Jackson Free Press

In a bizarre column today in The Clarion-Ledger, former Congressman David Bowen, a Democrat, first says that blacks and whites in Mississippi need a "new" dialogue, then proceeds to tell black Mississippians what they should not say in this dialogue. No similar advice for whites was in evidence, however. Here are some excerpts ...

Perhaps we are not listening to each other. Perhaps we are not frank and honest. Perhaps we "talk past each other." Perhaps we really do need a different dialogue that "requires getting beneath the surface and that is uncomfortable," as our editor has said. Without truth-telling there can be no healing or reconciliation.

That being the case and in an effort to avoid reciting the usual "racially sensitive" positions instead of what may be uncomfortable but honest, let me suggest saying to your dialogue partners — if you are white, since few of us can speak in someone else's skin — the following:

Don't dwell on the sins of the past. Nobody can change that. Talking about slavery and segregation will not solve today's problems. Most white Mississippians, and Americans, believe that more than adequate compensation has been paid for those past sins. ...

Forget the state flag. That issue is over. Find something better to get upset about, like school dropouts.

Stop talking about civil rights. There are no more civil rights issues. We are all Americans now with equal rights. Nobody is being denied the right to vote or participate in the political process. There are no more segregated hotels, restaurants, schools or water fountains. ...

Declare victory in the civil rights struggle and move on to something much more relevant, not what the government can do for you — those resources have been exploited and exhausted — but what you can do for yourselves and what we can all do together.

I looked three times to find what he suggest that white people do and just couldn't find it. There are more bullet points there; be sure to read the whole thing.

Previous Comments

ID

86648

Comment

BTW, folks, is this satire? I really haven't had enough coffee, so if I'm missing the joke or something, someone clue me in.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T10:47:07-06:00

ID

86649

Comment

sounds like good advice to me.

Author

KWHIT

Date

2005-02-17T12:34:12-06:00

ID

86650

Comment

Mr. Bowen probably had good intentions here, but he's obviously so blinded or misguided by his own miseducation, ignorance, estrangement, illusion of superiority, falsity of facts, and, probably, (intentional or unintentional) racism, that he can't even see the errors of his way. I could write a book on his mistakes in those excerpts but I don't have the time. I'm off for vacation for a week. Maybe somebody else will write the book thereby enlightening Mr. Bowen and others why his remarks are condescending, bitterly insensitive, false, insulting, and ignorant toward blacks, and stereotypical of both races.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T12:49:02-06:00

ID

86651

Comment

Which parts? All of it? There are certainly talking points in here, but it's buried in such condescension that I'm not sure how anybody could read it without flinching. And it's also a textbook example of a reason that people of different races have a hard time communicating: because one race tells the other race what they should be concerned about/talk about. For instance: Forget the state flag. That issue is over. Find something better to get upset about, like school dropouts. Why is that "issue over"? It's clearly not; as the older folks move on, younger people are going to realize why that flag is such a symbol of terrorism for so many people. Would he tell a Holocaust survivor to "get over" the state using the Swastika? Is there really nothing to talk about here when so many people don't even understand WHY the fly is so offensive to so many people, black and white? Then he pits that sensitive discussion against school drop-outs. I'm all over the drop-out problem: we do need to tackle school drop-outs. However, it's not hard to figure out that young black men (the ones most at risk) are walking past Confederate emblems every day to get into nearly fully re-segregated schools in Jackson. They are facing challenges that are there, in part, because of things that happened under that Confederate flag not so long ago. Yes, it makes sense to call for personal responsibility in the black community -- but how in hell is it an either-or proposition? Either you worry about the state flag OR you worry about school drop-outs??? How about we worry about both, and the messages being sent to young people in our re-segregated schools that many people would like to see shut down before they allow their tax money to help fix them. There are no more segregated hotels, restaurants, schools or water fountains. ... Bullshit. Especially on the schools point. He needs to get his head out of the sand. Stop talking about civil rights. There are no more civil rights issues. We are all Americans now with equal rights. Nobody is being denied the right to vote or participate in the political process. What country is Mr. Bowen living in? This is just patently false on its face. I could go on. But the point here is not that he is wrong on every point, but that he is condescending as all hell, and it's not up to him to tell o ther people what they need to be concerned about and try to have a dialogue about. That will end discussion before it ever begins, as it always does. Just because some white folks don't want to hear about the past doesn't mean history shouldn't be studied or talked about. Note that his point is to tell white people what to tell black people when they bring these points up (I think; that paragraph is so muddled I can barely understand it). Huh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T12:51:52-06:00

