“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
–Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963
Several years ago, James Ewell Brown Stuart University in rural Alabama established white-themed dorms. The purpose of these dorms is to immerse students in the history and experience of Anglo-Saxon culture. The administration says the dorms are not segregated because “no more than 50% of each dorm can house individuals fitting” the white ethnicity. To live in this dorm, “you have to agree to take on a project fitting” the white ethnic theme. In other words, dorm residents “of any race might have to write an essay about some aspect” of the white “experience on campus, for example. There are also educational and cultural programs within the dorm.”
Fortunately, James Ewell Brown Stuart University does not exist, nor does this despicable and ridiculous white-themed dorm. Unfortunately, my alma mater, Stanford University has similar programs for African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians. I had nearly forgotten about them until a Los Angeles Times columnist recently attempted to justify their existence following an obligatory dancing on Andrew Breitbart’s grave.
I caused a bit of a firestorm on the site by calling Dan Turner’s editorial exactly what it was:
“Wow. In a single editorial you manage to dance on a man’s grave and justify reverse discrimination. If someone on the right made a similar argument they’d be called a bigot. It amazes me that supposedly respectable newspapers like the Los Angeles Times have no problem with publishing this filth.”
Nearly every comment from the left in response attacked my character, my intelligence, or both rather than my argument. The reason they attacked me personally is something psychologists call cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance “is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.” In this case, the left’s belief in a society free from racial discrimination stands in stark contrast to dorms clearly favoring one race over others. Since they cannot reconcile these two conflicting items, they respond irrationally rather than addressing my argument.
What follows are some screenshots from the ongoing debate:
Returning to Mr. Turner’s column, he does at least make an attempt to acknowledge the right’s position by admitting that the dorms may seem unfair to many white people. His defense is that they are justified because whites are in the majority and don’t face the same challenges that those in the minority do. He argues:
“And to some white people, it seems unfair: Why do black people get to have their own dorm, when a similar white-themed college dorm would bring down liberal fury? The simple answer to both concerns is that white people aren’t minorities. We don’t have to go out of our way to be around people like us — they’re everywhere.”
However, Mr. Turner’s argument just doesn’t make any sense today, especially since non-Hispanic whites no longer represent the majority of the population in California, the state in which Stanford is based. They don’t even represent the majority of Stanford’s undergraduate population (Stanford classified 39% of American undergraduates as non-Hispanic whites as of October 2011).
Yet despite the fact that America has elected an African-American president, Mr. Turner still supports policies that are the very opposite of Dr. King’s vision for a colorblind society. It’s time for things to change.
Racial discrimination is still a very nasty thing that preeminent American institutions of learning should not be in the habit of promoting.
I disagree with you about the dorms. The issue isn’t just race, it’s power. Let’s say one group dominates in society and has all the perks. For them to on top of that choose exclusivity, it enhances their already existing advantage. For those who have been traditionally mistreated and denied power and status, there can be a real advantage, something empowering about exclusivity. To me racial discrimination is not the relevant issue, it’s power. Even if whites aren’t a majority of the population, I bet most of the wealth and status in California is in white hands.
That said, there is a point where this ceases to be necessary and helpful. I think it’s worthwhile to discuss that. But I don’t think it’s right to ignore the rationale for black themed dorms and the positive impact they can have on peoples’ education — positive impacts that white themed dorms would not have, due to the power/status differential. It’s status and power, race is secondary. If MLK’s dream is achieved in society, then yes, there will be no need or argument in favor of black themed dorms. Despite Obama’s victory, we’re not there yet. However, I think there are good arguments on both sides of the issue, and agree that attacking you or anyone personally because of your position on this is wrong.
So you are in effect arguing that racial discrimination is justified if one group has more power than others. In California, I certainly don’t feel like a member of the group in power. Should I get special rights and privileges?
How would you even define “power”? One could argue that one ethnic group’s power would be greatly enhanced if a member of that ethnic group occupied the most powerful position in the world – the American presidency, for instance.
“It’s status and power, race is secondary.”
Then why define the dorms based on race? Wealthy blacks certainly had more status and power than people like me who couldn’t afford a Stanford eduction on their own. In today’s day and age, forms of overt racial discrimination do nothing but harbor anger and resentment, and I fervently believe that the left is being immensely hypocritical here. If whites are a minority at Stanford and in California, and if African-Americans control the most powerful position in the world, why is racial discrimination still justifiable?
Of course racial discrimination can be justified. De-segregation involved bussing children to different areas, discriminating on race to overcome the problems caused by “separate but equal” education (which was not at all equal). The logic there applies here. Having blacks all go to one school when that school got less support and less money than the white schools meant substandard education and less opportunity. To compensate for that, you have to discriminate by race to de-segregate the schools. Discrimination is not per se bad, it is only bad when it is done to damage one group and promote unfairness and inequality.
Now I agree that one can make the argument that things such as black dorms are no longer necessary or helpful. I don’t think it’s hypocrisy or illogic on the side of those who support them, any more than claims you’re being anti-black for opposing them. There are good arguments on each side. Charging hypocrisy seems to me to be a bit of a cop out, you’re arguing only from your definition of terms and not taking into account the reason why those dorms exist (in your defense, they didn’t exactly make cogent arguments in the discussions you posted, but the logic behind such things including organizations like the NAACP is the need to overcome disadvantage caused by years of segregation and discrimination designed to keep blacks down. I’m saying you can’t dismiss either side of the argument, both sides have strong points, but work from different assumptions and areas of focus.
“Of course racial discrimination can be justified. De-segregation involved bussing children to different areas, discriminating on race to overcome the problems caused by “separate but equal” education (which was not at all equal)”
I disagree with your fundamental premise that desegregation was racial discrimination. By definition it sought to reduce racial boundaries by putting everyone on equal footing, regardless of race.
I still stand by my argument that racial discrimination cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever.
“There are good arguments on each side.”
If there are, I haven’t seen them.
“but the logic behind such things including organizations like the NAACP is the need to overcome disadvantage caused by years of segregation and discrimination designed to keep blacks down”
50 years ago, I think this would have been a fair argument. That said, nearly three generations have gone by, and elite institutions are still discriminating on race. How long does this need to last? When will it end? I say, three generations is more than enough time to overcome just about anythng. Furthermore, I think these programs only serve to prolong negative feelings amongst the races. Is it fair that Asians must overcome a much higher bar than their African-American counterparts? Is it fair for a wealthy African-American to receive a minority scholarship when it could better help a poor, inner city white? Things are seriously out of whack in this country. Only a pure merit-based system can fix it.
