I Hate Myself For Being An Arm Chair Liberal

Parents Forum
101

<p>SBdad--I question what I believe, who doesn't? Maybe I'm miss understanding you: you have stated that you in fact do still hold this belief--not questioning it. Isn't that what you've said? That being so, then it would seem to be very uncomfortable to continue to hold a feeling that it bothers you when tht core belief threatens you or yours.</p>

<p>If in fact you are questioning whether you still believe in the validity of AA irrespective of when it affects you, that's different and I certainly respect that search.</p>

102

<p>Fred Murtz, I challenge you to show such discrimination on a wide scale.
"like watching rich whites sing rap songs mocking their background" That's rich. I guess I, as a white man, should be offended when a black man plays Mendelsohn or Mahler or sings Dylan or even Garth Brooks?</p>

<p>"Admissions, employment, etc. have never been blind to race. If they were, there would be no such thing as an under-represented minority. Instead, all groups, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. would be represented in schools, the workplace, in the same proportion that they're found in the population at large."</p>

<p>Try explaining the extremely high frequency of Jews in top colleges, comprising supposedly a third of Penn students. Conventional antiracist (is it called critical race theory now?) tripe holds that Jews are among the oppressed. Accounting for Jews reveals that Christian white males are actually underrepresented as, comically, Pat Buchanan pointed out and proceeded to (half-heartedly or not) demand AA for Christian European males.</p>

<p>"I think you're an intelligent guy, and if you really wished to, I'm sure you have more than enough capacity to figure that out for yourself."
Yes, let us perpetuate conspiracy theories in hushed tones and obscured hand signals. I forgot, it's the great White Protestant Male Hierarchy oppressing us all.</p>

<p>Discussions like these are maligned by a commitment to assumptions left sacrosanct; questioning them ends in character assassination and ostracism (see Larry Summers). As long as a possible truth conflicts with such sacred assumptions, it is ignored.</p>

<p>I will only say that I agree with Steven Pinker, an eminent "cognitive psychologist" at Harvard, who expresses his views here: <a href="http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#pinker%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#pinker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

103

<p>Garland,</p>

<p>I am sincerely trying to understand what you are asking. If it matters, here is where I am.</p>

<p>I did not start questioning the validity of AA until it began to have a direct impact on my little world. The fact that I began questioning my belief in AA only when it had to do with self-interest is what bothered me and was the impetus to make the first post.</p>

<p>I'm not sure where that fits into your value system, but wherever it does, so be it.</p>

104

<p>Just came across this thread and I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents. I really have no problem with Affirmitive Action. My background: I'm a minornity but not a URM. Yes, it does not seem right to favor somebody based on how they look, but you also have to remember the benefits of AA as well. I would not want to personally attend a school that almost had no diversity, and we also have to remember that often times the standards aren't lowered for the URM. Finally, remember that this is the only time that being a minornity is truly a benefit in life. I believe a study by MIT found that when people had equal qualifications, the white applicant for the job would get the job over the minornity at a 50% higher rate. This is the only time in someone's life they're skin will be a positive so just keep that in mind as well.</p>

105

<p>Yes Swavo, the study as mentioned in Businessweek said that minority sounding names like Tyrone were 50% less likely to get job call backs than white sounding names like Smith even though they had equal resumes.</p>

<p>Ashern I appreciate your challenge. Okay, Mahler and the like created instrumental music without any racial subtext. Singing a song from Eminem or Kanye West with the n-word is quite a different kettle of fish. Your analogy would be appropriate if I cited an example of when white people played basketball.</p>

<p>Whites are usually seen as <em>individuals</em> minorities are usually seen as <em>group members</em>. </p>

<p>Incidentally, on your subject of Jewish discrimination the topic is extensively discussed in Karabel's 'The Chosen' and until the 1960's strong Jewish quotas existed at Harvard, Yale and Princeton and the rest. In fact, policies were specifically created to exclude Jews.</p>

<p>The white protestant male hiearchy in regard to college admissions has been very oppressive as seen in "The Chosen" which details HYP admissions policies between 1900 and 2000. I think you protest too much. Policies were regularly crafted to specifically seek out the northeastern WASP elite. You should know what you're talking about.</p>

<p>Steven Pinker's work only goes on to show why so many minorities feel unwelcome in higher education. Always the target. The same German research universities which supported euthanasia, the same American universities that promoted 'race' science constructs with things like phrenology and social darwinism. </p>

