Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The new "yellow peril"
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A hundred years ago, there was talk of a "yellow peril" because of Chinese and Japanese immigration to the United States in general and to California in particular. Today, there are echoes of that notion in a front page headline on the education section of the New York Times of January 7th.

"At 41 percent Asian, Berkeley could be the new face of merit-based admissions. The problem for everybody else: lots less room at elite colleges."

Anybody of any race who takes a place at any college leaves one less place for somebody else. Does an Asian American take up any more space than anybody else? Are they all Sumo wrestlers?

This hand-wringing about too many Asians is an echo of the past in another painful way. Back in the early 20th century, various elite colleges decided that there were "too many Jews" applying and set quotas to restrict the number of Jewish students admitted.

One of the institutions that did not do this was the College of the City of New York, which admitted students according to their academic qualifications. Jewish students seemed to be an even higher percentage of the students at CCNY then than Asian students are today at Berkeley.

Because CCNY was both free and a high-quality academic institution, it became known as "the poor man's Harvard."

That was then. Today, CCNY has long since succumbed to the siren song of "inclusion" and flung its doors open to all and sundry, with no old-fashioned notions of academic qualifications. No one calls it a poor man's Harvard any more. Few would even call it adequate.

In the long and rambling New York Times article about Berkeley -- titled "Little Asia on the Hill" -- there is lots of space devoted to racial representation among the student body and remarkably little mention of qualifications and achievement. You might never guess that a university has purposes other than presenting a demographic profile that is politically correct.

In addition to such omissions, there is also misinformation. For example: "In California, the rise of the Asian campus, of the strict meritocracy, has come at the expense of historically underrepresented blacks and Hispanics."

There have been more black students in the University of California system than there were before affirmative action was outlawed. Black students have not been denied a college education. They have been redistributed within the University of California system, with fewer going to Berkeley and more going to Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and other institutions within the same system.

Something similar has happened within the University of Texas system after affirmative action was outlawed. Fewer black students went to the flagship campus at Austin but more went to the University of Texas system as a whole.

Back in the days when affirmative action or racial quotas were in full force, most black students admitted to Berkeley never graduated. Nor was Berkeley unique in that respect.

Critics of affirmative action have been saying for decades that putting black students in institutions where they are overmatched academically reduces their chances of graduating. This creates a wholly unnecessary problem, when most of those same black students would have far better chances of keeping up and graduating at other institutions where the rest of the students have similar academic qualifications.

The sheer speed at which material is taught can make it nearly impossible to keep up when the pace is geared to students with far higher SAT scores in math and English -- even though students with lower scores may be perfectly capable of learning the same material when taught at a more moderate pace.

What has happened to graduation rates of black students after being redistributed within the University of California system? Those who have asked that question have been denied the information. And of course the New York Times reporter does not even discuss such things.

Asians are no menace to blacks. They could serve as an example to blacks, as Bill Cosby once suggested. He told some black students: "They always get A's. That's why they call them Asians."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Unpopular Merit :)
'Merit' is unpopular when the outcome exposes a shortcoming. This is true in affirmative action and trade. The answer offered by those offended is the same in both cases - whether Left or Right - legislate outcomes.

It's a crying shame
that our great country has allowed our universities and college's to deteriorate into Liberal social engineering factories, at the cost of higher education.

Education is not the goal
The goal of a great majority of university professors is not education but indoctrination. Quotas are just window-dressing. Education is irrelevant.

BigBelly
I can't wait for that to happen :).

Racism = Collectivism
Racism is a form of Collectivism.

A racist doesn't see an individual, but sees his/her 'group', and infers that the individual must possess the characteristics (real or perceived) of the group (or collective).

Racism (and all other forms of collectivism) are incompatible with American concepts of individual freedom. However, one can't deny that it exists.

Does affirmative action help eliminate racism? No, it actually increases racism - as seen in some well-intentioned (but racist sounding) posts on this site, written by people that have suffered 'reverse' discrimination.

How do we eliminate racism? Not by using unfair and weakness-inspiring practices like affirmative action, but by using the 'strength' of our laissez faire C A P I T A L I S M.

Here are some steps that can be contemplated:

* eliminate welfare
* eliminate affirmative action
* privatize education
* drastically reduce the employment sectors in which ABILITY is no longer the criterion. Examples include Govt employment, unionized labor etc.

Merit = individual responsibility
We can't have the poor, unmotivated sectors of our society to have a low self-esteem now can we? Isn't a good self-esteem, based solely on proferred "achievements" and never on having actually done something to be proud of, the goal of all our current educational efforts, from K-PHD? Just more liberal lunacy!!

Homeschooling? is it the answer?
Homeschooling works so well at the lower levels of education why not "homeschooling" at the college level? Most colleges and/or Universities are "teaching?" so much garbage (ie., indoctrinating garbage!)
And it is pretty expensive garbage, at that!

Once we can get future employers to accept the system of a self educated, or rather, non college/University educated individuals (but who are equally or better educated through the self-taught "homeschool" method) we're off and running.

It's true that most Colleges and Universities have become very expensive "businesses" feeding the coffers of the administrators, professors, et al.... Talk about Pork!!???!!


Have your cake AND eat it!
Thank you, Dr Sowell, for yet another great article. I’ve heard the same criticisms of other west coast high end universities: “They’re being taken over by the Asians,” or as Dr Sowell cited was said of CCNY, the Jews.

Well, here’s the bottom line: Anybody or any group who can get away with it will claim discrimination, unfair competition or whatever. But the reality is those that can’t compete with the Asians, simply WON’T compete. They are unwilling to put in the same amount of study/work to achieve the same results. As Dr Sowell pointed out, different people may have to learn the same material at a different rate, and some may not learn it as well. For the most part ANY academic field is a large collection of simple facts or premises. The way to get a handle on it is to roll your sleeves up and get to studying.

The social / racial groups who historically are academically “challenged” are challenged by their own social norms which teach them to make bad decisions about their priorities. Jews and Asians as groups value discipline and achievement. These in turn bring rewards. Other social /racial groups value “living in the moment.” This tends not to bring rewards.

One of the hallmarks of higher intelligence is the ability to defer gratification. Another pearl of wisdom, from none other than Forrest Gump, is “Stupid is as stupid does.” In other words, we have no way of knowing just exactly how intelligent or stupid an individual is except by their PERFORMANCE: Act stupid, you are stupid. Act intelligent, you are intelligent. These are taught behaviors endemic to any social/ family/ racial group.

You can spend your youth either studying, or playing soccer, hockey, dancing, drinking, or drugging if you want to live in the moment without a future reward. So make up your minds: do you want the benefits of stupidity and bad decision making, or the results of intelligence and good decision making?

