CDZ University of Texas Admissions

[martybegan]

The other question is "When does it end?". Why do people who were not born during times of systemic de jure discrimination still pay for the sins of their fathers?

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.



The fact is that racial discrimination still exists. We know that one isn't born with a sense of racial discrimination, so we thus know too that parents continue to pass on to their kids the bias they too were taught. From watching the video above, it's clear to me that some folks who hold unfairly biased attitudes seem to have little to no chagrin about doing so, although they seem to know to be discreet about manifesting them.

(Sometimes I think the days of overtly expressed bias, and the folks who expressed it so, were better and the racists possessed of greater integrity. At least back then one knew well and at first blush with whom one was dealing.)

As I shared in my profile for this site, and as my ID implies, my family have been in the U.S. (colonies) since the late 1600s. I have more than my fair share of racist ancestors, and right up to my parents, their disdain-/hate-filled ideas were taught from generation to generation. It was only when my parents had the presence of mind to realize that their own racist views were deleterious to my being a better person than they that someone in my family actively committed to not passing their own bias on to their child.

They were effective enough at doing so that I didn't discover until my late 20s that they had unfairly biased views that accrue from race. They don't let them appear often, but they did again not long ago when they learned one of my kids intended to marry outside our ethnicity. They got past it, but that they had not fully overcome them was nonetheless clear.

I'm not ashamed of my ancestry. It is what it is and I had no control over it. I nonetheless realize that there are plenty of folks like me who have ancestors who passed on their bias. I know too that minorities (racial, ethnic, or religious) today still feel the effects of the irrational bias that has been passed on in families through the years.

Did our, my, ancestors create circumstances that make things harder for some folks today? They did. But then we are doing the same thing, and not just with regard to social issues like racism. I'm sure you can identify several areas whereby we have opted to "mortgage" our kids' or grandkids' futures, to defer resolving a problem, rather than "bite the bullet" now, ourselves. Well, when it comes to matters such as affirmative action, it's no different. Our forebears could have committed to end "white privilege" long before the late 20th century, but they fact is they didn't. So yes, some folks today are having to pay for that choice.

I'm sorry, but my ancestors didn't get here until the 1870's at the earliest, and the 1920's at the latest. I consider AA as having been needed during the 60's to 80's, waning in the 90's and now nothing but a payback program who's time is about to pass.

 

[320 Years of History]

The other question is "When does it end?". Why do people who were not born during times of systemic de jure discrimination still pay for the sins of their fathers?

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.



The fact is that racial discrimination still exists. We know that one isn't born with a sense of racial discrimination, so we thus know too that parents continue to pass on to their kids the bias they too were taught. From watching the video above, it's clear to me that some folks who hold unfairly biased attitudes seem to have little to no chagrin about doing so, although they seem to know to be discreet about manifesting them.

(Sometimes I think the days of overtly expressed bias, and the folks who expressed it so, were better and the racists possessed of greater integrity. At least back then one knew well and at first blush with whom one was dealing.)

As I shared in my profile for this site, and as my ID implies, my family have been in the U.S. (colonies) since the late 1600s. I have more than my fair share of racist ancestors, and right up to my parents, their disdain-/hate-filled ideas were taught from generation to generation. It was only when my parents had the presence of mind to realize that their own racist views were deleterious to my being a better person than they that someone in my family actively committed to not passing their own bias on to their child.

They were effective enough at doing so that I didn't discover until my late 20s that they had unfairly biased views that accrue from race. They don't let them appear often, but they did again not long ago when they learned one of my kids intended to marry outside our ethnicity. They got past it, but that they had not fully overcome them was nonetheless clear.

I'm not ashamed of my ancestry. It is what it is and I had no control over it. I nonetheless realize that there are plenty of folks like me who have ancestors who passed on their bias. I know too that minorities (racial, ethnic, or religious) today still feel the effects of the irrational bias that has been passed on in families through the years.

Did our, my, ancestors create circumstances that make things harder for some folks today? They did. But then we are doing the same thing, and not just with regard to social issues like racism. I'm sure you can identify several areas whereby we have opted to "mortgage" our kids' or grandkids' futures, to defer resolving a problem, rather than "bite the bullet" now, ourselves. Well, when it comes to matters such as affirmative action, it's no different. Our forebears could have committed to end "white privilege" long before the late 20th century, but they fact is they didn't. So yes, some folks today are having to pay for that choice.

