Rethinking affirmative action
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called ”Rethinking affirmative action.” Here’s a taste:
Each of Grothman’s ideas underlines the utter ridiculousness of Wisconsin’s affirmative action policies. Affirmative action was set up to make right the wrongs that our society perpetrated on various ethnic groups in the past, but we don’t even bother to target affirmative action at those who might have actually been wronged. In the end a lot of people are excluded from universities, government contracts, and a host of other things because their skin is the “wrong” color. It’s an offensive policy, but it’s also dangerous. Affirmative action policies are part of an entire culture in America that seeks to divide people by their ethnicity. They enforce the idea that if you are a member of a particular ethnic group, then you were wronged by the rest of society and deserve special treatment - even when you might have never actually been wronged. On the flip side, if you are a member of a particular ethnic group, then you have wronged other ethnic groups and deserve to be punished - even if you have never personally wronged anyone.
Such a self-identity is damaging to our society because people begin to act as a member of their designated ethnicity instead of acting like neighbors, friends, co-workers, Wisconsinites and Americans. We cannot erase our past of racial inequity by perpetuating that inequity through policies like affirmative action.
Grothman’s very mild ideas were met with righteous indignation by the Democrats and will not go anywhere in the state Senate, but he has done a great service of reminding us that racial preferences still exist in this country. In the 21st century, however, such codified prejudice is strictly the dominion of government.
Why do people continue to argue against policies that have already been deemed unconstitutional? Affirmative Action can only promote, recruit and attempt to increase retention of certain people. You cannot show preference in hiring or admitance decisions based on the color of someone’s skin, their sex or any other such distinction over other individual performance/qualifying related factors.
Please stop perpetuating myths.
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 1457 hrsExplain this:
The University of Wisconsin System is changing its admissions policies to consider race, income and other non-academic qualities of applicants with the explicit goal of boosting student diversity.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=426923
Sounds to me like they are partially basing their decision on admission to UW on the color of the applicants’ skin.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2007 at 1503 hrsOwen, it’s all about “Diversity uber alles” and the liberal racist feeling good about him/herself for helping the poor “oppressed” minority (or other protected class member) because it’s very apparent (to the lib) that without the lib’s help, this person couldn’t do it by him/herself. Equal Opportunity just isn’t enough for these people.
Hubert Humphrey (D-Minnesota) was one of the strongest supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet when others expressed their concerns that the bill could lead to reverse discrimination and racial quotas he said, “Title VII does not require an employer to achieve any sort of racial balance in his work force by giving preferential treatment to any individual or group.” “He even promised on the floor of the Senate that he would physically eat the paper the bill was written on if it were ever used to require corrective hiring preferences.” - ref: Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America by Jared Taylor p. 126
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 1541 hrsWhere is Ward Connerly when we need him?
Actually Owen, while the question in your article about affirmative action are very thoughtful, appropriate, and reasoned, you will be met with two types of reactions from the left:
1) From the Eugene Kane types (based on what he wrote about Grothman on this topic): “It’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand.”
2) From the Rep. Tamara Grigsby types: “You vile racist slime. You’re probably a card carrying member of the KKK.”No debate. No reason answers to your questions. Just insults and/or outright dismissal of the issue.
What gets me about the whole debate is that they never really define what equates to “diverse”. Is it just skin color? Is it background and upbringing as well? And if so, what if two people of different “color” have the same background and upbringing? Who is more diverse? At what point is an institution considered diverse enough?
But there I go… trying to raise logical questions on a topic over which people refuse to use any logic when debating.
Posted by David on June 12, 2007 at 1546 hrsWhy do people continue to argue against policies that have already been deemed unconstitutional?
Because they continue to be in effect.
Posted by triticale on June 12, 2007 at 1550 hrsOwen says “explain this”:
“The University of Wisconsin System is changing its admissions policies to consider race, income and other non-academic qualities of applicants with the explicit goal of boosting student diversity.”
This has been explained to you over and over, Owen, but you seem congenitally incapable of comprehending it: the UW System policy is identical to the policy used at UW-Madison for a number of years, and is based on the United States Supreme Court decision in the University of Michigan case. It is completely constitutional!
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 1625 hrsRO,
I understand that. I was refuting Lefty’s claim that:
“You cannot show preference in hiring or admitance decisions based on the color of someone’s skin...”
Obviously, that statement was not accurate.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2007 at 1629 hrsRO it is consitutional for now and maybe somehting else will be constitutional next year. When it comes to a legislative body determining policy I would really hope that people are allowed to discuss what SHOULD be policy instead of what CAN be policy. The argument that some form of AA is consitutional has absolutely nothing to do with what form, if any, of AA a governmental body should use.
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 1716 hrsIt is completely constitutional!
Really?
Then how come one of the Justices stated that “we need this for another 25 years or so”, huh?
Lemmeseee, heah, Gomer. It’s “completely Constitutional” for 25, 50, or 75 years, and then, poofta/resto/popsicle!!!
It’s not!
YOU may be stupid enough to buy that crap from black-robed morons.
I’m not.
Posted by dad29 on June 12, 2007 at 2055 hrsExplain this:
The University of Wisconsin System is changing its admissions policies to consider race, income and other non-academic qualities of applicants with the explicit goal of boosting student diversity.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=426923
Sounds to me like they are partially basing their decision on admission to UW on the color of the applicants’ skin.