<p>I've never seen a class offered about: Is Jesus Black? Universities are part of the established order. Why should minorities trust them? Where have they earned that trust? Why should I need to show you this discrimination on a large scale? (implying research). However, if you read "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza he mentions several racially tinged epiodes at places like UMich.</p>

<p>These discussions are equally hobbled by an unwillingness to see that which is unpleasant.</p>

106

<p>Swavo1, nice point about how this might be the only time where skin color is a positive. Point taken, (although that statement is a bit at odds with your view that AA often doesn't lower standards).</p>

<p>What seems odd to me is how you think not having AA would result in "a school with no diversity." I think all that would happen is that generally the minorities at Harvard would be at Tufts, and the ones at Tufts would be at Boston University, and the ones at BU would be at UMass, etc. Ok that does leave the very very top few schools with perhaps less than they have now, but I'm sure Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford would be able to figure out a plan without abandoning common sense.</p>

107

<p>I'm familiar with "The Chosen," and all I can say is that the WASP elite who supposedly conspire to control everything are now doing a really really crappy job of dominating the top universities in terms of students and faculty.</p>

108

<p>well, here I am on page late, a little late to the party, but isn't this the same question asked in another thread titled, <a href="Yet%20another">b</a> Affirmative Action Question** that begins with the question:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm curious about how parents would feel if their child got rejected their top choice university while a classmate with lesser credentials with a minority status as their only hook got accepted.

[/quote]
</p>

109

<p>I Wrote: "But you know, the assumption by some that a minority student is unworthy of his place at the top schools didn't start with AA. It has, in fact, ALWAYS enjoyed the status of foregone conclusion throughout the history of America. It was true when George Wallace stood on the steps of Ole' Miss, and it's still true today when someone immediately assumes that the only reason why their white son or daughter was denied admission to their dream school, is because some unworthy URM "took their place"."</p>

<p>SBdad wrote: "Talk about ranting, to paint me with the "George Wallce" brush when you obviously haven't even taken the time to read the entire thread is pure hysterics."</p>

<p>Well, first of all, I want to make clear that my above quote was in response to the attitudes of "some" AA detractors. And I DID indeed take the trouble to read "the entire thread" before posting. However, I ask you to go back and reread my post, please. It was not an indictment of you personally, SBdad. I find it interesting though, that you took it as such. You had already clearly stated that you "supported AA" (though for the life of me, given your arguments, I can't understand why), and that your son is not yet a dog in the race. </p>

<p>However, I continue to stand by my "hysterical" contention that African American students at top schools (what relative few there have been), even the ones with stellar stats, have NEVER been seen as the intellectual equals of their white counterparts. Long before there was ever any such thing as Affirmative Action, it was assumed that these few students were "charity cases" for whom the beneficence of the institution deigned to make room. If you don't see the truth of this, it shows how little you know of the history, and indeed, the current status of American race relations. I speak not ony from historical knowledge, but from personal experience. When I was a student enrolled at a top northeastern liberal arts college in the late 70's, I often had discussions with white students who literally stood gaping, open-mouthed as I spoke. More than once, I heard, "Wow, you're so intelligent!" I knew it was somehow meant as a compliment, but it was hard to take it as such. I was no more intellectually qualified than the average student enrolled at the school. We were all a pretty smart bunch. But I knew that little was expected of me because of my race, that the assumption was that I, along with the other 40 African Americans on campus (out of a total campus population of more than 1700) were not "as smart" as the "legitimate" scholars enrolled at the school. It was demoralizing and wearisome then, just as many smug and self-righteous arguments against AA are today.</p>

110

<p>21 percent of black men in America who have not attended college are incarcerated; half of all black men in their 20's are unemployed.<br>
Source: <a href="http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/WIRE/203200337/1117/news%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/WIRE/203200337/1117/news&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Affirmative action? As a society, we need MORE of it. </p>

<p>If the public universities aren't enrolling substantial numbers of minority youth, then they aren't fulfilling their missions as taxpayer-supported institutions. </p>

<p>And if the private universities fail to recruit and retain minority youth, then they are simply contributing to a further stratification of our society and perpetuation of racial and class divisions. </p>

<p>I don't call anyone who takes the position, "I support helping others as long as it doesn't take anything from me and mine" a "liberal". Liberalism starts with the notion that there is a societal obligation to provide additional support for the weakest and least fortunate among us -- and implicit in that theory is the corrolary that the support is going to come from the strongest and most fortunate -- whether it in the form of taxes or some kid-you-define-as-less-deserving competing for the college spot you think that your white-and-privileged kid somehow is entitled to. </p>