ID

86652

Comment

Now, I'm not completed surprised by this level of condescension. When I was a Stennis Scholar at Mississippi State, my fellow scholar and I were sent to Washington after our junior year. We both had great GPAs, and were applying to good law schools outside Mississippi. Mr. Bowen asked us where we were planning to go to college. "Georgetown, I hope," my friend (a Truman scholar) said. I added, "or maybe George Washington, or American. I'd like to live in D.C.," or something very close to that. "Well, those schools are hard to get into, you know. You should consider Ole Miss," he said. The rest of the story is that we both got into a n umber of those schools, he graduated from Georgetown, and I dropped out to become a deejay and then a writer ... but we both got in. And, as a young person, his condescension cut to my bone. I do have a good idea for an editor's note, however.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T12:52:48-06:00

ID

86653

Comment

Thank you, Ray. If someone like you is seeing it, I understand why I'm so floored by this column. It is such a blatant example of the problem we need to go after -- and how people such as Bowen don't have a friggin' clue when it comes to race relations. I know you're on vacation, but I would love some help pointing out the problems here. I think we're getting close to the quick on where communication problems lie, and why this dialogue needs to happen. It might be interesting to post some comments that black people would like tell other black people to tell white folks not to say (!?!) if they want to have a nice, comfortable conversation that doesn't ruffled anyone's feathers. My word.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T12:56:12-06:00

ID

86654

Comment

I, too, agree by the way that he probably meant well, as he did that day in 1982 in D.C. But that doesn't mean it helps anything -- it just makes white people who don't want to talk about history, and the lingering legacies of it, feel better about themselves and their reticence. It sure won't lead to useful dialogue. Or maybe it will ... if we keep talking about it. ;-) But perhaps not in the way he meant.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T12:58:43-06:00

ID

86655

Comment

On the "segregated" schools issue: are you in favor of busing or some other method to de-segregate schools that are now de facto segregated as a result of factors other than government-enforced segregation?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-17T13:58:46-06:00

ID

86656

Comment

On the "segregated" schools issue: are you in favor of busing or some other method to de-segregate schools that are now de facto segregated as a result of factors other than government-enforced segregation? No, I am for overcoming the ignorance that leads scared white folks to not send their kids to public schools -- such as the efforts of Parents for Public Schools. However, if it were up to Mr. Bowen, we wouldn't even have such a discussion because it's all over and done with, and there's nothing left to be said. Or at least so he says above. I'm sure not for denial that they have re-segregated because that makes white folks to uncomfortable to face. Talk about ignorance.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T14:07:15-06:00

ID

86657

Comment

Maybe I'm reading this too quickly, but my take was not that Mr. Bowen "proceed[ed] to tell black Mississippians what they should not say in this dialogue. No similar advice for whites was in evidence, however." I took his explicit point to be the converse of this. I took this from the following: "That being the case and in an effort to avoid reciting the usual 'racially sensitive' positions instead of what may be uncomfortable but honest, let me suggest saying to your dialogue partners ó if you are white, since few of us can speak in someone else's skin ó the following:" I only note this because I think there is some degree of difference (and, yes, before I am web-flogged, I do think black and whites are entitled to voice opinions about the talking points brought to the table by the opposite race - or other races to make it multiracial - the degree of credibility lent to the opinion is another issue) between Mr. Bowan advocating what he think whites should say in a dialogue from saying what he think blacks should say in a dialogue . And I don't think he was saying what he thinks black should or cannot say. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T15:25:25-06:00

ID

86658

Comment

Matt, I'll go read it again on your advisement, and apologize if I took it wrong. But I've read it five times so far! I think a big problem is what this means: "That being the case and in an effort to avoid reciting the usual 'racially sensitive' positions instead of what may be uncomfortable but honest, let me suggest saying to your dialogue partners ó if you are white, since few of us can speak in someone else's skin ó the following: That is ferociously hard to follow ... More soon.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T15:32:22-06:00

