because scores are influenced by expensive ‘test prep’ and family upbringing,” according to the article.
UC’s changes come in the wake of concern about the ever-present academic achievement gap between blacks and Hispanics and whites and Asians. The school contends it merely is casting a wider net to include more low-income students. That would be fine if it were that simple. The fact is UC is lowering the standards of admission. And yes, this practice does widen the net. But at what cost?
Earlier this month, I blogged about Stephan Thernstrom’s article on how UC’s new policy changes affect students of Asian descent. People of Asian descent make up 12 percent of California’s population, but accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions last year. Under the new admissions policy, their numbers will be reduced by 10–20 percent.
Filed under: UC, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Stephan Thernstrom, co-author of No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning, writes about the University of California’s new admissions policy at National Review Online.
Among other things, the UC Board of Regents voted to eliminate the requirement for applicants to take two SAT subject tests. Effective 2012, applicants with a GPA of 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam will be considered for admission. More students will be open to “comprehensive review.”
Thernstrom writes about what may not be an unintended or even an unanticipated consequence of the new policy. Although the change is intended to increase black and Hispanic enrollment, the prime beneficiaries will be whites, “whose share of total enrollments is predicted to rise by 20–30 percent.” Asian students, who will see a reduction in enrollment of up to 20 percent, will be affected the most.
“The net effect will thus be to make the University of California substantially ‘whiter’ than it has been,” Thernstrom writes.
Apparently, there aren’t enough blacks competitive with whites to go around, so in order to reach an arbitrary skin color goal, businesses and the government tend to lower hiring and admissions standards for blacks. Lowering standards for all would be impractical, not to mention detrimental. Generally speaking, Asians tend to be high achievers academically; therefore, they’re what I call a non-preferred minority. No bar-lowering for them.
As Thernstrom notes, Asians are 12 percent of California’s population but accounted for 37 percent of UC admissions last year. He adds:
“It’s hard to believe that, as part of this mission, the regents are deliberately trying to do their bit to stave off the ‘yellow peril.’ But proponents of racial preferences have let slip some highly unsavory attitudes on occasion. My wife, Abigail, appeared on Crossfire many years ago and was asked by liberal co-host Bob Beckel whether she would ‘like to see UCLA Law School 80 percent Asian.’ In a 1995 interview, President Clinton said that ‘there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans.’ In 1998, a writer for Newsday asked, ‘Since Asians outscore everyone, would we accept an all-Asian class?’”
I’m eager to know what Asian groups have to say about UC’s new admissions policy.
(Hat tip: Discriminations)
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State University and the Carlisle Area School District plan to increase racial diversity by encouraging minorities to pursue law degrees and to apply for teaching jobs in local schools. (Source)
There is nothing illegal or immoral about wanting to attract minorities. In fact, that’s what affirmative action is all about. If they desire, institutions may extend outreach to people previously excluded from or denied opportunities. The illegality and immorality of this outreach exists when government-funded institutions treat minority applicants differently from the general pool, which typically involves lowering hiring and admissions standards for minorities.
Pennsylvania presently doesn’t allow initiatives or referendums to appear on the state ballot. Voters in California, Washington, Michigan, and Colorado barred their state and local governments from discriminating against or preferring people in hiring, contracting, or admissions based on factors like race and sex.
Filed under: Quotas | |Comments off
Last November, 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, a decision with the potential to invalidate 8(a) of the Small Business Act contracting programs.
Under the provision, it was presumed that black, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian business owners were socially disadvantaged.
The court contended that the quota requirement violates the Equal Protection clause “because it authorizes the Defense Department to afford preferential treatment on the basis of race and does not meet a ’strict scrutiny’ standard…Under this requirement, the government must prove that the preference is ‘narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.’”
Last week the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) announced that the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense will not seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeals court’s ruling stands. PLF submitted a brief in the case.
From PLF attorney Sharon L. Browne:
“The Administration’s decision to let the Defense Department’s quotas in contracting program die is a victory for fairness, justice, and the principle of equal opportunity…Government discrimination because of race or ethnicity is wrong. This kind of bias sends a harmful message to people that their skin color is what defines them, and in the contracting sphere it undermines efficiency and drives up costs. Everyone who believes in the core values of civil rights and that the law should be color-blind, should welcome the demise of the Pentagon’s practice of tipping the balance by race in the use of public money.”
Visit PLF’s web site to download the case ruling and brief.
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas | |Comments off
Victor Merina, a senior fellow at the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism, has penned an article about the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly, “who can match his multiracial background with the biracial Obama.” (Source)
Merina, like so many others, uses the terms affirmative action and race preferences interchangeably, when they are not synonymous. Affirmative action is casting a “wider net” to include more qualified minorities into a hiring or admissions pool. Race preferences involve lowering standards for minorities in an effort to recruit more of them, inevitably discriminating against Asian and white applicants.
Nevertheless, Mesina correctly notes that to those of us who support Connerly, “he is the champion of equality.” Connerly and others will continue their crusade to dismantle race preferences and keep a close watch on President Barack Obama, whose view on race preferences is indeed “cloudy,” although he appears to support some form of socioeconomic preferences.