It looks to me like a poorly constructed opening sentence to an article that doesn’t accurately reflect the actual policy being implemented, and either an inability or an unwillingness by yourself to read the rest of the article or critically think through the meaning of the USSC rulings in the Michigan lawsuits.
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 2206 hrsWhen people stop being racist we won’t have to give preference to skin color. It is more to combat racism now then to fix wrongs and considering 40% of Whites are still racist I think that is justified.
Posted by on June 12, 2007 at 2259 hrsWhen people stop being racist we won’t have to give preference to skin color.
Sooooo, because too many people judge people on the basis of skin color, we need to keep judging people based on skin color. You’ll need to expand on that one a little Demboy.
40% of Whites are still racist I think that is justified.
You have replaced Mikey as the #1 person around here who makes the most unsupported and inflammatory remarks.
Posted by David on June 12, 2007 at 2323 hrsOkay well this was another study by the Rand corporation I am refrencing. Anyways if 40% of whites are racist and they hold most of the manager positions in most of the businesses then they need a push to hire black workers otherwise they wouldn’t because they are racist. That is my point. Affirmitive action by all means isn’t perfect but when people judge eachother by the color of their skin when it involves hiring we have to add a counterweight.
Posted by on June 13, 2007 at 1252 hrsSo Demboy when you go to school or go out to find a job it will be ok to say no to you to hire or admit someone else? Then to add insult to injury you will be required to help pay for their school or hiring. Now does that seem fair? Seeing as you are still in highschool and really don’t have a clue what it means to have most of your paycheck flushed down the welfare toilet, or have to wait on a list because while you may be at the top with education, experience, and certification you are the wrong color so you have to watch while the city or county spends scads of your tax dollars begging(recruiting) people to take your job and then spending scads more trying to train them to be 10% as qualified as you. Yup never mind that you could pay better or better yet let the taxpayers keep more of the money they, not govt, worked for but you could have people that actually want to work there. When you have a lost of people that want to get in but you still have a recruiting policy to get the right colors in you are wasting money. If I am competing to get the best minds in my doors to work then I say go recruiting but if the best are already lined up and I say you have to wait because you are the wrong color how can that not be racism? Oh but wait this is liberal racism so it must be ok…
Posted by fishaddict on June 13, 2007 at 1507 hrsIf Affirmative Action is giving non whites an advantage why is this still a white male domonated society? As a white male I have had no problem finding a job, getting a loan, finding a good home, getting into college, etc..., where are all these disenfranchised white people. Do you honestly believe that if a non white person worked as hard as you they would be where you are? Don’t you think they might have to overcome barriers that you or I dont have to?
Posted by on June 13, 2007 at 1514 hrsLib Marine wrote: Do you honestly believe that if a non white person worked as hard as you they would be where you are? Don’t you think they might have to overcome barriers that you or I dont have to?
I actually live with a non-white person (and will be marrying her next year). And yeah, I can attest through observation that non-whites actually get as far as whites when working just as hard. I would argue they actually get father when applying the same amount of effort. And my fiancée is no anomaly either. It had nothing to do with “luck”.
Has she faced racism in her life? Of course. But whaddaya know, she had two working parents at home her whole childhood too. And she (and her siblings and non-white friends) all turned out just fine. See a connection there?
And that leads to this: You act as if the “barrier” of skin color trumps all other barriers that any other person may face. It’s just not the case. Bad parents will the #1 barrier to a person’s success in life - not skin color.
A colleague of mine (black gentleman) described for me his visit to the job convention for the National Society of Black Engineers. Every top company in the nation was there - many of them doing on-the-spot hiring, with very impressive salaries. He got a job through it as well.
Using Demboy’s logic, few of those companies would have been there since so many of the managers are “racist”.
Posted by David on June 13, 2007 at 1543 hrsMr. Svendsen,
Posted by on June 13, 2007 at 1629 hrs
Do you think any of the engineers hired were there because of Affirmative Action and if so does that make their accomplishments less valid? I personally believe being a white male has its advantages and view Affirmative Action as a means to level the playing field. Affirmative Action does not mean a high school drop out is going to be admitted into Law School simply because of their skin color but rather they meet the required standards and their background is taken into consideration for admission. I would not be offended if a person recieved a position over me because of Affirmative Action.Then you are a more forgiving person than I. I would be some kind of pissed if I lost a job to someone else because of AA. That means they got the job because they were of some group and I didn’t because I’m not in that group. If that’s not racist, I don’t know what is.
Racism: Judging people based upon the color of their skin, their ethnicity,.....
AA: Allows Judging people based upon the color of their skin, their ethnicity
But somehow, the second one is okay.
Not to me. Not at all.
Posted by on June 13, 2007 at 1917 hrsAgain, they are not getting their jobs based only on their skin color. They meet the requirements for the position and their background is taken into consideration for employment or admission.
Posted by on June 13, 2007 at 2155 hrsYou contradicted yourself. They aren’t getting their jobs based ONLY on their skin color, but skin color IS a factor in getting the job.
It should not be a factor AT ALL.
Posted by on June 14, 2007 at 1652 hrs
Ol' Army
