Archive for General
The National League and Policy Center (NLPC) released a 16-page report titled, “The Authoritarian Roots of Corporate Diversity Training,” (PDF) which traces the history of so-called diversity training in corporations.
We’re all used to the government using preferences to hire, contract, and admit. The private sector, while not mandated to use preferences, nevertheless is pressured to hire and contract based on race to achieve skin deep-only diversity, especially if they want to do business with the government. The pressure includes so-called diversity training.
The diversity training idea stems from a former teacher named Jane Elliott, who required her all-white class to participate in role-playing exercises. Groups were separated by eye color. The first day, the blues were treated well and the browns were treated badly. The next day, the treatment was reversed. The point was for whites to be on the receiving end of ill-treatment and empathize with blacks.
Elliott went on to lead diversity sessions at corporations, conducting similar role-playing exercises, commanding a fee of $6,000.
Diversity training isn’t an innocuous exercise. The premise is that whites are racists and collectively guilty (in perpetuity) for crimes their ancestors committed.
“The diversity industry has come along way,” writes Dr. Carl F. Horowitz, the report’s author. “But whether the trainees are children or childlike adults, the premise is the same: Whites must accept the fact that they are guilty until proven innocent, and thus need attitudinal rewiring. And training, Jane Elliott-style, means never having the opportunity to protest one’s innocence.”
With the pressure of potential disparate impact lawsuits hanging over their heads, not to mention fear of boycotts, corporations gladly “encourage” employees to attend diversity training sessions and hiring managers to take race into account when selecting and promoting employees.
The Department of Homeland Security has put out a call to the “diversity community” to come together and brainstorm how to hire/promote more racial minorities. (Hat tip: Roger Clegg at NRO)
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Racial diversity as a goal is neither good nor bad. The rightness or wrongness turns on how the goal is achieved.
The latest in diversity-seeking news: the U.S. House of Representatives approved $1 million in funding for diversity recruitment at West Point. The school’s “internal goal” falls between 130 to 169 black admittees, but the average is 82 over the last 10 years. The diversity campaign supposedly will help West Point reach the goal. (Source)
How?
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) published a study titled, “Racial, Ethnic and Gender Preferences in Admissions to the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy,” which showed that both service academies lowered standards for black admittees, and the academic qualifications gap between blacks and whites was “substantial.”
The gap between West Point admittees was smaller than the Navy’s gap, and the one between whites and Hispanics was smaller. The study concludes that Hispanics don’t benefit from admissions preferences at West Point, and there’s no evidence that Asians receive preferences at either academy.
Bruce Fleming, a professor at the Naval Academy, exposed his school’s two-tiered admissions process.
This process, from my perspective, is the wrong way to achieve racial diversity.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Does it really require 36 pages to explain that the Berkeley Unified School District’s (BUSD) race-based assignment plan is producing more integrated schools? Apparently. (PDF)
The district “integrates” elementary and magnet schools by considering income and education levels of parents and the race and ethnicity of “planning areas.” Berkeley looks at these so-called diversity factors and gives priority to a student based on certain characteristics. Berkeley High School, the district’s only government high school, offers a general curriculum and six specialized programs. The goal is for the programs to reflect racial and socioeconomic diversity of the high school. The result is that some students are denied admission based on the color of their skin.
Five months ago, the California Court of Appeals ruled that BUSD’s plan is not discriminatory. The court contended that because all students in a residential area get the same treatment (diversity coding), the practice isn’t illegal. It’s worth noting that California law bars the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on race.
According to UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, the plan is a success, at least for elementary schools. The race-based plan “produces substantial racial-ethnic diversity” in those schools but isn’t as effective producing diversity of socioeconomic status. Berkeley’s elementary schools appeared integrated based on a 10 percentage-point criteria. In general, these schools have the “proper” share of races. Not so for socioeconomic status:
“Whereas the representation of low-income students varied by 10 percentage points and more from all elementary school students in just two schools, that number increases to six when applying the 5 percentage points criteria. One school had nearly 60% of students from low income families while another only had 36%. Two of the three schools where all racial-ethnic groups were balanced were schools that were out of economic balance due to having lower percentages of low-income students than among all BUSD elementary students. Thus, by this measure of student poverty, BUSD’s student assignment plan is not as effective as it is for diversifying most racial groups of students.”
