UC

Jerry Brown Still Opposes Prop. 209

by lbarber on 01/17/2012

in Judiciary,UC

The battle to overturn racial neutrality in California’s government continues.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a federal court will consider a challenge to Proposition 209, a voter-approved law that bars the government from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in education, employment, and contracting. And Governor Jerry Brown supports the challenge:

“Prop. 209 ‘imposes unique political burdens on minorities’ and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, Brown’s lawyers from the attorney general’s office told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will hear arguments Feb. 13.

“The suit was filed in 2010 by 46 minority students and an advocacy group. Brown was originally a defendant, but he has switched sides, joining the plaintiffs, who are seeking to allow consideration of race in admissions at the University of California. The suit does not challenge Prop. 209′s bans of race and gender as a consideration in public employee hiring practices and contracting, but a ruling striking down any part of the November 1996 ballot measure would make all of it vulnerable.”

Let it sink in for a moment: requiring certain minorities to compete with non-minorities violates the minorities’ equal protection. Readers, words have meaning.

Last year, Jerry Brown begrudgingly did the right thing by vetoing a measure that would have introduced preferences back into the University of California and California State University systems. He understands he must get the law overturned. Any policy that allows racial preferences violates state law.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Colorized America

by lbarber on 01/12/2012

in Diversity,UC

One day the current crop of “affirmative action” opponents will be no more, which is why I’m heartened to know there are young people who think deeply about the unfairness of racial preferences and the double standards their existence encourages. Alex Gushner, a senior at the University of California at Santa Barbara, writes in the Daily Nexus:

“Most importantly, affirmative action discourages accountability among blacks. Proponents utilize blacks’ failures as a justification to increase our affirmative action efforts. And, black Americans’ successes are too often attributed not to one’s work ethic or ingenuity, but to affirmative action. Thus, it categorizes the black man as either a victim of societal racism or a product of this victimhood scheme. Either way, it classifies him firstly as the member of a race and a policy, and secondly, as a member of society.

“Favoring color over competence is counterproductive, regardless of the intended beneficiaries’ race. Consider the following role‐reversed example: similar to other industries, the National Basketball Association is an industry in which capability supersedes color. It’s no secret that, generally, the NBA’s most talented players are African‐American. Why? It’s because coaches seek to assemble championship‐caliber teams, and therefore select players based on nothing more than talent.

“Let’s pretend that David Stern, commissioner of the NBA, enacts a rule that mandates teams to replace its starting players with five, less skilled men of Caucasian descent. The result of such a rule would diminish the NBA’s aggregate talent, as management could no longer assemble their teams based on merit. Surely, less talented teams would garner less public interest.

“Consequently, ticket revenues would plummet, as would apparel and food sales. I’m not arguing blacks should stick to basketball and whites to the conference rooms. I’m simply questioning, at what point does the pursuit of diversity overshadow and subordinate excellence?”

Has any supporter of racial preferences ever offered a logically sound argument about why “diversity” in the NBA is different from diversity in the classroom or the conference room? I don’t believe such an argument exists, but I’m willing to read/hear one, especially as the person begins to contort himself in an attempt to be consistent.

As long as there’s any industry that makes money and garners publicity on portraying blacks as put-upon victims who cannot function in a free society without government largesse, there will be concerted efforts to keep race front and center. That’s not to say people can’t or shouldn’t notice differences and exercise their freedom of association and avoid or interact with certain others based on skin color or subculture. In other words, people don’t necessarily have to be colorblind in their private lives, and I have no interest in trying to persuade them otherwise. Free country! But government policy must be colorblind. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Holistic Review at Santa Cruz

by lbarber on 01/02/2012

in UC,Ward Connerly

I’ve always wondered why a “holistic” admissions review process would increase diversity. If the admissions committee applies such a review to all applicants equally, in what way would it favor blacks and Hispanics?

Perhaps my wondering is in vain and assumptions incorrect.

At any rate, the University of California at Santa Cruz will emphasize “personal achievement” in selecting freshman for fall 2012. An excerpt:

“There are more nuances,” said Michael K. McCawley, UCSC’s associate director of admissions. “We can really try to judge the student in the context of their educational environment. It tries to take into account more information. It’s more fair.”

These two reforms are expected to diversify the acceptance pool. They will particularly help students whose statistics — test scores and GPA — are less impressive because they come from schools with few advanced classes. At UCLA, the number of African-American students increased after this approach was used.

Try to be as objective as you can and consider what McCawley means when he uses words like “nuances” and “fair,” and whether “personal achievement” considerations would lead to a corresponding increase in white and Asian students.

The American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly was quoted in the article:

“I don’t think that every student should earn acceptance merely on the basis of grades and standardized test scores. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for students from disadvantaged schools to compete. As long as it is administered honestly, looking at grades and test scores as part of the equation — and socioeconomics as part of the equation — I favor it.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

John McWhorterThe Manhattan Institute’s John McWhorter has spoken out against what he considers a sub-cultural strain of anti-intellectualism among blacks. He also contended that some blacks, no matter how successful or untouched by racial discrimination, have an urge to keep “whitey on the hook,” to never let white people forget historical grievances.

In a piece for The New Republic, McWhorter says he believes the Berkeley College Republicans had a First Amendment right to hold a “diversity” bake sale—and he didn’t like the administration’s response to it—but criticizes the Republican students:

“There is a certain coyness about Republicans’ pretense that the problem with affirmative action is simply that it ‘treats races differently.’ No affirmative action fan starts with a peculiar commitment to ‘treating races differently.’ The assumption is that one must do so in this particular case, to redress past wrongs, and to adjust for the fact that races suffer disadvantage to disproportionate degrees. One may contest that argument. However, to simply pose the wide-eyed question ‘Why should we treat races differently?’ pretends no such argument is germane, which contributes nothing to the general debate.”