Elite Universitys...
..."The problem for everybody else: lots less room at elite colleges."

Why does the New York Times refer to them as "elite colleges" if their standards are lower?

Problem of affirmative action
Unfortunately, the US chose to copy another "pioneer" in this area--in this case, India which had enacted a set of laws to address the past discrimination against Dalits/Adivasis by "reservation" system. What it actually led to in India:
(1) many getting false certificates (it is also noted that bribery flourishes unabated in India) to claim Dalit/Adivasi status
(2) expansion of the reservation to include "other-backward" who had never had trouble (in fact, these made up the most prosperous groups both before and after Partition)
(3) degradation of quality of many candidates

Same thing is going to happen (if it hasn't already) to US affirmative action. It is time that it reverted to merit-base.

svpallava
Good points. It is amazing how some in this country selectively look at the actions other countries, see failure in their systems, ie. education, and decide to emulate it anyway. What's worse is that when it fails here as well, those same people will throw more money and effort at it and deny its failure.

Peril?
Voice of Reason

If racism equals collectivism this means that the US was a commie place until the last 20/30 years.

The only peril in this country is the complete denial by so-called "conservatives" of what really happened here the last 450 years.

The Roman writes:
Homeschooling? is it the answer?
Homeschooling works so well at the lower levels of education why not "homeschooling" at the college level? Most colleges and/or Universities are "teaching?" so much garbage (ie., indoctrinating garbage!)
And it is pretty expensive garbage, at that!
==========================

Wasn't there an article the other day about a major college that is putting its classes on line for anybody?

It said that it felt the online college would attract more to their campus who want the interaction a campus would provide. This not the usual online stuff according to what I read but a full blown lecture via streaming media and class material. Does anyone know which college?

I think the college is MIT
quote:
As resources permit, we continue to add video and audio materials to OCW. As of November, 22 courses have complete series of lectures (609 lectures in all). Many other courses have video elements (over 1200 video files all together). Some courses are available in audio format, and we are now posting audio-only versions of video courses as we produce them. For links to all our video and audio courses, go to http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/OCWHelp/avocw.htm.
------------------------------


Indoctrination University
I have been predicting the demise of our U. system.
It is not producing scholars but indoctrinated graduates. Our elections and political discussion, Media and other failing institutions demonstrate the failure of the University system. Students have trouble spelling the English language, reading technical material and understanding it, writing coherently, speaking and analyzing political jibberish for what it is. Has anyone ever taken on Ted Kennedy's talks for what they are? Obfuscation and diversion of issues. We have a Congress that cheats, lies, and double talks about everything and we think we are getting honest and fair legislation. The rotten institutions may have to be liquidated while noveau monks retreat to mountain hideouts and pull up the ladders to save civilization again. From my Castaic retreat.

You know
History is funny. When you read about the “yellow scare”, you repeatedly see predictions of how the American way of life was at stake, or how our future was doomed if drastic steps weren’t taken immediately. I know this doesn’t really apply to the topic, but neither did bringing up the “yellow scare” in the first place. But still, it is kind of funny.

Reply To Dr. Sowells
Pricey Pigskin

Breaking out the value of playoff games and other related properties, the projected per-game rights for televising an NFL game for deals going into effect with the 2006 season are quite steep.

Legend: (N)Network
(TP)Total Payment
(AP)Annual Payment
(C)Contests
(PGR)Per-Game Rights

(N) (TP) (AP) (C) (PGR)
ESPN $8.8B $1.1B 17 $64.7M
NBC $3.6B $600M 18 $33.3M
Fox $4.3B $712.5M 26 $27.4M
CBS $3.7B $622.5M 26 $23.9M
***

BCS Championship Game-Florida-Ohio State
Field (capacity): Glendale Stadium (73,000)
2007 Projected Payout Per Conference: $14 to $17 million, South Eastern Conference and Big 10
***

There are many student athletes who can pass any SAT test and compete at the highest academic level, without any special assistance. Those student athletes are beyond the scope of this discussion.

Ordinarily, however, this is not the case.

Usually, those with special skills, whether in band, or lacrosse, or tennis, or crew, or fencing, or legacies, or football, get special dispensation.

For black students, this special dispensation is called the dastardly affirmative action.

For white students in tennis, lacrosse, horseback riding, crew, fencing, and legacies this special dispensation is praised with a wink and a smile as, "well that's the way it is and and always will be."

Only is conservative circles is discrimination in favor of blacks, cursed, while discrimination in favor of whites, praised.

Strict constructionist like Republican Boehner who requested that the House shut down so that they could go watch the BCS Championship, should insist that all the black players on all football teams be replaced by Asians, who outscore them on SATs.

It is difficult to gauge what effect that this would have on the game, but for certain those stellar black stars who were admitted because of affirmative action would not be there.

Stars and big game players make big plays in big games on the biggest stages.

Stars attract fans, attract advertisers, attract huge multi-billion dollar tv contrcats, keep networks, advertisors, t-shirt hawkers, bus drivers, policemen, guard services, food vendors, beer manufactures, cheerleader outfit stitchers, commentators, neswpaper beat writers, and congresspeople, among millions more,in business.

See the cleverness of the affirmative action debate:

"It always centers on the so-called 'big favor,' affirmative action does for blacks.

It never centers on 'actual big favor' that blacks do for affirmative action; the huge multibillion dollar NFL conracts worth $8.8 billion to ESPN, $3.6 billion to NBC, $4.3 billion to Fox, $3.7 billion to CBS.

The black stars put $17 million into the coffers of the Big 10 including the University of Michigan and the conservatives there, which allows conservatives at the University of Michigan to try everything in the world to keep the black affirmative action football stars out of UM.

Yes, get rid of affirmative action, and watch football as we know it collapse, along with a lot of other white-owned businesses.

Internet Education
At some point, some schools are going to figure out that they can make a ton of money by going to a purely Web based education format. Their overhead will be way lower. True, they will offer a more limited set of degrees. True, they won't be viewed as "elite". True, lots of kids won't want this because they like the partying and socializing of a traditional college. True, many parents won't like this because the kids are still at home. But...

...lots of people WILL like this because the cost of a college education will be way cheaper. There are schools that are already starting this approach, but they all also have physical campuses. The first well accredited, purely web based universities are going to be very profitable.

Black Knight

The extent of a university's fame for their sports teams is usually a good indication of their academic rigor and prestige, the more famous for their winning sports teams, the less likely their academic prestige. You woudn't want to compare St. John's University with M.I.T. or the Sorbonne for academic standards, now would you? Dr. Sowell's article refers first and foremost to real universities, the ones where intellectual achievement and rigor come first, second, and last.

Personally I would love nothing more than this scam of college sports to dissapear. Reduce college sports to a daily 45 minute gym class, to prepare the mind for the real purpose of higher learning, namely - LEARNING.

