<p>but sybbie, you worked. You did not let your childhood experiences hamper your determination. Yes, you were dealt pair of duces, but you are winning.</p>
<p>That is because my mother never let us forget her legacy growing up in the south and was determined that it would not be her children's experience so she always stressed education to us. </p>
<p>As, a parent, I never let my D forget what her grandparents went through.</p>
<p>dross - you make good points, but I am not sure they have the vitality that you would like them to have in 2006. </p>
<p>Which brings me to my point. I really find discussions of AA a fait accompli. Why? AA as we know it is dead, even if people do not want to recognize it. I think the University of Michigan S. Ct. decision, hailed by many as a victory, is yet one more sign of AA's death knell. Under the Court's ruling (which may be irrelevant given the pending Seattle and Louisville cases which may wipe even more of AA), once a university, or institution identifies the preferred groups, they can't give one preferred group better treatment than the other, and even then the preferred group benefit has to be very reasonable and not unduly advantageous to other groups not receiving preferences. Look at this mess this creates. Hispanics are doing better each year - the influx of immigrants makes it hard to digest - yet they increase numbers of highly qualified students each year - and yet (not without justification) they are a preferred group. But they can't be given a lesser preference than others under Grutter, unless one deems them not worthy of any preference at all, which, if diversity is the goal, makes no sense. So the answer over time is to make the preference not only the same across preferred groups, but pretty darn small - certainly not enough to acheive anywhere near the racial balance AA proponents want. Then throw in the mix increasing evidence (although not clear across the board) that Asians are the victims of significant discrimination in college admission, and will end up suing successfully and iteratively, many with a pretty compelling "victim" story to tell, and public schools that want to engage in AA have a never ending social engineering problem on their hands. In fact, they already do. Throw further in the mix the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (I will shocked if it does not pass), and AA just can't last much longer. Even court decisions suggest an end date. Sure, it will be practiced at elite private universities - but the number of people are incredibly small and AA will a much smaller element of society. I say this not to debate AA (I have long thought it was a good idea so long as it is a thumb on the scale but it when it morphed to more than that given the dismal K-12 academic performance of some groups it began inviting abuse), but merely to reflect reality. </p>
<p>So with this in mind, Dross, what would you say to affected URM parents and let's say, middle school kids who have some inkling that AA could help them now, but that it likely will be going away? I say this because you have given some thought about these issues. And are groups like BAMN really doing damage by clinging to an entitlement mentality when the reality is likely that kids need to deal with a changing environment, and fast? This is not a trivial question. It may be emotionally satisfying to rail against changes to affirmative action but it also seems to me right now is the time to raise a siren call that it is likely going away and that people need to be prepared for that change. By the way, given the evidence at my daughter's surburban high graduation today, with a core group of well integrated black students who by any measure are simply great educated kids who would make any parent ridiculously proud, there are kids up to the challenge.<br>
Comments?</p>
<p>Speaking of changing times - look at the term 'URM'. At one time, the reference was to 'minorities' but now that whites are minorities in some areas (California for example) and other minorities (Asians) seem to do quite well without all of the AA initiatives, the term didn't fit the perceived need - i.e. being a minority is no longer enough of a telltale for the perceived need for preferential treatment. Now the term 'minorities' isn't adequate - the term 'under-represented minorities' (URMs) must be used to designate only particular minorities. </p>
<p>As the country becomes more complex and diverse as it currently is in California and some other states, the reliance upon some racial categorizations will become more and more difficult and less significant. As the 'majority' of applicants (to colleges, jobs, etc.) start to be comprised of 'minorities', how significant is it that they're a minority at all? If schools use race as an admission standard, their competetiveness must falter since they'll be compromising standards in pursuit of an artificial formulaic number (which will be bound to be in dispute). If businesses attempt the same, they may ultimately fail since they're not hiring the best candidates regardless of race - i.e. if a business is inclined to hire primarily whites for some reason, they'd become tied and prone to failure by not hiring candidates more qualified that might be of another race such as blacks, hispanics, Asians, etc. This is especially true in our more racially diverse society.</p>
<p>What does this mean for the URMs? It means that the dependency upon some of the now traditional methods such as AA will likely not work (one can already question their effectiveness after decades of institutionalization). One must focus more and more on the root causes and potential root cures (the cures must focus on action that can be done now rather than dwelling on the past). URMs need to realize they're not just competeing with whites as in the traditional view - they're competing with everyone including other minorities, new majorities (hispanics), new minorities (whites in some areas), and even themselves (the increasing middle-upper class URMs that are competing with economically disadvantaged URMs). Again, it's time for new ideas and a new focus which in my mind begins at the opposite end of the spectrum from the colleges - it begins in the home with intact parents, families, values, an extended family and support structure, etc. The past is a reality that exists and can't be changed (although its study can be helpful). The time has come to now deal with the present and the future given the existing environment rather than the environment of 100, 50 20, or even 5 years ago. Study California's racial and economic environment changes in the last 5-20 years and you'll start to understand the perspective I'm presenting. </p>
