John McWhorter, "End Race-Based Affirmative Action: “has been controversial since it was instituted in the 1960s”
It’s Time to End Race-Based Affirmative ActionBack in 2009, I and the sociologist Dalton Conley debated affirmative action with N.A.A.C.P. chairman Julian Bond and Columbia University president Lee Bollinger. In my closing statement I suggested a scenario in which I had a daughter who got into nearly every college she applied to while her similarly credentialed white friends got into schools only here or there. If that happened, I said, the reason, “given the fact that she will not have grown up under anything you could call disadvantage,” would be that:There are administrators beaming at the fact that by admitting my daughter they are sticking a thumb in the eye at white people who don’t feel guilty enough about their supremacy. If the idea is that the administrators are beaming because my daughter is going to make the campus more diverse; if they are beaming because by admitting my daughter, they are showing that racism is not dead … I will feel that my daughter is being condescended to. I will feel it as a mark of disrespect to me and my ability to get past the ills of the past and to pass on those abilities to my daughter.The debate was civil in a way that debates, sadly, frequently no longer are, and it was part of a long line of such debates over affirmative action that has since continued, and soon promises to return the issue to the fore.
Affirmative action — broadly speaking, policies that seek, affirmatively, to achieve racial and gender balance in areas such as hiring, contracting and university admissions — has been controversial since it was instituted in the 1960s. It’s frequently thought to have originated, in a formal sense, with President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 and has proliferated throughout American institutions over time. It was controversial at the time of that 2009 debate and it still is, such that in its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will be considering challenges to affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
I now have that daughter. (I don’t remember what made me so sure I would have a girl, since she wasn’t born until a few years later, but here we are, and she’ll be applying to college in eight years, I assume, with my younger daughter doing so three years later.) And not only do I stand by what I said more than a decade ago, I feel it more deeply now.
57 comments:
The ideology dividing America is White Supremacy.
No, it's critical theory's binary post-modern values.
Right. To you the White Supremacists are the good guys.
What you and your fellow White Supremacists chant when you march to protest (waiving confederate and Nazi flags) "critical theory's binary post-modern values" = "Jews will not replace us".
When you and your White Supremacist buddies march in protest of "critical theory's binary post-modern values" (waving confederate and Nazi flags) you chant "Jews will not replace us".
^^Says the man who supports Black women ONLY need apply for SCotUS jobs^^
∆∆ says the White Supremacist who believes SCOTUS justices should all be conservative white men ∆∆
There are no Black women on the supreme court. 0. As opposed to 9. As your stupid comment implies there are.
There are no Asians on the Court either. But they will never get a chance in your world.
They are unworthy of consideration in the Biden book of "justice". Asians must accept "Just-is"
Boofing Brett should be impeached and removed. Then replaced by President Biden with an Asian woman.
...for Latino men need not apply.
Nobody applies. The president nominates. Under tRump it was Whites only.
...under Trump it was "legal competence first."
...and no one was ever a priori excluded from his consideration on the basis of their skin colour.
That's something only "real" racists do.
Bullshit. Under tRump it was Whiteness first and legal incompetence second.
I thought Biden wanted to stack the court so that all 64 genders would have a seat?
That's once they can bribe Manchin or Sinema to nuke the filibuster in the Senate.
The Black lawyer problem isn't of Trump's making. Only 4.7% of America's lawyers are black... and that after sixty years of affirmative action pushing every even marginally qualified black scholar through law school... unless you'd care to argue that America's liberal-run Universities are hopelessly racist???
Ban the BAR, right dervy?
As for female and black...
Representation by women and minorities nationwide in the legal profession is lower than in most comparable professions. About 35.7 percent of lawyers are women, 4.4 percent are black, 5.6 percent are Hispanic and 4.7 percent are Asian
Women, Blacks and Hispanics are already adequately professionally represented on SCotUS (3 of 9). They need an Asian.
...but of course ultimately, IQ differences have nothing to do with this, just as AQ's (atheltic quotients) have nothing to do with minority representation in professional athletics..
The next scotus justice will be a Black woman. Your racist White Supremacist whines will have no effect on who President Biden selects. tRump could have appointed an Asian if he wanted.
