Archive for March, 2009
Voting Rights Act – On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not require election officials to consider race when redrawing districts if blacks are a minority in the area. Disappointed with the decision, the New York Times says, without any irony at all, redrawing districts based on race moves us toward ”a colorblind future.” Worth reading is Roger Clegg’s take on the issue.
New LSAT Proposed – A pair of UCLA-Berkeley professors have proposed ditching the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) in favor of a test that won’t have such a negative impact on blacks and Hispanics. (Source)
Instead of focusing on the ability to analyze, say the professors, potential law school admittees should be judged on “effectiveness factors” like writing ability, stress management, listening (oh, brother), and researching. Why the professors believe putting more emphasis on these qualities and less on analytical thinking would result in a higher admissions rate for blacks and Hispanics is a mystery to me…unless the factors are applied only to blacks and Hispanics. But that would be illegal in California, Washington state, Michigan, and Nebraska.
Reverse Discrimination – 75 white firefighters in Chicago settled a 23-year-old “reverse discrimination” case for $6 million. (Source)
Because black firefighters failed or didn’t score high enough on the test to receive promotions, the department “race normed” the results – adjusted scores by assessing blacks and Hispanics based on a lower standard.
Filed under: Judiciary, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
In January, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele became the first black person to head the Republican National Committee (RNC). He won on the fifth ballot by a vote of 91 to 77. He said this about race preferences:
“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.”
I was disappointed to read this, as I’m sure he’d like to believe he’s advanced in his own career through hard work and not the color of his skin. After Steele failed to defend his party when CNN show host D.L. Hughley compared white Republicans to Nazis earlier this month, this GQ magazine interview turned up:
Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
‘Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.
So, the head of a party that supposedly supports equal rights for all wants to give credence to the “African-American” issue of race preferences, a blatantly discriminatory policy? Aside from sounding like a Democrat, Steele displays a narrow understanding of why he was elected to the RNC chairmanship. Someone must stand up for what is right and fair. Just because blacks think it’s okay for the government to discriminate and prefer individuals based on skin color — as long as the practice favors them — doesn’t mean the head of the RNC should appeal to their baser desires in order to attract them to the party.
Isn’t it obvious?
Filed under: General | |Comments off
According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama “chided” Attorney General Eric Holder for calling white Americans “cowards” because they’re not talking about or dealing with race the way he believes they should.
Among other things, Holder said, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
In response, Obama told the NYT: “I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language…We’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict. We could probably be more constructive in facing up to sort of the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.”
Ah, the ever-present painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination! The legacy-of-slavery proposition is about as useful to black Americans as a bicycle is to a fish. Slavery has existed all over the world in some form or another for millennia. In fact, human bondage still exists in Africa, the continent from which the ancestors of black Americans came. Black Americans are the freest and most prosperous group of blacks on the planet, yet some of us just can’t seem to get over past enslavement and discrimination perpetrated upon our grandparents and great-grandparents.
These retro conditions are to blame for everything from high illegitimacy rates to disproportionately high incarceration rates to the academic achievement gap. I believe Obama and Holder share the same view about white Americans being cowards when it comes to race, but Obama knows better than to insult the people who voted for him.
I’m compelled to repeat what I said before on this topic. An honest dialogue about race would require all sides to candidly discuss existing problems and examine themselves before blaming others. An honest dialogue about race would acknowledge biases that may exist, but also behaviors that might cause or confirm those biases. An honest dialogue about race would include a discussion about family structure (or lack thereof) and its effect on racial disparities.
Filed under: General | |1 Comment
In January, I blogged about Texas lawmakers’ efforts to modify the state’s 10 percent admissions policy for tax-supported colleges and universities. If a student graduates in the top 10 percent of his class in Texas, he’s guaranteed admission to any public college or university in the state, regardless of the high school’s academic standards.
University of Texas (UT) President William Powers complained about an unintended consequence of the so-called Ten Percent Plan. It was causing capacity problems. Powers said if lawmakers didn’t change the policy, UT would run out of room for students who are not admitted under the policy.