ID

86659

Comment

Matt, maybe is a case of bad Ledge editing, but help me here ... He started out great: "Without truth-telling there can be no healing or reconciliation." Blah, blah. Cool. But then I expected the pay-off and at first thought he was saying that the list of things that followed were things that whites should NOT say to blacks. But then that jumbled graf: ... let me suggest saying to your dialogue partners ó if you are white, since few of us can speak in someone else's skin ó the following: Don't dwell on the sins of the past. Nobody can change that. Talking about slavery and segregation will not solve today's problems. Most white Mississippians, and Americans, believe that more than adequate compensation has been paid for those past sins. ... and so on. Help me through it if he's not telling people NOT TO dwell on past, etc., and the rest of his list. Are his "dialogue partners" white? If so, why is he then following with that list of what not to talk about? I'm serious; I'll give him the benefit of the doubt if I can find it in this. And I will always hold out that possibility that my head just isn't operating right. Happens. So help me, dude.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T15:38:43-06:00

ID

86660

Comment

By the way, he is clearly talking to black people here and telling them what to say/not say, right? Find a way in your communities, churches, families to fight crime, drugs, communicable diseases, other health problems and the unfortunate notion that academic success is "acting white." Dazed and confused here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T15:40:33-06:00

ID

86661

Comment

The way I read it was, he says: White people should tell their "dialogue partners" the following: "don't dwell on the past," "forget the state flag," "stop talking about civil rights," etc. I guess it does depend on your definition of "dialogue partners." Since it's a column about race dialogue, I assumed that the dialogue partner in question would be black. At the very least, that's some screwed up writing. And, if he's tell white people what to talk about, that's just as annoying.

Author

kate

Date

2005-02-17T15:42:32-06:00

ID

86662

Comment

At the very least, that's some screwed up writing. And, if he's tell white people what to talk about, that's just as annoying. Agreed on both points. First time I read it, I honestly thought he was telling people what they shouldn't try to hoist on other people in a true dialogue. But, re-reading it, that's just not what's there. And notice the second person: he must be talking to black people, right? Although you are so right that it annoys the hell out of me that David Bowen thinks that I shouldn't be willing to look at all of our history in order to help us move forward. Who does he think he is? And to think he used to teach political science: did he only teach what was in the headlines that day? (I missed him at Mississippi STate, so I couldn't tell you.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T15:49:42-06:00

ID

86663

Comment

Wowsers, reading that first paragraph makes my head hurt. I'd rather understand what he meant to say, and make sure the Ledge didn't hack his article up to stir up problems. Paranoid? Moi? :) Now, if all that's his philosophy, let's be sure not to elect him again. ...and I still hate the Mississippi Flag. I can understand and appreciate why people call it racist. I also hate losing, and in flying that flag we celebrate one of the most asinine causes ever to have been fought over and totally destroyed over. It's simply a chapter I'd love to put to bed after 140 years.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-02-17T16:52:39-06:00

ID

86664

Comment

It is, indeed, bizarro. First he talks about how people need to start listening, then proceeds into a lecture about what he doesn't want to hear. Is there a disconnect here?

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-17T16:56:00-06:00

ID

86665

Comment

My problem with Mr. Bowens comments is that he solcits the help of black folks to assuage and free white Americans from any guilt or discomfort they might have toward slavery and jim crowism. He hypocrtically talks about truth, honesty and candor but he displays none when he says slavey and desegregation has been paid for, civil rights are no longer a viable fight, and we should forget about the flag. I can't respect the flag because it still has the rebel bars due to whites in Mississippi overwhemingly (by majority) voting to keep it. This clearly showed most white Mississippians dont want to forget the past, just black folks' past as it relates to slavery, jim crowism and their remnants. Four hundred years plus of slavery and segregation speaks voulumes about the hearts and souls of the people in this country. Whether we like it or not, slavery and segregation have, by and large, defined us. How can anybody in the right mind ignore this undeniable fact of history. We can't have any real dialogue about race matters without the truth to define the parties, the pasts, the roads traveled, and the duties befor us. All white folks have to do to free themselves from the remnants of the past is to honestly acknowledge the truth of it and dutifully commit to not engaging in the past types of acts themselves.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T17:02:26-06:00