Fair questions – I agree that as the culture changes such “discrimination” designed to overcome disadvantages and to promote movement to true equality becomes less necessary and can become counter productive. I don’t think we’ve reached that stage yet. I think whites vastly under estimate how much easier life is for us due to the privileges that we were born with and take for granted. Sure, there are some wealthy minorities that have it easy – but that’s a small amount. I think we whites are often blind to the real barriers race creates, and how the remnants of the past linger on in ghettos, inner cities, and the like. It’s improving, but whites are still vastly privileged in our society.
“It’s improving, but whites are still vastly privileged in our society.”
Except when it comes to admissions decisions, hiring decisions, scholarships, and special protections afforded from hate crime legislation. I fundamentally believe these distinctions create more resentment than anything else.
This is the wrong way to tackle the issue of race and power. You don’t stop racism by forcing everyone into reeducation camps. What that really does is reinforce racism on both sides… particularly on those you are trying to help. In essence you are reinforcing the idea that they are a hated minority, and also giving them the idea that they are incapable of achieving power on their own. It also creates a reservoir of resentment among the majority population you are currently persecuting. We see this is very true of affirmative action legislation.
The assumption that all white people are born racist and will naturally discriminate in hiring, education, and other aspects of life to keep minorities out of power is ridiculous. There are hundreds of examples throughout history of two competing ethnic groups coming together over time.
How you stop racism is by removing racist laws. By removing the incentives to work together as an ethnicity to force favorable government legislation people will within a few generations stop being racist and the minority group will gain wealth and power.
The fact that 90% of African Americans vote Democrat, and that Democrats pass racist legislation is what creates an antagonistic atmosphere and gives each ethnicity the incentive to work together in order to gain advantage.
Bottom line: It’s racist to believe minorities cannot achieve power or wealth on their own and it’s racist to assume white people need to be forced by government action to not act racist.
“Bottom line: It’s racist to believe minorities cannot achieve power or wealth on their own and it’s racist to assume white people need to be forced by government action to not act racist.”
Great way to put it, IMO.
If someone on the right made a similar argument they’d be called a bigot.
That’s because there’s a history of discrimination against blacks in this country. A brief refresher: here in the US, we enslaved people of African descent for a few centuries, denied most of them basic civil rights for another century, and continue to discriminate against them today.
There’s no overlooking of white history in the US, there’s no history of whites being disadvantaged.
Intellectual equivalence doesn’t amount moral equivalence. Context matters.
“There’s no overlooking of white history in the US, there’s no history of whites being disadvantaged.”
That’s patently false. What about discrimination against the Irish and the Italians? How about the Jews? Or the Poles? Ever here of “NINA – No Irish Need Apply?”
What about Hispanics? They weren’t enslaved. Like the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles, they’ve been discriminated against, but the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles don’t get special preferences.
“Intellectual equivalence doesn’t amount moral equivalence. Context matters.”
Moral equivalence? How is it right in any context to discriminate against another race based on something that happened almost 150 years ago? What about my ancestors? Should I get special rights and privileges for their attacking Harpers Ferry (lookup Albert Hazlett) or dying on the side of the Union in the Civil War (lookup Charles E. Hazlett)?
Of course not. It’s time to move on. Blatant discrimination is an abomination in all of its forms, and it is sickening to me that it still exists today. There is no rational justification for it. None, whatsoever.
Note: Gonna pick on you for a moment here, don’t take it personally.
I’ve grown increasingly distrustful of statistics over the years, particularly when they seem… a little outrageous, or are being used to present a specific point.
So I picked one of the ones from your post, specifically the one where African-Americans are more likely to get searched even tough, apparently, whites are four times as likely to actually have contraband if searched, and checked the study that Tim Wise, I’m fairly certain, based his statement on.
A few things stood out.
First, it’s a little old, but that’s not a major issue. Ten years isn’t a terribly long time in this context, so I can largely leave that quibble by the wayside.
Second, yes, the information in the study does indeed support his quote.
There is a bit a problem with the study in that regard.
Now, let’s say that I were to say that, according to a study that I recently read, whites are in fact more than three times as likely to be searched as minority drivers.
Now, I’d assume that you’d ask to see the study that led me to make this rather inflammatory statement, yes? And the study I’d produce would be a report on traffic stop outcomes in the town of Abingdon, IL in 2005.
“Aha!”, you’d cry, “the sample size is entirely too small, there are huge bias issues here, and this study obviously cannot be used to draw any sort of real conclusions!”
At which point I ask why you didn’t perform the same due diligence with an inflammatory quote that supported your position.
Sure, the study your quote is based on certainly seems more robust (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Contacts between the Police and the Public, Findings from the 2002 National Survey), but that doesn’t automatically grant it any kind of validity.
Because there are two major problems I have with this study.
First, it’s based on a survey.
A survey sent out to ordinary citizens, not police officers. It’s not a compilation of statistics from actual police case files, or numbers presented by the police, but instead a survey of people who were stopped by the cops.
I think we can both agree that there is at least a possibility that personal bias could easily enter into the equation in a situation like this.
Secondly, and more importantly, let’s look at “your” first problem with me using Abingdon statistics as a basis for a quote.
Because when we get down to the question of police searches, and whether contraband was found or not, there’s this little asterisk that crops up next to the minority statistics on the outcome of such searches. And if you wonder what that little asterisk means, you can look at the bottom of the table to find out. And you’ll see this little line at the bottom of the table, and it says:
“*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.”
So out of an estimated 92,000 cases where evidence was found after searching a vehicle (estimated because this is a survey, remember), they managed to find fewer than ten people who responded that yes, the cops caught them with something illegal.
Of course, if you want to insist that we take this data at face value, I can draw a few conclusions from it anyway.
Hispanics, after all, are subject to searches on a traffic stop at roughly the same incidence as African-Americans, after all. But they’re also determined to be holding contraband at roughly the same incidence (13% vs 14.5%) as drivers who identified themselves as White.
Of course, drivers in the “Other Race” category are apparently vastly more likely to contain criminals, since 26.5% of them, upon being searched, were determined to be carrying contraband.