I'm sorry, but my ancestors didn't get here until the 1870's at the earliest, and the 1920's at the latest. I consider AA as having been needed during the 60's to 80's, waning in the 90's and now nothing but a payback program who's time is about to pass.

There's no need for you to apologize for when your forebears arrived in the U.S.

It's clear that you see one side of the ills our ancestors created, the side that today seems to adversely affect some majority race individuals. I see that too. I'm not oblivious to the fact that so-called "reverse discrimination" (it's all just discrimination to me) also sometimes happens. Indeed from conversation with some blacks, I know for a fact that it does.

What you apparently don't see, and deny still happens often enough to matter, is the continuing impact of two and half centuries of bias on minority individuals. Just this past spring, I saw it quite clearly in the statements of one of the young folks I mentor. The young black man had attended a good prep school (not one of the historically black prep schools) and he had decent grades about like Ms. Fisher's and notably better SAT scores then she.

When we discussed where he wanted to go, he stated that he didn't want to apply to a HBU because he perceived it as not being as good purely because it's faculty and student body are mostly black. In essence, he expressed exactly the same perceptions that the girls did in the Brown v. The Board's "Doll Test." This even though he is well aware that the school has produced and continues to produce/educate some of the highest achieving blacks the nation has and has had.

Now it doesn't matter whether the HBU is any better or worse than any other school. What matters is that the guy has a negative opinion based purely on race. The sad reality is that if there remain black folks in our country who "buy into" race-based inferiority, you and I both know damn well that there are white folks who do too. That tells me quite plainly that (1) racism very much still exists and (2) the impact of 250+ years of racism goes transcends who gets admission to a school. What's most sad, however, is that the young man is inclined to be irrationally biased against people of his own race.

 

[martybegan]

The other question is "When does it end?". Why do people who were not born during times of systemic de jure discrimination still pay for the sins of their fathers?

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.



The fact is that racial discrimination still exists. We know that one isn't born with a sense of racial discrimination, so we thus know too that parents continue to pass on to their kids the bias they too were taught. From watching the video above, it's clear to me that some folks who hold unfairly biased attitudes seem to have little to no chagrin about doing so, although they seem to know to be discreet about manifesting them.

(Sometimes I think the days of overtly expressed bias, and the folks who expressed it so, were better and the racists possessed of greater integrity. At least back then one knew well and at first blush with whom one was dealing.)

As I shared in my profile for this site, and as my ID implies, my family have been in the U.S. (colonies) since the late 1600s. I have more than my fair share of racist ancestors, and right up to my parents, their disdain-/hate-filled ideas were taught from generation to generation. It was only when my parents had the presence of mind to realize that their own racist views were deleterious to my being a better person than they that someone in my family actively committed to not passing their own bias on to their child.

They were effective enough at doing so that I didn't discover until my late 20s that they had unfairly biased views that accrue from race. They don't let them appear often, but they did again not long ago when they learned one of my kids intended to marry outside our ethnicity. They got past it, but that they had not fully overcome them was nonetheless clear.

I'm not ashamed of my ancestry. It is what it is and I had no control over it. I nonetheless realize that there are plenty of folks like me who have ancestors who passed on their bias. I know too that minorities (racial, ethnic, or religious) today still feel the effects of the irrational bias that has been passed on in families through the years.

Did our, my, ancestors create circumstances that make things harder for some folks today? They did. But then we are doing the same thing, and not just with regard to social issues like racism. I'm sure you can identify several areas whereby we have opted to "mortgage" our kids' or grandkids' futures, to defer resolving a problem, rather than "bite the bullet" now, ourselves. Well, when it comes to matters such as affirmative action, it's no different. Our forebears could have committed to end "white privilege" long before the late 20th century, but they fact is they didn't. So yes, some folks today are having to pay for that choice.

I'm sorry, but my ancestors didn't get here until the 1870's at the earliest, and the 1920's at the latest. I consider AA as having been needed during the 60's to 80's, waning in the 90's and now nothing but a payback program who's time is about to pass.

There's no need for you to apologize for when your forebears arrived in the U.S.

It's clear that you see one side of the ills our ancestors created, the side that today seems to adversely affect some majority race individuals. I see that too. I'm not oblivious to the fact that so-called "reverse discrimination" (it's all just discrimination to me) also sometimes happens. Indeed from conversation with some blacks, I know for a fact that it does.