“In exchanges with those publicly asking why we should treat races differently, I have often noted that what they really feel is that even if there is inequality in society, it is the job of those dealt a bad hand to make the best of it regardless, not have the standards changed for them. They would be better citizens to state that explicitly, instead of fashioning a studiously know-nothing approach like showing that ‘race is meaningless.’ It isn’t, and they know it. A coherent anti-preferences argument remains possible despite that—and they need to wipe the smirks off their faces and start making it.”

As a supporter of race neutrality in government and an opponent of racial preferences, I’ll accept McWhorter’s challenge. A common refrain on this blog is that it’s unfair, illegal, and just plain wrong to treat the races differently, although I recognize that the races are different to a degree, the most obvious differences being physical.

For example, racial preferences mostly exist because of the academic achievement gap and other racial disparities. I don’t believe the achievement gap in particular will ever close, and it won’t narrow to a degree that will satisfy social engineers. While the performance of individual students can be improved, there will always be a gap that causes “concern” among people who fret about that kind of thing. Blame genetics, the environment, culture, or two of three or all three. The pattern is consistent across standardized exam results and overall academic performance among what I call the Big 4: East Asian, whites, Hispanics, and blacks.

I can’t speak for the Berkeley Republicans, but I can state unequivocally that despite racial disparities, the government still must be racially neutral. The point of “affirmative action” bake sales is to illustrate this principle, and differences between the races should not authorize the government to put a proverbial thumb on the scale to even things up. The government’s job is to protect the rights of individuals, and requiring certain individuals to perform at a higher standard than others based on the color of their skin violates their right to equality under the law.

So what is the solution? There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but the focus shouldn’t be on what the government can do, but what individual families can do.

Some racial preferences proponents advocate preferences based on family socioeconomic status, so members of all racial and ethnic groups benefit. It sounds good on paper, but I believe such preferences would still result in schools lowering admissions standards. However, income-based lowered standards are more palatable than race-based lowered standards.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Jerry Brown Does the Right Thing

by lbarber on 10/11/2011

in Legislative,UC

California state flagColor me a dark shade of stunned.

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 185, a bill that sought to bring back racial preferences in violation of California’s constitution. From the editorial board of students at Berkeley’s Daily Californian:

“Because Proposition 209 was an initiative passed by citizens, it is therefore the duty of the courts to interpret its meaning — not the state Legislature or the governor. In fact, Brown points out that there is already a court case pending against the state and the University of California on this very topic. The bill is therefore pushing the limits of the separation of powers within the state and undermining the legitimacy of the vote of the people and the word of the courts.

“Additionally, though discussion of SB 185 brings to light the enduring problem of sparse diversity on our state’s campuses, it was never the solution. The bill would only serve as a Band-Aid to the much larger problem within our state. Affirmative action alone cannot solve the  ongoing disparity. A transformation must happen not only within our higher education systems but also within our K-12 education.”

Although I don’t agree that “sparse diversity” is a problem that requires racial discrimination and lowered standards, I agree that narrowing academic racial disparities should begin earlier. Parents, and not the government, hold primary responsibility in getting their children the help they need to improve academically. I don’t believe race- and sex-based academic achievement gaps will ever close, but they can be narrowed. That’s all we realistically can expect. Schools can and should work with parents to identify weaknesses and find ways to foster improvement, but the incentive to perform well begins in the home, not in the classroom.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

LA Times on ‘Back Door’ Racial Preferences

October 11, 2011

Every now and then, the Los Angeles Time’s editorial board gets it right. A few years ago, the paper commented on Richard Sander’s attempt to obtain historical data on past bar exams from the California Committee of Bar Examiners. The bar and the court denied his request, citing privacy concerns. The Los Angeles Times wrote: [...]

Read the full article →

On Jerry Brown’s Desk

October 4, 2011

Will he or won’t he? California’s governor, Jerry Brown, is consider whether to sign into law a bill that would allow the California State University and the University of California systems to consider race when deciding to admit or deny students admission. Brown supports lowered standards for certain racial minorities in the name of diversity, [...]

Read the full article →

Heather Mac Donald on Berkeley Bake Sale

September 29, 2011

The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald knocks another one out of the park. At City Journal, Mac Donald gives her assessment of reactions to the Berkeley College Republicans’ “affirmative action” bake sale, including a quote from student Devonte Jackson, who didn’t seem to grasp the irony of his own words, and notes the strain of [...]

Read the full article →

Berkeley Bake Sale Aftermath

September 28, 2011

One of the few balanced stories I’ve read about the Berkeley College Republican’s “affirmative action” bake sale appeared in the LA Times. An excerpt: “Under the bake sale’s satirical pricing structure, whites were supposed to pay $2 for the same pastry that would cost Native Americans 25 cents. (The Republican club, however, accepted whatever people [...]

Read the full article →

Support the Berkeley College Republicans

September 26, 2011

Isn’t it funny—for lack of a better word at the moment—how an “affirmative action” bake sale enrages some people, while the actual practice by taxpayer-supported schools gives them warm fuzzies? Institutions of higher learning across the country hold individual applicants to different standards based on the color of their skin. College students who oppose the [...]

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Read the full article →