I listened to Walter Williams on the radio yesterday and he had a lot of answers of how special preferences, along with Affirmative Action, have hurt the black community.

For those living in a cave, Walter Williams is an economics professor at Georgetown University. And yeah, and to put it in his words, he just happens to be black ("black by popular demand" is his quote when he fills in for Rush Limbaugh).

When asked why blacks are so severely underemployed, he said the answers were obvious and simple.

First, they drop out of school at a disproportionate rate. It's much tougher to get a decent paying job without an education.

Secondly, with all things being equal, employers will choose a white over a black because statistically speaking, they can read at a high school level. On the average, blacks can't.

We've reduced the standards so much for blacks that on the average, when a black student graduates from high school, they have 8th grade abilities. Obviously, this isn't true in all cases, but this is the results of special programs like AA. We want the brightest and most qualified. Giving special considerations does not advance that cause.

DR, maybe you can spell out for me how special considerations for minorities in colleges and jobs affects their performance in high school? And also why females are more likely to graduate high school than males? Obviously, it must be because of affirmative action in college and the workforce...

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf03312/c1/c1s3.htm

Quote: "Females are more likely than males to graduate from high school. Among 25- to 29-year-olds in 1999, 90 percent of females and 86 percent of males had graduated from high school. (See appendix table 1-19.)"

Quote: "Although white students are more likely than black and Hispanic students to graduate from high school, gains in high school completion by blacks have narrowed the education gap. (See figure 1-4 .) In 1990, 90 percent of whites and 82 percent of blacks in the 25–29 age group had completed high school. By 1999, 93 percent of whites and 89 percent of blacks in that age range had completed high school. (See appendix table 1-19.)"




With all things being equal - me being the exact same as white Betty Smith over there - the employer will choose Betty because statistically speaking, they can read at a high school level? What???!!! If all things are equal, then we both read at the same level! Second of all, how stupid is an employer to consider what statistics say over their personal experience and interview with the applicant?!

"You know, I'd really like to hire LeBron - he's had 17 years of previous experience in the field, and he has his master's - but statistics show that he's more likely than a white applicant to have been incarcerated. And I just can't have ex-cons working in my office."

Pure idiocy. You are trying to blame affirmative action for results in things that it has no relationship to whatsoever. Affirmative action is not responsible for the condition of the black community. There is no one factor responsible for the condition of any society. Trying to blame affirmative action for the performance of blacks in high school is ridiculous.

If you want to know the real reasons why the black community is the way it is, I'll tell you. Culture is the biggest part of it. I look at Asians and I see that even the children of poor Asian families excel in nearly all aspects of school. It's because their culture encourages excellence in education. Black culture does not. Black culture encourages a host of counter-productive activities, and excellence in sports and music instead of education. This is, of course, their own fault, and until it changes and it is socially accepted and encouraged to excel at school, blacks will continue with their literacy rates and school drop outs.

The other part of it is racism/classism. When the amount of money that goes to a school depends upon the wealth of the neighborhoods it buses to, you will have a vicious cycle of wealthy kids getting the best education, and therefore the best jobs, and the poorer children getting the worst education, and therefore the worst job opportunities. What affirmative action tries to do is fix this situation after poorer kids have already gone through school, at colleges and jobs. What it needs to do is make all elementary, middle, and high schools equal so that everyone has an equal chance to succeed, instead of trying to correct the problem so late in the game at college and the workforce.

Of course, there's no accounting for personal motivation, so don't get me wrong there. Everyone is responsible for their own destiny. But there are severe imbalances that need to be corrected when it comes to the situations of the white, male, and/or the rich, and the non-white, female, and/or the poor.

I said or inferred no such thing.

Instead of demanding blacks acheive the same as anyone else, we've reduced the standards for them. This is what AA does and how it hurts.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my "all things being equal" statement or drawn a picture or something.

If a white kid and black kid, both high school graduates, apply for the same job that requires comprehensive skills (something that may pay more than say, a car wash), the employer may choose the white. Not based on race, but based on the fact that the black student may have had lower standards to fulfill than the white guy. That does the black person a disservice. AA and those types of programs punish the people who make adequate acheivements on a level playing field because it's not expected of them. We expect less with the results of AA programs.