<p>(Sorry for the rant)</p>
<p>Hey . . I will go one step further as checking the little box is a self declaration. There has never been a court case to define who can declare themselves a particular minority. If you believe that you are .oooo1% black, you can check the little box. The only exception is declaring yourself Native American at some schools. Who is a URM? I guess it can be anyone.</p>
<p>hereshoping, you have been very testy with Dross and yet he answered your buckshot with great patience and respect. I think you need a little visit from the Manners Fairy. </p>
<p>Individual whites are not responsible for history. We don't have to feel guilty or justify our ancestry and current status. We do have to be willing to solve the problem which only can happen once we understand the problem in our heart. It isn't simple. However, I am able to say that american black people today are more paranoid, based on yesterday, than is neccesary. Same with american jews. Slavery and concentration camps won't return to this world as we know it. But the affect of the past is real.</p>
<p>Dross, when it comes to 'passing' as one who belongs to another race or culture, why must this pass be taken negatively? I understand the mechanics of the honor, as if there had to be a certain forgiveness for what one really was, for the welcome to occur, but how is it different than the white kid wanting to be accepted by blacks, which is incredibly pervasive(and a subject I would like to explore) whether it is today's athletic icons or Bing Crosby proving he can jazz it with the boys in the basement who are the real thing,..to your daughter feeling honored like all tourists do, if they pass for a native of the country? You wrote: "You need to have power in addition to a difference in race to be a racist." which supplies a partial answer. How then, even on a personal level, can those who have benefitted from past injustice ever prove themselves of like bridge-able mind? The answer is of course Never, because even people who commit their lives and love before the preacher end up hating each other's guts when things go wrong. The mind can never be satisfied, no never. And by the way, they'll dislike your beloved daughter first for being an american so don't worry. Haha,..</p>
<p>If you've read any of my other posts, you'll know I have worked for opportunities for blacks since the early 1970's. That is going on two generations ago. If you read carefully, you'll see that Dross said/implied some pretty insulting things in his responses to my family's story. Nor does he know my personal history and made vast assumptions about it. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm the only one who is beginning to get tired of the attitudes Dross has been putting forth (read Cosby, Sowell, etc.). I never thought I would have been one to think this, but in the last five or six years I have begun to get tired of the excuses myself, which is why I voted Republican for the first time in my entire life (I first voted for McGovern!) - I voted for Bush twice. Not that I think that will help, but I got tired of the pandering to blacks in the Democratic party, because I do not think it is helpful. I know at our public schools the kids are taught endlessly about "diversity." The entire social studies and language arts curriculums focus on multicultural experiences, primarily the black experience. The experiences of other immigrant groups is NOT taught at all. The "white" kids are in fact losing their own history in an attempt by educators to right a wrong they had nothing to do with. I feel they deserve their own history, and that people like Dross should also respect the stuggles of others in this country. I've got to tell you, people, especially young people, are getting tired of this, which is why there is such a growth of young people, college and high school kids, identifying themselves as conservative now, despite the liberal slants of public high schools and colleges. As someone said, these arguments do not have the same vitality they did even ten years ago. People just aren't buying it anymore. And yes, overall, I am getting testy in my old age :) Sorry about that!</p>
<p>Mam1959:</p>
<p>I also think AA is bound to end, since whites want it to end. And I think its demise will further marginalize large sections of the black community such that those who we could have helped between the interval created by the end of AA and the longed for beginning of excellent black academic performances, will be lost. That interval, judging from the intensity of American discrimination against blacks, is likely to be very long and painful.</p>
<p>I know you think the time has come to move on, merely studying the past as a useful tool, but you may easily think this because you dont have the past around your necks like a ball and chain. What many of you are saying to blacks is this:</p>
<p>I know America has taken off your legs and arms and ground them into fertilizers from which it has become very wealthy. And I know that had to hurt. But that was the past. The time has come for you to get up and walk. And you are going to have to do it yourselves.</p>
<p>LOL. Man, youre just talking and talking to very large numbers of people and youre making no sense at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So with this in mind, Dross, what would you say to affected URM parents and let's say, middle school kids who have some inkling that AA could help them now, but that it likely will be going away?
