A Startling Statistic at UCLA

Parents Forum
301

<br>


<br>

<p>absolutely amazing writing. The difference is between peer shenanigans and institutionalized disapproval. It is possible and far easier for the white kid, despite the many voices to the contrary, to maintain a belief in the goodness of the wider world, especially when she has been supported at home. It is entirely easy to see how, without a few counterbalances here and there, she might have become a drooling mess.</p>

<p>I imagine you are puzzled, as I am, given your background, as to how you managed to break through into this level of clarity?</p>

302

<p>I guess in the old days these kinds of attitudes would be called "having a chip on your shoulder." People with those chips on their shoulders never got ahead. I've known many blacks since the '70's (my sister in law is black) and they have all been successful because they <em>joke</em> about the attitude of "four hundred years of oppression." But these are the lucky ones, the survivors, the naturally resilient. I understand it's not that easy for the majority of kids.</p>

<p>I think EK and others are right on many points, but I can't lay the blame entirely on the family either. Many people of my parents' generation were children of poor/lower middle class immigrants who in <em>one generation</em> raised themselves up into the middle class, and in another generation, to upper middle class. Many of these people also had disfunctional families (especially alcoholism), yet they were able to learn in school - in fact, it was demanded that they learn <em>in school.</em> These people did not have enriching homelives - books laying around the house. My mother and my father-in-law left school in the eighth grade (which was common then), and I had never seen either one spell a word wrong in perfect handwriting. They were both perfectly able to function in a middle class world.</p>

<p>What has happened to our schools? I think many have bought into the excuse-making/feel good mindset and our kids have been harmed by it. Kids are "graduating" at 18 without the skills previous generations had at 13/14. In the days of my parents' generation, 1920's, the school picked up the slack for kids of poor/immigrant/broken/disfunctional families. Our schools are failing at this. </p>

<p>From 6/12/06 Christian Science Monitor: "According to a Manhattan Institute analysis of government data from 2003, at least 40% of students failed to graduate in the nation's 10 largest public districts. Results are even more distressing for minority students, especially boys. Less than 1/2 of black and Hispanic males will earn a high school diploma at the current graduation rate." We continue to pour more and more money into these places, and they are doing worse and worse at retaining and educating these students to an eighth grade level. We were all shocked at the underclass which emerged after Katrina. That underclass has faded back into the wordwork once again. At some point I have to wonder if our schools have a different goal in mind other than education for some segments of our society.</p>

303

<p>
[quote]
I imagine you are puzzled, as I am, given your background, as to how you managed to break through into this level of clarity?

[/quote]
Yeah, somewhat puzzled. I know it was no breakthrough. College helped a lot, since it exposed me to a much wider range of people than I had ever before encountered. You know, you go out into the world with certain assumptions, and people for the most part act in ways that pretty much support what you believe. But then there are always those anomalies who just make you sit up and wonder if your worldview is the way it really is, and if the way you see things is the way they have to be. Then there is my wife, who is just so alive no matter what people think that she is just a walking contradiction of my perceptions. Through her, I have gained a lot of faith, at least enough to take risks and question whether I am seeing the truth. There is also now my children, who are dreaming so big and moving so powerfully, going so far above anything I could ever have imagined, that I am kinda at a point where I think maybe I got a lot of this stuff wrong.</p>

<p>But I still think I got a lot of it right too.</p>

304

<p>then again maybe we're just grumpy fathers/husbands in a situation comedy, cast in a tribe of marvelous beauties that dance around our immovable frowns,..</p>

<p>I didn't even have to audition!</p>

305

<p>


</p>

<p>Substitute "conservatives" for "blacks" ,"liberals" for "whites"</p>

<p>Blacks may be quite attracted to academia, but perhaps they are not generally the most accomplished of scholars. If they are not generally the most accomplished , they probably won't be as well represented in academia as whites. So the fault is not academia. Blacks ought to just get with it and do something more than whining on Coombs about not being as well-represented as whites in college.</p>

306

<p>emeraldkity, what is the justification for excluding non-minority students from the special programs in your district?</p>

307

<p>Ive complained about if to the district and to the school,but it is generally assumed that non minority students are not in need of any special programs. Probably for the same reason only minority students are eligible for Gates grants.- There are some things available like Summer school, which isn't dependent on race, but it is of limited benefit, I hope this year will be different.</p>