What you apparently don't see, and deny still happens often enough to matter, is the continuing impact of two and half centuries of bias on minority individuals. Just this past spring, I saw it quite clearly in the statements of one of the young folks I mentor. The young black man had attended a good prep school (not one of the historically black prep schools) and he had decent grades about like Ms. Fisher's and notably better SAT scores then she.

When we discussed where he wanted to go, he stated that he didn't want to apply to a HBU because he perceived it as not being as good purely because it's faculty and student body are mostly black. In essence, he expressed exactly the same perceptions that the girls did in the Brown v. The Board's "Doll Test." This even though he is well aware that the school has produced and continues to produce/educate some of the highest achieving blacks the nation has and has had.

Now it doesn't matter whether the HBU is any better or worse than any other school. What matters is that the guy has a negative opinion based purely on race. The sad reality is that if there remain black folks in our country who "buy into" race-based inferiority, you and I both know damn well that there are white folks who do too. That tells me quite plainly that (1) racism very much still exists and (2) the impact of 250+ years of racism goes transcends who gets admission to a school. What's most sad, however, is that the young man is inclined to be irrationally biased against people of his own race.

But is the continued payment for sins of the past the way to rectify the situation? AA was needed to eliminate systemic discrimination right after said discrimination was "ended". However subtle discrimination can't really be fixed by the bludgeon of government action (in my opinion).

To me it appears we are moving away from the dream of a "color blind society" and devolving back to a tribal system, where each tribe makes their case about who is most needy/disadvantaged and thus who gets the government's help.

 

[jwoodie]

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.

This sounds like a smoker arguing that just one more cigarette won't hurt him. We are moving towards a more racially divided society, not the inverse. In addition, the imputation of inherited guilt or grievances is a close cousin of eugenic theory, if you want to go down that road.

 

[OldLady]

The other question is "When does it end?". Why do people who were not born during times of systemic de jure discrimination still pay for the sins of their fathers?

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.



The fact is that racial discrimination still exists. We know that one isn't born with a sense of racial discrimination, so we thus know too that parents continue to pass on to their kids the bias they too were taught. From watching the video above, it's clear to me that some folks who hold unfairly biased attitudes seem to have little to no chagrin about doing so, although they seem to know to be discreet about manifesting them.

(Sometimes I think the days of overtly expressed bias, and the folks who expressed it so, were better and the racists possessed of greater integrity. At least back then one knew well and at first blush with whom one was dealing.)

As I shared in my profile for this site, and as my ID implies, my family have been in the U.S. (colonies) since the late 1600s. I have more than my fair share of racist ancestors, and right up to my parents, their disdain-/hate-filled ideas were taught from generation to generation. It was only when my parents had the presence of mind to realize that their own racist views were deleterious to my being a better person than they that someone in my family actively committed to not passing their own bias on to their child.

They were effective enough at doing so that I didn't discover until my late 20s that they had unfairly biased views that accrue from race. They don't let them appear often, but they did again not long ago when they learned one of my kids intended to marry outside our ethnicity. They got past it, but that they had not fully overcome them was nonetheless clear.

I'm not ashamed of my ancestry. It is what it is and I had no control over it. I nonetheless realize that there are plenty of folks like me who have ancestors who passed on their bias. I know too that minorities (racial, ethnic, or religious) today still feel the effects of the irrational bias that has been passed on in families through the years.

Did our, my, ancestors create circumstances that make things harder for some folks today? They did. But then we are doing the same thing, and not just with regard to social issues like racism. I'm sure you can identify several areas whereby we have opted to "mortgage" our kids' or grandkids' futures, to defer resolving a problem, rather than "bite the bullet" now, ourselves. Well, when it comes to matters such as affirmative action, it's no different. Our forebears could have committed to end "white privilege" long before the late 20th century, but they fact is they didn't. So yes, some folks today are having to pay for that choice.

I'm sorry, but my ancestors didn't get here until the 1870's at the earliest, and the 1920's at the latest. I consider AA as having been needed during the 60's to 80's, waning in the 90's and now nothing but a payback program who's time is about to pass.

There's no need for you to apologize for when your forebears arrived in the U.S.

It's clear that you see one side of the ills our ancestors created, the side that today seems to adversely affect some majority race individuals. I see that too. I'm not oblivious to the fact that so-called "reverse discrimination" (it's all just discrimination to me) also sometimes happens. Indeed from conversation with some blacks, I know for a fact that it does.