Sure, the sample sizes are too small to support any real conclusions, but if you’re willing to disregard it, then clearly we need to start racial profiling against people who aren’t white, black, or hispanic, because they’re gettin’ away with somethin’.
And there’s another interesting quote in the report:
“The proportion of searches yielding criminal evidence was not significantly different for males (10.5%) than for females (19.2%).”
What, what? The study itself has determined that even though females are almost TWICE as likely to be carrying contraband, this is not statistically significant?
Possibly because it’s not, possibly because, again, the sample size is too small (females have that little asterisk next to outcomes too, as it turns out), but either way, I find that… entertaining.
This isn’t picking on me! This is taking issue with a factual statement! Like everyone else who values rational debate, and wants our policies to reflect what’s happening in the real world, I am grateful for it.
Time is short, so I am not going to get into the weeds of your critique of that study right at the moment. (At a glance, it seems to me that you have the better of the argument, and that small-scale study doesn’t tell us much about the wider world). I’d just note that that’s only one of many, many studies at Tim Wise’s link.
I’d be pleased to be corrected here, but everything I’ve seen indicates that discrimination persists in hiring and the criminal justice system. That’s the kind of thing we should care about a great deal as a matter of public policy, rather than the prospect that a few white people at Stanford might get their second-choice dorm.
A long argument about basically nothing. The comment about the study was about how many times people were stopped by police. What was found after the fact was not a robust part of the argument. Therefore it being statistically insignificant is ….insignificant. Same as with the men to women argument. Lots of science is based on surveys so thats a more general science complaint than anything. And civilians aren’t the only ones that are prone to bias, so are cops. You’re trying to discredit a study but you said nothing credible to actually do so.
Thanks for the above, Does anyone realize there is alot of hypocrisy in the idea of “multiculturalism”?
We are taught that diversity is good.Yet we are encouraged to interracially mix.
We are taught that every culture is unique and important yet we are encouraged to be “colorblind” when it comes to various cultures/races.
I think to trully believe in multiculturalism one must possess ALOT of cognitive dissonance.
Only answer if you have something intelligent to contribute.I’m not looking for flames.Thank you.
I look forward to your next post
Disney, I wrote on this back in 2010: http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/multiculturalism/
My conclusion: The key is to recognize that immigration and “multiculturalism” is a two direction process. Immigrants change a culture, immigrants are changed by the culture. The culture is dynamic and in constant transformation, just as humans entering new societies are transformed by experience. In fact, humans are by definition always in a state of dynamic transformation going through life, none of us is the same at 50 as we were at 20 — even if there are some really core aspects of the self which persist.
Multiculturalism fails if culture is seen as a natural product, something pure, which should not be changed. If immigrants don’t adapt and play a role in shaping the overall culture, then you end up with a fragmented society, where fights over identity and difference overwhelm and can potentially destroy community. The good news is that the changes can come slowly — the first generation may stick to their past cultural practices, but the second and third adapt and take on the new identity. The overall culture shifts slowly as well, something obvious if you compare 1970 to 2010, but not so visible on a day by day basis. We should be able to handle that rate of change.
The bad news is that many people do not understand that cultures change and see any different behavior or custom as a threat. Natives fear the immigrants will change their culture (they will), and immigrants fear their new home will change them and their children (and it will). They fear the inevitable. Fear promotes bigotry. This error is made by both natives and immigrants.
Reverse discrimination is not a myth. I have experienced it first hand. I went to high school in the predominantly Hispanic south side of San Antonio. There was a program that was designed to find summer jobs for economically disadvantaged youth. When I went to pick up an application I was told by the people who were handing them out that I need not bother filling it out, I would not be accepted because I was white. Meanwhile Hispanic students whose families were in a better economic position than mine were accepted into the program and were hired. Scott Erb was right that it is all about power. Politicians use racism to gain votes. News outlets use the race card to gain ratings. People of a particular race use it to manipulate those of different race by playing on their guilt. Hate groups use it to promote their vile and evil agendas. None of these groups truly wants a colorblind society because “divide and conquer” is their ticket to power over their fellow man. Sean is right, the only way we will ever achieve a truly equal and fair society is to adopt a system that is based purely on merit or need, when a person’s ethnicity is no longer a question on any application.
Hi Mr. Hazlett, I just wanted to mention that in your opening example you defined the “white dorm” as “Anglo-Saxon”, yet proceeded to give examples of whites being discriminated against as Italians, Poles, Irish, Jews, etc. I think it’s also worth mentioning that the more proper term to use might here be ethnicity, as opposed to race.
I agree that there are flaws in affirmative action, reverse-discrimination. It is true that reverse-discrimination is more likely to help, say, an African American from an already fairly wealthy family rather than one from a less-privileged background. It seems like it simply serves to accentuate the divide between two classes within the minority group– the few who have, and the majority who don’t. As an Asian-American, I feel like I have received the short end of both sticks as well.
In the end though, I for one am hard-pressed to think of a good alternative. I would rather have some sort of “balancing system” based on income, but that is somehow even more prickly than ethnic, or rather as we generally refer to it, race.
Thanks for stopping by, Andy!
“I think it’s also worth mentioning that the more proper term to use might here be ethnicity, as opposed to race.”
You’re right. My mixed and matched race and ethnicity, which was a bit sloppy. I should have used an English or Irish dorm as an example.
“In the end though, I for one am hard-pressed to think of a good alternative.”
I’m not. Paradoxically, in the arts, arguably an area that is probably overwhelmingly populated by liberals, they’ve figured out a pretty good way to select talent. Musicians play behind screens so that the evaluator cannot see them (or their race, weight, age, etc.). They are also represented by numbers rather than their actual names to avoid the name bias that reflectionsephemeral referred to in his blog post. No system is perfect, but the current system is terrible, in my opinion.
I also agree that if one is to do any profiling, it should be based on socioeconomic status rather than race.
I’ve had some pretty heated arguments about this very issue in the past. My undergrad had a number of dorms of the kind you’ve described, and I have very mixed feelings about them. Where I found myself landing was that, at least for now, it should be ok to have these dorms but my hope would be that fewer and fewer people feel the need to live in or use them. I am concerned that allowing people to go forward with segregated living on college campuses has the potential to undermine gains we are making in diversifying college campuses. I also recognize that I have little idea what it’s like to be part of a small minority at a large university, and I can understand the importance of minorities having a place to go where they can feel comfortable among people of similar backgrounds. I’m less concerned than you are about the issue of reverse-discrimination for reasons laid out in some of the comments above.