<p>Asian students however, have a higher graduation rate and GPA than Caucasian students, but they are still included in minority programs
I don't have a problem with programs for students that need help, but look at how students are doing, not just at their skin color.</p>

<p>I have tried to get my daughter reassesed for an IEP, now that she is at a different school, but they have told me that she wouldn't be able to be in the classes she is now, she would be in "special" classes that were at a lower level.</p>

<p>When she attended teh K-12 school & had an individualized education program ( ha- which was never looked at after it was written), I saw teachers who would assume, despite my protests, that because I was volunteering in the building every week, that because she was white, that she was doing fine in school, depsite actually performing at least two years below grade level in some areas. </p>

<p>They also would assume that minority students ( particularly blacks- not asians) were underperforming and were low income, even though their parents were educated, had a nice house & cars that we could ever afford and were involved with their kids, they just didn't come to school much.</p>

<p>The school district has been very poorly managed and has limited money-but they could save money if they gave students support when they first showed indications of needing it, than waiting until they were so far behind.
The governor for example has a special task force( w funding) to address the class of 2008 who are at risk of not graduating because of problems taking the WASL test.</p>

<p>Some districts began with extra classes last year, but in Seattle they just crossed their fingers and hoped they would have better test scores.
The WASL incidentally, which I beleive is written and scored by those folks who score the SAT, doesn't allow accomodations on tests, except for extra time. My daughter has learning disabilities as I have mentioned, and she did not pass the test when it was given earlier in 4th & 7th grades.
Students who didn't pass it before, should have been getting extra help so that they would have had a better chance.
Instead they are told that when they fail it 4 times, then they may use an alternative assessment.- possibly.</p>

308

<p>Dross, what I was getting at in post #296 was that life involves a lot of little decisions, like "Should I go to a movie or should I study my chemistry textbook?" Or, "Should I go play some tennis or should I practice the SAT?" Since acceptance at the top colleges is super-competitive for Asians, it gives them even MORE incentive to hit the books every time they come to one of those little decisions. I'm speculating that Affirmative Action has the opposite effect on URMs. On another thread it was discussed how the acceptance rate for Blacks was about 50% at Williams, and about 70% at Middlebury. If that's the way it works, then what's the incentive for Blacks to try to push that 3.6 gpa up to 3.8?</p>

309

<p>
[quote]
On another thread it was discussed how the acceptance rate for Blacks was about 50% at Williams, and about 70% at Middlebury. If that's the way it works, then what's the incentive for Blacks to try to push that 3.6 gpa up to 3.8?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The numbers are all relative. If only 4 people apply to middlebury and they accept 3 then yes they have accepted 75% of the students who apply. </p>

<p>However, according to Middlebury's own common data set for 2004-2008 (class of 08) </p>

<p><a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FD32E8A7-F45B-493C-B388-E75DC9F35793/0/04cds_b.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FD32E8A7-F45B-493C-B388-E75DC9F35793/0/04cds_b.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>all of this netted out to 18 african american freshmen students out of 577 freshmen (2.85%)</p>

<p>Lets say for example every african american who got admitted attended, then this means a whole 24 people applied so that 18 could be admitted. Middlebury would be hard pressed if they overall admitted 50 students during this cycle.</p>

<p>63 african american students out of 2357 total undergrad. (2.67%)</p>

<p>I guess the whopping increase of 2 for a total of 20 African American students enrolling for the class of 2009 (3.61%), and the total enrollment of 66 african americans for a overall percentage of 2.7%, must mean African Americans are attending in droves .</p>

<p><a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/F5D55D7F-AD70-45D3-8068-15E2E28D1B8E/0/CDS2005_2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/F5D55D7F-AD70-45D3-8068-15E2E28D1B8E/0/CDS2005_2006.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

310

<p>TourGuide446:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you intentionally tried to ensure that a group did not raise its level of performance to the level of other groups, probably the first thing you would do is configure the situation such that its members' lower performance was deemed equal to the other groups' higher performance. In other words, take away the incentive to achieve parity.