[/quote]
Hmmm. I dont think there is a silver bullet here, at least not just one of them. I think the specific solutions I can offer could work for some, but not for many. I do not think they can generally work because the American Dream has too much of a grip on the minds of most blacks and not enough of a grip on the rest. I will just say this: we are very much under Americas thumb. And so it just seems to me few blacks can think and live as normal Americans because were we to do this, we would always come up dry and find our children left behind. To overcome the pressure of America, we blacks need to go so far overboard (at least in our minds) at being loyal and nurturing to ourselves, that we constantly feel weird about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I say this because you have given some thought about these issues. And are groups like BAMN really doing damage by clinging to an entitlement mentality when the reality is likely that kids need to deal with a changing environment, and fast?
[/quote]
I am not sure about it, but I really do think this is possible. Yeah. It is quite possible. I have two problems with this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Your use of the term entitlement mentality is, I think, one-sided. You seem so convinced of your view that programs like AA appear to you as entitlements when to others they may legitimately appear as back wages or equal treatments.</p></li>
<li><p>I dont really know if my own ideas are any better than those who push for AA heedless of the political dynamic that causes its demise. These people are at least out there trying to help. It could be they are being a lot more realistic than I am about the state of things. So, I have a hard time just dismissing them. I dont like AA, and wish it were ridiculous to even think of it. But I dont think it is ridiculous because whites have had AA in almost unlimited forms since the beginning of this place.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
This is not a trivial question. It may be emotionally satisfying to rail against changes to affirmative action but it also seems to me right now is the time to raise a siren call that it is likely going away and that people need to be prepared for that change.
[/quote]
Okay. So we raise this call. Then what? I think blacks, as a group, are no more philosophical than any other group. We really are just people, like everyone else. So you can sound these calls and then cut off AA, but it wont cause all these black folks to just up and decide to implement Plan B. Groups dont typically function like this. Even if one guy has a plan, it usually takes a lot of time and patience for him to get the entire group to follow along. I think if we apply pressure to the group too fast, without allowing it time to fashion a suitable plan, it could further damage the group. It is what riots and terrorism are made of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, given the evidence at my daughter's surburban high graduation today, with a core group of well integrated black students who by any measure are simply great educated kids who would make any parent ridiculously proud, there are kids up to the challenge.
[/quote]
Yeah. Both of them. Sure, there are black kids who are fine performers. But we arent talking just about the two students in your kids class. There is a whole sea of blacks out there that is falling increasingly into despair about finding its place in America. We may look to people like Sybbie here and say to these blacks why cant you be like her? But not everyone can hang in there in the same way she can. Blacks are just like everyone else. Some can take a hit, get up, and go after the brass ring once again. Others will take the exact same hit and never get up again. There are a ton of this latter type. I think it is too late for them. But it is often not too late for their children.</p>
<p>Those kids often have just amazing potential. I know this because I have worked with them, and so have my own kids. But they dont really have a lot of support because of their home lives and the crime and defeatism in their neighborhoods. I think they could benefit from AA since AA would typically not allow high achieving blacks to get lost in the mass of whites and Asians. It would help conduct black achievers into schools to appear as de facto role models for these hurting kids, giving them the thing they need most-- which is hope. I think a lot of these kids are gonna be lost.</p>
<p>rorosen:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Individual whites are not responsible for history. We don't have to feel guilty or justify our ancestry and current status. We do have to be willing to solve the problem which only can happen once we understand the problem in our heart. It isn't simple.