Dr. Sowell
Is at his "best" when he talks about education, but there are some points that he neglects to mention. There was an NBER study that suggested that minorities who graduated from elite schools showed the greatest gains in income when compared to those who graduated from second-tier institutions. This probably holds true for students in general - after all, if there were no difference in post-graduation prospects based on the school attended, there would be little justifiable price disparity between schools. As a corollary, there would be fewer anti-affirmative action lawsuits, since all that would be required for success would be to graduate at any college (by the way, has anyone noticed that only the schools recognized as the top in their particular area have been singled out? Why no anti-affirmative action lawsuits for lesser ranked colleges?).

My questions for Sowell would be these: do minorities who fail out of elite institutions eventually graduate from lower-tiered colleges? If so, could the fact that they are aware of the future payoff lead them to make the effort? And finally, does graduating from a less competitive institution make them just as eligible for post-graduation employment as someone who has graduated from Berkeley?

Reply To Augustus McRae
"Augustus_McRae writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 1:54 PM
Black Knight

The extent of a university's fame for their sports teams is usually a good indication of their academic rigor and prestige, the more famous for their winning sports teams, the less likely their academic prestige. You woudn't want to compare St. John's University with M.I.T. or the Sorbonne for academic standards, now would you? Dr. Sowell's article refers first and foremost to real universities, the ones where intellectual achievement and rigor come first, second, and last.

Personally I would love nothing more than this scam of college sports to dissapear. Reduce college sports to a daily 45 minute gym class, to prepare the mind for the real purpose of higher learning, namely - LEARNING (AMR)."
***



I know exactly what Dr. Sowell is talking about. I just happen to disagree with him 100%.

He believes that black affirmative action is bad, and white affirmative action is good.

For that reason, I believe his position is inconsistent, intellectually indefensible, corrupt and bankrupt.

Augustus_McRae
I agree with your sports evaluation and share your feelings for college athletics to some extent. Yet, I have to support Black Knight’s take on this issue. While he lays it on a little heavy, he is essentially correct in saying that athletics provides a realm of college privilege that we tend to ignore. When combined with legacy and large donor families, it’s easy to say that we constantly and comfortably live with preferential treatment. It is odd that Affirmative Action takes such heat in conservative circles when little or nothing is ever said about the other forms of preference.

John Doe: Sowell is at his best when he sticks to Economics. Unfortunately, economics is not as popular as other issues. One of the greatest fears as a man ages is that people will stop listening to him. Sowell has guaranteed an audience by telling certain conservatives what they want to hear. There are few things more popular than a black man condemning Affirmative Action.

Reply to MikeR
"MikeR writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 3:11 PM
Augustus_McRae
I agree with your sports evaluation and share your feelings for college athletics to some extent. Yet, I have to support Black Knight’s take on this issue. While he lays it on a little heavy, he is essentially correct in saying that athletics provides a realm of college privilege that we tend to ignore. When combined with legacy and large donor families, it’s easy to say that we constantly and comfortably live with preferential treatment. It is odd that Affirmative Action takes such heat in conservative circles when little or nothing is ever said about the other forms of preference (MR)."
***



Thank you MikeR for understanding what I was getting at.




Preferential treatment?

Mike R., you say: " athletics provides a realm of college privilege that we tend to ignore. When combined with legacy and large donor families, it’s easy to say that we constantly and comfortably live with preferential treatment."

Dios mio! Poor little Asians, they're practically only good at ping-pong, and there's not much money to be made there, and I didn't know so many Asians had rich, white, uncles. How did they ever get to be 41% of Berekeley, those Asians must be bely, bely, sneaky indeed!

Is Conservative College an oxymoron?
Over the last few weeks I have read many responses to articles on TH denouncing the "LIBERAL" colleges and universities.

I must be fortunate. I managed to earn a masters degree and can honestly say I have never been subjected to liberal, or conservative, introdination in any of my classes. I'm a conservative, retired Navy senior non-commissioned officer, and I know when a liberal is trying to blow smoke up my tailpipe; it never happened.

Was I just lucky in my choices of universities, or is the liberal leaning of colleges and universities in this country greatly exagerated by many posters on TH?

I grew up in a conservative family, spent my life in a generally conservative occupation, and now live in a conservative part of the country, so I don't know, I'm just asking.

Nam65-66 -- Elite
quoth Nam65-66: "Why does the New York Times refer to them as "elite colleges" if their standards are lower?"

They are elite becoz their standards are traditionally higher. They lowered their standards somewhat in the name of "diversity" to achieve "racial balance."

Diversity is all well and good, but if certain people have been "passed along" regardless of merit their entire academic life, then they aren't yet ready for the rigors of an elite university.


always Right -- Collectivism
quoth always Right: "If racism equals collectivism this means that the US was a commie place until the last 20/30 years."

"commie" meaning "Communism"? No. Communism is a form of collectivism -- a flavor -- a subset. There's all sorts of flavors of collectivism.

At its core, it simply means judging and categorizing a person according to the groups he belongs to, vs. what that person does as an individual. Racism is collectivism in that a person is judged by their race, instead of as a person.

quoth always Right: "The only peril in this country is the complete denial by so-called "conservatives" of what really happened here the last 450 years."

Hmmm. I've seen that "450 years" before. I think I know where this argument is heading.

There is no denial of what happened in this country. However, there appears to be a denial on the part of others (shall we say, "so-called liberals"?) irt to the endless opportunities that exist in this country.

But, opportunity does not knock. That old cliche is stupid. You have to go out and hunt it down.

Black Knight - Sports Affirmative Action
quoth Black Knight: "For black students, this special dispensation is called the dastardly affirmative action.

For white students in tennis, lacrosse, horseback riding, crew, fencing, and legacies this special dispensation is praised with a wink and a smile as, "well that's the way it is and and always will be."

Only is conservative circles is discrimination in favor of blacks, cursed, while discrimination in favor of whites, praised."

You are incorrect sir. In conservative circles, discrimination in favor of athletes is also condemned.

But you have to understand something. Any time a person is brought into a college for something other than their intellectual vigor, then that person is going to lose something.

Self respect. Ability. Education. etc.

The story of an athlete who went to school because he could throw a football, learned nothing, and then ended up as failure later in life (or went into politics) is so old as to be cliche. It happens all the time.

Is this what you want for blacks? To be brought into a school simply because they're black? Only to fail in life later on when they hit the "real world"?

BTW, the practice of giving athletes preferential treatment is under scrutiny all the time. Jokes are made about it. Saturday morning cartoons use it as a plot device. Both liberals and conservatives condemn the practice, but it goes on anyway. Although it does happen a lot less nowadays than it used to, thanks to the public scrutiny.