What you apparently don't see, and deny still happens often enough to matter, is the continuing impact of two and half centuries of bias on minority individuals. Just this past spring, I saw it quite clearly in the statements of one of the young folks I mentor. The young black man had attended a good prep school (not one of the historically black prep schools) and he had decent grades about like Ms. Fisher's and notably better SAT scores then she.

When we discussed where he wanted to go, he stated that he didn't want to apply to a HBU because he perceived it as not being as good purely because it's faculty and student body are mostly black. In essence, he expressed exactly the same perceptions that the girls did in the Brown v. The Board's "Doll Test." This even though he is well aware that the school has produced and continues to produce/educate some of the highest achieving blacks the nation has and has had.

Now it doesn't matter whether the HBU is any better or worse than any other school. What matters is that the guy has a negative opinion based purely on race. The sad reality is that if there remain black folks in our country who "buy into" race-based inferiority, you and I both know damn well that there are white folks who do too. That tells me quite plainly that (1) racism very much still exists and (2) the impact of 250+ years of racism goes transcends who gets admission to a school. What's most sad, however, is that the young man is inclined to be irrationally biased against people of his own race.

But is the continued payment for sins of the past the way to rectify the situation? AA was needed to eliminate systemic discrimination right after said discrimination was "ended". However subtle discrimination can't really be fixed by the bludgeon of government action (in my opinion).

To me it appears we are moving away from the dream of a "color blind society" and devolving back to a tribal system, where each tribe makes their case about who is most needy/disadvantaged and thus who gets the government's help.

I'm just an old teacher, but from here, it seems we've got a long way to go before all students have an equal chance at an education. Post secondary education, everyone agrees, is the most effective stairway out of poverty, but kids born into poverty have huge hurdles to overcome just getting all the way through high school. I live in an almost entirely white state, so I can't speak to race except what I see on the news, etc., but it seems a lot of minority kids are still born in poor neighborhoods with poorly funded schools and all the added challenges of generational poverty I won't go into here. Yes? As long as that exists, I'll support Affirmative Action.

 

[jwoodie]

I live in an almost entirely white state, so I can't speak to race except what I see on the news, etc., but it seems a lot of minority kids are still born in poor neighborhoods with poorly funded schools

Perfect illustration of how an ivory-tower liberal thinks: Doesn't know anything, but believes everything (s)he hears on the news, including the "poorly funded schools" BS. In reality, low performing/minority schools receive much more government funding than other schools.

 

[OldLady]

I live in an almost entirely white state, so I can't speak to race except what I see on the news, etc., but it seems a lot of minority kids are still born in poor neighborhoods with poorly funded schools

Perfect illustration of how an ivory-tower liberal thinks: Doesn't know anything, but believes everything (s)he hears on the news, including the "poorly funded schools" BS. In reality, low performing/minority schools receive much more government funding than other schools.

Well, at least I try to have educated opinions by listening to all sides and exploring all the resources that are available. That's why I'm reading posts like yours. No need to stuff me in one of your pigeon holes because I advocate poor kids going to college. Wow. Radical.

 

[320 Years of History]

Because the people who have descended from the people who suffered overt discrimination still pay for the sins of the fathers of whom you wrote.

This sounds like a smoker arguing that just one more cigarette won't hurt him. We are moving towards a more racially divided society, not the inverse. In addition, the imputation of inherited guilt or grievances is a close cousin of eugenic theory, if you want to go down that road.

My whole point has very little to do with whether anyone today is guilty of racial bias, although I'm well aware that some folks are. It has much to do with my evaluation of the righteousness of making amends for the ongoing hardships faced by a group that faced systemically caused hardship versus that of causing some small degree of hardship for folks who mostly face little to none on the basis of their race.

As far as I'm concerned, it's an ethical matter for which the sole currently somewhat effective means of redress is via the law. As I see it, whites, and particularly WASPs, have never in the U.S. as a class been denied opportunities on account of their race. Minorities have. Now our society has abolished the legal impediments associated with being a minority and implemented a program -- AA -- whereby the people who were denied myriad opportunities for 250+ years, and even sometimes today, are afforded what might be thought of as social opportunities and there arise whites who, because they happen to be among the small number of majority race individuals, want to abolish those mandated offerings of opportunity because it means they must taste a small bit of the hardship minorities have since the nation was founded.

If I were of the mind that as a class white folks are, because of AA, systematically and summarily denied opportunities as minorities have been, I might be of a different opinion. But that just isn't what's happening. What's happening, especially with regard to public university admissions, is that a small percentage of the majority community isn't getting to exercise their first choice among several, even as they are able to exercise alternate choices that are comparable. This even as it's all but impossible to say whether any currently lost opportunity pf the sort I've noted and that a white person may endure is anything other than a perceived impediment.