Last week, a Texas Senate panel voted 4-1 to modify the policy. Students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class would no longer be guaranteed admission to public colleges and universities. Additionally, the bill would cap Ten Percent Plan admissions to 50 percent as opposed to the current 80 percent at UT. The bill now goes to the full Senate. (Source)
The Texas Ten Percent Plan was the result of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case, Hopwood v. Texas (1996). The court ruled that using race preferences in college admissions to achieve “diversity” was unconstitutional. Consequently, Texas created a new policy to admit more black and Hispanic students in a race-neutral way. Unfortunately, UT returned to the practice of considering race in admissions after the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that race could be a factor.
Filed under: Diversity, Quotas | |Comments off
The Omaha World Herald reports that the legislature passed a bill to change Nebraska’s “diversity” scholarship program to comply with the law barring the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals on the basis of race in hiring, contracting, and admissions. But the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative’s Marc Schniederjans says the law requires nothing less than ending such programs rather than changing them.
Legislative Bill 440 merely would remove the words “racial, ethnic and cultural diversity” and retain the word “diversity.” Any reasonable person who has followed the issues knows that “diversity” used in this context is another way of referring to race preferences in general and to blacks specifically. If the scholarship program gives preferences to anyone based on race or sex, it is illegal and must be suspended.
On November 4, 2008, 58 percent of Nebraska voters chose YES on Initiative 424. A group challenged the law in court earlier this year, but a judge upheld it.
(Photo credit: William Lauer)
Filed under: Initiative 424, NECRI | |Comments off
…prove the point quite well, don’t they? A student group at Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana, held such a demonstration last week. (Source)
Since students of Asian descent generally outscore blacks, whites, Hispanics, and other groups, for example, the men were charged $1.50 per item. The rest were charged lower amounts, depending on race. American Indians paid nothing for baked items.
It is indisputable that colleges and universities across the country, both undergraduate and graduate, lower admissions standards for minority students. Take a look at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, for instance. Both admitted black and Hispanic students who had “significantly lower” GPAs and LSAT scores, according to the Center for Equal Opportunity. In fact, the odds favor black students over white students at the University of Arizona 250 to 1 and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
Race preference bake sales, as offensive as they may be to some, are nothing compared to similar practices that are part of school policy. I commend the students for starkly illustrating the point and taking the inevitable heat from “offended” people.
Tim Arehart, executive project director for the Conservative Coalition for American Values, told Lafayette Online, “I was appalled when I learned that racial targets, not merit alone, granted professors positions at Purdue and students admittance at many major universities. I don’t think that fighting discrimination with discrimination justifies Affirmative Action.”
Race preferences for faculty, too? Absolutely.
I hope more student groups at tax-supported schools speak out about preferential treatment policies. The First Amendment certainly protects their right to do so…for now.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge Foundation, received the “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award” at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the nation’s capital.
In 2005, Jacob helped Oklahoma residents with a ballot initiative that would cap state spending. The governor charged him and two others with a felony in 2007 for allegedly hiring out-of-state petitioners. Even while facing prison time, Jacob called the prosecution politically motivated. Charges against Jacob and the others were eventually dropped.
“I’m honored that CPAC would recognize our battle,” Jacob said. “This prosecution was intended to silence me and block citizen led reform through fear and intimidation. All Americans have the fundamental right to enact change in their government and this right must be protected at all cost. I accept this award for millions of average Americans who ensure the government is accountable to them.”
Jacob spoke on a CPAC panel titled, “Taking Action Through Citizen-Led Reform Panel: Conservative victories from citizen-led campaigns.”
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Of all the op-eds I’ve read in the past couple weeks about Attorney General Eric Holder’s inane statement – “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” – the one that succinctly sums up why the statement is counterproductive (not to mention absurd) was written by Kevin Ferris, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist.