<p>Bottom line: it isn't your kid's "spot" and it never was. It is the university's collection of spots, and they can fill them however they like. I grew up with the first generation of women who were even allowed to apply the Ivy League; my father's parents change his last name at age 15 to something more American-sounding to get around Jewish quotas that kept kids like him out of top schools, no matter how smart. IQ testing and standardized testing grew along with the eugenics movement, and was a key element of the "science" that supported Nazi policies of race extermination. </p>

<p>You can hold whatever opinion you want -- I don't mind hearing from an honest conservative. They have a reasonable argument, even it if does come down to every white man for himself. I don't agree, but I certainly can see why the rich and privileged want to keep things just the way they are. </p>

<p>Just don't try to question affirmative action because of how it hurts you or you kid and then call yourself a "liberal". Question whether it works as intended if you want, or whether it can be improved or modified or replaced... but a true "liberal" doesn't expect that the societal largesse we espouse will leave us unscathed.</p>

111

<p>TourGuide446, you're giving me whiplash. Here I was, ready to agree with what you said in post 100, and then you write post 106, which makes a lot of sense - something I hadn't really thought about. Then - boom! - post 107, and I'm back to agreeing with post 100 again. Why don't you take a short rest and let my neck heal, OK?</p>

112

<p>When I pointed out that standards are not lowered I meant that often times an URM will get in without the standards lowered (SAT's, etc.), rather AA gives them an edge when two applicants are equal. Obviously this is not always true, but that's the case with everything. Yes, you could do something such as the students at Harvard goint to Tufts, etc. but honestly I would never want to go to a school with no diversity. So how exactly would they make up for it? I think honestly being a legacy is a bigger deal than being a URM. IMO, it's unfair to give a boost to someone just because of where their parents went to school. The fact that someone's parents went to HYP etc. should be a benefit in and of itself as they have been brought up their entire life with greater oppurtunities. So if you already have a head start then you should have an even greater head start? I strongly disagree with that. Having athletes and minornities provide to the culture of the school, I'm not really sure what legacies add to the school though.</p>

113

<p>


</p>

<p>I must admit that I find it pretty irritating when people persist in painting all conservatives as evil, prejudiced and heartless. Fairness is a quality which is not only admired by liberals.</p>

114

<p>Mr. Murtz, you didn't refute the Garth Brooks analogy, which I would argue, has a much more racial aspect. How is a black man admiring the culture of white rural countrymen like Garth Brooks any different? </p>

<p>I know Jews were extensively discriminated against, as I mentioned in first post in this thread. (Guess which public school had the most nobel laureates among its alumni? The City University of "Hymie Town" as Jesse Jackson crudely put it.) And I know that the process, at least towards Jews, is far more meritocratic. But it is laughable to see people perpetuate conspiracies that they "dare" not mention.</p>

<p>"Policies were regularly crafted to specifically seek out the northeastern WASP elite. " Like geographic quotas, similar to what we have now, geographic preference. </p>

<p>"Steven Pinker's work only goes on to show why so many minorities feel unwelcome in higher education." Oh, so that's why they perform worse in school.</p>

<p>"Whites are usually seen as <em>individuals</em> minorities are usually seen as <em>group members</em>."
I agree that this is wrong. But this is perpetuated by their leftist leaders and leftist academics. For instance, black reparations is inherently collectivist. Multiculturalism is the main contemporary source of such focus on the group (There are also white, black, mexican, etc. nationalist movements). The diversity that multi-cultis so hail is a branch on the belief that group members think similarly, have similar interests, et cetera. Else why focus on their group identity? The groups may indeed share as much, but the focus should remain on the individual. I am suspect of all identity politicians.</p>

<p>Thank you for not branding me a racist (no sarcasm intended).</p>

<p>"IQ testing and standardized testing grew along with the eugenics movement, and was a key element of the "science" that supported Nazi policies of race extermination."
I'm glad Einstein didn't work for the Nazis; else we would have (t)wits like you telling us relativity is evil. And I doubt that Nazis used IQ much, as the (Ashkenazi) Jews scored higher on it than the Germans. I read someone saying that the U.S. imposed more eugenic policies than the Nazis. Ashkenazi Jew performance on the IQ test poses a threat to such smear tactics like yours, as does high East Asian performance. It explodes the argument that IQ is the plaything of white supremacists. And to wit, the most coverage of the IQ issue of late was of Ashkenazi Jew IQ, which is slightly more politically correct than other variations of the debate.</p>