For example, Ms. Fisher ended up graduating from a different university and has obtained a very good job in financial services. Who's to say she'd have been as successful at U.T. Austin? It's indeed quite possible that her academic performance and personal growth may not have distinguished her from her would-be peers at U.T. Austin and accordingly, she may not have received an offer from her current firm. Who knows?

What we all know is that we have a class of individuals -- racial minorities -- in the U.S. whose socioeconomic position now is in very large measure due to the lost opportunities endured almost universally and by every generation among them since the 1600s. How do we know this?

• Look at Jews. By and large, Jews are white folks. They have had to suffer proximate-to-racial-minority disdain by white non-Jews, and yet they didn't become as a group a socioeconomic underclass. Why? Because nobody knows a white Jew is Jewish until they indicate they are. That simply wasn't and isn't an option most blacks had, yet those who did (or do) have that opportunity, those who could "pass," managed to do pretty well. (Why it is that if one looks "white" one can still not be white is a strange thing in my mind. It strikes me that if one looks white, one is, and if one doesn't, one isn't, but that's not actually how it works.)
• Look at blacks. Light skinned blacks suffer less discrimination in general than do blacks who don't meet the "paper bag test." I recall years ago going to an event hosted by one of the black partners in my firm and sitting quietly as several black professionals -- very, very economically successful ones no less -- as they discussed whether Mr. Obama could have been elected were his skin tone the same as his wife's. The majority consensus among that small group was that he could not have. The only thing I had to contribute to the conversation was that how dark he is didn't cross my mind and that, just as they were, I was aware of the tonal differences between him and his wife. That said, based on their having lived their entire lives as black people, they pretty well agreed that his being light skinned helped boost his ability to gain acceptance among white folks. Seeing as they all had "made it" in every sense of the word, seeing that to a person, they are very bright and talented, and seeing as I know what I've heard mentioned by some white men about various black celebs, I saw/see no basis for thinking they're mistaken. (And, no, I'm not writing about or implying anything related to miscegenation or reproductive race management of any sort.)
• Ask anyone in the U.S. whether Caucasian is perceived as being the "better" race to be in the U.S. Heck, just watch the video I linked earlier. Even young folks (high school to college age) who've never had any real exposure to non-white folks know that to be so.
• Look at the language. We have a term -- "white privilege" -- that wouldn't' exist if it, for all intents and purposes, didn't exist. You don't hear anyone, other than dismayed folks like Miss Fisher who've determined they lost out somehow because they are white and they've decided that because there is one black guy/girl who got a "seat" they wanted and who doesn't appear to them to be as capable as they of filling it, talking about "black, Latino or Asian privilege" in the U.S.
• Look at the experiences that occur with regard to black folks for whom nobody would posit they could or should. When I walk into a Madison Ave. boutique or my local "Needless Markup," the staff first inclination isn't to try gauging whether I might rob them, or whether I can afford the articles I look at, and I know that to be true no matter how I'm dressed or groomed. I can't say the same doesn't cross folks' mind for people who look like Oprah, who, where she to pass me on the street looking as she does in the left photo below, I would not recognize as Oprah because I've actually met Oprah, and she didn't look like that then either. (Then again, I probably wouldn't recognize Cameron Diaz either.)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

The reality, at least in the places to which I've had any ongoing visibility, is that whites. as a class in U.S. society, have nothing at all to be concerned about as goes the lack or loss of opportunity or benefits because of the color of their skin. So when it happens that the odd white person here or there feels as though s/he may have been on the "wrong end" of AA policies, I am willing to say that it's possible they are correct that AA did prohibit them from getting seat in a school or a job offer.

The fact of the matter is that two of my own kids didn't get admitted to one of the schools to which they applied, and both their grades, extracurriculars, and SAT scores made Miss Fisher's look like "chump change." They didn't cry about it; they just matriculated at one of the schools that accepted them. After all, the whole point of applying to multiple schools is to have some degree of choice about where one goes, and to make sure one gets admitted to some suitable school.

In a similar vein, I was denied job offers when I graduated from college, but I didn't theorize that that happened because a minority was given the job. Indeed, I've since learned that the firm that didn't give me an offer would have been a terrible place for me to have worked. So, guess what, the hiring team there knew better than I did whether I was a good fit there. The same thing could well be so for each and every white person who doesn't get what they thought they most wanted. Face it, not everyone gets their way and that some minority person applied for and received the "benefit" may have nothing to with why they didn't get it.