Colleges and universities are also under scrutiny for using affirmative action.

If you want to help blacks, don't look to the colleges for hand-outs. Instead, get your friends and relatives and anyone else who'll listen to hold blacks up to higher standards. If you have kids, read to them. Every day. Check their report cards. Insist on all A's. Don't allow that old "acting white" excuse.

Of course, I'm sure you personally already do things like that. If more people did, the problem would solve itself in due time.

John Doe -- Lower-Tiered College
quoth John Doe: "My questions for Sowell would be these: do minorities who fail out of elite institutions eventually graduate from lower-tiered colleges?"

I don't have the answers, but I believe that most people who drop out of college for whatever reason never return.

So you're better off graduating from "Joe Blow's College of Nobody's (JBCN)" than you are dropping out of Harvard.

quoth John Doe: "And finally, does graduating from a less competitive institution make them just as eligible for post-graduation employment as someone who has graduated from Berkeley?"

There have been some studies that do indicate that, the more prestigious the university, the better your employment chances are. And the higher your wages will be. At least to start.

But, unless I'm mistaken, those same studies seem to indicate that the longer you're in the workforce, the less that matters. It "levels off" after a time. What you might say is, "What have you done LATELY?" Or, like they say in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last movie.

So, yes, a Harvard graduate tends to make better money, initially, than a graduate of "JBCN". But after a decade, employers don't care as much about that; they want to know what you've been doing in the last ten years.

Which brings us back to, it's better to *graduate* from JBCN than to *drop out* of Harvard.


Thanks, uncaAlby: ref: 'always right'
quoth always Right: "If racism equals collectivism this means that the US was a commie place until the last 20/30 years."

"commie" meaning "Communism"? No. Communism is a form of collectivism -- a flavor -- a subset. There's all sorts of flavors of collectivism.

Well said, UncaAlby - thanks for responding to the question posed by'always right'.

Racism is inconsistent with the concept of 'individual rights' that is the philosophical basis of Capitalism. If the US were to adopt a truly Capitalist model (sans affirmative action, welfare, public education, bloated public sector etc), racism would die out after a few generations.

In one of Dr. Sowell's books (sorry, I forget which one), he presents historical data about the wage disparity between blacks and whites before and after "Affirmative Action". His analysis showed that blacks were making significant gains towards achieving parity with whites before the "Great Society" years - but have lost ground since then.

'Always right', there are 'collectivist' ideas in our mostly Capitalist country. Most of them (if not all) keep us from achieving the fullest potential of Capitalism - but that does not mean that we are a 'Commie' nation, either.

SVPALLAVA: it is certainly interesting that we have 'borrowed' affirmative action from a Socialist Democracy! Do you have any web links or references related to this?

What is also incomprehensible, is that we have allowed Socialist ideas such as public education and public health care (ref: the news stories out of California today) to also germinate in the US.

My fear is that Nationalized Health Care is almost here! As goes California, so does the rest .. and it will be the Republicans that will make it happen to establish their populist influence with our dumbed down electorate.

Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 5:34 PM
Black Knight - Sports Affirmative Action
quoth Black Knight: "For black students, this special dispensation is called the dastardly affirmative action.

For white students in tennis, lacrosse, horseback riding, crew, fencing, and legacies this special dispensation is praised with a wink and a smile as, "well that's the way it is and and always will be."

Only is conservative circles is discrimination in favor of blacks, cursed, while discrimination in favor of whites, praised."

You are incorrect sir. In conservative circles, discrimination in favor of athletes is also condemned.

But you have to understand something. Any time a person is brought into a college for something other than their intellectual vigor, then that person is going to lose something.

Self respect. Ability. Education. etc.

The story of an athlete who went to school because he could throw a football, learned nothing, and then ended up as failure later in life (or went into politics) is so old as to be cliche. It happens all the time.

Is this what you want for blacks? To be brought into a school simply because they're black? Only to fail in life later on when they hit the "real world"?

BTW, the practice of giving athletes preferential treatment is under scrutiny all the time. Jokes are made about it. Saturday morning cartoons use it as a plot device. Both liberals and conservatives condemn the practice, but it goes on anyway. Although it does happen a lot less nowadays than it used to, thanks to the public scrutiny.

Colleges and universities are also under scrutiny for using affirmative action.

If you want to help blacks, don't look to the colleges for hand-outs. Instead, get your friends and relatives and anyone else who'll listen to hold blacks up to higher standards. If you have kids, read to them. Every day. Check their report cards. Insist on all A's. Don't allow that old "acting white" excuse.

Of course, I'm sure you personally already do things like that. If more people did, the problem would solve itself in due time (U)."
***






"You are incorrect sir. In conservative circles, discrimination in favor of athletes is also condemned (U)."
***

To the contrary sir, it is you who are wrong:

The big guns, Ward Connerly, Governor Pete Wilson, Roger Clegg, AEI, Dr. Sowell, Dr. Williams, among many others, lead the concentrated assault-crusade against affirmative action, which led to California's Prop 209, and Michigan's Civil Rights Initiative.

Where are the big guns against legacy discrimination, tennis, crew, lacrosse, horesback riding, white sports?

It's not enough for you as an individual to condemn legacy preferences. I'm sure there are millions of Americans against legacy discrimination.

However, the question from the rest of us is "where is the crusade against legacy discrimination" from the big guns, leading to "Prop 209A and Michigan CRI Against Legacy Discrimination?"
***

"Is this what you want for blacks? To be brought into a school simply because they're black? Only to fail in life later on when they hit the "real world (U)"?


You have completely missed the point.

Get rid of all preferences, football, tennis, lacrosse, crew, horesback riding, fencing, legacy. Chuck it all.
***

"If you want to help blacks, don't look to the colleges for hand-outs. Instead, get your friends and relatives and anyone else who'll listen to hold blacks up to higher standards. If you have kids, read to them. Every day. Check their report cards. Insist on all A's. Don't allow that old "acting white" excuse (U)."


You are so far off, that it is almost not worth commenting on.

Both my kids are graduates in computer science and experts in their fields.









Boy, try to compliment somebody!
uncaalby: "If you want to help blacks, don't look to the colleges for hand-outs. Instead, get your friends and relatives and anyone else who'll listen to hold blacks up to higher standards. If you have kids, read to them. Every day. Check their report cards. Insist on all A's. Don't allow that old "acting white" excuse."


quoth Black Knight: "You are so far off, that it is almost not worth commenting on.

Both my kids are graduates in computer science and experts in their fields."

DOESN'T THIS JUST PROVE MY POINT?


Black Knight - mea culpa
In quoting me, you left out the part where I said,

"Of course, I'm sure you personally already do things like that. If more people did, the problem would solve itself in due time."