Solutions to this imbalance? Simplifying the application process for low-income families, offering opportunities for these parents to learn about schools under the district’s “controlled choice” plan, and reaching out to low-income parents.
Racial diversity itself isn’t the problem. It’s the method government schools use to achieve diversity. BUSD could steer clear of legal challenges if it moved away from skin color designations and focused on socioeconomic status.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Let’s just lay it on the line and make it official. Because differences exist between the races, race will always “matter.” This article in Insider Higher Ed is just one more straw on the camel’s back.
Michelle Asha Cooper and David A. Longanecker work for education organizations. They, like typical left-leaning types, believe all people of all races should have the same grades, scores, and admission rates, and equal distributions in fields of study, income, hiring, etc. Differences and disparities, to people who hold this view, indicate some kind of injustice.
That individuals have different levels of talent, skills, and motivation doesn’t matter, although the authors do acknowledge the converse view:
“Certainly, there are those who firmly embrace the belief in the achievement ideology, which considers American society to be fair and meritocratic. For them, success and failure are based on individual differences in ability and motivation, and not societal or economic barriers. And while they strongly hold to their beliefs, there is a mountain of evidence to show that our society — including some of our campuses — is filled with longstanding, persistent barriers that fall along a color line.”
What are these “longstanding, persistent barriers” they refer to? They never say, at least not in the article. They do contend that those in higher education have a “unique teachable moment” to have “deliberative dialogues” about race on and on ad nauseam.
It’s unfortunate that the idea behind the American Civil Rights Institute’s motto that “Race has no place in American life or law” is seen as an aberration instead of a concept we should be striving toward every day. The only “deliberative dialogues” the country ought to be having on race should focus on a time-limited plan to stop talking about it.
Commenting on the article, Roger Clegg writes:
“We can have a dialogue if you like, but there’s really not that much more to say. Racial discrimination is bad; it should remain socially unacceptable and the laws prohibiting it should continue to be enforced. But continued progress will also require changes in culture and family structure that will have to be undertaken by African Americans themselves and their little platoons. (Oh, and dividing Americans in our increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society by skin color and national origin, and treating some better and others worse depending on which box they check, is a really bad idea.)
“Oh, and cheer up: This is the greatest country in the history of the world, and there are unparalleled opportunities for all, regardless of skin color.”
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Young Brian J. Bolduc of Harvard University gets to the crux of a complaint against leftist America’s odd obsession with diversity: it’s only skin deep. Why not discriminate against left-leaning students to admit more right-leaning students for political diversity? Why not discriminate against atheists and agnostics to admit more Christians for religious diversity? Or Muslims? Or Hindus?
For those who missed the sarcasm, it’s there if you look.
Bolduc writes (emphasis added):
“This year’s freshmen are the most racially and economically diverse first-year students ever. One-fifth are Asian, one-tenth Hispanic, another tenth black. Two-thirds receive financial aid. To highlight this variety, the Freshman Dean’s Office tomorrow will hold ‘Community Conversations’—discussions in which freshmen will ’situate [themselves] within this diversity.’
“This is superficial diversity. If freshmen resemble their elders—four-fifths of whom voted for President Barack H. Obama—most lean left. Diverse backgrounds do not necessarily mean diverse perspectives. Unfortunately, the readings the FDO has assigned—specifically those by Beverly Tatum, president of Spelman College, Frank Wu, a professor at Howard University, and Felice Yeskel, co-founder of Class Action—reinforce this misconception. The authors offer different experiences but identical conclusions: Groups define individuals.
“Tatum, for instance, praises a white man for recognizing the ‘inescapability of his privilege’ over blacks. When her son asks her how they—middle-class African-Americans—are underprivileged compared to working-class whites, she tells him, “‘as a young black male, you are underrepresented, and that is a different kind of disadvantage.’” Her assumption that blacks’ representation must match their percentage of the population strips individuals of the ability to make their own choices.”