I'm not willing to say, as I wrote earlier, for ethical reasons, that AA should at this time be abolished. I can see that one form of race-based preference being replaced by what seems in some ways to be another isn't an ideal solution to the problem, and I think that my minority peers would agree with the principle of that statement. But when I look at the ethical onus our nation has to make amends to a whole class of people -- the class that consists of everyone who isn't white -- at the cost of infrequently imposing a "second choice" mandate on a small percentage of folks in the class of folks who otherwise need never after that have any probabilistic basis for having to so "endure" again -- white folks -- I can live with it, at least until a better solution comes along.

I suggest that if you can design that better solution that ensures (most of the time) members of a still disadvantaged class of people isn't ill affected due to their skin color, then you should, instead of griping about AA, propose a better alternative that accomplishes that end. That would surely be a better approach, one not seen as disingenuous and heartless, than is, as Miss Fisher has done, being born into the majority and having no apparent and foreseeable disadvantages and then griping about not getting a "benefit" that may have accrued to someone born into a group for which the same cannot now nor never has been able to have been said.

Lastly, my views on this have nothing to do with guilt, regardless of what meaning of the word one cares to consider. They have everything to do with wanting to try to "do right" by people. They have to do with knowing that the currently available options are going potentially to "screw" either a whole class of people or occasional individuals in a different class of people. They have to do with having to choose what I think is (1) the greater good and (2) the lesser of two "not greats." To the extent that AA boosts the overall "fortunes" of the vast majority of an entire minority underclass at the expense of an occasional second choice having to be taken by rarefied individual majority class members, the greater good is, IMO, served and the lesser evil chosen. I know that my own friends and loved ones have a small chance of being on the wrong side I'd like to live to see the day when our society has no further need for AA programs, but I believe today isn't that day and that I don't see it being appropriate to do so in the near future.

Red:
Nothing about what I'm writing or wrote has to do with genetically improving anything about any groups of society. So however close a cousin it be, it's not close enough to apply to what I've written.

 

[jwoodie]

My whole point has very little to do with whether anyone today is guilty of racial bias, although I'm well aware that some folks are. It has much to do with my evaluation of the righteousness of making amends for the ongoing hardships faced by a group that faced systemically caused hardship versus that of causing some small degree of hardship for folks who mostly face little to none on the basis of their race.

OK, let's start with an African-American child who is born today. Has he faced any of these hardships yet? If so, are they internal (genetic, neonatal, etc.) or are they external (discrimination, etc.)? Please SPECIFY.

How about when he turns one or two or three? Just when and how do these hardships occur? Who should make amends for these ongoing [sic] hardships? Are these amends for past injustices to others or for future injustices? What about members of a "protected" group who have not personally suffered from these hardships? Should they also benefit from these amends? Doesn't this smack of racial stereotyping on both sides of this issue?

I look forward to your direct and concise response to these questions.

 

[Syriusly]

Aside from the racial basis question before SCOTUS, how does any public/governmental agency get away with having a secret procedure for determining how benefits are distributed? It seems that UT's discretionary admission procedure should be invalidated on that basis alone. Thoughts?

Hard to debate something- when we don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

Aside from the racial basis question before SCOTUS, how does any public/governmental agency get away with having a secret procedure for determining how benefits are distributed? It seems that UT's discretionary admission procedure should be invalidated on that basis alone. Thoughts?

Still not seeing the 'secret procedure' you are talking about.

 

[320 Years of History]

OK, let's start with an African-American child who is born today. Has he faced any of these hardships yet? If so, are they internal (genetic, neonatal, etc.) or are they external (discrimination, etc.)? Please SPECIFY.

How about when he turns one or two or three? Just when and how do these hardships occur? Who should make amends for these ongoing [sic] hardships? Are these amends for past injustices to others or for future injustices? What about members of a "protected" group who have not personally suffered from these hardships? Should they also benefit from these amends? Doesn't this smack of racial stereotyping on both sides of this issue?

I look forward to your direct and concise response to these questions.

Red:
I can't say "yes" or "no" with regard to the hypothetical child you identified. I can say that a minority child, black or otherwise, who is born today in U.S. is born to a nation in which there exist racists who consider that child inferior merely because it is not a white child. There is no way for me to assert whether any one or several of those racists will encounter the child and act on such biased beliefs that they hold.