In replying to your replay, I neglected to notice that you'd left that part out.

That's a very important statement. My reply makes more sense with it in.

In other words, what I was saying is that each of us, individually, needs to be responsible to make sure that the kids under our influence do the VERY BEST THEY POSSIBLY CAN. No excuses.

I said that I was certain you already did that.

The fact that your kids are graduates and experts in their fields proves my point. A person such as yourself already does right by your kids.

Where we have problems are the too many people who DON'T do right by their kids, and then want to blame "The Man" for their kids' failures.

Certainly racism still exists. But it's no longer the obstacle to success it once was.


Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 6:58 PM
Boy, try to compliment somebody!
uncaalby: "If you want to help blacks, don't look to the colleges for hand-outs. Instead, get your friends and relatives and anyone else who'll listen to hold blacks up to higher standards. If you have kids, read to them. Every day. Check their report cards. Insist on all A's. Don't allow that old "acting white" excuse."


quoth Black Knight: "You are so far off, that it is almost not worth commenting on (U)."

Both my kids are graduates in computer science and experts in their fields."

DOESN'T THIS JUST PROVE MY POINT?
***



No it doesn't.

The wrong assumption, that I do not hold blacks to high standards, cannot lead to the right conclusion, that blacks should be held to high standards.

And even if it could, it still misses the point:

"The big guns, Ward Connerly, Governor Pete Wilson, Roger Clegg, AEI, Dr. Sowell, Dr. Williams, among many others, lead the concentrated assault-crusade against affirmative action, which led to California's Prop 209, and Michigan's Civil Rights Initiative.

Where are the big guns against legacy discrimination, tennis, crew, lacrosse, horesback riding, white sports?

It's not enough for you as an individual to condemn legacy preferences. I'm sure there are millions of Americans against legacy discrimination.

However, the question from the rest of us is "where is the crusade against legacy discrimination" from the big guns, leading to "Prop 209A and Michigan CRI Against Legacy Discrimination?"

Finally, a guess is not a compliment.

A guess is just that, a guess.


To voice of reason,

You write, " there are 'collectivist' ideas in our mostly Capitalist country". How do you arrive at this conclusion? Having read many of your posts, I assume you are a Randian/Misesian Libertarian, having read much but not all of both writers it is hard for me to conclude that we live in a MOSTLY Capitalist country at least not by a Randian, or Misesian, and specially not a Rothbardian definition. Specially after the Kelo vs. New London case. In my opinion we live in an extremely mixed economy mostly Mercantilist and Socialist, with Capitalism as Rand and Mises defined it, having never existed in the US because there was not a full and coherent economic and moral defense and theory for it. And the approximation that did exist to true Capitalism as Rand defined it began to erode with Lincoln and Henry Clay's establishing their "American System" after the Civil War, which was really the old European system of Mercantilism. After that, the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the establishing of the Federal Reserve, then FDR and the New Deal, and now Kelo vs. New London; how can one say the US is mostly Capitalist? That seems to me to be inviting blame upon Capitalism for the sins of Mercantilism and Socialism.

But I would sincerely like to know at what point does one stop calling a mostly Capitalist country mostly Capitalist? Instead of mostly Mercantilist, or mostly Socialist?

Black Knight

Blacks are not racially excluded from taking up "white" sports, neither are whites racially excluded from "black" sports, there are no racial quotas in lacrosse, tennis, or horseback riding, or basketball, unlike Affirmative Action, which is strictly and on principle race based, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the nepotism of an old boy network is wrong, this is why nepotism should be fought when encountered. But this historical nepotism at universities has been informal and not government mandated. Would you prefer the legal enforcement of nepotism instead? The legal enforcement of an old white-boy network? Would this evil be made any better if Blacks and Hispanics joined in and were to have a legally protected race based "nepotism"? Because that is exactly what Affirmative Action is.

"I really didn't earn this degree but my Uncle Sam pulled some strings, wink, wink!"

Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 7:07 PM
Black Knight - mea culpa
In quoting me, you left out the part where I said,

"Of course, I'm sure you personally already do things like that. If more people did, the problem would solve itself in due time."

In replying to your replay, I neglected to notice that you'd left that part out.

That's a very important statement. My reply makes more sense with it in.

In other words, what I was saying is that each of us, individually, needs to be responsible to make sure that the kids under our influence do the VERY BEST THEY POSSIBLY CAN. No excuses.

I said that I was certain you already did that.

The fact that your kids are graduates and experts in their fields proves my point. A person such as yourself already does right by your kids.

Where we have problems are the too many people who DON'T do right by their kids, and then want to blame "The Man" for their kids' failures.

Certainly racism still exists. But it's no longer the obstacle to success it once was (U)."
***



Sir, you could not be more wrong.

Racism is the number one condition holding blacks back.

You don't have to believe me. Run your own common sense test:

(1). How many black senators did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(2). How many black senators do we have now?

A. One.

(3). How many black Presidents did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(4). How many black Presidents do we have now?

B. None.

(5). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(6). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS, do we have now?

A. None.

(7). How many black moderators did we have at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," in 1950?

A. None

(8). How many black moderators at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," do we have now?

A. None

(9). How many black CEOs did we have at Ford, GM, and Chrysler in 1950?

A. None

(10). How many black CEOs do we have now at Ford, GE, and Chrysler now?

A. None

The list goes on and on ad infinitum.

Only in conservative circles is black progress of from 0 to 1, over the last 57 years mean that racism is no longer the obstacle to success it once was.


Actually

I should have written: "I really didn't earn this degree but my Uncle Sam broke some heads and twisted some arms, wink, wink!"

Because unlike informal, voluntary, nepotism where there is room to maneuver and fight it, or leave the situation, a government mandated policy leaves you with no recourse, except maybe going to prison for going against the government's mandate.

Reply To Augustus McRae
"Augustus_McRae writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 8:28 PM
Black Knight

Blacks are not racially excluded from taking up "white" sports, neither are whites racially excluded from "black" sports, there are no racial quotas in lacrosse, tennis, or horseback riding, or basketball, unlike Affirmative Action, which is strictly and on principle race based, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the nepotism of an old boy network is wrong, this is why nepotism should be fought when encountered. But this historical nepotism at universities has been informal and not government mandated. Would you prefer the legal enforcement of nepotism instead? The legal enforcement of an old white-boy network? Would this evil be made any better if Blacks and Hispanics joined in and were to have a legally protected race based "nepotism"? Because that is exactly what Affirmative Action is.

"I really didn't earn this degree but my Uncle Sam pulled some strings, wink, wink!(AM)"
***


Funny how that works.

People don't have to segregate by law, "de jure," to be guilty of segregation. In fact, "de facto," segregation works just as badly.