[/quote]

[quote]
Dross, what I was getting at in post #296 was that life involves a lot of little decisions, like "Should I go to a movie or should I study my chemistry textbook?" Or, "Should I go play some tennis or should I practice the SAT?" Since acceptance at the top colleges is super-competitive for Asians, it gives them even MORE incentive to hit the books every time they come to one of those little decisions.

[/quote]
Yeah. I’ve thought about your point here and, instead of lumping the general challenge blacks face in our society with the challenge of our having to stand up against whites and Asians academically, I removed society from the equation and looked at the possible effect of AA on blacks having all things equal. I think the results would very likely be exactly as you say because people rarely if ever grow in easier conditions. It is amid challenge that they grow. So yeah. I think you probably have a valid point, much to my chagrin.</p>

<p>Do social challenges equal academic challenges so that I am able to legitimately join them as I do? I don’t think they do for the obvious reason that social challenges don’t necessarily or even typically deal with the relatively narrow but significant technical skills humans employ during purely academic pursuits. Yet blacks need every bit as many academic challenges as everyone else, including the challenges associated with admissions. I think the social aspect of being black in America is where we need a leg up. Unfortunately, society is hardly philosophical enough to make distinctions between the two.</p>

<p>AA likely tries to give us that leg up academically so that increasing numbers of us can acquire the skills, knowledge, experience and resulting wealth needed to overcome our social challenges. And I think it seems to be working, though it unfortunately also seems to be creating additional social challenges as people raise questions of fairness and merit.</p>

<p>If the concern of anti-AA proponents truly is the strengthening of blacks, and not to keep us down, then I think maybe anti-AA proponents should make the appeal you are making, being sure to keep in mind the lack of trust that perhaps makes many of us hold onto AA as we do. Up to now, yall just seem like enemies. I’m trying to understand many who oppose AA, and I think I see how it can be destructive in some ways to us. Still, I wish to hold onto AA for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I think it is still working more good than evil (though I must acknowledge its evil),</p></li>
<li><p>I just don’t trust AA’s opponents to be rigorously decent. When I say “rigorously decent” I’m talking about being decent just for the sake of being decent, just deciding to really go ALL OUT for decency regardless of any emotion or anything like that. I guess a part of me is questioning this thing and agreeing with you. But a more circumspect part of me is saying that if AA were as harmful to blacks as you claim, racists and neo-nazis would be coming out of the woodwork to support AA. But they aren’t. In fact they are coming out of the woodwork to support your view. They have unanimously joined your side of the issue, and that makes it almost impossible for me to get there with you. In fact, I just want to fight these scoundrels to the death – their death, of course.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I fear you’ll just destroy AA and leave us to suffer as has always been the case in history. You will take the little help that AA provides, and then act as if the historic injustice we’ve incurred just does not exist, or that we should just ignore it and “move on”. I do not have faith that America will be considerate, or that it will be fair, keeping in mind its historical wrongs against us as we try to work ourselves out of our problems.</p>

311

<p>
[quote]
I didn't even have to audition!

[/quote]
LOL. Me either. Everyone marvels at just how good I am at this part. I'm Oscar material, man.</p>

312

<p>drosselmeier - before you dismiss my assertions as one sided assumptions (and do so conclusorily without any facts to back it up)...see the comment below from a fairly liberal University professor that supports my statements: </p>

<hr>

<p>The wider implications of the Ward Churchill verdict are stunning.</p>

<p>Given the egregious findings here by a distinguished panel of professors, the question is not merely Ward Churchill’s writings alone. The question is: how was it that this charlatan was promoted three times, first to tenure and associate professor, then to full professor—and finally to CHAIR of the Department of Ethnic Studies at Colorado?</p>

<p>The first two promotions could ONLY have happened via the receipt of approval letters from prominent people in the Ethnic Studies field. This process must have been carried out twice, first for tenure then for full professor, and must have involved at least six and probably as many as ten prominent professors of Ethnic Studies. Yet they noticed no problems. What does that say about them as scholars? What does it say about Ethnic Studies as a valid intellectual field? In fact, the Report appears to indicate (p. 5) that Ethnic Studies is not held to the same scholarly standards as other, more traditional fields of intellectual endeavor in the humanities and social sciences. I cannot figure out whether the Report also means to imply that Ethnic Studies SHOULD not be held to those same standards. I hope that is not what the authors of the Report mean.</p>