Although there are certain physiological maladies that more often affect individuals of specific racial backgrounds, those are not the hardships of which I wrote earlier.

Blue:
Just as I cannot aver that the child will encounter racially motivate discrimination upon its birth, I cannot say when s/he will experience any of the forms of overt or covert racist action/belief. All I can say is that my observations of the nature of racism as it exists -- in nature and extent -- today is such that it's quite possible that s/he will one day.

Purple:
Well, it's certain that yours and my dead relatives who (may have -- I don't know a thing about your dead relatives) inculcated in their descendents and perpetuated culturally the climate of racial discrimination are no longer around, even though the legacy of the hateful attitudes they espoused remains, to be held accountable for their deeds. That leaves only present and future individuals to do so. Certainly the burden has to fall on current individuals if any amends are to be made. The extent to which it must fall on future folks is uncertain; that would depend on the extent to which racist views are abolished from the hearts and minds of our citizenry.

Pink:
As a matter of "should" they benefit, no. Will some of them likely benefit? Yes, unless someone can determine a way to prevent it. One must break eggs to make an omelette.

Brown:
Please tell me what is the "this" to which you refer.


So above you have your direct and concise answers. I add here a few things:

Definitions:
Just so you have a full understanding of the context of my replies above, as well as my prior remarks on this matter, here are the definitions I use for several of the key terms pertaining to this topic. I share them because though I try to be precise in using the relevant one, I suspect I get "loosey-goosey" and don't always do. I hope by sharing them, you'll at least realize I make the distinctions noted below.

• Racism (n): A set of beliefs, and attitudes based on them, whereby one holds that individuals of a given race are less "whatever" than are individuals of one's own race.
• Racial discrimination (n): One or more acts that individuals commit, or ideas they express, based on their racism.
• Racist (n): An individual who performs acts of racial discrimination.

An observation of racial discrimination:

In my life, I haven't had to deal with racism all that much. I know my parents are racists, to a lesser degree now than they were some 60 years ago, but I also know I didn't find that out until I was in my late twenties. My folks were aware of their racist emotions, but they also knew it was wrong, and they went out of their way to not pass on their beliefs to me. By the time I discovered my parents' racist "core," I'd already formed my own views on the matter based on my own experiences.

I've seen racism and the resulting discrimination actively and deliberately displayed exactly once in my life. The situation involved a fellow sought housing in (posh) Kalorama, DC, specifically a suite in a townhouse a friend of mine owned. The guy called to say that he though he'd be a few minutes late for his 5:15 pm appointment but was in the neighborhood looking for parking and would be there very shortly.

The person renting the space said that wasn't a problem for the place hadn't been taken. I just happened to be hanging out there with my friend that day, and that's how I came to hear that conversation over the speakerphone. About 30 seconds later the guy rang the doorbell, and upon seeing the guy -- black, in his 20s, good looking, well dressed and well groomed, and seeing as he had a mobile phone, probably not at all poor (it was August of 1989) -- my friend apologized, saying the place had been rented.

Everyone there, including the black guy, knew damn well the place had not been rented. It turns out he'd managed to get a parking spot right in front of the building and wasn't late at all. I guess a spot, perhaps the one prior potential tenant left, opened up as he was on the phone.

I was flabbergasted, mortified, embarrassed, disgusted, angry, disappointed and more! Even now, writing about that event 25+ years, three children, a divorce, and a career later, I can still feel some of those same emotions. In fact, what I feel is more than emotional; I feel a tinge of sickness in my stomach and a lump in my throat.

That's neither here nor there....from that instant -- and I'm hard pressed to think of any other events in my life that had no direct personal impact on me and that I can yet recall, let alone with such clarity -- my relationship with my friend soon afterwards ebbed greatly. I told him how wrong he was and I told him that if that guy decided to sue him for housing discrimination I'd testify.

We've seen each other randomly from time to time over the years, but our interaction never goes beyond "Hi. How are you? Fine. And you?" I don't speak ill of the guy, in fact, until writing this post, I haven't in 25+ years spoken of him at all, not even to my closest friends, and, apparently, he accords me the same respect. That's enough as far as I'm concerned; it at least shows that while he was/is a racist gentleman, he's nonetheless a gentleman.