The other thing that is worth mentioning is that this post is about the broader problem of using race as a factor in hiring and admissions decisions, not just creating special housing based on race. I don’t think it is acceptable in today’s day and age to provide preferences or quotas for any race, ethnicity or creed (i.e., legacies).
“I also recognize that I have little idea what it’s like to be part of a small minority at a large university, and I can understand the importance of minorities having a place to go where they can feel comfortable among people of similar backgrounds.”
As an ROTC student at Stanford, I got to feel what it was like when an institution seeks to punish your sub-group. I will never be able to fully understand what it is like to be part of a racial minority, but I know what its like to be part of a shunned minority.
“I’m less concerned than you are about the issue of reverse-discrimination for reasons laid out in some of the comments above.”
I’ve zero, nada, zilch problem with legacies at private schools, and am undecided about them at public schools. What’s your problem with them? Legacies are NOT the same as “creeds”. Creeds are, in fact, an explicit feature of religious schools that adhere to their foundational calling. A good example can be found here: http://saas.byu.edu/tools/b4byu/sites/b4/?new-freshman/acceptance-criteria2/
First off, welcome to ROARR. Thanks for stopping by.
In regard to your comment:
“I’ve zero, nada, zilch problem with legacies at private schools, and am undecided about them at public schools. What’s your problem with them?”
I have always been a strong proponent of merit-based admissions, and neither affirmative action nor legacy-based admissions are merit-based qualifications. To me, they are essentially the same thing. The only difference is that one is based on the color of one’s skin, while the other is based on being born to a particular set of parents. Candidates have no control over either characteristic. I see affirmative action as institutionalized racism, while I view legacy-based discrimination as institutionalized nepotism. Neither has a place in a merit-based society.
“Legacies are NOT the same as ‘creeds’.”
You are 100% right. I was sloppy with my terminology.
You’re correct that legacis are institutionalized nepotism. So? I assume that you are most likely to leave your estate to your own children.
I have no problem with nepotism in PRIVATE institutions unless it is abusive (i.e. the boss’s useless nephew), and even then, my commitment to allowing people to associate on their own terms means let ’em do it. Nepotism even has value, because it is one vehicle for maintaining institutional and social continuity. It is an ancient practice that persists because, contrary to present surface assessments by people, it has real social benefits.
From an economic perspective, legacies are based on the very real fact that our transactions do not always take place in a single discreet place and time. Legacies are manifestation of the loyalty dynamic.
I have a huge problem with nepotism in PRIVATE institutions because it, in every case I’ve ever seen, puts incompetent or less competent people in positions where they shouldn’t be. That said, I agree that it’s not something that one can legislate.
That said, I think it should be illegal for universities, public or private, to set legacy and/or racial quotas, public or private. Given the amount of money these institutions receive from the federal government, the government can use dispersement of these funds to force compliance.
Also, I personally have seen no social benefits from nepotism. On the contrary, I’ve seen nothing but rank incompetence. However, my personal anecdotal experience is not a sufficient argument. I’d be curious to understand why you think nepotism has any redeemable social value. To me, it’s nothing but the right’s version of affirmative action.
Your article and argument are the exact definition of cognitive dissonance. To justify one’s on bias by cherry picking articles that confirm the ideas that you already have. In my effort to not do that i read this article/blog post from you and took it seriously. But amongst all of your claims against racism you seem to be more angry at the specific subset “reverse racism”. Although I would contend no such thing exists, my question to you is if all racism is such a tragedy why do you only discuss one type of racism? Why is there no mention of the extreme racial divide of the judicial and penitentiary system? Why is there no mention of the lack diversity in Congress on both sides? No mention of redistricting along racial lines to keep certain seats “safe” for re-election? No mention of COINTELPRO, the Tuskegee experiments, police brutality, James Byrd, Jr being dragged behind a truck for 3 miles by white supremacists, or any of the numerous other racist accounts that some whites have done to some minorities. You speak nothing of this institutionalized racism. Only about the “reverse” kind. I think I know the reason. This cognitive dissonance you speak of is a silent killer. We can see it in others but we can not see it in ourselves. Cognitive dissonance is your way of protecting your privilege from “the others”. “They” don’t deserve to go to our schools. “They” are taking “our” spots. It is the rally cry for “white privilege”; They do not belong. But you can not say it so blatantly these days so you have two conflicting realities. 1. Racism is wrong 2. I do not like members of a certain race. So you must relieve this dissonance by saying “look I/we are the victims of their cruel racism”. Or “it is wrong for us separate based on race but its ok for them to do it!! That’s not fair”.
If you can step out of your self-justifying for a second I’ll explain the difference to. The white separatist of the present and the past wanted/want to separate because of feelings of superiority. On top of that they had the backing of a judicial system and a political system that had many of the same biases that they had. When black people find themselves joining together based on color it is mainly because we are being ignored separately. The black college experience usually differs largely from the white college experience on major college campuses. So the students at Stanford likely came together and came up with this idea as a means of saying “Hey! We are people too. Include us.” And kudos to Standford for allowing it.
Your distinct dissonance and your way of justifying it follows a long line of other ludicrous and popular arguments. Here are some of them just in case you were thinking of using them:
Some of my best friends are black
How come we don’t have a White Entertainment Television?
How come we don’t have a White History Month?
They are always pullings the race card
He/She is just a race baiter (my favorite)
All of these attempt to justify a reason for having bad feelings toward blacks because of a perceived “black privilege”. Aside from the best friend justification which mainly says I’m not racist because I’m a good guy.
In conclusion I looked at things from your perspective and still saw that your ideas have no merit. While i can admit that if we were living in this post racial America that you seem to think we are living in your ideas would be golden. I would love everything about them. But since we are not, I don’t. I’m fairly certain that you will not put yourself in my shoes as this would create a gigantic bout of cognitive dissonance in which you will have to question every idea you’ve ever had about race, which would make you think maybe you wasted a larger portion of your life coming up with this website, arguing with your pals and watching Fox News. That may be enough to make your head pop. It will be a lot easier to say I’m just some leftist, hippie, race baiter, upholding a racial double standard. There I did it for you.
Have a great day!