ID

86666

Comment

No...we agree. He's doing what you think he is. At first I read your post and his column and though we did not on how it read. He is stating what whites should say - not blacks - but then in stating what whites should say, he is stating that whites should say that black shouldn't state certain things. While I don't agree with Bowan's particular choice of talking points, I guess I do disagree with many posters on one point. Talking points, regardless of who (what race) is bringing them to the table, should be subject to scrutiny. I don't have a problem with whites or blacks criticizing the talking points that are traditionally identified as "white" or "black," and I don't have too much of a problem with someone throwing their two cents in on what a particular race does not focus enough on, and from their perspective, should (e.g., Bowan doesn't think "black culture" values educational achievement enough - at least if I read his article right; I just don't get all rowled up at him for making this statement - other statements in his article are another matter). However, this latter part of this statement (about what other races should do) is more sensitive and apt to start a big shouting match, if whoever is making the "two cents" observation is not careful.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T17:02:54-06:00

ID

86667

Comment

Indeed, it's crazy. As it's written, it almost offends me more than that coot in The Northside Sun saying blacks should give thanks every day for slavery (and getting an award for it). This is just a laundry list of everything we should talk about, presumably, so we don't offend sensitive white folk. Weirdoooo. However, Iron makes a good point. Before I officially jump this guy in my Editor's Note, I should probably call him and make sure The Ledge editors didn't whack it all to hell and screw up his point in the process. Not that they would do such a thing. Seriously, it would be a good column if it said that the races would get much further talking to each other if too many whites DIDN'T automatically get offended when his list of issues were brought up. Again, I'm down with the responsibility messages and such, tackling dropouts, not wasting all our energy on the flag and so on, but to say a race dialogue with anybody shouldn't include these issues is patently absurd.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:05:25-06:00

ID

86668

Comment

My apology for the typos and use of desegregation when I meant segregation. I wish I could be in town to continue this discussion.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T17:08:14-06:00

ID

86669

Comment

My problem with Mr. Bowens comments is that he solcits the help of black folks to assuage and free white Americans from any guilt or discomfort they might have toward slavery and jim crowism. ... This clearly showed most white Mississippians dont want to forget the past, just black folks' past as it relates to slavery, jim crowism and their remnants. Amen, Ray. Everything you said. But I guess it's good to see this hypocrisy and blindness emerge in such a shocking way. All white folks have to do to free themselves from the remnants of the past is to honestly acknowledge the truth of it and dutifully commit to not engaging in the past types of acts themselves. Exactly. And it's quite breathtaking to see the lengths people go to in order to avoid doing two simple things. Matt ... we don't completely disagree. If he had simply stated his opinion about affirmative action, the flag and so on, that would be one thing. Let's rumble in discussion about those points. Hell, I'm on a committee right now that is working to help Lanier kids figure out ways to deal with the whole peer pressure not to "act white" by studying too much thing. There are points there. But to be so damned condescending to presume that anyone could take seriously that he is telling white people in turn what to tell black people they can say in a dialogue just makes me sputter in disbelief. There is nothing about that that moves dialogue forward -- except maybe our attempt to point out what he is doing and then talk about. Again, though, I don't think that's what he had in mine. I think he wants some whitewashed conversation about what people in the black community are doing wrong ... at least that's what his piece makes me think. I wish I could vote against him for something.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:15:52-06:00

ID

86670

Comment

Without commenting on the more controversial of Bowen's comments, discussed above, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water: "Further success for black Americans now depends upon personal discipline, dedication, responsibility and hard work, holding families together, parents believing in education and achievement for their children in the same way that Asian families among us do[.] Find a way in your communities, churches, families to fight crime, drugs, communicable diseases, other health problems and the unfortunate notion that academic success is 'acting white.'" Surely noone would disagree with the wisdom of that advice. It is reminiscent of Bill Cosby's recent comments on the status of black americans. Cosby's comments, which centered around personal accountability and responsibility, were criticized by some blacks as "airing out black america's dirty laundry," to which Cosby rmemorably responded that "[black america]'s dirty laundry gets out of school every day at 3 PM. Cosby's comments were criticized by one noted black academic as "hate speech." There will be no progress on these issues as long as unpopular or controversial discussions on these issues are shouted down as "racism."