His kids and mine never gravitated together, and thank God for that; I am so glad for that, only because it means I've not been forced to consider the issue in that light. There's nothing I would have enjoyed about potentially having to warn my kids about his kids solely because of what I know of their father. His kids' racist attitude would hardly be their fault, but that doesn't mean I would fail to tell my kids to be on the lookout for racist leanings and deeds from them. As I wrote above, I know racism is a thing that's taught, and most parents aren't going to refrain from passing on their racism. That's not surprising for I doubt most folks holding racist views genuinely think something's ethically, perhaps even factually, wrong with doing so.

Did the guy who was my friend learn anything from that experience? Has he changed? I don't know. I would think if he had, he'd have let me know because he's surely aware I've not shared that story with other folks in our social circle. I can only say he's not reached out to clear the air between us.​

I shared that anecdote to illustrate why I can't predict when or whether any minority will experience racial discrimination. I'm sure that none of the three there awoke with any inclination that they might experience racism that day. I also shared it to show that it's difficult to truly know who is and who is not a racist. Prior to that event, I would not have suspected my former friend was a racist. Would he lynch or otherwise violently, physically, harm a minority? I seriously doubt it, but expressions of racism need not be violent; being denied college admission on that basis isn't. Moreover, they need not be as blatant as was the one I described above.

The other thing to keep in mind is that AA isn't put forth as a cure for racism, it's meant to be a cure for its impacts and to reduce the incidence of its manifestations. And therein -- along with the blatancy, and frequent lack thereof, of things and racism's covert existence -- we find the woeful shortcoming of programs like AA, but too it's where one finds the inadequacy of dispensing with them. One of the premises behind AA is that by forcing organizations to include minorities, even if there be racists controlling (to whatever extent) the "benefit giving" process, they cannot do so to minorities' detriment. Sure, there's an ethical component -- that of "making amends" -- to why AA exists, but it's not the only one. Indeed, I'm not sure "making amends" is even the main driver to AA's existence, even assuming it is a significant driver.

Now if we could be reasonably sure that racism is a rarefied thing in the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of folks who ascend to controlling positions in our institutions, I'd be fine with ending it. As my experience has show me, I really don't know how to be certain folks I know well don't hold such beliefs, let alone measure whether and when that has occurred in general society. Do you? Truth be told, I don't have much in my life that gives me the opportunity to observe discrimination; moreover, most of the people in my life are more than savvy enough, and selfish enough, not to let me see/hear them express racist acts/ideas. (I have a couple peers whom I know to be racists, but they have nothing to fear of me beyond my disdain, so they make no pretense with me; I have no control over them nor can I produce evidence that would make for successful legal action against them. They know that as well as I do.)

I can think of one thing we could do to help bring about a sooner end to AA as well as bias in the doling of benefits. We could stop asking folks to identify their race on things like college applications and dispense with interviews as part of the application/admissions process. Having offered that suggestion, I am aware that it's hardly a perfect solution. I'm sure there a lots of college applicants whose likelihood of academic success isn't fairly represented by their scores. Also, I am sure that won't work for things like obtaining many types of jobs, but it's a start; few job offerers are willing to give a job to someone whom they've not met, however cursorily. I sure wouldn't, but then the person's race hasn't ever and wouldn't have a thing to do with any job I've ever had to offer.

To close, I'll say again that it's not lost on me that the issue, at least as it stands now, has no perfect solution. I don't think we can today do something that is going to be perfectly equitable to everyone. The best we can presently achieve is to minimize the incidence and impact of the inequity.

 

[jwoodie]

I can't say "yes" or "no" with regard to the hypothetical child you identified. I can say that a minority child, black or otherwise, who is born today in U.S. is born to a nation in which there exist racists who consider that child inferior merely because it is not a white child. There is no way for me to assert whether any one or several of those racists will encounter the child and act on such biased beliefs that they hold.

This is why having an honest discussion about race is such a farce. Every pertinent question is met with diversion to glittering generalities.

As a matter of "should" they benefit, no. Will some of them likely benefit? Yes, unless someone can determine a way to prevent it. One must break eggs to make an omelette.

This is a nonsensical argument. Should we outlaw boiled eggs to ensure equality?

Please tell me what is the "this" to which you refer.

"This" is our system of placing people into categories, regardless of individual circumstances, and presupposing that they are incapable of personal achievement without special protections and privileges.

P.S. The "eggs" you are willing to break do not come from chickens, but from our Constitutional ideals of equality under the law. In case you missed it, the lady weighing the scales of justice is wearing a blindfold. Do you really want to enshrine a caste system in our country?