<p>Furthermore,—but this would be the most difficult thing to do—those administrators at Colorado who approved Ward Churchill’s tenure and associate professorship, who then approved Ward Churchill’s promotion to full professor, and who then and finally approved Ward Churchill’s elevation to Departmental Chair all deserved to be disciplined. THEY are as culpable as the politically corrupt or incompetent scholars who approved Churchill’s career all along the line via the writing of positive external-review letters at the time of his promotions. But these adminisrtators will be the most protected by the system. I know someone who, when interviewing for a job at Colorado in 1997, was told that Churchill was a fraud, and that everyone knew it. The university, according to the Report, was in receipt of major complaints against Churchill as early as 1996. So—who DIDN’T know Churchill was a fraud? Yet he was promoted to full professor AFTER 1997, and then eventually to Chair of his Department. One needs to investigate why. Were they physically afraid of him? Were they afraid of the criticism they would receive from his supporters if they objected? Were they so supportive (or afraid) of his politics that this trumped any doubts about his worth as a scholar?</p>

<p>That having been said, the source of this investigation of Churchill—an investigation that should have happened long ago—was itself purely political, and that is bothersome.</p>

<p>Arthur M. Eckstein, Professor of History, University of Maryland</p>

<hr>

<p>So my views are one-sided? Again, completely laughable. And again, somewhat conclusory and not well thought out. And note Prof. Eckstein, as many of us share, is uncomfortable that this investigation was started because of Churchill's views. But how this utter fraud got where he was speaks volumes about what is going on at many universities, and it needs to be addressed. </p>

<hr>

<p>In a similar vein, you completely and ridiculously miss the point about conservatives whining about lack of opportunity in academia. I could care less, and so could most people. But the harm that is caused, and it is significant, is to the institutions themselves. If all the universities hear are their own echoes and fail to inculcate true diversity of opinion they get lazy and the quality of the institutions suffers. Without true competition for ideas, there simply is less progress. A close friend and professor who was Clinton's head of the FTC once told me that as liberal, he could not at first stomach many of the Chicago school''s economic precepts, but over time he absolutely thought it made the antitrust profession better because the Chicago school focused everyone on getting the most bang for the antitrust buck - meaning preventing the most significant economic injury (i.e., first and foremost horizontal market allocation, or good old price fixing). This is the idea behind competition - and it is lacking a balance right now. Why you miss this point is beyond me. </p>

<hr>

<p>And finally, thoughtful critics of AA are not out to empirically prove whether AA is "good" for blacks or "bad" for others, but that by defining people singly by race and giving an advantage to someone based solely (or principally) on that factor disrupts incentives that are key to healthy meritocracies and puts institutions in the business of social engineering (a slippery slope and ever changing and often losing proposition) as opposed to creating the best intellectual product they can. AA critics also rightly question the efficacy of such programs since they reach so few and the problems at hand are much, much greater.</p>

313

<p>mam1959:</p>

<p>
[quote]
drosselmeier - before you dismiss my assertions as one sided assumptions (and do so conclusorily without any facts to back it up)...see the comment below from a fairly liberal University professor that supports my statements:

[/quote]
I question whether Art Eckstein is “fairly liberal”. Moreover, his vitriol here seems rigidly focused against Churchill and Colorado University, and NOT generally against ‘liberal universities’. So it just does not seem Eckstein’s comments really support your view at all.</p>

<p>I actually think Eckstein overreaches here in his piece. Yeah. He might be able to claim Churchill was sloppy, ideological, inept, without talent, basically incapable of controlling his biases, but to actually go so far as to publicly claim the guy is a fraud seems to me rather dangerous territory. You yourself seem to assume Churchill is a fraud, agreeing with Eckstein (which to me seems possibly careless and yes, one-sided). But have you really taken care to investigate the legal meaning of the term? It may be that Churchill can find a decent defense that would not allow anyone to convict him of fraud at all. I’d just be careful before I go and throw around stuff like this. I think Eckstein is too heated in his assault to allow me to accept his view, even his view on Churchill, without my taking a more critical posture. I’m certainly not defending Churchill. I just know there is a LOT of stuff going on here that needs to be sorted out before I jump on your bandwagon. Churchill would have been humming along just fine, for example, had he not made his comments on 911. Once he did that, the right tasted blood and went after the guy with everything they have. It is probably good that Churchill is being nailed, but I think it is to possibly go too far to claim he is an out and out fraud.</p>