In a classic smoke-and-mirrors maneuver, so-called disadvantage morphed from overt racism against an individual to merely belonging to an “underrepresented” group. You just can’t win or make it in “racist” America.
For more insight on the topic, read the full text of Bolduc’s piece.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Last month I blogged about the city of Macon’s (Georgia) quest to lift a judicial consent decree, where the city was ordered to hire and promote based on race. In 1976, black officers and firefighters claimed racial discrimination, and a federal court ordered the city to use quotas to hire minorities. In 2000, white police officers and firefighters filed suit against the city, claiming racial discrimination. Four years later, the city was ordered to use race-neutral methods to hire and promote. (Vicious, never-ending cycle, isn’t it?)
On August 14, a federal court lifted the consent decree.
Last week the NAACP’s Macon branch announced its opposition to this action and requested an injunction. (Source) The formerly venerable and useful organization wants the judge to retain “oversight” of police and firefighter hiring until 75 percent of those employees sign an agreement that stipulates the city will hire and promote based on race.
Macon NAACP president Al Tillman wrote a letter that reads in part: “We were under the understanding we had until the 31st…We disagree with the court’s ruling.”
Filed under: General | |Comments off
This article helps me make the case that “Poverty” is a state of mind that can not be undone by government mandate.
The commenter on this article hits the proverbial nail on the head. A little background:
Under a desegregation agreement, New York’s Westchester County will be compelled to create “low income” (euphemistically referred to as affordable) housing in majority white communities and actively seek out minorities to move into the housing. The agreement, not yet ratified by the county’s board of legislators, would settle a discrimination lawsuit. Taxpayers must subsidize housing for and be coerced into living next door to “low income” people who can’t afford to live next door.
Residents who object can move, but the government’s arm is long. Soon, there will be nowhere to go. Common belief holds that the civil rights movement ended such race-based practices, regardless of which race benefits from those practices. I guess it didn’t take.
I agree with Howard Husock, writing on LoHud.com. He says the housing agreement is flawed. An excerpt:
“[A]n analysis of census data shows that it’s wrong to call Westchester segregated. And research commissioned by HUD itself suggests that relocating low-income households to high-income areas – to receive what Sims calls “the fruits and benefits of an established neighborhood” – isn’t likely to lead to social or economic improvement.
“Westchester boasts a significant black and Hispanic population. Its 131,000 blacks represent 14.2 percent of its total population, and its 144,000 Hispanics, 15.6 percent – both mirroring almost exactly the population of the nation as a whole. Westchester’s minority population isn’t evenly distributed throughout the county, however, but concentrated in its southern cities, including Yonkers, New Rochelle and White Plains.
“Those who accuse the county of segregation don’t merely argue that southern Westchester has more minority families than northern – an argument that could be easily countered by pointing out that southern Westchester serves today, as it once did for Italians and Jews, as a stop on the path of upward mobility for families leaving behind the Bronx. Rather, they point to income.”
That low-income people can’t afford to live in expensive neighborhoods is considered racist, instead of economically feasible. Rent in certain zip codes is too costly for the “poor,” so the government steps in and forces taxpayers to subsidize lifestyle upgrades. Regardless, Husock makes the case that if blacks who could afford to live in wealthier areas of Westchester County are intentionally kept out, the settlement would make sense. But that’s not what’s happening. He claims blacks are “only slightly underrepresented” even in “super-wealthy” areas of the county.
Why do liberals and people who don’t mind accepting subsidies from the government think living only where you can afford the rent or mortgage is a bad thing? Back in the day, it was wrong for the government to sanction intentionally discriminatory housing policies. Why is okay in 2009 for the government to not only sanction but to create policy based on race?
Don’t miss Husock’s concluding paragraphs. First, moving low-income children to “better” neighborhoods doesn’t close the academic achievement gap, improve health, or any other magical thing.
Second, a better policy for low-income folks in the county? Upgrading poorer areas and using tax money (since the government’s going to take it anyway) to build housing in areas that low-income people can afford.
The question is, what’s the actual purpose behind moving “poor” people into expensive areas?