In law, "de facto," can be just as harmful as "de jure," in fact, conditions. Therefore, to the contrary, I am comparing apples to apples.

The law recognizes both injuries.

Let's examine your statement that blacks are not excluded from certain teams.

Blacks are not excluded from the Duke Lacrosse team for example, but how many in fact, "de facto," ended up on the team?

One!!!

Out of how many?

Forty-four.

Mathmatically, that's 1/44 or .02272773 black and .977272727 white.

Or stated another way, the Duke Lacrosse team was 97.72% white. So much for non-exclusion.

It is in fact, "de facto," a white team.

Now you may say that this system is fair, and that it is open to all, but that does not pass the smell test.

It proves my point over and over again. Only in conservative circles is a 95% to 100% white racial quota not considered a racial quota.
***

Get rid of all preferences, football, tennis, lacrosse, crew, horesback riding, fencing, legacy, affirmative action.

Chuck it all, and make racism a crime as suggested by Shelby Steele.








Correction
That paragraph should read:


In law, "de facto," in fact, can be just as harmful as "de jure," by law, conditions. Therefore, to the contrary, I am comparing apples to apples.

Black Knight - angry and wrong
According to Black Knight, the fact that we have had no Black president is prima facie evidence of persistent societal discrimination. There are numerous explanations, other than racism to explain this phenomenon, but BK is obviously too invested in his hate and victimization theory to acknowledge them.

One reason why we are unlikely to see a Black president anytime soon is because the vast majority of Black politicians serve the exclusive interest of Black constituencies. This makes the likelihood of cobbling together a winning majority in a Black minority state or nation highly unlikely.

With a few exceptions, the only Black politicians which could plausibly lay claim to a "broad-constituency" vision are conservatives. By and large, they advocate for policies designed to benefit everyone, and not just this racial group or that. Of course, this approach wins them few supporters among their own racial group. Until or unless Blacks and their political leaders can begin to see themselves as participants in, and advocates for, majority constituency interests, don't look for any "brothers" or "sisters" to be picking out drapes in the Oval Office any time soon.

Reply To Sandman
"SandMan writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 9:19 PM
Black Knight - angry and wrong
According to Black Knight, the fact that we have had no Black president is prima facie evidence of persistent societal discrimination. There are numerous explanations, other than racism to explain this phenomenon, but BK is obviously too invested in his hate and victimization theory to acknowledge them.

One reason why we are unlikely to see a Black president anytime soon is because the vast majority of Black politicians serve the exclusive interest of Black constituencies. This makes the likelihood of cobbling together a winning majority in a Black minority state or nation highly unlikely.

With a few exceptions, the only Black politicians which could plausibly lay claim to a "broad-constituency" vision are conservatives. By and large, they advocate for policies designed to benefit everyone, and not just this racial group or that. Of course, this approach wins them few supporters among their own racial group. Until or unless Blacks and their political leaders can begin to see themselves as participants in, and advocates for, majority constituency interests, don't look for any "brothers" or "sisters" to be picking out drapes in the Oval Office any time soon (S)."
***




Sir if you want to defend racism, you are perfeectly welcome to it; however, your gutter politics of personal destruction, lowest common denominator, name calling, cannot change the results.

I don't deal in excuses. I deal in results.

The results remain:

(1). How many black senators did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(2). How many black senators do we have now?

A. One.

(3). How many black Presidents did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(4). How many black Presidents do we have now?

A. None.

(5). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(6). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS, do we have now?

A. None.

(7). How many black moderators did we have at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," in 1950?

A. None

(8). How many black moderators at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," do we have now?

A. None

(9). How many black CEOs did we have at Ford, GM, and Chrysler in 1950?

A. None

(10). How many black CEOs do we have now at Ford, GE, and Chrysler now?

A. None


Black Knight, you are off-base
Please cite the verbal evidence in my post where I:

Defend racism: Didn't happen. I merely pointed out that racism does not explain every circumstance of underachievement in Black America. I offered, by way of example, one of these numerous alternative reasons.

Gutter politics of personal destruction: Personal destruction? the only comments I made which could even be remotely considered personal was in my subject line. While I stand by my opinion that you are both angry and wrong, please explain to me how this view could be intrepreted as "destructive".

Name-calling: The only name I used in my post was the one you selected - Black Knight.

Lowest-common denominator: What does that mean, in the context of my post? If you can even identify a "denominator" in my post, I will arbitrarily concede that it is "low," just to be sporting.

Having said all that, and given your uncivil attitude, I will call you out for what you are, and that's a hate-mongering blowhard hack. You think that just by stringing together important-sounding words and hackneyed slogans, your jumbled verbage constitutes fact, reason, and self-evident conclusions. I surmise from the self-important tone of your posts that you have attended school and fancy yourself an educated person. However, your inability to engage in even a primitve debate, suggests you were cheated by whatever august institution(s) handed you a diploma.

In my opinion, your sort represents one of the biggest impediments to improving the state of race relations in this country. You are the kind of person who would rather screamm "RACIST!" when someone disagrees with you, than engage in a meaningful dialogue.

Racial bias in collage sports?
Black Knight, I would have thought that sports teams would be even more merit based, not less. You really think a sports team would turn down a good player because of race? Or accept a poor one for the same reason?

So there was only one Black on the Duke Lacrosse team: so what? For that figure to mean anything we need to know how many Blacks tried out, and whether any who didn't make it were better than the Whites that did.

By the way, how many Black millionaires were there in 1950? How many now?

Black Knight - - -
In 1950, how many black computer science graduates and experts in their field did we have?

zero.

How many do we have now?

-- unless you pulled the moniker "Black Knight" out of the air coz it "sounded nice," and otherwise spout all the black victicrat nonsense just for the he11 of it --

then we have your two kids.

Point and match.


One more thing - - -
-- (and Townhall crashed at the last posting, so this might show up twice) --

Freedom is about equal OPPORTUNITY.

Equal opportunity does NOT mean equal results.

How many Hispanic secretaries of state have we had? How many Asians? How many Latvians? Maybe we need some AA to "rectify" that particular inequity.

We *would* have had a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, had the Democrats not blocked it. But that's Democrats for you.

Liberals are all for diversity, so long as it's diversity of skin color. Diversity of thought is verboten.




Grumpy - You're Not Quite Correct
I believe Black Knight is talking about using sports as an "affirmative action" sort of thing, where someone with superb athletic prowess and no brains is given preferential admission treatment at colleges and universities. They're sometimes even given soft classes to keep their grade-point average high enough to stay in school and on the team.

Black Knight is accusing conservatives of being hypocrites for decrying the evils of Affirmative Action for minorities (particularly blacks), while not decrying the evils of passing sports morons.

He may have a point.