<p>But I can work to accept Eckstein’s view on Churchill because I think he does have enough evidence to make a reasoned case, if he would just calm down and make the case without employing passion as if it was a legitimate argument. I understand the guy is upset, but if you are gonna go after a particular living and breathing person, it seems to me you really need to be clean-thinking and as clear as possible. No blooming way can I accept Eckstein’s VAST overreaching to sully the name of Colorado University simply because of this one episode. If Churchill is indeed a fraud as Eckstein claims, then it stands to reason that he may have been successful at fraudulence, even on a university campus. People, even college administrators and professors, are fallible. It could very easily be the case that after working for years and years within a system that has produced very fine work, these people began to trust the system and Churchill, being a fraud, as you and Eckstein allege, exploited it. It happens. I do not think this situation warrants that we do what Eckstein is doing to Colorado U (CU). In fact, I think he is overreaching and I find it distasteful.</p>

<p>I think it is obvious that you also are overreaching and that it is possibly because you are holding too rigidly to the assumption of a blindly liberal general university system that virulently excludes conservatives merely because they are conservatives. You are trying to use this one very limited situation to claim discrimination against conservatives when the circumstance with Churchill has absolutely nothing to do with this. At the very best you might claim that universities are blinded by liberal bias, using CU to support your position. But even here it would be a terribly weak case, don’t you think? There are just too many possibilities concerning CU’s motives. Moreover, CU is actually taking steps to make a correction. If it were as blind as perhaps you are claiming, it would be completely uncaring of those who’ve come after Churchill. It has to be hard to run a university because you may have a lot of people saying stuff that angers a lot of other people, and you will have to balance free speech/inquiry concerns with everything else. And this means you can’t just up and investigate or fire a professor just because a bunch of people whine against him. So, we might claim CU is biased or liberal or whatever, but it may have been wringing its metaphorical hands to figure out how to make the best decisions to take care of the problem while protecting the image of the university. We may not agree with how it handled the situation, but we ain heading this school. I don’t think it is fair, though, to make some of the claims you and Eckstein appear to be making.</p>

<p>And it seems completely impossible to reasonably accept that this situation really supports your general point. I think you can possibly make the case that liberals largely outnumber conservatives in the universities (I do not yet think you have made the case, however), but I don’t think you can prove this is generally because of ideology. If you can indeed prove it, I do believe you have failed to do it thus far. I think it is fine to give your personal opinions on this stuff. I do it all the time, but I don’t think my opinions rise to the level of objective fact, and I think likewise about yours - so far. I am not dismissing your stuff, and I actually made the comment about assumptions intending to direct it generally. I just honestly don’t see that I have enough evidence to accept what you seem to be trying to do with Churchill, with CU and with American universities. I mean, does Eckstein go as far as you do with this evidence? I think not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In a similar vein, you completely and ridiculously miss the point about conservatives whining about lack of opportunity in academia. I could care less, and so could most people. But the harm that is caused, and it is significant, is to the institutions themselves.

[/quote]
Okay, but they don’t seem to have a problem with all this “harm” you are talking about. They probably think they have a nice, healthy mix of diverse views and therefore need not wring their hands about increasing this kind of diversity. So then who is to judge, you, who perhaps are not a school administrator, or should the administrators decide? Maybe they do indeed lack diversity here. I’m just trying to get you to see that your assumptions here are not necessarily Gospel. People really do have differing perceptions on singular objects. I think the way to sort through these is to work very hard to see the opposing guy’s view, holding your own assumptions as lightly as you can. Admittedly, it is very tough, but I think it may work. All this “beat the other guy down and take over” stuff just hasn’t seemed to work for us.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If all the universities hear are their own echoes and fail to inculcate true diversity of opinion they get lazy and the quality of the institutions suffers. Without true competition for ideas, there simply is less progress...