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-17T17:16:41-06:00

ID

86671

Comment

I agreed with Mr. Cosby. I'm not real crazy about how Mr. Cosby did it though. I agree with Buck also though I know it not quite that simple for black folks.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T17:23:16-06:00

ID

86672

Comment

Again, as I just stated (probably cross-posting), I don't disagree with those points, Buck. I can go Dr. Laura on people's asses over personal responsibility (even though we all also screw up as well). And of course, Cosby made good points, although you're not quoting everything he said about how white America twisted and used his comments against blacks. But that's OK for this discussion. The point here is about the dialogue that he is trying to squelch -- and about how history doesn't belong there. If we followed Bowen's advice as written, we couldn't even really have THIS discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:25:10-06:00

ID

86673

Comment

I should also add that I have been called a "racist" by whites because I try to understand what black people are feeling, and a "racist" by blacks because I try to understand what white people are feeling. Thus, the reason I try to not take all the "racist" bait on the site and start name-calling without impunity. I believe in having the difficult conversations (if y'all hadn't noticed), and I am willing to piss off anybody in that quest (if y'all hadn't noticed). But it is just outrageous for someone to write a column like this saying that the dialogue shouldn't take place in the first place unless it makes one side of it (and the majority culture at that) more comfortable. I'm not trying to censor Bowen (before the PC police start yelling); I'm not the government. But I do believe this needs to be countered with more speech -- which is always the answer for ignorant or offensive commentary. And it could just be that Mr. Bowen is not much of a thinker. That's sad, though, for a former congressman and political-science professor. Lord, I hope it's The Ledge's fault. Would make me feel better about mankind today.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:32:30-06:00

ID

86674

Comment

Most white Mississippians, and Americans, believe that more than adequate compensation has been paid for those past sins. OK, I know I'm piling on, but stare at that sentence a few minutes. First of all, so what that most white Americans think that??? Most white Mississippians in the 1960s thought that Jim Crow laws were a good idea, too, and most voted to close the public schools before letting in black kids. Secondly, what is the "adequate compensation" that's been paid?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:37:31-06:00

ID

86675

Comment

You're doing a wonderful job, Donna! Don't worry about your detractors and critics - they will always be around trying to stop the forces of good. You're doing a divine and Godly thing as fas as I'm concerned. I know you're not a racist of any sort. You're perhaps the bravest and most committed woman I've ever met. I get accused too by both sides of being racist. The truth is the light and it will set us all free eventually.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T17:41:29-06:00

ID

86676

Comment

Find a way in your communities, churches, families to fight crime, drugs, communicable diseases, other health problems and the unfortunate notion that academic success is 'acting white.'" My biggest problem with this statement is the assumption that these are "black" issues that must be dealt with by "black" people. These are community issues that must be dealt with by the community -- all of us. Civil rights history is MY history. Jim Crow hurt me, too. Health problems are bad for MY city and MY state. The point I'm making is that the village has to deal with the village's problem. Does that mean the black community shouldn't find its own strength to fix problems? Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that there's nothing the rest of us can do to, say, help Lanier High School other than sit over here in East Jackson and act like it's some freak show every time the evening news pans it because something bad happens in their (incredibly poor) neighborhood. This column also reads like Bowen is excusing any responisbility whatsoever that white folks have for problems in the "black" community, past or present. I gotta sign off; I'm earning that Mad Ladd label the talk-radio folks have given me. (Ben told me. Thanks for the publicity, boys.) The thing that perhaps makes me the angriest is when one Mississippian stands up and loudly makes the rest of us look like idiots. (And thanks, Ray, I just saw your post. Don't worry: I'm not worried about the loudmouths; they're just bringing more people to the paper. They're the secret to our success. ) Ta.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T17:48:51-06:00

ID

86677

Comment

As to the adequate compensation phrase, earlier I wrote a paragraph so long on that issue the computer rejected it for too many words. Only a moron could consider the short life of affirmitive action and civil rights as adequate payment for slavery and jim crowism. Once I read that comment I knew Mr. Bowen was crazy and morally bankrupt.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T17:49:10-06:00

ID

86678

Comment

Donna... See above. Most of the "posts" are from you. Don't obsess! The sun will come up tomorrow, I promise. Take a deep breath and exhale...you will be fine and some people that have been to Congress do have opinions too! [And being a Harvard grad and Rhodes Scholar to boot!]