I am not denying any of the racism you discuss does not exist. It most certainly does. My argument is that using institutions to “rectify” such racism by creating programs that favor one group over another based solely on skin color is wrong.
I have just a few questions for you:
1) Do you think it is OK for an institution to discriminate based on race?
2) Are you calling me a racist?
3) What makes you think I watch Fox News?
I’m actually not surprised you didn’t respond to my questions. In fact, the reason you didn’t respond is likely the result of cognitive dissonance.
For instance, it is likely impossible for you to answer my first question because you would actually have to admit that you think it is okay for an institution to discriminate based on race, which would make you an avatar for everything you hate. Yet, you would have to admit that it is okay, because you argue for programs that do nothing but discriminate based on race.
As for the second question, you did, in fact, insinuate that I was some sort of bigot or racist. This leads me to question three. After you insinuated that I was a bigot, you then made a blanket assumption that all conservatives watch Fox News. I don’t, of course. I don’t even have cable, because it costs a fortune in California.
Before you rail against people with whom you disagree, you might want to construct your argument in a more logically coherent manner before you put pen to paper.
Lol you are hilarious. The reason I didn’t respond is likely because i didn’t see your response. Chill. Response coming now.
Your argument is dumb. What other way shall we rectify racism/sexism or any other bias? By entering into peoples homes and forcing them to be friends with black and brown people? I would love to hear your ideas on how society is supposed to combat racism on an individual level. Do tell.
Secondly, you’ve dealt with almost zero of the arguments that I made. Which is understandable. Instead you chose to harp on some insinuated bigotry, and the fact that i said you watch Fox News. Doesn’t really matter where you get your ill informed ideas from, I guess. But you’ve made no substantive argument except to ask me 3 apparently unanswerable questions, which I will answer right now.
#2 No, I’m calling your ideas racist. I’m sure you are a great person.
#3 Your racist ideas made me believe you may be of the particular demographic that Fox News caters to.
As for number 1 its not the discrimination that is inherently wrong, its whats behind the discrimination. If there is bigotry, racism, a superiority complex behind the discrimination of course it is wrong. Which by the criminal justice system is based on that type of discrimination. But if there is an attempt to rectify the previous type of discrimination via including members of different races, cultures, and backgrounds who have previously been excluded by these same institutions, of course that is not wrong. The institutions are at the least making an attempt to right a wrong. If you are admitting that the racism I have mentioned is real and then you turn around and say that it shouldn’t be corrected, that doesn’t make any sense. For a university to say I’m sorry we have not accepted you into our culture all these years and then do nothing about it is patently wrong. Its called turning a blind eye and expecting everything to resolve itself. Which is what a large segment of white America does. There is less guilt that way.
Seeing as you had no real argument. I think part of your logical fallacies are starting to shine through but that cognitive dissonance will not let you change your mind. It takes a big man to do that.
“Your argument is dumb.”
Really? That’s your argument? Just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it true. You haven’t established why it is reasonable for an institution to discriminate based on skin tone. Engaging in discrimination to “rectify” prior discrimination does not make the world a better place. It creates resentment and has the unintended consequence of intensifying discrimination outside of institutions. And why wouldn’t it? If SAT scores for one group are hundreds of points lower than for another group at a given institution, some people are going to question the competence of individuals from one group vs. another (even if unfairly).
“What other way shall we rectify racism/sexism or any other bias?”
The same way they do it in the arts today. Employees submit resumes with numbers rather than names. You can do phone, rather than in-person interviews (or in-person interviews / recitals with a screen between the applicant and the reviewer). And if you were really concerned about discrimination, you would use software to disguise voices to eliminate racial bias or discrimination. Arbitrarily using the weight of an institution to select people based on nothing other than the color of their skin is absurd, creates resentment, and tends to favor minorities on the upper end of the socio-economic scale vs. those who would most benefit from such policies. If you think punishing people for things many of them did not do for nothing other than the color of their skin is going to engender a more color blind society, your argument really doesn’t take into account any realistic model of human behavior.
“As for number 1 its not the discrimination that is inherently wrong, its whats behind the discrimination. If there is bigotry, racism, a superiority complex behind the discrimination of course it is wrong.”
This is exactly the type of moralist relativism I expect from the left. Namely that motive, not principle, determines right or wrong. Providing people with advantages based on skin color is fine if your side is doing it, because your side’s motivations are “pure.” But if the “other” engages in similar behavior you rationalize or demonize. My view is that neither side should engage in racial discrimination because the principle is inherently wrong. Your view is that only your side can discriminate, because “God is on your side.”
My argument is to establish a colorblind playing field where skin color has no bearing on employment or university admissions. Your argument is that skin color trumps competence in both. Rectifying previous sins is neither a necessary nor sufficient argument to justify institutional bigotry.
In essence your argument is an emotional and morally relativistic one.
Additionally, you make sweeping statements about how my argument is “dumb” and that I had “no real argument” without having established any evidence to support either contention. Moreover, you haven’t established how institutionally supported discrimination actually helps eliminate racism in this country. I’ve argued it likely makes it worse. Further, you’ve suggested that I’ve made logical fallacies, yet haven’t provided any evidence to support such claims.
Lastly, you call my ideas racist, yet haven’t bothered to establish how or why my arguments are racist. Your tactics are quite typical, actually. When someone disagrees with institutionalized discrimination that favors minorities, folks on the left cry racism. Your argument that my ideas are “racist” is actually a poor one because it represents one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book – ad hominem. You never really attack my argument; you attempt to discredit it by calling my ideas “racist.” And I’m not sure why you bother to make the distinction between my ideas and me. In the end, it’s just semantics.
Next time, I really hope you bring your A-game. Because right now, your argument is an emotional one that lacks any depth or nuance.
It’s not ad hominem because I stated how your ideas were racist in my first comment. All of these color blind ideas you have are great but they are not used on a wide scale and they are not used by the universities, employers or juries that I know of. So while I think that is a good idea it is not the world we live in. I did not say things should be based solely on race. You said is it ok to discriminate based on race? I said yes but it’s pretty obvious you have to meet som qualifications. The black students meet the same qualifications as the white students. If their SAT scores being lower is your argument I won’t entertain that. But I will say they meet the same minimum requirement as any other students. You brought up a lot of things I mentioned in my first comment and I won’t repeat them they are still there.