It needs to be a gay black woman that wears an eye patch and only speaks Circassian.
Affirmative action justice is all that the American people can expect from Democrats...
"Affirmative Action" means a White guy didn't automatically get the job. Not that the nominee won't be highly qualified. She will be. What upsets you (as a misogynist White Supremacist) is that the nominee won't be a White man.
Boofing Brett should not be a scotus justice. But he's White. And as an entitled White man he believes it his right to sexually harass and assault women. aka he's an "alpha male". The kind of man you really admire.
That's the only kind of "justice" Americans can expect from republicans. "Justice" that supports and seems to maintain the White Supremacist patriarchy.
So why not nominate Anita Hill?
Affirmative Action means racists like you decided that white guys weren't to be even considered for the job.
I'm sure that Thomas wouldn't mind working with Anita again...
Remember how eager Democrats were to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court? ;)
I'm only a "racist" as per your White Supremacist redefinition of the word. FYI, I don't give a shit and it does not bother me at all.
The sexual predator Clarence Thomas should never have been confirmed in the first place. Given how corrupt he is he should be impeached and removed... Yesterday. I very much doubt Anita Hill would want to work with him.
President Joe Biden's nominee will be younger and sit on the court for decades. Maybe Thomas will die sometime in the next 7 years and President Biden will select his replacement. I certainly would not be in the least bit sad if he kicked the bucket. Especially given how those on your side prayed for RGB's death for years.
There goes the racist Democrat calling a black man a predator
Age-ist too. What do you have against older, experienced judges?
He's a sexist, ageist, racist, of course.
"He" being you.
I've never referred to sexual harassment and assault as a "failed pass". I don't say a woman who has been raped consented because she did not go to the police.
I do not think it's a funny joke to say a "silver alert" was issued because President Joe Biden wandered off.
I disagree with Charles Murray's scientific racism.
"He" being you, Dervy.
Yeah, Anita Hill stuck with Clarence Thomas - even followed him to another law firm after she was allegedly sexually harassed - because she "put her career first" and the world was slap out of civil rights legal employment.
Miss me with that bullshit.
Let the high tech lynchings of Biden's nominee begin!
"He" is Minus FJ. See my prior comment. I presented my evidence. You gave none. Nor did you refute anything I wrote.
Derpy doesn't give a shit that he's racist.
I originated the comment Dervy. Why would I refer to myself in the third person? I'm not Bob Dole, after all.
I care very much that you're racist. It's terrible.
I'm not racist, I'm breedist. Your dog is ugly.
The only racist here is you, Derpy.
1. Nobody calling himself (or herself) "Derpy" has ever commented here.
2. I'm the only non racist who regularly comments here.
3. Unlike you, I don't believe in White Supremacy. Even though I am White. Therefore I am not a racist. Check a dictionary.
I don't accept your pronouns. I call you Derpy because you are derpy.
And yes, you most certainly do believe in White Supremacy. You need the premise of White Supremacy to exist to reach the conclusions of critical race theory. You believe white people are superior enough to have devised a self-perpetuating system of oppression against minorities that only white people can release them from.
Racist.
I categorically reject White Supremacy. As well as your victim blaming. Poor people don't deserve to be poor. Oppressed minorites don't deserve to be oppressed. For you might makes right. What a moronic argument - to say those in the minority, or those having a minority of the money, can't be oppressed.
If you don't believe in white supremacy then where is the alleged oppression of minorities coming from? Are they oppressing themselves?
It's a "definitional" oppression, beamish. You know hoe Leftists love to redefine things.
So does a million micro-aggressions equal one aggression? What about nano-aggressions and pico-aggressions?
I don't believe in White Supremacy = I don't believe White people are superior. I KNOW there are people who do. People like Beamish and Minus FJ.
^^Definitely NOT Superior^^
Derpy should go back to his privileged argument, that because of his white skin the powers that be mistook him for intelligent...
...the cops don't pull him over for nothing enough
Minus and Beamish = definitely THINK they're superior.
I wring my hands and gloat too.
...to dervy, no doubt.
Post a Comment