However, it's not a substantial point. There aren't that many students that participate in sports to begin with. The numbers of minorities who attend, or might have attended, based on "looking the other way" on scholastic merit is MUCH larger than the numbers of athletes who receive that kind of treatment.

It doesn't mean it's right, of course -- but we need to keep our priorities in line. I don't think it is nearly as valuable to be worried about lowering standards for a few hundred moron athletes who are "passed" in comparison to lowering standards for the millions of minority students, through-out the nation's educational system.

Which may explain why conservative talking heads haven't made as big a deal over it as Black Knight seems to think they should have.



Interesting - quoth the Black Knight
quoth the Black Knight: "(10). How many black CEOs do we have now at Ford, GE, and Chrysler now? A. None"


INTERESTING --

-- that the CEO's of American Express and Beatrice Foods weren't on this impressive list. (No, don't ask me their names, I'm terrible with names.)

Or Burger King franchise owners.

Or, as Grumpy mentioned, millionaires. And not just entertainers like Jay-Z, the way ol' tubbs used to talk about -- millionaires who made their money the "old fashioned way" -- hard work, *smart* work, persistence, 16-hour days, avoidance of wasteful spending habits, etc. etc. etc.

Or even computer science graduates. Or aircraft design engineers. Or engineers period.

I guess you can "prove" anything you like when you can cherry-pick your data the way that suits your purposes, and ignore anything that doesn't.


Reply To Sandman
"SandMan writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 10:18 PM
Black Knight, you are off-base

Please cite the verbal evidence in my post where I Defend racism: Didn't happen. I merely pointed out that racism does not explain every circumstance of underachievement in Black America. I offered, by way of example, one of these numerous alternative reasons.

Gutter politics of personal destruction: Personal destruction? the only comments I made which could even be remotely considered personal was in my subject line. While I stand by my opinion that you are both angry and wrong, please explain to me how this view could be intrepreted as "destructive".

Name-calling: The only name I used in my post was the one you selected - Black Knight.

Lowest-common denominator: What does that mean, in the context of my post? If you can even identify a "denominator" in my post, I will arbitrarily concede that it is "low," just to be sporting.

Having said all that, and given your uncivil attitude, I will call you out for what you are, and that's a hate-mongering blowhard hack. You think that just by stringing together important-sounding words and hackneyed slogans, your jumbled verbage constitutes fact, reason, and self-evident conclusions. I surmise from the self-important tone of your posts that you have attended school and fancy yourself an educated person. However, your inability to engage in even a primitve debate, suggests you were cheated by whatever august institution(s) handed you a diploma.

In my opinion, your sort represents one of the biggest impediments to improving the state of race relations in this country. You are the kind of person who would rather screamm "RACIST!" when someone disagrees with you, than engage in a meaningful dialogue (S)."
***




To the contrary, your statement that:"There are numerous explanations, other than racism to explain this (S)," is indeed a defense of racism.
***

Yes, exactly, conservatives always present alternative "reasons," read excuses, to try and explain away racism.
***

Your following statement is indeed an ad homenim, gutter dwelling, politics of personal destruction, bottom-feeding, name calling tactic: "BK is obviously too invested in his hate and victimization theory (S)."
***

Since you don't recognize lowest common denominator, try Kennedy's highest common denominator:

"Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated, (JFK)."

That is the way to conduct civil discourse, not a bunch of ad homenim attacks.

Attack the argument, not the person.
***

Keep talking. The world can see, again, that you devolved into the discredited conservative tactic of descending into the gutter of bottom-feeding name-calling.

Which may win you an Amen corner from some of the posts, but doesn't win any arguments here.

Nor does it change the results:

(1). How many black senators did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(2). How many black senators do we have now?

A. One.

(3). How many black Presidents did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(4). How many black Presidents do we have now?

A. None.

(5). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS did we have in 1950?

A. None.

(6). How many black heads of ABC, NBC, CBS, do we have now?

A. None.

(7). How many black moderators did we have at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," in 1950?

A. None

(8). How many black moderators at "Meet The Press," "Face The Nation," do we have now?

A. None

(9). How many black CEOs did we have at Ford, GM, and Chrysler in 1950?

A. None

(10). How many black CEOs do we have now at Ford, GE, and Chrysler now?

A. None










Reply To Grumpy
"Grumpy writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 10:23 PM
Racial bias in collage sports?
Black Knight, I would have thought that sports teams would be even more merit based, not less. You really think a sports team would turn down a good player because of race? Or accept a poor one for the same reason?

So there was only one Black on the Duke Lacrosse team: so what? For that figure to mean anything we need to know how many Blacks tried out, and whether any who didn't make it were better than the Whites that did.

By the way, how many Black millionaires were there in 1950? How many now (G)?"
***




Yes, that is a popular misconception that sports teams are merit based; and completely misses the point.

Colleges and universities are institutions of higher learning, and not institutions of higher sports.

If a slot is given to someone, that means someone else does not get that slot.

Doesn't matter where the slot is, band, sports, academia.

There are only so many slots to go around.

So when a 2.5 GPA sports player is given a slot instead of a 4.0GPA Asian student, that can hardly be considered as merit based.
***

The conservative so-called counter argument to LaCross and crew and horseback riding being "white" sports is to say that those sports are open to all races.

The facts on the ground, however, make that statement false.

The sports,ie the Duke Lacross team, are white because from 95% to 100% of the composition is "de facto", in fact, white.
***

It's your argument, so you tell me how many black millionaires there are.

That's your job.

Don't expect me to do your job.


Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 11:00 PM
Black Knight - - -
In 1950, how many black computer science graduates and experts in their field did we have?

zero.

How many do we have now?

-- unless you pulled the moniker "Black Knight" out of the air coz it "sounded nice," and otherwise spout all the black victicrat nonsense just for the he11 of it --

then we have your two kids.

Point and match (U)."
***


This ball of confusion requires no response.


Reply To Uncaalby
"UncaAlby writes: Thursday, January, 11, 2007 2:21 AM
Interesting - quoth the Black Knight
quoth the Black Knight: "(10). How many black CEOs do we have now at Ford, GE, and Chrysler now? A. None"


INTERESTING --

-- that the CEO's of American Express and Beatrice Foods weren't on this impressive list. (No, don't ask me their names, I'm terrible with names.)

Or Burger King franchise owners.

Or, as Grumpy mentioned, millionaires. And not just entertainers like Jay-Z, the way ol' tubbs used to talk about -- millionaires who made their money the "old fashioned way" -- hard work, *smart* work, persistence, 16-hour days, avoidance of wasteful spending habits, etc. etc. etc.

Or even computer science graduates. Or aircraft design engineers. Or engineers period.