It’s not moral relativism if you agree that racism happened and happens. You just don’t think you should do anything about it. You suggestion is to enact color blind initiatives that may do well for hiring and admissions but do nothing for on campus life and face to face relations.
Since institutional means don’t help racism then white people must still protest and march with signs when a black student is admitted to their school. It must be just as bad as it was in the 60s. I don’t think so. Institutional changes have been the only factor to change things. Not your color blind initiatives. Tell me what you’ve seen work not what you think will work. The truth is you are speaking from the mouth of a privedged entitled member of society and yet you want us to believe some how you are being oppressed. The man is keeping you down. Go to these colleges tell me what percentage of the students identify as white. 1%, 10%, 25%????? While your color blind things are not a horrible idea it still has nothing to do with race relations. People have to relate to people of different races. Ignoring race altogether has proven not to be the answer.
“It’s not ad hominem because I stated how your ideas were racist in my first comment.”
Actually, that’s the definition of ad hominem. You attempt to discredit my ideas as racism rather than attacking the merit of my core argument which is:
Institutional discrimination is wrong in all contexts regardless of motivation.
“All of these color blind ideas you have are great but they are not used on a wide scale and they are not used by the universities, employers or juries that I know of. ”
No. Of course they aren’t. And that’s my point. You can’t force people to change their minds by putting racially discriminatory policies in place. In fact, you only confirm their biases, which, in the long run, will not lead to favorable outcomes. However, you can put policies in place that foster equal opportunity. Institutional discrimination is the very opposite of equal opportunity. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes.
“The black students meet the same qualifications as the white students. If their SAT scores being lower is your argument I won’t entertain that. ”
But that’s the issue here. Many extremely qualified Asians are denied admissions to top institutions in favor of some less qualified minority students. What about those groups. American whites systematically abused Chinese laborers who built the transcontinental railroad. Why is it okay to provide advantages to one minority but not to another? And why won’t you entertain the argument about SAT scores? It is a highly relevant and well-documented data point that supports my argument. Dismissing it does not make it go away.
“Tell me what you’ve seen work not what you think will work.”
I have. Please reread my example from the arts community and blind rehearsals. People have done it for years and to positive effect.
“The truth is you are speaking from the mouth of a privedged entitled member of society and yet you want us to believe some how you are being oppressed.”
Again, this is an ad hominem argument: I am white, therefore, my argument is wrong. Attacking the source of an argument does not make an argument less sound.
In sum, my argument is:
Racial discrimination is wrong in all its forms.
Your argument is:
Racial discrimination is fine if one’s motives are pure.
Take a look at the history of racial discrimination in the US and globally. How many times groups have claimed their motives are pure? How often has it worked out?
My question is a rhetorical one, obviously.
One of the rights favorite phrases “moral relativism” is hilarious especially on issues of race. After 400 years of slavery, the continued lynchings thereafter, vile discrimination for at least almost hundred years after slavery, the right claims we have done enough to right the wrongs in about 50 years. Others who try to make your argument often do it better because they claim that racism is over. In that case your ideas about never discriminating based on race would be correct. But your argument fails the moment that you admitted that racism has and still does exist. Don’t get me wrong iI’m glad you admitted the truth but it just doesn’t serve you well. Here we have the recipe for more cognitive dissonance. “I know racism exists and continues to be pervasive (and I have written 0 blog posts about it)” but “I don’t believe anybody should ever be discriminated on based on race (especially my race)”. On one hand you silently sit and accept racism against one or more races but when it comes to your race “they mustn’t be disadvantaged in any way!!!”. “I shall write a blog post and state this travesty to the world”. So if moral relativism is a problem for you, maybe you should be consistently outraged on all racism. You’re Welcome.
Your argument assumes that it is possible to systematically change the views and behaviors of people by harming them. Again, this model of punishment is completely ignorant of any rational model of human behavior. Should we put microchips in people’s brains and monitor them for “thought crimes”?
My point is that racism exists (on all sides, by the way), but the way to do away with it is not to use institutions to foster it. Otherwise, 93% of African American voters wouldn’t have voted for Barack Obama (see http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demographic-percentages-of-the-2012-election-20121109). The only fair way to rectify it is by taking race out of the equation, not by using institutions to systematically discriminate against whites and Asians. And you still haven’t addressed why you believe it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against Asian Americans. What did they ever do to other racial minorities in the United States?
“So if moral relativism is a problem for you, maybe you should be consistently outraged on all racism. You’re Welcome.”
Again, your argument ignores mine. I am arguing against institutionally-supported racism, which actively calls for quotas of minorities, not individual racism, which occurs everywhere – black, white, Asian – and is impossible to legislate. The best you can do is set the conditions for equal opportunity.
It is absurd for me to address every individual case of racial discrimination. Should I rail against the NBA for having a disproportionate number of African-American athletes (I don’t believe this by the way, but if the situation were reversed, the left would be all over it) or against the Nobel Committee for not awarding enough Nobel Prizes to African-American physicists?
Instead, I started with the most institutionally egregious policy.
By the way, you still have failed to address why you believe it’s perfectly fine to disadvantage Asian minorities to an extent above and beyond that of American whites. Could it be cognitive dissonance?
And by the way, there’s a good reason my surname is not that common. I lost 32 ancestors fighting for the North at the Battle of Gettysburg alone. My family has done enough. To hold one race responsible for the evils of some of their ancestors is absurd and outright bad policy. To punish racial minorities who had absolutely even less to do with slavery is even more ridiculous. Surely, you can see the logic in that?
You didn’t respond to my question about the 60s. Great you’ve seen this work at a violin audition, thats great proof of your point (sarcasm). The point about the SATs is not really relevant because all of the students are qualified. When a doctor graduates he’s a doctor they don’t tell you what he got on his test. Similarly all of the students are qualified. You also didn’t answer my question about the percentage of white students on the campus. You also didn’t respond to my question about race relations.
Also you don’t speak of the factors that lead to inequalities on tests such as the SAT’s and how these tests have proven to have no relation to how well you will do in college. If you wanted to you could educate yourself on those factors but you wont. And if you did you wouldn’t believe it thats how cognitive dissonance works.
In essence your supposed “moral absolutism” (its really relativism) solves nothing.
You seem to be so sure that you are morally absolute and that there is one correct answer for everything. Im sure your views on other things are equally amusing.