Ferris notes the contradiction between Holder calling for unity while calling white Americans cowards, apparently because they’re not talking about skin color the way he thinks they should. An excerpt:
“Where exactly does the ‘nation of cowards’ remark fall – under advancing us or dividing us even further? I’d vote for the latter…And how oddly timed. The country just elected its first black president. No other nation in the world has ever elected to its highest office a member of a racial minority that was subject to legal segregation just 50 years earlier. Yet this is a nation of cowards? Because average Americans aren’t ‘comfortable enough with one another…to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us’?”
As expected, Holder brought up race preferences in his speech. He said the discussion over the issue tends to focus on the “extreme.” Ferris notes – and I agree – that Holder likely was referring to those who oppose race preferences for the illegal and demeaning policies they are. Holder’s desire for an “honest” dialogue about race is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. What he and others like him actually want is for white Americans to sit still, pipe down, listen to an endless list of grievances about racial disparities and so-called institutional racism, genuflect before the god of diversity, and offer guilt-laden apologies. And more money for government programs.
An honest dialogue about race would require all sides to candidly discuss existing problems and examine themselves before blaming others. An honest dialogue about race would acknowledge biases that may exist, but also behaviors that might cause or confirm those biases. An honest dialogue about race would include a discussion about family structure (or lack thereof) and its effect on racial disparities.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Conservative writer Bobby Eberle discusses race preferences from a personal angle in the Hawaii Reporter. Eberle says he prefers to embrace his nationality over his ethnicity. Half white and half Hispanic, he’s experienced firsthand the stigma of skin color-focused policies, practices, and perceptions. He writes:
“There was that box that always popped up: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander. Pacific Islander??? Anyway, being half Hispanic means that I’m also half White, so whenever it came to choosing a race, I chose White.
…
“I chose White, not because I’m anti-Hispanic — which I’m not. If that were the case, I’d hate half my family — which I don’t. In fact, I greatly admire the work ethic and sense of family that are demonstrated by many Hispanic families and individuals. No, I chose White, because I knew in doing so, I’d be judged on merit. No one gives bonus points to a White person.”
Eberle recounts a story in which he and other high achieving students were gathered in an assembly. While they received $500 scholarships in recognition of their hard work and top grades, a “middle of the pack” Hispanic student received a $10,000 scholarship…for being Hispanic.
In another anecdote, his grandmother’s employer assumed Eberle was admitted to college “because he’s Mexican.”
I share Eberle’s frustration over these and other incidents, but they are to be expected when colleges and universities across the country admit racial minorities under lowered standards. Erroneous assumptions and negative stereotypes are part of the package. These are two of many reasons why the practice should be eradicated.
“Why someone would want to get rewarded for being of a particular race, I’ll never know.”
Neither do I. It will take more people like myself and Bobby Eberle to speak out against race preferences and to do our part to convince others such policies must be dismantled.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
An unmarried black mother quoted in a Sacramento Bee article believes administrators at her son’s middle school didn’t take her concerns seriously because she’s black and unmarried. An excerpt:
“So she called a meeting with school officials a few months ago. Two members of the Black Parallel School Board – an education advocacy group working to help African American students in Sacramento improve subpar performance in school – accompanied her…’There was a little bit of a shock at first. A lot of times schools don’t expect you have that kind of community support, Muwwakkil said. “But it forced them to realize it was a serious issue.”
A group in Sacramento, California, calling itself the Black Parallel School Board purportedly exists to help black parents, especially those without college educations, to express themselves, navigate the school system, and find out what they need to do to help their children. The group also wants to address disparities in graduation rates and test scores.
Something has to be done about the alarming disparities between black students and everyone else, and getting black parents involved is an ideal place to begin. Schools and parents of all colors should learn to work well together for the benefit of the students. An organization like the Black Parallel School Board exists because some parents don’t believe that’s possible or that their children’s needs are not being addressed.
Is a separate black “school board” a throwback to Jim Crow? If it helps black parents and their children, does it matter?
(Photo credit: Observer / Larry V. Dalton)
Filed under: General | |Comments off
||Next Entries »
