Archive for Center for Equal Opportunity
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg has an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer on race preferences. He identifies at least two impediments to improving race relations: racial bias and discrimination, and the disproportionate number of blacks at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
For the most part, America has dealt with bias and discrimination through laws and by making blatant bigotry socially unacceptable. Another type of bigotry may exist among those who believe the disproportionate number of blacks at the bottom is proof that blacks are somehow inferior. Clegg writes:
“[B]igotry today exists not because it is taught by the government or in school, but principally because bigots observe the disproportionate number of African Americans who are jobless or in prison or whatever, and predictably but unfortunately conclude that there is something wrong with the whole race.”
As race preference opponents have been saying for years, preferences foster racial resentment and likely reinforce bigotry. If the government says a whole race of people needs extra help and short-cuts and do-overs and entitlement programs, what message is it sending?
To address disparities between blacks and everyone else, we must look to culture. We must deal with the “acting white” attitude that makes it difficult for children to value education. We must be willing to talk about the outrageously high out-of-wedlock birth rate in the black community. Fatherlessness is correlated with higher rates of incarceration, juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and high school drop outs. Fatherless children are more likely to be poor. And the cycle continues
As Clegg notes, President Barack Obama, married to his children’s mother and living with his children, can serve as a role model. As far as race preferences are concerned, the president has gone on record to say his daughters shouldn’t receive preferences, considering they are not disadvantaged.
Perhaps Obama will use his influence to encourage people to marry before having children and to be an advocate for socioeconomic affirmative action, which would benefit people of all races.
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Roger Clegg, Socioeconomic AA | |Comments off
More brilliance from the Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg as he goes head-to-head in a comment thread with Jay Rosner, responding to his convince-me-racism-doesn’t-matter straw man:
“[N]o one believes that racial discrimination has vanished, that race does not matter. But there are better ways to fight it than giving preferential treatment to individuals who are more privileged than those being discriminating against (as President-elect Obama acknowledged), and it is not so systemic that it justifies institutionalized discrimination in the other direction. The playing field is not level, but there are plenty of folks of all colors at both ends. Enforce the civil rights laws; provide scholarship and other aid for those of all colors.
…
“[E]ven if there are some dubious benefits to the use of racial preferences, they are overwhelmed by the costs: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism…”
Clegg and Rosner are discussing an article about an October 2007 study, which concluded that eliminating race preferences would result in a 35 percent decrease in minority enrollment at competitive schools and a lesser decrease at all colleges. See the original exchange on this Inside Higher Ed comment thread. Great stuff, Mr. Clegg.
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Why do black students lag behind their peers? There are plenty of theories and debates on the topic. Some say it’s the culture. Others say it’s in the genes. Still others blame poverty. Regardless of the reason, the question is, what, if anything, can the education system do about it?
One “solution” has been to compensate for the academic gap in compulsory education by admitting students to colleges and universities under “affirmative action,” which is nothing more than race preferences. Many schools across the country assess minority applicants under a different (lower) standard than everyone else. A certain percentage of black students with lower grades and scores is admitted over white and Asian students with higher grades and scores for purposes of “diversity.”
Last year, the Center for Equal Opportunity released two reports that showed law schools at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University admitted black and Hispanic students with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores over whites and Asians. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black students over white students at the University of Arizona 250 to 1 and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
“[N]early a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted–and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them,” she said.
What’s really perplexing is that blacks tend to score lower than Hispanics who are learning English and, in some cases, students in special education. What’s going on?
The California State Board of Education has created yet another race-based committee to try to answer the question. (Source) What will the committee accomplish? Probably not much. Blaming poverty and parents’ low education levels for the gap isn’t useful. So-called affirmative action and No Child Left Behind haven’t closed the gap. Smaller class sizes and watered down standardized tests haven’t fix the problem, either.
The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly believes it’s the culture, and he disagrees with the race-based committee’s “segregated approach to educating black kids.” He added: “On the one hand it’s goofy to be doing this at this point in American history,” he said. “On the other hand, we do have a problem.”
While there is no end of special committees created to address the academic achievement gap, I don’t believe they will ever be effective. As I see it, there must be a fundamental shift in the minds of individuals. We don’t need to convince groups of the value of learning and achieving; parents need to be convinced that both are important.
No committee or government will ever solve the problem. The question that remains is, how do you help individuals think differently about education and achievement?
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Ward Connerly | |1 Comment
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’s Ward 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…
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Linda Chavez, Roger Clegg, Ward Connerly | |2 Comments
When it comes to being admitted into the University of Nebraska’s law school, the odds favor blacks over whites 442 to 1. Odds favor Hispanics 90 to 1.
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released a new study that documents cases of “severe discrimination” in law school admissions. Among the 2006 and 2007 entering classes, five Hispanics, 12 Asians, and 389 whites were denied law school admission, even though their scores and grades were higher than the average black admittee.
According to the study, Asian and white residents of the state are less likely to be admitted to the University of Nebraska’s law school than black and Hispanic non-residents. Seventy-five percent of black admittees had worse scores compared to 75 percent of whites and Asians admitted to the law school.
Download the 23-page report in Word.
“Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling,” said CEO chair Linda Chaves. “But the extremely heavy weight given to race by the University of Nebraska College of Law is off the charts.”
This appalling condition may not exist much longer. On November 4, Nebraskans will vote for or against Initiative 424, a measure that would amend the state constitution to bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education and public contracting. The imitative is supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from across the state.
Filed under: Center for Equal Opportunity, Initiative 424, Linda Chavez | |Comments off
Yesterday the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released two reports that show law schools at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, both supported by taxpayers, discriminate against white and Asian applicants in favor of blacks and Hispanics. The studies describe the discrimination as “severe.”
Black and Hispanic students are admitted with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black students over white students at the University of Arizona 250 to 1 and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
“[N]early a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted–and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them,” she said.
Roger Clegg, CEO president, added that race weighed more heavily in admission decisions that residency status. “For instance, a white Arizonan in 2007 was about eight times less likely to be admitted to the University of Arizona than a black out-of-state applicant, and at Arizona State he would be twelve times less likely to be admitted.”
Undergraduate and medical school admissions at the University of Arizona also showed evidence of discrimination, though to a lesser degree. Download reports for both schools in Word documents: University of Arizona and Arizona State.
The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) is trying to put an end to such discrimination in taxpayer-supported schools. ACRI’s effort to add the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) to the state ballot failed after the campaign ran out of time to validate some 6,000 signatures. The proposed amendment would have barred the state government from granting preferential treatment to any person on group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government hiring, contracting, and admissions.
AzCRI director Max McPhail said a new campaign will begin after November to place the initiative on the November 2010 ballot. In the meantime, we’ll continue exposing discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity.”
Filed under: AzCRI, Center for Equal Opportunity, Linda Chavez, Max McPhail, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
||