And its not ad hominem I’m saying that you are of the oppressing race but yet you want me to believe you are being oppressed. Its simply not true. Its also not ad hominem if iI describe how you (if thats what you want me to say) are racist. I described it over and over again. You are totally bias (racially) on who you care about getting discriminated against. That my friend is, as you say, the DEFINITION OF racist.
“And its not ad hominem I’m saying that you are of the oppressing race but yet you want me to believe you are being oppressed.”
I don’t think ad hominem means what you think it means.
An now I’m of the “oppressing race.” Wow, your comments are downright Orwellian.
“The point about the SATs is not really relevant because all of the students are qualified.”
Really??? That’s your argument??? So a student who scores a 1370 on the SAT is equally qualified with one who scores an 1190? (http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/do-asian-americans-face-bias-in-admissions-at-elite-colleges/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)
An 180-point achievement gap is an extremely relevant data point.
“Also you don’t speak of the factors that lead to inequalities on tests such as the SAT’s and how these tests have proven to have no relation to how well you will do in college. If you wanted to you could educate yourself on those factors but you wont. ”
Oh really? Do tell. Marshal your evidence. The burden of proof is on you. However, after having “educating myself” on SAT scores and correlation with college grades, your assertion is incorrect. According to this article, “[t]hose schools that attract students with a wide range of SAT scores generally have higher correlations between the scores and first-year grades.” (see http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98373).
Now, you’re literally making things up without providing sufficient evidence to support your claims.
And when all else fails, cry racism.
Your argument is racism exists but lets pretend like it doesn’t
No. It’s not.
And will you guys on the right stop hiding behind Martin Luther King. The right hated King before he died. And if they talked about him as he actually was you probably still would. Psychologist would agree that you can systematically the views and behaviors of people. Not by harming them by institutional changes. I don’t know anyone that has been “harmed” by not getting into the college of their choice. That has literally happened to millions of people. No one died from it or was sent to the hospital. If they were qualified they likely applied to another college and went there. So I guess your idea for presidential races is to have them stand behind a curtain and modify their voices?
You listed a statement and then totally ignored it. Why aren’t outraged at all racism? You went on to mention institutional racism vs individual racism which i did not ask you about. There is plenty of institutional racism against blacks which you could be outraged about (some of which i mentioned in my first post, which I’m beginning to seriously doubt if you even read). But you are not outraged. You don’t care. And if that is the most institutionally egregious policy you could find you are severely out of touch. I
And I appreciate the service of your family.p, but excuse me if I don’t join your pity party. There’s also a reason why my last name is what it is because my ancestors were owned by slave owners. I’m not sure exactly how many ancestors I lost during slavery because slave owners didn’t give a damn about separating families and keeping great records for their families. But I’m sure it was more than 32. But I’m pretty sure you don’t care about that with your moral relativism and all.
The things that you said were my arguments weren’t my arguments either. So, yea.
“And will you guys on the right stop hiding behind Martin Luther King.”
“You guys”? Really? Wow. Just wow.
To which “guys” would you be referring? The monolithic white devils? The hateful ghost-face oppressors?
“So I guess your idea for presidential races is to have them stand behind a curtain and modify their voices?”
No, it’s not. But I’m pretty sure if 93% of whites voted for a white candidate, people would cry “racism” as you are now.
I’m sorry but if “you’re ideas are racist” is the crux of your argument, you have no argument at all.
“The things that you said were my arguments weren’t my arguments either. So, yea.”
Great. Which things? Be specific. Marshal evidence.
“And I appreciate the service of your family.p, but excuse me if I don’t join your pity party.”
I did not ask for your pity. I provided that example to show you that not all “white devils” are equal. That’s all.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom” -MLK
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor it must be demanded by the oppressed” -MLK
“Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” -MLK
I’m still waiting for you to make a point…
Your last link is talking doesn’t prove your point it says in the beginning its not strongly correlated individually. Only when you take the school as a whole do you find some correlation. But who is to say who is making the lower grades. #fail
You obviously didn’t read the whole article or you read it and didn’t understand it.
The first bit says that SAT’s and grades at elite institutions is weakly correlated because the dispersion between scores is so narrow. However, at institutions where there is a wider dispersion, grades are highly correlated with SATs.
Which race has perpetrated atrocities on every other race in this country? Is that ad hominem too? #fact
Again, you’re missing the point. What’s that have to do with the argument:
Institutional racism is wrong in any context.
Is killing someone okay if they kill your brother? Is stealing something okay if someone’s great great grandfather stole something from your great grandfather? I can’t believe I’m making this argument, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
Your point seems to be that since I’m white, I’m an oppressor, and my argument fails because I’m white. That’s ad hominem.
140 point is huge but do you think the universities will admit more asians than whites or the same amount. How would the students feel?
UC Berkley already does. And some whites aren’t happy about it, but at least the process is fair.
I applaud that most institutions will not
I said which guys. Save your fake outrage. You guys on the right! Read again
That’s my point. You are stereotyping.
Lol in 99% of the elections im sure 99% of voters voted for a white candidate #fail
That’s not a good argument. If there are two white candidates, 100% of voters would vote for a white candidate.
Save your straw man arguments for somewhere else. They will not work here.
I’ve explained why your ideas are racist and I wont do it again. Its all there
You really haven’t.
The college OVERALL not the individual testers. Not a good study
Really. Explain. Using facts and evidence, and not by deflecting arguments.
So you don’t believe in war?
You don’t believe in self defense?
Again, what is your point?
You don’t believe in euthanasia?
Huh? What’s your point here?
Dude you said if 93% of white people voted for a white candidate. Thats your argument i just pointed out thats happened numerous times. Not a straw man. Your words.
That’s fair. I should have been clearer. If there were a black and a white candidate (as there were in the last two elections), if 93% of white people voted for the white candidate, there would be outrage.
Once again you are not outraged about any other racism. You are trying to throw in Asian discrimination so ok. But I haven’t seen any post about it. Surely the Asian discrimination you showed me is more egregious than this post above.
So it’s not enough to point it out here? I have to write a separate blog post about it? Do you have a blog site where you address each and every issue about racial discrimination: black, white, Asian, etc.?
Again, please explain why my decision to write or not write blog posts has anything to do with the fundamental premise that:
Institutional discrimination is wrong in any context.
Your arguments simply don’t follow any logical or coherent path.