I'm not sure how that ended up in the debate, but if I weren't so shallow, I'd be offended.

Edited to correct a misstatement

Citing suzysteamboat (with her kindest permission, I hope):
[QUOTE]If you want to know the real reasons why the black community is the way it is, I'll tell you. Culture is the biggest part of it. I look at Asians and I see that even the children of poor Asian families excel in nearly all aspects of school. It's because their culture encourages excellence in education. Black culture does not. Black culture encourages a host of counter-productive activities, and excellence in sports and music instead of education. This is, of course, their own fault, and until it changes and it is socially accepted and encouraged to excel at school, blacks will continue with their literacy rates and school drop outs."

Agree with you absolutely. Although many may disagree and proteset that indivudaul families should be judged and not community being labeled, but the truth is tha general or prevalent trend for many black families is such discouraging excellence in education and fosterin silly dr4eams of beconing a basketball player, actor/actress or rap star. Not only is this silly, it's detrimental to developement of the children and the overall image of community.
Undoubtedly there are many exceptions to this rule, esp. among the black middle class, but arguing against the fact that trend exists is futile, since overwhelming and ubiquitous evidence shatter any argument.

Dayton, in your post you say
excerpt:
"If a white kid and black kid, both high school graduates, apply for the same job that requires comprehensive skills (something that may pay more than say, a car wash), the employer may choose the white. Not based on race, but based on the fact that the black student may have had lower standards to fulfill than the white guy."
"...black student MAY HAVE HAD lower standards to fulfill than the white guy."
So based on statisical probability of lowered skill/diligence preparation level, this theoretical employer denies the position to black over white, although otherwise they are exactly the same. I am not saying that white should be denied postion because the spot is reserved for minority either, but denying something basing from Statistical probability is a no-no, it's another form of subtle discrimination. Affirmative action is perhaps to blame for it, but individual should be dealed with on individual basis, not as members of a group. Employer should hire an employee because of his quality, not because law obliges him to have certain # of minorities, not because an employee has a percentage risk of being incarcerated or having a disease, not because government lowers standards for minorities.

AA does a lousy service to minorities because by lowering standars for the minority(ies) it instills fear into employers to hire min., because they know that because bar is lower for them, OVERALL their preparedness for a job and willing to work harder is lower. Thus they try to avoid taking risk and are more reluctant to hire minorities because of this risk.

But regardless of all, individual should be treated as individuals, not as representatives and epitomes of the group.

Take a day or two off from this site and it turns into another street brawl against affirmative action. I think the preponderance of white male conservatives weighing in here only points out why Americas Debate needs some affirmative action recruitment of some more posters of color.

But I digress...

Dayton Rocker's fanciful notion that blacks can't read at the level of whites is one of those suppositions that sounds true, but without anything besides Walter Williams saying it is so, is nothing but a supposition.

I prefer facts. Here's one: By the end of World War II, illiteracy in the Black population had fallen to 11%, and was subsequently cut to 7% of blacks in 1959, and 1.6% in 1979. and here's another: Well into the 20th century, the struggle was for the most basic of educational skills, such as literacy. In 1890, three of every five African Americans ages 14 years and older were illiterate(1). This rate was almost cut in half, to 33% by 1910, and by 1930, fewer than one in every five blacks was illiterate.

http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/hi...al-trendsII.htm

Ever notice how it is that white conservatives trot out their trusty black house slave (sorry...I meant black conservative), to buttress their argument? It's funny that Walter Williams and his opinions about just about anything carry zero-minus-zero juice with other black folks! Wonder why that is? Maybe we're all just brainwashed by the liberals to think of ourselves as victims?

Yeah, that must be it.

Illuminati, you say that black families don't place the same value on education that Asians do? Interesting theory, but unless you have some facts to back it up a theory is all it is. I normally shy away from anecdotal stories, but I will let you in on a secret. My father was the first one in a family of 11 children to attend and graduate college. All five of his children attended college and three got their degrees and both of my two children are regular fixtures on the academic honor role and attendance.