[/quote]
Thats right. It is exactly right. I am not saying anyone here is necessarily guilty of anything. I am saying some of u are benefiting of the wrongs of the past more than others and that it makes community almost impossible. I am also saying that when we look down on those harmed by history and scorn them from afar with words like Heal Thyself! we act without compassion. Lastly, I am saying this problem is not a black problem. It is Americas problem because America caused it. We all have an obligation to fix it. But I think those who are not negatively affected by this history could really benefit from trying hard to feel it as I do. I dont expect them to do this, and to tell you the truth I cant blame them for not wanted to. But I think after theyve gotten a chance to have it around their necks and ankles for a few days, they would stop sounding so brash and then try to penetrate the real problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I am able to say that american black people today are more paranoid, based on yesterday, than is neccesary. Same with american jews. Slavery and concentration camps won't return to this world as we know it. But the affect of the past is real.
[/quote]
Id bet many blacks and Jews upon reading this would just love to breathe a sigh of relief and go on about their business. But when they see reports of racism and anti-semitism all over America and Europe, juxtaposed with the growing presence of white supremacist and neo-nazi groups, right here in their own country, it leaves a lot of them wondering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dross, when it comes to 'passing' as one who belongs to another race or culture, why must this pass be taken negatively?
[/quote]
I think the reason it is taken negatively is because it is being interpreted as rejection. When a black guy passes for white, there is a good chance he is trying to escape the stigma of being black. His rejecting is just another way of telling blacks that being black is not a good thing. I think it is fine if he passes because, cmon, we all need to find peace anywhere we can get it, and if passing will do it for him (it likely will not), then I say let him pass. If he will allow it, I can enjoy him whether he decides to be black, white or both. And if he will not allow it, that is fine.</p>
<p>I think we have too rigid an idea of what blackness and whiteness are. It is one of my pet peeves, though I really do understand whats behind it. Im a black guy. Happy to be black. No problem with it at all. I dont think Id pass even if I could because I like being part of this drama that is unfolding (the story of black America is only just beginning). But, you know, I ought to have the right to be white if I want. LOL. I mean, if I want to experiment with your stuff as if it is my own, I ought to be free enough to just do it. And if I should discover your stuff is in fact my own, well, I should be free enough to walk around in it, take it, own it, and deal with it on those terms.</p>
<p>I used to skulk around listening to Bach as a kid because people around me just recoiled badly at the thought of a black guy doing anything other than black stuff. No way, man. I figure if some white stuff is really doing it for me, then that is probably because in some place inside me, I am white or maybe that stuff is really black or more likely that I am fundamentally just one thing right along with everybody else and therefore can be moved by many of the same things that move everyone else.</p>
<p>Which reminds me of something. My oldest two kids and I recently finished a fairly long and completely fascinating study grouping into sets the traditional cultural expressions of various cultures and comparing each expression to others within their set. We might take a look at traditional Masai dress, architecture, music, jewelry and group all this stuff in a set. Then compare each of these expressions to each other and write about what we see, especially any symmetries between them.</p>
<p>Anyway, so we are studying Java and Bali and cultures of this general region when we come across a recording of Kecak, a Balinese Monkey ChantWe read about it, debated whether it should be included in the Bali set (there are issues on tradition that concerned my kids), and then, after we got the set built, we decided to experience it, listening to the chant as we did. That thing blew us so far away we just could only sit there longing to be Balinese. One of my kids just came right out and said something like I wish these people could accept me as one of them. I want to be there with them. I didnt feel this kid was rejecting my culture or me. He just wanted to do something else because that stuff was saying something very meaningful to him about the joy of being alive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand the mechanics of the honor, as if there had to be a certain forgiveness for what one really was, for the welcome to occur, but how is it different than the white kid wanting to be accepted by blacks, which is incredibly pervasive
[/quote]
I think when whites want acceptance by blacks it is often not tied in with shame of being white (at least not the same sort of shame). It is often just fascination. If it is shame, it is more related to guilt. Lets just put it like this. When whites do it, they are trying to jump from the top of the totem poll because they know they are standing on millions of wronged souls who are still crying out from their graves. When blacks do it, they are trying to get to the top of that same totem poll.</p>
<p>
[quote]
to your daughter feeling honored like all tourists do, if they pass for a native of the country?