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-02-17T18:08:08-06:00

ID

86679

Comment

I'll volunteer to go ahead and start what will probably be a firestorm. The problem with programs like affirmative action, at least in the educational context, is that it asks a group of people - today's whites, by and large (like me) - to pay for the sins committed by a group of people from yesteryear (not me). The only thing that ties together today's "taxed" group and the fathers who committed the sins are the color of their skin. Some might argue that affirmative action doesn't make today's whites "pay" for the sins of the father. If so, I disagree. There are whites out there who, but for affirmative action, would have been accepted into a particular program. I don't think it is right to place the burden, for yesteryear's sins, on today's generation of whites. That is what affirmative action does. You can get into semantics on it, but I really think that is what it does. I would go further, but the above is already loaded with talking points depending on how someone responds, if the even want to.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T18:08:17-06:00

ID

86680

Comment

Don't obsess! The sun will come up tomorrow, I promise. Take a deep breath and exhale...you will be fine Good advice for Thursday mornings as well, Councilman, when you and Larry are "obsessing" about the thugs in Jackson. ;-) and some people that have been to Congress do have opinions too! [And being a Harvard grad and Rhodes Scholar to boot!] Of course they do. And the great thing about America is that we have the right to point about when we think other people are being dumb-asses, especially on behalf of our entire race (which is, perhaps, what ticks me off the most -- that he, apparently, thinks he's speaking for all white people here. As for affirmative action, discuss it all you want; there are all sorts of issues there. Just don't do the Bush thing and call them "quotas," or you, too, will sound like a dumb-ass. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T18:13:46-06:00

ID

86681

Comment

Ben, that affirmitive action you speak of pales in comparison to the affirmitive action white folks routinely have gotten and still get in this country because of affirmitive preference by some whites toward other whites. I would love to see a list of the whites who didn't reach their dreams and goals because some black person prevented them from doing it due to affirmitive action or even racism. Is your pain greater than my pain? Tell us how affirmitive action directly compares to slavery, jim crowism and abject racism. I'm all for ending racism but I abhor trickery.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-02-17T18:38:01-06:00

ID

86682

Comment

I, for one, have gotten plenty of "affirmative action" over the years because I was a poor white girl from Neshoba County -- smart, but not well educated but with some visible potential. I probably took some spots away from both both white boys and other folks of various races. George W. Bush, not smart but apparently with some visible potential, has gotten "affirmative action" because his daddy was a Yalie, and then a president, thus taking a spot that a smarter black kid would have been more "qualified" for. I'm all for affirmative action in various forms to help those of us, who for various reasons are just as damn smart, but wouldn't have the same opportunities for a good education (or ultimately a job). At the same time, I sure don't mind figuring out the best, and most fair, ways to facilitate it. But I don't hanker much to a discussion on why affirmative action isn't needed, or is somehow unfairly placing the "burden" on white men for "yesteryear's sins." I've never heard that argument made in such a way that is convincing at all, and I've heard in about every form from some really smart folk -- because tjat position is NEVER placed in a context of actually understanding what a real level playing field would be. And it kills me that so many people think that all these hiring and acceptance decisions are so damned objective -- except when a black person or a woman is involved. Finally, I'm with Ray: trickery and hypocrisy don't help much in the discussion, but often that's all we get when we try to talk about affirmative action. So unless I know I'm talking to someone who understands the depth of the problem of a level playing field in the U.S., I usually respectfully bow out. Which I should probably do now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-17T18:48:14-06:00

ID

86683

Comment

Ray... My post does not mention affirmative action. I was into some good ole- fashion, good natured" ribbing of my friend Donna. [Didn't mean to "touch a nerve"] I deal with "minority set aside " issues daily...and will let my voting record on same speak for itself. Cheers! Ben

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-02-17T20:06:49-06:00

ID

86684

Comment

and will let my voting record on same speak for itself. Yeah that $300,000 grant you voted for this week for streetside landscaping around Speed's new parking garage was a real sweet vote. Loved the way you all completely bypassed the competitive bidding process on that one for the sake of "convenience". Anything, of course, for Mr. Speed.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-02-17T20:53:51-06:00

ID

86685

Comment

Before passing judgement on the "grant" you are referring to and its play and part of the $561,000 infrastructure impact improvement project, and the lack of "competitive" bidding, at least read what was involved. Will be happy to fax the scope to you for review. Then when you remove the 100# chip off your shoulder and get educated on it, you may not seem so bitter to those of us who know what was involved. I am truly happy that we have reached a point that we [a few ] are arguing and bitching about investment and construction in downtown Jackson. Beats the hell out of 20 years of downtown silence we have endured and is at last bugging the hell out of those that hide behind ghost emails and blogs. Get educated and bitch all you want to...or better yet call me to discuss the FACTS of the "grant".