[/quote]
And just exactly when do you get all this “true diversity”? And are you gonna cut down others to get it? If so, then you are basically just talking Affirmative Action that substitutes views for race. And if not, then how? I really think you have no historical basis to implement viewpoint based Affirmative Action, since no one has ever been enslaved for being a conservative. But America is a strange place. So I could be wrong here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And finally, thoughtful critics of AA are not out to empirically prove whether AA is "good" for blacks or "bad" for others, but that by defining people singly by race and giving an advantage to someone based solely (or principally) on that factor disrupts incentives that are key to healthy meritocracies and puts institutions in the business of social engineering (a slippery slope and ever changing and often losing proposition) as opposed to creating the best intellectual product they can.

[/quote]
Yeah. I see this and agree with it. The problem is, I don’t think these guys are being all that “thoughtful” when they focus ONLY on the unfairness of AA, without consideration for the comprehensive, centuries-long unfairness of pro-white AA that has existed against blacks almost for the entire time blacks have been in America. I don’t think there is much thoughtfulness here at all, which is really the big problem as far as I am concerned.</p>

<p>
[quote]
AA critics also rightly question the efficacy of such programs since they reach so few and the problems at hand are much, much greater.

[/quote]
Yeah. I question it too. But then again, I do see black progress, slow as it is, and I suspect at least some of it was made possible by AA. So I question whether these programs are NOT efficacious enough to warrant their existence.</p>

314

<p>I barely read this post....too many pages. But I just want to say this; if UCLA instutes/instituted an AA policy, and next year they had, say 300 black kids in the freshman class, they would be looked at by the rest of the school's population as only having gotten in for that reason. </p>

<p>How would you feel knowing that everyone else was looking down on you and felt like you didn't deserve to be there, whether or not you did?</p>

315

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>In a previous post you mentioned Booker T. Washington. You should re-read "Up From Slavery." Mr. Washington is an excellent example of someone (of any race) who worked very hard to pull himself up by his own bootstraps, despite coming from very adverse circumstances. He certainly had dramatically more justification for blaming his failures on historical slavery (because it directly affected HIM as a boy) than you do, but he instead concentrated on developing himself, rather than worrying about why others had a headstart compared to him. He also observed some self-defeating behaviors among blacks of his time (e.g. spending too much money trying to impress others, etc.).</p>

<p>For an interesting perspective on how 20th and 21st Century blacks were/are adversely affected by historical racism as opposed to the liberal policies of the 1960's or so, you should try reading Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. Trying to blame much of the difficulties that are prevalent in modern American black communities on historical slavery does not work very well when you examine black families and academic achievement in the 1940's and 1950's in relation to current trends.</p>

<p>Racially-determined slavery was certainly tragic, but it no longer exists in the U.S. If you truly want people to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then at some point you need to stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop making excuses for other people based on their histories and instead suggest that they work on developing their own character. I know many people of all races who have overcome extraordinarily difficult circumstances through hard work. I have never met one who succeeded by feeling sorry for himself.</p>

316

<p>
[quote]
Drosselmeier,In a previous post you mentioned Booker T. Washington. You should re-read "Up From Slavery." Mr. Washington is an excellent example of someone (of any race) who worked very hard to pull himself up by his own bootstraps, despite coming from very adverse circumstances.

[/quote]
Okay. Yeah. But in any group some will achieve more than others. Does this justify our overlooking the wrongs done to the entire group, especially when those wrongs infringe upon the natural rights of them all? I just don’t think so.</p>

<p>Sure, BT. Washington did great things. But he never could achieve beyond what the racist System allowed him to achieve. The man had big dreams for himself and for blacks, but he never could even realize half those dreams. He could not even work freely toward them, which was his God-given right, because he was severely restricted, even physically beaten by the System. So can we reasonably employ his example of how the past can be overcome?</p>

<p>
[quote]
He certainly had dramatically more justification for blaming his failures on historical slavery (because it directly affected HIM as a boy) than you do…

[/quote]
And Einstein had dramatically more justification than perhaps any of us for blaming his failures in science on historical pressures or a lack of equipment, etc., etc.. I wouldn’t think it very reasonable to saddle ourselves with the requirement of being as able as Einstein regardless of our history. The world ain’t exactly stuffed to the gills with Einsteins. And neither is it stuffed with B.T. Washingtons.</p>