[/quote]
Yeah. I think my kids are interesting cases, and will be even more interesting as time moves along. I didnt raise them with the same consciousness that I have on all this. They are aware of some of my views, but not nearly all of them. I think that is why they are so much freer than I am to just do stuff. I am watching them very closely in case this world tries to hack them down. If the world lets them run, they will be amongst the top of our next crop of leaders. They really dont have all these struggles with blackness and whiteness. They just go right into anything if they think it will please them. That is what we need more of, I think. Are they trying to pass for white? Not even the question comes across their minds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You wrote: "You need to have power in addition to a difference in race to be a racist." which supplies a partial answer. How then, even on a personal level, can those who have benefitted from past injustice ever prove themselves of like bridge-able mind? The answer is of course Never, because even people who commit their lives and love before the preacher end up hating each other's guts when things go wrong
[/quote]
Hmmm. I dont think this is necessarily the case, though historical pressures may make this bridge more difficult. I gotta tell ya. There are whites in this world who I dont even include in all this mess. And its just natural for me not to include them. It is possible that I might come to think this way generally.</p>
<p>Dross - your inferences are way too defensive. I am not "saying anything" blacks or anyone else - it is merely predictive statement that affirmative action is going away. I have no animus against any group and want all to do well. Do you have evidence that AA is becoming more popular and will increase? You appear to intuit as well as I do that it is on its last legs. I merely stated what appears obvious - it is going away, and frankly, in this context a debate about the merits of AA or what whites or blacks or asians think about it is irrelevant. Given that AA is likely going away, again, what is the appropriate response? It seems UCSD UCLA dad is heading in the right direction with his latest post. </p>
<p>I understand the question is difficult because so many feel passionately about AA and can't fully digest that it is a short half-life remaining. And many of those passionate about AA have a protest mentality borne from the 60's where the moral questions were much simpler and easier to resolve, and don't understand why protests a la BAMN style are met by most (of all races, by the way) with with a huge yawn. But if AA is mostly going away, as I believe it is, it is incumbent upon those who care about the plight of groups that are experiencing problems to send a different message than holding on desperately to a dissolving entitlement. What of UCSD UCLA's dad's post? Is not a message to be prepared for change and more change in a way that maximizes one's control over their destiny the right communication? Sometimes the toughest things to do are borne from statements we do not like to hear.</p>
<p>"The truth is, UCLA has always had a hard time recruiting decent numbers of black students. I should know. I worked for a couple of outreach programs in the admissions office in the mid-1980s, when such programs were not only legal, they had some cachet.</p>
<p>It was tough. The critical mass of university-ready black students that I imagined was out there in the public schools, just waiting for a bit of encouragement from a friendly role model like me, was just that imaginary. I pored over lists of black students at high school campuses in the allegedly fertile San Fernando Valley as if I were panning for gold. I had to play the talented-tenth game, prodding and pleading with my few black prospects to come to Westwood, or at least to apply.</p>
<p>But blacks never got close to the holy grail of parity: reaching the same percentage of the UCLA student body as in the statewide population of high school graduates. The irony is that affirmative action was banished in part because of a perception that students of color were overrunning universities like UCLA that is, the policy was working too well. But in fact, it wasn't working well enough, certainly not for blacks."
--- Erin Aubry Kaplan, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-kaplan21jun21,1,1197113.column?coll=la-news-columns%5B/url%5D">http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-kaplan21jun21,1,1197113.column?coll=la-news-columns</a></p>
<p>kuba - your post supports my long held view that AA as practiced at a few elite institutions is a minor statistical event. The problems with black educational achievement deserve far, far more scrutiny and energy than that has been spent on the issue of doling out a few admission spaces to select schools. AA is convenient for elite schools because it in appearance they can assert that they do things differently and better than other institutions - but this assertion is pretty hollow given the state of overall educational achievement.</p>
<p>It seems that the LA Times article is implying tokenism (including at the private elites). If so, I think that's insulting to the URM admits at HYPSM. Rather, those admits have demonstrated competitive equity with non-URM applicants. However, I think the minority admission numbers at UCLA, as well as the very high bar necessary to meet admission standards at private elites, reinforce something that the OP of the thread "Admissions Revolution" said in her post #48:</p>
<p>"...The competitive nature of the admissions game is often at odds with colleges' attempts to level the playing field using holistic admissions methods and marketing techniques to attract a large and diverse applicant pool."</p>
<p>The point is that it is still the dynamic of competition (among applicants, and among colleges -- for the best applicants) that is driving the college admissions engine. It is not the responsibility of any college, public or private, to ensure that all applicants are sufficiently competitive. It is the combined responsibility of K-12 educators to ensure that, along with their parents & communities & the students themselves -- all of whom should be actively & in unison supporting educational goals. (That unison is especially critical in low SES populations.)</p>
<p>Bridge programs & recruitment efforts for highschoolers cannot rescue students who may have begun losing their opportunity for competitive equity at about the fifth grade. That (high school) is not enough time to close the gap for a place like UCLA. (Two students from my D's very white, very rich, very elite school got accepted to UCLA this year.)</p>
<p>Mam1959</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dross - your inferences are way too defensive. I am not "saying anything" blacks or anyone else - it is merely predictive statement that affirmative action is going away.