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Police and fire departments are ordered to consider race when hiring and promoting to rectify past intentional or unintentional racial discrimination against blacks, thereby intentionally discriminating against whites. Does this make sense? The practice occurs wherever racial preferences exist. The race of job candidates and college applicants must be considered in order to implement preference policies. The only way to break out of the vicious circle is to implement race neutrality when hiring and admitting.
The city of Macon in Georgia is trying to unburden itself from a judicial consent decree in which it was ordered to hire and promote based on race. (Source) In 1976, black officers and firefighters claimed racial discrimination, and a federal court ordered the city to use quotas to hire minorities. In 2000, white police officers and firefighters filed suit against the city, claiming racial discrimination. Four years later, the city was ordered to use race-neutral methods to hire and promote.
In light of Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of Macon is wise to request an end to the consent decree. The Supreme Court found that New Haven discriminated against white firefighters in its misguided effort to pacify politicians.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
A mainstream media outlet finally reports on “little-noticed” racial preference provisions in the House of Representatives’s version of the health care reform bill. Found on page 881 of a bill of over 1,000 pages:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
This is only one of several examples. The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights itself calls the provisions racially discriminatory and will ask for a rewrite. (Also see Google news) An excerpt:
“In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services.
“‘These programs are unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups,’ according to the draft letter obtained by The Washington Times. ‘A growing body of evidence indicates that increasing access to high-quality physicians – whatever their racial or ethnic ancestry – is the best way to mitigate such disparities.’”
Given the extent of racial preferences in government entities, one wonders why the commission isn’t issuing daily formal complaints about the practice.
According to the Times, the commission cited research that showed improving quality of care at hospitals in minority areas would improve minority care more than eliminating racial disparities. Although this sounds like common sense, civil rights industry professionals prefer to deal with quantity over quality.
Wade Henderson, president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Council said, “The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is overstepping its bounds yet again with another slanted and incorrect interpretation of logical and constitutional standards” and claimed that the commission doesn’t have the “expertise and understanding of how the training in the House bill will work.”
As we’ve mentioned on the blog many times, racial preferences are anathema to what actual civil rights crusaders (as opposed to preference proponents) intended. The provisions in the House version of the bill clearly discriminate based on skin color. But this lowering-of-the-bar standard in the name of skin deep-only diversity is entrenched.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
I’ve blogged about the non-preferred minority status of Americans of Asian descent a few times. For example, I mentioned the University of California (UC) system’s admissions changes, designed to accept more preferred minorities. Parents of students and groups of Asian descent called foul.
The state legislature’s Asian and Pacific Islander caucus asked UC’s Board of Regents to postpone voting on the changes, but the board overwhelmingly approved the policy. Ward Connerly, former UC regent and current president of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), wrote an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee about what Asians faced at UC:
“I asked [a fellow regent] why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. In an unguarded moment, he told me that unless the university took steps to ‘guide’ admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, ‘What would be wrong with that?’ I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.’
“The UC administrator told me that Asians are ‘too dull – they study, study, study.’ He then said, ‘If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.’ I won’t betray the individual’s anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble. Yet, it is time to confront the not-so-subtle hand of discrimination against Asians that masquerades as ‘building diversity’ at many campuses.”
Americans of Asian descent are a non-preferred minority. Because they tend to score higher than whites and blacks on standardized tests, the powers that be don’t lower the bar for them. In fact, as some suspect, the bar is raised higher to limit their numbers so as not to overrun college and university campuses.
John Rosenberg at Discriminations posted this about medical school admissions statistics:
1. An Asian American with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 36.8% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
2. A White with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 40.7% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
3. An African American with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 100% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
These are racial preferences in their purest form. Blacks with lower scores and grades stand a much better chance of admission than whites and Asians with higher scores and grades.
The practice is prevalent. Last year, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released two reports that showed the extent of racial discrimination at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University law schools. The studies describe the discrimination as “severe.”
For example, black and Hispanic students are admitted with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black applicants over whites at the 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
Part of ACRI’s mission is to end such practices at taxpayer-supported schools.
Filed under: General | |4 Comments
« Previous Entries||Next Entries »