Additionally, you might be surprised to know that a lot of Asians are rejecting that "model minority" status white conservatives have applied to them. But don't take my word for it. There's a movie called Better Luck Tomorrow gathering dust at your local Blockbuster about educated and intelligent Asian kids trying to cope with that model minority tag and the expectations that go along with it. http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll

Otherwise, your sweeping generalizations about the supposedly skewed values blacks place on athletics and music over academics are so far removed from reality as to be unworthy of rebuttal.

I'll quote nighttimer with your kindest permission:
"As long as minorities aren't equitably represented in education and on workforce we still need Affirmative Action. We need AA because of the continuing institutional and individual racism."

So what you're basically implying is that as long as proportion of minority in some field is not EXACTLY the same as in general population, it's a racism.

You don't need my permission to quote me Illuminati, but your interpretation of my words are yours alone. I'm not "implying" anything. I said "equitable" not "exactly" and there's a vast difference between the two words.

Finally Hobbes, I can't disagree with you that affirmative action fans the flames of racial resentment. This thread has made that abundantly clear. But I'll take white resentment over white racism any day of the week. Given time and more space than I have here I am certain that I could produce evidence that affirmative action in housing, education, hiring and other facets of contemporary life have given rise to a higher standard of living for minorities, the creation of a budding and thriving middle class, ample examples of minority success and achievement in business, politics, arts, academics, athletics and so on that would have been impossible for earlier generations to conceive.

The resentment of some whites to affirmative action is troublesome and regrettable, but is not a sufficient reason to end the program. The South felt it was unfairly singled out by the North for the way blacks were treated and resented the influx of "Northern agitators" in their affairs. White people have enjoyed the benefits of affirmative action that being born with white skin has bestowed upon them. However, I don't see affirmative action as a quid pro quoas much as it is an attempt to remedy the inequities created by slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Affirmative action remains a highly polarizing issue as I am certain that most (but not all) posters in this thread that are in opposition to it, do so out of reasons of fairness, equity, social justice, and a genuine urge to end ALL forms of racial discrimination. However, I've yet to see a reasonable and workable alternative offered beyond platitudes and pleas for a "colorblind society."

Walter Williams isn't the only black conservative with a point of view on affirmative action. Colin Powell has one too and unlike Williams, Powell does have considerable juice with blacks as well as white. I would direct you to my post of February 7th:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=4977&st=30

A colorblind society is a dream highly desired by most of us, but without a real world solution to bring it about, a dream is all that it is.

Very interesting article to your attention, nighttimer:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1177

"But I'll take white resentment over white racism any day of the week."

So you would rather prefer whites dicriminate against themsleves rather than allow for even a chance of dicrimination against blacks. That's very altruistic, and that's exactly the kind of policies white and black liberals are campaigning for. But that's agianst common sense and equality. Your solution is extreme and overreaching as well as ineffective (as statistics show). White society ceased the segregatory policies and discriminatory practices agaisnt blacks in 60s and 70s. But now, to ensure that racism is completely anihilated, let's build racist society favoring blacks and Hispanics, this way there certainly won't be racism. To them at least.
Of course it will create racial tensions and more intolerance and eventually spark more prejudice, but that's not important. What important is that we have achieved "equality" by sacrificing the rights of the majority of population to favor the minority of population.
God bless Left liberals and thier agenda of social "equality".

I don't think the "crutch" aspect of AA hurts minorities as much as the "unfair advantage" helps them.

I agree that there IS a disparity in "success" rates of "races". I tend to believe that, in this country especially, you are what you make of yourself. No one said it would be easy for everyone.

AA as it is is a reactive and racist measure, discriminating for and against applicants based on the color of their skin.

The people hurt by AA are those who are lose out to AA recipients, the marginal whites and the marginal males.

If this was about slavery, I must point out that these people never owned slaves. These individuals have never necessarily descriminated against anyone. But, because they're white, or male, or both, they don't get into this college or get that job.