[/quote]
I understand this, but I am trying to show you what I think is the perspective of those who will be most hurt by an inevitability that, in view of history, I think you and so many others are too willing to accept. I think someone needs to talk about the potential merits of AA whether it is ending or not. This is relevant because AA has existed exclusively for whites for almost the entire time America has existed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no animus against any group and want all to do well. Do you have evidence that AA is becoming more popular and will increase? You appear to intuit as well as I do that it is on its last legs. I merely stated what appears obvious - it is going away, and frankly, in this context a debate about the merits of AA or what whites or blacks or asians think about it is irrelevant. Given that AA is likely going away, again, what is the appropriate response? It seems UCSD UCLA dad is heading in the right direction with his latest post.
[/quote]
It seems you are saying here</p>
<p>I know the past was brutal for blacks, and that America was unfair. But we ought not talk about this because it doesnt matter. America is gonna take away its few short attempts to help blacks, and its just gonna let whites have their head start, demanding that blacks catch up on their own. So you may as well accept that. Now lets discuss how blacks themselves can just pick up and run four centuries distance in a few short years.</p>
<p>I think we are just gonna lose a ton of blacks here because this message will seem impossible. But hey, America is gonna have is way. So lets see what happens. Id love to be proven wrong on everything here. Id just love it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand the question is difficult because so many feel passionately about AA and can't fully digest that it is a short half-life remaining. And many of those passionate about AA have a protest mentality borne from the 60's where the moral questions were much simpler and easier to resolve, and don't understand why protests a la BAMN style are met by most (of all races, by the way) with with a huge yawn.
[/quote]
That protest mentality was not born of the 60s but came about much farther back. And it gained traction because America failed to uphold the law as blacks aimed to care for themselves precisely as others here now advocate they do. We had a fabulous opportunity for self-determination back in those days, but it was lost forever, and it was lost because America failed blacks.
*As America moved farther away from the days of slavery, but was still mired in institutional racism, the ideas, particularly the tactics, supported by Booker T. Washington were growing less and less popular. In fact, the Harlem Renaissance pushed a message quite to the contrary of Washington's. Washington supported the gradual assimilation of blacks into an equal society. He felt that this goal was achieved easiest by focusing on getting what was attainable, without protest, and inching toward a more equitable situation economically. However, as decades began to distance America from slavery, and racism and oppression continued, it became harder and harder for African- Americans to have faith in such notions. The eloquent and inspiring Dubois, carried far more appeal for young black leaders searching for a forum and agenda. The movement away from Washington's views is expressed frequently in the literature and poetry such as Langston Hughes' "A Dream Deferred": </p>
<p>What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore-
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode? </p>
<p>The Harlem Renaissance laid the groundwork, as Dubois correctly prophesized, for strong leadership on the front lines of politics and society, coming to a head in the 1950s and 60s.*
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ee73afram/am-mw-jk.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gwu.edu/~e73afram/am-mw-jk.html</a></p>
<p>I know people are yawning, but America does have a role in what has come down. It has a role and an obligation to fix these problems, other than just yawning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if AA is mostly going away, as I believe it is, it is incumbent upon those who care about the plight of groups that are experiencing problems to send a different message than holding on desperately to a dissolving entitlement. What of UCSD UCLA's dad's post? Is not a message to be prepared for change and more change in a way that maximizes one's control over their destiny the right communication?