<p>Hey. I am just a simple guy who perceives an unrighted wrong and who thinks programs like AA can help ameliorate the fallout of that wrong. Just because I lack the capability to act in the same way as B.T. Washington offers us no justification at all for claiming I have no right to point to the wrong. It does not even offer us an argument that I should not point to the wrong. After all, with his approach, B.T. Washington patently failed to use what was his right to use. The System just simply would not allow him to do his work. So I would not exactly point to his example as proof of usefulness of ignoring the past.</p>

<p>In truth, I don’t focus on blaming the past for my failures. I am trying to defend AA by explaining (trying!) how I think the past affects the present. Whether we wish to acknowledge it, the past actually does affect the present. Many people are wounded because of it, and as a group they no more have the capability to be B.T. Washington as you or I can be Einstein.The issue is that a wrong has taken place against them in the form of modern day racism. This wrong extends back to the evil of Jim Crow which existed just a relative few years ago. And this wrong came right out of the comprehensive evil of chattel slavery. B.T. Washington’s life can by no means exempt our society from its responsibility for the results of that history. Yeah. Society is trying hard to ignore it, to blame blacks for it, but the moral corruption of it still exists.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but [Washington] instead concentrated on developing himself, rather than worrying about why others had a headstart compared to him. He also observed some self-defeating behaviors among blacks of his time (e.g. spending too much money trying to impress others, etc.).

[/quote]
I don’t exactly think blacks were generally spending all this money because at the time they had very little money. Washington instead argued against the philosophy of gaining upward mobility by protesting for the right to spend money at white venues (whether they had money or not). This philosophy was one that competed with Washington’s belief that blacks would gain mobility by working in trades.Washington’s philosophy may have worked. It was his God-given right to try it in freedom. But whites directly denied him that right. They attacked, maimed and killed blacks, and as Washington continued to follow your advice here, which is not to blame others for failure but to “pick yourself up”, blacks lost faith and drifted to the competing belief of protesting for rights. Out of that change came the Civil Rights Movement, ML King, Jesse Jackson and even Al Sharpton. So it quite escapes me how we can say Washington’s ideas are so much more superior to anything else when his competition has prevailed.</p>

<p>I am not slamming Washington here, mind you. I actually support much of his philosophy. I am just trying to show why I think it is simplistic to refer to Washington in order to try to keep people from pointing to the injustice that has devasted them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For an interesting perspective on how 20th and 21st Century blacks were/are adversely affected by historical racism as opposed to the liberal policies of the 1960's or so, you should try reading Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. Trying to blame much of the difficulties that are prevalent in modern American black communities on historical slavery does not work very well when you examine black families and academic achievement in the 1940's and 1950's in relation to current trends.

[/quote]
Yeah. I have read a lot of Sowell and Williams in the last several months. And, you know, I think they have quite a lot to offer us concerning how we might lick a lot of these problems. But man you need to just get real here.</p>

<p>While SOME blacks in the 1940’s and 1950’s did better in SOME specific areas than they do today, those folk were absolutely suffering in vast numbers of other areas. Few blacks want to go back to the “good ol’ days” you are implying existed in the 40’s and 50’s.Yeah. We can probably learn from the past successes of blacks. But c’mon, those liberal policies of the 1960’s weren’t started because everything was just grand for blacks. They were started because MOST aspects of black life were just intolerable. The whole Civil Rights thing exploded because it was just intolerable. So I think we can’t really take Sowell’s comments and then extend them across all black life. He points us to what went well, and to what has gotten messed up inadvertently by certain policies. We need to listen to him. But I’d bet good money that even he doesn’t want to go back to how things were for blacks before these policies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Racially-determined slavery was certainly tragic, but it no longer exists in the U.S.

[/quote]
But its aftermath does exist. People aren’t robots. Whites still treated blacks horribly after slavery. They treated me horribly as a child, and their attitudes came right out of the Jim Crow, which existed in MY lifetime. And Jim Crow came right out of slavery.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you truly want people to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then at some point you need to stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop making excuses for other people based on their histories and instead suggest that they work on developing their own character.