The most insidious effect of AA is not that it degrades the value of 'success' for its recipients, its that it makes it legal to discriminate against whites/males. If AA was restructured to maintain the same effect, but do it with race neutral language, attacks against it would lose all steam. Of course this way, occasionally a poor white will be chosen over an equally qualified rich black, but it wouldn't be because of the color of his skin.

More facts from nighttimer's link.




Until this problem is addressed inequality will continue. Affirmative action is basically a wedge issue. The major problem is that 17 year old blacks and hispanics are comparable to 13 year old whites. Affirmative action gets all the attention, while we ignore the problems that lead to the need for affirmative action. We should get to the root of the problem, of course I am getting into that forbidden area again. Don't want this debate to be shut down.

Sorry, Joe, did not mean that last comment to be taken literally. Let me clarify my point. Affirmative action may indeed help a minority of the minority population. I seriously doubt that affirmative action ever ends up helping many students who function at a thirteen year old level at the age of seventeen. If affirmative action is drawing all the attention, as a tool for economic equality, a large segment of the population will never reach their full potential.

I also believe Democrats are spending political capital on this issue. I may view that as a positive. I am sure others on this board do not. Considering the near equal voter split between Democrats and Republicans the "white resentment" may well be the reason George W. Bush is president and may well help him get re-elected. Convincing poor whites to vote Republican is certainly aided by affirmative action programs.

Quoteing Hugo:
"We should get to the root of the problem, of course I am getting into that forbidden area again."
Exactly, the root of the problem. Irish used to be considered worse than black by many in the early XX century. If Irish moved into neighborhood, other whites moved out. Irish were despised. So were Chinese in the late XIX century. They were beaten and there even was a law passed by Congress prohibiting teir immigrarion. Italians were considered inferior Catholics by many. Poles and Eastern Europeans were denied jobs systematically and were scorned.
Yet all pf the ethnicities mentioned above successfully overcame the obstacles and solved their internal problems, elevating themselves in status and succesfully integrating into mainstream culture and assymilating themselves into American society.
They didn't have patronage of government and a crutch of AA to help them. Yet they overcame the intrinsic weaknesses within the community and hostility towards and earned a place under sun.

quute from Front Page magazine, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=1177:

"While the oppression theme dominates public discourse, no attention can be paid to the real problems that hold African-American children back. There is a symbiosis, in fact, between the political mumbo jumbo of the Kwiesi Mfumes and Jesse Jacksons (abetted mightily by patronizing white liberals) and the seemingly intractable social problems of the black community. The myth of racial oppression, invoked to explain every social deficit of blacks, is an exercise in psychological denial. Crying racism deflects attention from the actual causes of the problems that afflict African-American communities. Its net result is to deprive people and communities who could help themselves of the power to change their fate."

So as for this "unspoken, forbidden area", a.k.a. the black problem, let's face it, not try to whine about pseudo-discrimination and blame white man for all the evils and flaws. Black community should confront the fundamental flaws and try to improve itself, not try to lower the standards of society to fit it for themselves or muscle politicians into cutting them a slack.
Blunt, but true.

- opinion of a private citizen, illuminati

Yes it is harmful and yes there is a better way.

Why do we reduce standards to ensure certain groups have an "equal" chance at a job?

For example, back in the early 90s, NYC was being criticized for having very low minority and female participation in the fire department.

The city responded by spending alot of money to study the problem and then reduce the physical requirements for women and reduce the difficulty of the written tests for everyone.

How does this benefit society?

Would it not have been better to use the money they spent on "fixing" the tests and reducing the standards on building a gym and classroom? They could have funded a program that actively recruited women and minorities and then trained and educated those in need to bring them up to the levels they needed to be at to pass the test, rather then bringing the test down to them?

Education is obviously worse in low income areas. But can we not create programs that educate people who want the knowledge needed for a certain job to insure the professional level remains high in that job rather then reducing quality of personnel by lowering standards? Especially jobs where peoples lives are on the line?