[/quote]
It really depends upon the messenger and his awareness of the problem. What UC(
)Dad is saying is nothing that hasnt been said a thousand times. I believe it , and am practicing it in fact. I preach it to those I think need to hear it. But the problem is, it is just one very small side of a massive story. I dont think we can solve this problem by just demanding that the gutted folks in our cities heal themselves. I think we can be much more effective by maintaining programs like AA, attaching them to a demand of blacks to heal themselves. We need both approaches coming together at the same time, and over a prolonged period. If America just abandons things like AA and starts preaching about intact families, I think all it will do is heap greater shame on the hurting-- those kids who do NOT have intact families and who never will have them.</p>
<p>It seems to me that America wants a solution to this problem that wont require any great sacrifice from America. I dont think this is reasonable in view of what has gotten us here in the first place. But since America wants to end AA, then AA is coming down. If we are gonna tell blacks to heal themselves or else, then I am sure a few of them will get with the program. And I guess well just have to leave the rest to the care of God.</p>
<p>whoops. I didn't mean "their" parents (parents of educators). Hopefully that was obvious.</p>
<p>Also, although I haven't weighed in on this part of the debate, I happen to agree with those who believe that society bears some responsibility for redressing previous societal wrongs (to any group). It's how it is done that I think becomes the matter for argument sometimes. Also, much of this becomes overshadowed by practicality. The opportunity for education flies by very quickly. Whether we're talking about 4 decades of exclusion or 4 centuries of it, that 5th grader 3 yrs. below grade level needs some mighty fast catch-up work if he/she is ever to make it to UCLA by age 18. And we may provide him or her with well-funded & well-targeted remedial support. But he or she would more effectively benefit from that by parents, community with similar levels & areas of support. Deficits must be closed by multiple efforts.</p>
<p>I don't think the idea is to heap shame on people from less than intact families (I am from one myself). But there is no question that the single best thing that can be done to raise educational levels across the board in this country, including URM's, is to drastically lower the incidence of births to single mothers that cannot emotionally or physically care for their children. Kay Hymnowitz of the City Journal has pointed out that a huge percentage of left leaning feminists, who often (and with an appealing logic) preach total independence from men, end up opting for traditional marriage. Because the man insists? Heck no. For money? No, they quite often have good careers. They want marriage because they know intuitively this is what gives their offspring the best chance in life. As in on the college confidential track. And how in the heck AA as practiced at a few elite universities is supposed to help this problem - the real elephant in the room - is beyond me.</p>
<p>Fascinating reading. In particular, Dross, I appreciate the time and thought you put into your posts - you're clearly fighting an uphill battle here. I agree with others that AA may be flawed, and may in theory discriminate against a few whites. But my reaction to that is "so what?" Isn't the greater good - greater opportunities to people who don't traditionally have them - beneficial to society as a whole? Hasn't AA opened doors to better lives for millions of minorities? To women? To the disabled? I think AA is a bit like immunizations: as a society, we accept that immunizing children is better for us all, makes us a healthier society - even though we KNOW that a small percentage of those immunized children could become ill, or even die, as result. Seems to me the same with AA: it is better for us as a whole, it makes us a healthier and wealthier society - even though we KNOW that a small percentage of whites could lose some opportunities as result.</p>
<p>I beleive that Asians to use that broad term- are both better educated and doing better economically that any other group in the country.
Hispanics are also increasing in income and in employment percentages.
However other groups are still lagging behind.
So do we need specific strategies for these other groups or should we still lump "minorities" together as a whole to mean * anyone who isn't Caucasian*?</p>
<p>"Whether we're talking about 4 decades of exclusion or 4 centuries of it, that 5th grader 3 yrs. below grade level needs some mighty fast catch-up work if he/she is ever to make it to UCLA by age 18."</p>
<p>From what I know about that kid (from a friend teaching in the Bronx). That kid is homeless, and/or has moved several times a year. At least one parent is in jail. At least one parent is on drugs. The only tree that child has seen, like most others in that class, is the one on the same block as the school. (They all describe the same tree for an assignment.) That child has been sexually abused. That child may have a learning disability, but no one knows because they haven't been tested. That child has given up, and no matter how hard the teacher tries she can't be reached. I don't know what the solution is, but it's WAY bigger than a few dollars for an after school program.</p>
<p>mathmom, you quoted me but I was actually referring to a hypothetical (more or less). One recent student of mine was indeed in 5th (more like 2nd) grade; my quote could have applied to her, though. And her (single, pregnant dropout) mother was in no position to be of assistance to her in the home environment.</p>