[/quote]
C’mon guy. I’m not feeling sorry for myself. I am trying to point out that a wrong has taken place in our history that it is still unresolved. Even if I ignore the wrong it will still exist and cause the disruptions and lack of trust that are at the heart of our problems here. The wrongs still exist and AA, I think, is just one small attempt to try to help right the wrongs. I think ending it will do much more harm than good.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know many people of all races who have overcome extraordinarily difficult circumstances through hard work. I have never met one who succeeded by feeling sorry for himself.

[/quote]
Have you ever met anyone who has been able to work hard when he has little faith or hope? I think not. We might preach these platitudes from the comfort of our pampered skins, but for many people who have felt for themselves the unfairness of history and of people influenced by history, there is just very little left. Many do not care. Even many who do care are deeply suspicious and have taught this deep suspicion to their children. The only thing many of them have are children who do not know enough to not care. I think these kids can benefit from AA –</p>

<p>IF it exists.</p>

317

<p>Sure, American slavery was a wrong in history. Sure, it could be pointed to for the purposes of in part explaining the current situation of African Americans in American culture. Don't all but a small few disagree with these?</p>

<p>But about every other wrong in our history. What about those? Is there ever a point when a wrong is resolved? This is not so much an argument against Affirmative Action as much as your response and its rhetoric.</p>

<p>Anyway, what sort of (obviously racial, but I hate it when this is assumed) affirmative action do you think univerisites and colleges, heck, maybe even jobs should use? More clearly, what should the policies be, and which institutions should abide by them?</p>

318

<p>I.m.o. there seems to be less race-based affirm.action in admissions decisions (wherever, whatever type of University, college) than in hiring practices in certain regions (esp.). It seems to me that higher education has evolved to a different standard of diversity, more inclusive, & certainly less rigid. Those higher ed. institutions would include Publics, even though I acknowledge that Privates seem to have taken the lead in this trend toward broader diversity (because they can).</p>

<p>The UC's have a policy of awarding extra admission "points" for disadvantages, challenges (whether personal or economic). However, an overall formula is generally involved (varies from campus to campus), meaning that almost no severity in the above area can compensate for under-qualification in the areas of GPA, level of h.s. challenge (advanced classes), test scores, & the kinds of extra-curriculars pursued by the achievement-bound of any race. It's what U.C. calls eligibility: this is the bottom line. Many years ago I would have believed that low visibility of one particular ethnicity could be attributed to lack of recruitment efforts, welcome efforts, etc. But such programs have been referenced here, in this thread, & continue to be available. I hardly think that African-Americans in CA "don't know" about UCLA.</p>

<p>UCLA is one of the top-level U.C.'s. Many Caucasian students from suburban schools or parochial schools, with very good records, do not get admitted. The last 2 yrs. have been particularly hard. Although I find the "startling statistic" disheartening, from my vantage point I actually don't find it startling, given the level of preparation for college apparent in graduates from lower-tier public h.s.'s in CA in the last 5-10 yrs. It would take enormous effort to surpass the expectations of those educational environments & become UCLA material (and STAY at UCLA for 4 yrs). Two percent (was that the figure?) actually sounds pretty credible.</p>

319

<p>We are arguing endlessly about Afirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a moot point as far as this thread (i.e. UCLA) is concerned. UCLA is forbidden by law to employ AA.</p>

<p>The point of the thread was that UCLA is doing a lousy job with what OTHER tools it has besides AA to attract and enroll African Americans and Latinos.</p>

320

<p>Here's an analogy: Mr. Jones imprisons a healthy Mr. Smith. He puts Smith in a tiny cage where he can't even stand up. His muscles atrophy; he becomes a twisted shadow of his former self. Eventually Mr. Smith is released. Everyone agrees he got screwed. But none of their sympathy and concern can do anything to build up Smith's muscles again. As unfair as it is, Smith has to do ALL the sweaty excercise himself. People can build him a gym, and recommend a healthy diet. But only Smith himself can decide to eat the healthy food and focus on lifting the weights. Lots of extremely empathetic people want to do whatever they can to ease Smith's pain. But they do Smith no favor by writing the number "10" on the 5-pound dumbells. In fact, it would be better to write the number "2" on the 5-pound dumbells.</p>