In 2010, voters in Missouri, Arizona, Colorado (and perhaps Oklahoma) may get to choose whether their state and local governments are allowed to consider factors like race when hiring, contracting, and admitting. Connerly and others are hopeful Obama chooses to push class-based preferences.
“He may not want to go there as fast as I do,” Connerly said, “but he’s given every indication that’s the direction he wants to go.”
Filed under: Barack Obama, Socioeconomic AA, Ward Connerly | |1 Comment
I never thought I’d live to see this day.
Karla Holloway—one of 88 Duke University professors (dubbed “Group of 88″ by bloggers covering the Duke lacrosse case) who signed a statement thanking campus protesters for distributing “wanted” posters with photos of white Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of gang-raping a black stripper—supports the end of “Black Student Invitational” weekends at colleges and universities. (Source)
The English professor and former chair of the Race Subcommittee of Duke University’s Campus Cultures Initiative (CCI) is knee-deep in unrighteous indignation. She resigned CCI in protest after Duke University president Richard Brodhead lifted the suspensions of Reade Seligman and Collin Finnerty, two lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. (Source) That Holloway would come out against race-based, school-sanctioned gatherings is surprising. Then again, one of CCI’s recommendations was to discontinue the practice of assigning housing to “selective living groups and social/affinity/interest groups,” which I assume included race-based organizations.
But I digress. Holloway correctly notes that black high school students invited to Black Student Invitational gatherings are presumed to have a “shared racial identity.” Not necessarily. She writes:
“[T]here are lots of differences between these students. They have gone to private and public schools – in inner cities and outer suburbia and in counties spread across the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. Some come from countries outside of the United States.
“They have ancestors who were slaves or free people of color. Their parents are first-generation immigrants from Africa or England, or are white, Latino or Asian. They are interested in the sciences, arts and humanities. They have excelled in academic competitions, community service and sports.
“But recruitment weekends like those hosted by my own school – Duke University – erase these distinctions and signal that our motivating interest is their ethnicity. The effect of minority recruitment weekends renders all of these events as segregated as church on a Sunday morning.”
Amen. Aren’t we told, constantly, that segregation of any sort is wrong? Segregated events, even well-meaning ones, which are the result of “institutional policies” can backfire. (Shouldn’t the goal of diversity go beyond surface differences like skin color? As Holloway contends, presuming black students are all alike erases what I believe are valuable and interesting differences.)
In the context of race preferences, I’ve said many times that a government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks can discriminate against them. The goal is to take this power away from the government and demand that all people of every color and race be treated equally.
Since Holloway believes Black Student Invitational weekends are passé, I wonder if she would apply the same reasoning to race preferences?
Filed under: Diversity | |Comments off
Looking for a way to factor in race when admitting students without breaking the law, the University of California Regents today voted to change the admissions policy.
Effective 2012, applicants with a GPA of 3.0 or higher who’ve completed at least 11 of 15 required college prep courses by their junior year and taken the ACT with Writing or SAT Reasoning exam will be considered for admission. Presently, UC applicants are required to take two SAT subject tests, which disqualified 22,000 high school graduates last year. UC has dropped these test requirements. Although the new rules will reduce guaranteed admissions, they will increase the number of students eligible for “comprehensive review.” (Source)
According to faculty research, the value of the two subject tests has declined. They contribute “very little” to the school’s ability to select qualified students. UC President Mark Yudof said, “There is no perfect admission system. But I believe the reforms contained in this new policy will make UC’s admission process fairer while preserving our high academic standards.”
There is nothing radical about these changes. They certainly widen the pool of applicants, but it’s more of the same “holistic” review in which an applicant’s “life experience,” personal statement, and the like are weighed more heavily and grades and scores weighed less.
Last month I mentioned the then-upcoming UC Regents meeting and linked to a Human Events article written by Jay Schalin. I share his opinion: Although supporters say the changes are not motivated by concern with so-called diversity, they reflect the same methods used by other schools seeking to add color to the student body.
Former UC Regent Ward Connerly weighs in:
“The most troubling aspects of the Regents’ recent actions are: increasing to 9% from 4% the percentage of students from each California high school who will be eligible; and the fact that students who come from households with less than $60k annual income will pay no tuition. They will get scholarships from fees paid by kids whose families earn over $60K annually.”
Filed under: General | |2 Comments
Last week, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele became the first black person to head the Republican National Committee (RNC). He won the RNC chairmanship on the fifth ballot by a vote of 91 to 77.
“This is the dawn of a new party,” Steele said after his victory. “There is not one inch of ground we’re going to cede to anybody.”
Steele has gone on record to say he supports “affirmative action.” In 2006, he told the Baltimore Sun:
“Studies show enormous disparities still exist in education, healthcare, employment and economic opportunities along racial lines in the United States. I believe programs are still necessary to help close these divides. I support giving people opportunities. Programs must be fair to all Marylanders – of every color – and they should focus on economic empowerment.”
In order to be fair to everyone, not to mention following the law, the government must not take race into account. We hope that Steele’s chairmanship indeed is “the dawn of a new party,” and that he will change his mind and come out strongly against race preference programs and policies as practiced by the government.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