As for the physical requirements and women. I have know many women who were more fit then I was, stronger then I was, and had a greater endurance. I could pass the old test then, so I know hey could have as well. Why reduce the physical requirements to bring in more women, rather then give them the opportunity and training to get up to the needed level?

The average member of the public is not getting lighter (in fact they seem to be getting heavier) and firefighters will still have to carry them out. What if they can't physically do it? Do we chalk up that persons life to the cost of equalizing society?

I think we take the wrong approach all too often, and professional standards are suffering all over the country as a result. Don't spend money bringing standards down, spend it bringing applicants up.

I will just post something to allow for further discussion...

U.S. to Be Half Minority by 2050

What do people think of this news? Whites will only comprise of 50.1% of the nation while the other half will be made up minorities such as Asians. Hispanics, and African-Americans. Will this call for more affirmative action in the coming years as minority populations rise or will it destroy the idea of affirmative action because whites will no longer be the solid majority?

I myself believe affirmative action is harmful mostly for a lot of the points already brought up. There are two sides of the spectrum right now...First, affirmative action allows minorities to compete with whites but is also discriminatory which is unconstitutional. The other side is that without affirmative action, the whites may out-perform minorities and thise very minorities may dive deeper into poverty as whites will emerge as the "superior race" in terms of economy and education. Its a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. There has to be a better system that will enable minorities to compete without the use of affirmative action...we just haven't found it yet.

For some reason it doesn't surprise me that someone who uses as their avatar a shot from American History X (a film about white racism starring Edward Norton and Edward Furlong), should find aid and comfort for his views in the race-baiting ravings and droolings of David Horowitz.

I'm very familiar with Big Dave. I've interviewed the dude and exchanged e-mails with him. In the two articles I've written about the guy I pretty much figured out his game from jump street.

David Horowitz is mad at Black people. The world of African Americans is a awful place according to the conservative racial intellectual. Blacks hate America. Blacks are "anti-White." African-Americans favor "black separatism." Blacks refuse to accept responsibility for their own problems, choosing instead to wallow in self-pitying "victimization." In his latest book, "Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes," Horowitz suggests that being White in America is almost a crime and the reverse-racism of Blacks is to blame. Horowitz recently appeared on a right-wing radio show in San Diego and had this conversation with a Black caller:

HOROWITZ: "I was in the civil rights movement in the 60’s…I fought against discrimination. It’s forty years ago. I don’t hear black leaders today say ‘this country is the best country that we could be living in. It has so blessed us as a people."

CALLER: Is it the best when people still don’t get jobs because of the color of their skin?

HOROWITZ: I don’t see a lot of black people leaving this country to go to a better one.

CALLER: I don’t see a lot of white people leaving either.

HOROWITZ: "…the white people don’t go around saying how horrible it is all the time and remembering things that happened 30 or 40 years ago. Your thinking is so incredibly negative. You don’t appreciate the fact that you have more opportunity in this country, more rights, more privileges than you would have anywhere in the world including every black run country in the world." "You don’t appreciate that 350-thousand whites gave their lives to free the slaves and if it weren’t for the United States and Britain there would be slavery all over the world today and that there is still slavery in Africa. The legal strategy of the NAACP that integrated the schools and everything was done by white people. 90% of the Republican and Democratic parties in congress voted for the civil rights act. Trillions of dollars have been given to poor black people in this country because white people want them to succeed. Have a little graciousness, say thank you once in a while."

Hilarious stuff. What a funny guy that Horowitz is.

Throwing around the words of a guy that flipped from a radical in the 60's to a reactionary in the 90's means very little to me Illuminati. A guy like David Horowitz who became the epitome of everything he once stood against only makes me wonder was he full of crap then, or just full of crap now?

At the time when Horowitz's Hating Whitey (catchy title) was clogging up space at the local Barnes & Noble I reviewed it and wrote: There’s not a single thing David Horowitz can tell a Black person about what it means to be Black in America. All he can do is illuminate how really fed up with Blacks certain clusters of White America is. "Hating Whitey" presumes to inform us how racial relations have gone so far astray from Martin Luther King’s dream. However, any insights are buried under Horowitz’s gratuitous attacks on any Black that doesn’t share his political philosophy. His annoying egotism and self-righteous view of his own relationship with Blacks is Great White Father paternalism at its worst.