<p>"21 percent of black men in America who have not attended college are incarcerated; half of all black men in their 20's are unemployed."
Yale or Jail, right? Those criminals are just a Stanford seminar away from becoming the next John Donne. Your conception of man's malleable nature is comical.</p>

115

<p>It is so interesting to me that the very people who decry affirmative action are the ones who matter-of-factly note that expensive SAT prep classes, coaches, private schools, are the right of the upper middle class in a capitalist society, because, after all, "gee, life isn't really fair anyway."</p>

<p>So, they are all in favor of what they can purchase for <em>their</em> children, but the fact that there might just be some efforts to level the playing field for the children of color or lesser circumstance who didn't have those many privileges causes these parents to become angry and cry foul?</p>

<p>I don't really think there is anything at all liberal about "armchair liberal's" views.</p>

116

<p>"You can hold whatever opinion you want -- I don't mind hearing from an honest conservative. They have a reasonable argument, even it if does come down to every white man for himself."</p>

<p>calmom,</p>

<p>I'm reading along, agreeing with you, nodding my head and then....bam, "every white man for himself".</p>

<p>IMHO, that rhetoric really throws your well crafted post off the track.</p>

<p>And to all those who are completely committed to their liberal values, I really admire your fortitude and steadfastness. I certainly hold true to the large majority of these values but, like a large percentage of the country, can lean to the moderate side of the political spectrum at times. (see Hillary Clinton's current strategy) .</p>

<p>I have been surprised by the rancor with which you attack the opposition, even those who espouse to hold your values but confess to a reexamination at times. Seems to me that your self-righteousness might get in the way of the desired result. Why does it have to be a "you're either 100% with me, or you are against me" attitude?</p>

117

<p>easy there sbdad...</p>

<p>i consider my self one of those committed liberals and i haven't attacked you. to the contrary, i said i could understand that it's difficult when things hit home.</p>

<p>before anyone points out that it's easy for me to cling to these views now that my S is exactly where he wanted to go, i'll point out that very early in his college search, my wife, he and i sat down to discuss this very issue. of course, there is no way to know exactly why a particular person gets in to a given school or not, so any such discussion will always be abstract.</p>

<p>but i said then, as i do now, that if he were ever rejected, and if we ever suspected that it was due to AA, that we should all say good for that other kid...he/she deserved something good in his/her life, too.</p>

<p>for my S has grown up with all the benefits of the middle class. (we've been all over that middle class during years -- upper, middle and lower -- but middle class nonetheless. he had a great education, concerned parents and none of the baggage that confronts urms every day.</p>

<p>we decided well before he even applied that whatever the outcome, he'd go to a very good, if not great college, and that he'd do well regardless.</p>

<p>so even though he wound up at a great college, we knew from early on that such an outcome wasn't guaranteed and we would be at peace, no matter what the reason.</p>

118

<p>nycdad,</p>

<p>Point well taken and nice work with your S.</p>

<p>I will definitely sit down and have the talk with my S next fall.</p>

119

<p>SBD, I think you are getting a lot of polar reactions because the truth is that AA is an ultimately quite limited program in terms of the raw number of affected slots at the top uni's. The deck is stacked against minorities so far as the cumulative effect of American race relations. So, when you say you want a middle ground a lot of people will say or think: What's half of five hundred or fifteen hundred slots? </p>

<p>If only 500 African-American SAT testtakers scored 1500 or higher in the entire country, I mean, there aren't the same fallback supports. A lot of state U systems use SATs as a proxy for scholarship aid just as an example of subtle bias </p>

<p>I did see a response intended to me above which I will get to soon</p>

<p>I give you credit for revisiting your views and doing so publicly.</p>

120

<p>-All Music- and the likes why do you assume that every one 'purchases' SAT prep classes, tutoring for their children etc etc?</p>

<p>And don't give me the crap that minority and poor can't take those classes. If there is a motivation and desire there are many 'FREE' resources available (including in their own schools), you can purchase SAT books or go to library and check them out. In my son's high school (majority minority kids with a graduating class of > 800) when they offer such classes less than 10 sign up.</p>

<p>The only secrete to high test scores is practice, practice and practice and PRACTICE - the Xiggi method.</p>

<p>It is sickening to keep on hearing the 'advantages' of non URM kids.</p>

<p>It is also funny that the manjority of people defending AA on this board are either URM themselves or 'whites'. I have not seen a single posting by a URM who thinks the AA practice might be unfair. It is like URMs don't want to end this practice and have it continue till eternity. Even the wealthy URMs would not hesitate playing the 'race card' if it would benefit them - talk about hypocrisy in the name of leveling the playing field.</p>