You are so concerned with this discrimination of whites that we have been talking about but you’ve have shown no real concern about any other racial discrimination (aside from the one thing you just posted) besides acknowledging that it exists. You show no outrage even when I bring up the racial discrimination. But you are so concerned about dorms? And you call it Egregious? Lol. Racist ideas don’t mean you wear a hood and burn crosses. In other words your moral relativism is tilted towards your side of the field. If you are concerned about murder you should be concerned about all murder. Not just to particular groups. Same for discrimination
By your argument, you don’t care about discrimination at all. Have you written one blog post about discrimination anywhere?
Don’t get me wrong, I won’t apply such a standard against you, because it is absurd. But according to your own standards, you’re less concerned with discrimination than I am (which I, obviously, don’t believe, but is the logical progression of your poorly crafted argument).
Now you’ve moved the target. You just told me to explain why your ideas were racist.
Well, you’ve never established any connection between your contention that my ideas are racist with my argument that institutional discrimination is inherently wrong in all circumstances.
You’ve thrown a dozen other things against the wall that didn’t stick, but you haven’t bothered to address the core of my argument.
It is really that simple.
But go back to your killing example. You didn’t answer any of my follow ups to that
Because none of your follow ups have attacked my core argument. The points you are raising are tangential.
And I’m sure if you have a people who have been oppressed for a while then you give them a viable candidate of the same race, religion or whatever they were discriminated by they will vote for him. Since its all about race 93% of blacks must’ve voted for Jessie Jackson, and Hermain Cane.
Nope. I have no problem with 93% of blacks voting for Obama. My problem is the outrage that would happen if it were the other way around. That’s all.
The fact that people constantly erase Obama’s whiteness dates back to 1-drop rule mentality. Let’s join the 21st century and acknowledge that Obama is HALF white, HALF black. Our president is biracial.
I would expect 93% of white people to vote for a white candidate. Especially since all previous candidates were white. Anybody know how many people voted for JFK because he was Catholic? The point of my argument is, people seek out people who are LIKE THEMSELVES. Consciously, like picking an enthically themed dorm, and unconsciously, such as picking the “Most American” resume to call back, when there were identical qualified candidates submitted.
Schools like Berkeley favor a diverse population, racially but also by means of those who DIDNT have equal opportunities in school. Those who had to work to support their disabled parents, who fall asleep in class tired from work, or who don’t have the dedicated time to study. Schools like Berkeley seek kids that work hard in other ways, not just those who excel in academia. Besides, good grades does not an excellent worker or citizen make. The illusion that merit alone can solve racial inequalities inherently requires poor kids (often Brown and black and immigrants) to work harder to achieve the same goals as other middle class kids, who get the cultural capital required to succeed in America through good schools, established families and other non-government regulated institutions (Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example).
The part that most race arguments seem to ignore is also the number of generations required to transcend a class. How long did it take the Irish to become “White” (There’s significant research on this)? How many generations until descendants of enslaved Africans can pass as white? Depends on how racially mixed they are. Colorblindness proposes that the answer is to never think about race. That Race is irrelevant. I’m not convinced that’s the answer, either.
So what if a Black kid goes to Stanford and wants to be purposefully surrounded by other high achieving Black kids in his dorm? White people dont need to be comforted in this manner. Most of their professors will be white. Most of their classmates will be white. Black kids have been writing about white history their whole lives. How awkward is that when you’re 11 and studying Civil War and you’re the only Black kid in class? How awkward when your teacher in 7th grade assigns you to read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn aloud in class?
How do clusters of ethnic collegiate enclaves differ from anything you’ll see in real life? Besides, there is plenty of research (even a whole Non-Profit called “the Posse Foundation”) that suggests having a support system results in better achievement and lower drop out rates. I’m curious to know what threat this poses to anyone. Are you offended at all racial segregation, like that in Chicago? Or just in educational living quarters?
Also, I agree on the private institutions promoting legacies. Nepotism at its finest. The bankroll of your parents is still the best predictor of your future wealth and opportunities.
In short, i don’t believe that Colorblindness is the answer. I think forced systemic integration (brown v board was not that long ago) would create immediate backlash but ultimately result in higher tolerance of differences. I don’t think pretending that we are all the same is the same as accepting we are all different, and being okay with that.
But what do I know? I’m just a Millenial. The next generation after me already believes in same sex marriage as a right. Maybe the generation after them will learn from our mistakes.
I answered your question now you’re telling me why you moved the target. Cognitive dissonance much?
No, you haven’t. Just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it true.
Not going to go back to the killing example huh? You realized that was a bad example, right?
Oh, now I see why you had all those disjointed comments.
And no, it wasn’t a bad example. I didn’t realize you agreed with the “white” Hispanic George Zimmerman.
I see the rest of my comments were censored. Mentioning Zimmerman does not throw me off the fact that self defense is something that most humans agree with.
No they weren’t. What are you talking about?
“Comments now awaiting moderation”” Lol but as long as you read the ones I sent last night that’s all that matters. Take care.
I wrote several statements last night but maybe they didn’t come through. In summary the right has many cases of moral relativism.
War (both right and left)
Welfare (don’t give it to the poor but give a lot to the rich corporations)
Abortion (don’t want anybody to have an abortion but also don’t want yo help anyone take care of a kid if they were unable)
Nothing is as cut and dry as you are trying to make discrimination out to be. So call it what you want.
With that being said I wanted to thank you for your debate and If I offended you at any time I sincerely apologize. I never felt as if you were talking down to me and I appreciate that. This is an issue that I care deeply about and affects my everyday life. I’m not sure you could ever have appreciation for that. But thanks again.
“I wrote several statements last night but maybe they didn’t come through.”
If I had seen them, I would have posted them. There’s nothing I despise more than censorship. And I’m sure that that’s one thing we can both agree on. Namely, that stifling debate or hiding from arguments is a cowardly thing. You did neither here, and I respect you for sticking to your guns.
I appreciated the debate as well. It’s a topic that most people avoid, and one where there is a lot of emotion involved. I hope I kept emotion out of the argument. If I failed at times, the fault is my own. I also appreciate the fact that issues of race likely affect your life far more than they do mine. I think we both agree that racial issues are still a problem in this country (on all sides). I think the primary areas on which we disagree is how one ought to address those problems. You believe the government ought to take a more active approach, while I believe the government ought to foster the conditions for equal opportunity rather than using race as a factor in jobs or admissions.
And don’t worry, you didn’t offend me. 😉