So, I don't really lose any sleep if you and Hugo and every other opponent of affirmative action resents the policy. If you don't like it, there's the voting booth. Change it. But you'd better hurry because by 2050 there's going to be a bit of a change in who the majority and minority is in America.

The only thing that white people have that black people need, or should want, is power-and no one holds power forever.

--- James A. Baldwin

Nighttimer, and I hope you don't take offense to this because the comparison I'm making is nothing personal, I know you don't think this way, but... That's the exact same attitude that segregationists took back in the day. Except they probably wouldn't have added that last bit about who's going to be the minority. While I certainly do not agree with Dave Horowitz, I do think that more thought needs to be put into the anti-AA POV. We [those against AA], are told that AA levels the playing fields...For whom? African Americans...We are told that AA will eliminate racism, but we know that that won't happen...At the begginning of this thread I asked whether society as a whole would be harmed or helped by AA. Now if you aren't an African American, or a women, it doesn't help you at all, it harms you...While AA could be seen as helpful to African Americans and women [I personally don't feel that way], it certainly cannot be seen as helpful to everyone else.

CP

Is that kind of like when you designate any black who has a conservative view as a "happy house slave"? Talk about cottage cheese calling milk white.

Another generation of blacks and hispanics, who will make up nearly 50% of our population by 2050, are going ty be served quite poorly by current policies. Erasing the achievement gap between white vs. black and brown is an issue for us all. Affirmative action programs divide the populace and fail to improve the socio-economic situation of more than a small percentage of minority groups.

Actually I have come across a single study that would seem to indicate that when blacks and whites enter college with similar test scores that blacks outperform their white peers. I believe the purpose of an admission or hiring policy is to get the individual with the most potential success admitted or hired. I can agree with any affirmative action program that has this as a goal. When I hired people that was always my goal; to get the best applicant. Once again the root problem is the average 17 year old black student is testing out at the level of an average 13 year old white student.

Actually, Horowitz has been fairly consistent, color-blind in the '60's and color-blind now.

I hoped that the debate would not become argumentum ad hominem, but obviously nighttimer has something personal with me. If American History X is to you a movie about racism, well, then I guess you are only able to perceive superficial picture and don't understand the content exemplifying underlying sociological problems of the contemporary America. Surely many arguments are presented in the movie from biased and even bigoted point of view, but very much of what Norton (Derek) says is true and very poignant to this country. For some reason America wishes to shut its eyes on these problems and prefer to be blind to them. American History X is, imo, one of the most brilliant and socially significant films of late XX century, one of the very few films that discuss societal gashes. But if you only see racism and skinhead violence in this film, I cannot make you understand the meaning of it.

As the matter of fact, I expected this sort of response from you. People with political persuasions similar to yours are known to label anyone who disagrees with liberal agenda bigots, racists, sexists, etc. So I am not at all surprised to be called redneck racist just because I think favoring minorities is unjust.

Also, considering that we cannot with certainty predict next week's weather forecast and outcome of the next presidential election, economy, Iraq, and others, prediction of demographic makeup of the US in 46 years is way to unreliable. You cannot expect population growth trends to continue at the same rate as they do now indefinetely. Many things will change, many factors will differ. Even short-term predictions are prone to errors, and prognosis of this scale is just bound to be erroneous.

Don't like Horowitz, nighttimer? Read Tamy Bruce, a former NOW activists turned renegade because she saw the decadence of her organization, lunacy of the leftist libertarian agenda and intimidation tactics used by many liberal "civil rigts"organization. "Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce.
As you see, many members of these organizations resign from them because they cannot tolerate the corruption of values and mutation of ideals from truly equality-promoting liberal/progressive to something like AA.

Hilarious stuff. I'll wait and see when America will get sick and tired of this liberalist agenda of the Left that doesn't really promote equality anymore.