I guess you can "prove" anything you like when you can cherry-pick your data the way that suits your purposes, and ignore anything that doesn't
***




Ok, CEOs of American Express and Beatrice foods.

(Two).

Burger King Franchise Owners. How many?

10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?

You pick them.

Millionaires. How many?

10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 300, 400, 500, 5000, 50000?

You pick them.

Computer science graduates. How many?

500, 5000, 10000?

You pick them or come up with the figures.

How many? It's your job to tell us how many.

You can't expect us to prove your point.

However, I'll utilize your illogic to prove my point.

2+ 100000 + 50,000 + 10,000 = 160,002.

160,002/300,000,000 = .00053 or .053%.

That's still an F in anybody's book; especially after 57 years.

To the contrary, I can prove the point I want without cherry picking, even to the point of generously giving you the benefit of the doubt by choosing the higher number.





Reply To BoyHandy
"Handy writes: Thursday, January, 11, 2007 3:56 AM
Black Knight
BK is the poster boy for victim hood. If he delivered pizzas for a living, he'd complain that the store had too many Italian customers. The fact that whites tip better than blacks would merely reinforce his opinion that racism is rampant in 21st Century America.

The athletic teams of the United States Military Academy are called the Black Knights. One thing is very sure: Our own beloved BK never attended West Point. If he had, he would have soon learned about "brotherhood" as his "bros" beat the snot out of him in an attitude adjustment session. Guys like him don't last long where merit is the only measure that matters. Copping a “tude” doesn't cut it in the ranks.

BK's sports analogies are laughable on many levels. His reasoning ability is strictly intra mural.

In sum, BK is a waste of band width, but I still love him, and am anxiously awaiting more of his insights.

Let the healing begin (H)."
***



Gibberish requires no response.

Black Knight - - - Comment
Can you kindly refrain from RE-posting the ENTIRE article to which you are NOT responding to?

Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Thursday, January, 11, 2007 10:26 AM
Black Knight - - - Comment
Can you kindly refrain from RE-posting the ENTIRE article to which you are NOT responding to(U)?"
***



There are but a few things in this world that you can control.

But there is one thing that you can bet your last money, that you absolutely without a shadow of a doubt and to a moral certainty, cannot control, and that is

HOW I POST!!!!!!!!!

Black Knight - - -
I should have bet somebody money. Somehow how I knew your response would be along those lines.

So typical.

Reply To UncaAlby
"UncaAlby writes: Friday, January, 12, 2007 1:47 PM
Black Knight - - -
I should have bet somebody money. Somehow how I knew your response would be along those lines.

So typical(U)."
***



This gibberish requires no further response.

This gibberish
"This gibberish requires no further response."

So who forced you to respond? Hmm?

This is ridiculous!
I thought that Martin Luther King Jr.'s wish was that people were not based on their skin color but on the merit of their character.

I believe that. That's why there should be NO affirmative action...not in hiring...not in college admissions. Race should not have any bearing.

But liberals, in their quest to get equality, use inequality. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

The other day, the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran an article that named the coaching candidates for the Atlanta Falcons coaching job. Next to every candidate, they listed the positives and negatives of each candidate. Next to each black candidate, they listed "minority" as a positive. What in the world does that mean?

Does it mean that being white is a disadvantage? The AJC is a typical lefty rag. Now, I don't care if they hire a black candidate if he is indeed the best candidate, but the AJC would rather the Falcons hire a black candidate because he is black than because he is the best coach.


another sports story
A few years ago, I was coaching a JV baseball team in an upscale suburb in Georgia.

The school is 95% white, and we rarely have black kids on the team simply because very few tryout. Plus, with 2400 students, tryouts for the 15 positions are highly competitive.

One season, we did have a couple black kids tryout. One was awful. He was only 5 feet tall (literally). He couldn't catch a hard thrown ball. He could barely hit the ball out of the infield. He was very likeable, but I had to cut him.

Well, his mother, knowing that her son was an all-star, went ballistic. She complained to the Office of Civil Rights, claiming that we were racist coaches. Of course, she never talked to us. She never watched the other kids play. She just KNEW it had to be racism.

Little did she know that the other black athlete was good, very good. He ended up being my number one pitcher and batted third in my line-up all year. His name was Jodie Meeks, who is now playing basketball at Kentucky.

Fortunately, our school did not ask us to back down and take the unathletic black kid just because he was black, but we did have to fill out pages and pages of paperwork. You see the OCR wanted to see if there was a pattern of us NOT selecting black players. (What is offensive to me is that they would be able to determine this NOT on whether or not the players were any good. Rather, they would simply look at the statistics. They wanted to know how many tried out and how many made it.)

And this is exactly what they do with colleges today. They don't care about whether or not the students deserve admission. No, it simply matters that they have the correct ratio.


Students Should Choose, Not Government
Students, not government, should choose which schools they want to attend based on their own individual abilities, needs, and circumstances. The colleges which give students the best overall deal in terms of financial aid would be most attractive.

Not everyone wants to be a corporate executive. Not all applicants need or want to attend an Ivy league school in order to attain a corporate leadership position. There are plenty of colleges out there. There is not a shortage of colleges, or students. There is a shortage of money.

Money Shortage
There's not even really a shortage of money.

The only reason colleges cost as much as they do is continued financial aid, especially in the form of government hand-outs such as grants, subsidized loans, tax breaks, etc.

This works to push the price of colleges up.

And when the price of colleges go up, there's additional hue and cry for more government bennies -- hence creating ever spiraling costs.

Financially, colleges are no different than any other enterprise -- the only thing that keeps prices under control is when people stop paying. When you make it so people rarely lack the ability to pay more, then there's nothing to encourage cost-cutting and efficiency.

The issue of time
"The sheer speed at which material is taught can make it nearly impossible to keep up when the pace is geared to students with far higher SAT scores in math and English -- even though students with lower scores may be perfectly capable of learning the same material when taught at a more moderate pace."
AS a grad of the UC system(Davis) I find a small problem with this. Berzerkely is the only UC campus that works off of semesters instead of quarters. They actually get information shot at them SLOWER than we did at UCD. That's my only complaint with the piece.

If people can't keep up because of language or other issues they should go to CSU schools for their undergrad work (or community colleges to remedy the problem, as I did, first), and if they want to go on, UC schools for graduate work. CSU is good enough---my older brother went to CSU Fullerton and he went on to earn a masters and a PhD from the UC system.

Asians
Asians are good for this country. They bring strong family values such as discipline, good work ethics, beautiful women, and diverse genetic material added to the pot!

Unfortunately, Asians can expect to join the Whites in being targetted for wealth redistribution and claims of unfair advantages.

Shameless plug
Check out http://www.mormoncentury.org for sociopolitical commentary in a context of rationality and faith.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.