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-02-17T21:16:56-06:00

ID

86686

Comment

"Ben, that affirmitive action you speak of pales in comparison to the affirmitive action white folks routinely have gotten and still get in this country because of affirmitive preference by some whites toward other whites...Tell us how affirmitive action directly compares to slavery, jim crowism and abject racism...." Actually, Ray, it was me, Matt, who posted the comment to which you refer. Your right in one respect: affirmative action does pale in comparison because of subtle or explicit white favoritism. You ask what the difference is. I, at least, think it's easy: one is sanctioned by the government, one is actionable at law, as you no doubt know as an attorney. Regardless of the different treatment under law, I think both are wrong. And I think it is dishonest to argue that today's white's don't bear the price tag for the sins of yesteryear. I don't think that is fair that people like me pay this price; last time I checked, I didn't do the things that are used now as jusitification for affirmative action - i.e., the past sins. It's no more fair than holding the child of a criminal somehow "guilty" because of what his or her parent did. Under affirmative action, that is exactly what we are doing. If not, tell me how. As for Bush and alumni preferences generally, to hold my line of argument, you have to throw those preferences out the window, as any system that truly operates under a meritocracy should.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T21:26:59-06:00

ID

86687

Comment

If we agree that blacks and minorities of all colors and cultures have the same innate abilities to compete in a given market, as I believe, then why have race-based affirmative action? The real difference in our society is not based on race but rather on money. Money provides opportunity for advancement, no matter what color you are or what creed you follow. Are black students whose parents are doctors or lawyers any less able to compete with their white classmates for the fact that they are black? No. For that reason, if affirmative action should exist at all, I contend that it should exist based not on color, creed, or race, but rather on economic background. Are poor white people facing any fewer challenges than those facing poor people of a given ethnic minority in this country? I don't think so.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-17T21:29:37-06:00

ID

86688

Comment

Donna - a controversial comment. I know males and females who have applied to UMMC medical school (as I'm sure all of those on this board do). Of those I personally know, many males were routinely rejected, year in and year out, with much, much higher scores than the females who were accepted. Fair? I don't think so. The larger question is why?

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T21:33:16-06:00

ID

86689

Comment

Buckallred, I agree. If affirmative action were really about what it purported to be, it would be about economic class status. I could live with that. But black is not a proxy for poor.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T21:35:32-06:00

ID

86690

Comment

Matt, I'm reading and I'm truly not understanding why you think that "today's white's....bear the price tag for the sins of yesteryear." I totally disagree with you on that - the dishonesty is in not acknowledging the perks of being white in Mississippi. Acknowledging that there are definate perks to being white is not the same as feeling a displaced guilt for what someone in the past did or didn't do. Stop a moment and ponder the advantages that a lot of white people get from their parents and how much of what they get from their parents is dependent on what their parents got from their grandparents - money, power, education and/or connections with those who held money and power may not get you all the way to where you want to go, but it surely can give you a big leg up. Do you have any idea how many more opportunities were extended to your parents, and to you, because of the white power structure of yesteryear? You're not bearing half the price tag for the sins of yesteryear that most blacks in this state are bearing (and it wasn't even *their* sins). Ben and Donna, one thing for each of you to consider when you are called racist is that it's quite an effective silencer when used against those pointing out the emperor's lack of clothing. Don't let it stop you - just means you are being heard.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-17T22:05:01-06:00

ID

86691

Comment

i'll respond...a moment please

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T22:06:11-06:00

ID

86692

Comment

Excuse me, I meant Ray. No offense, Ben, but Ray was the one, along with Donna, who mentioned that they are called racist. A senior moment. And I do agree with Ray in his assesment of this article, pretty much right down the line he drew. I also forgot to say, nice job, Donna and Ray, thanks for saying all the things I would have said if I'd had time (and sense) enough.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-17T22:17:58-06:00

ID

86693

Comment

"Stop a moment and ponder the advantages that a lot of white people get from their parents and how much of what they get from their parents is dependent on what their parents got from their grandparents - money, power, education and/or connections with those who held money and power...." I think that is the crux of your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong. Let us assume that is true, which I have pondered before and still think that it is true. I still don't think it justifies placing burden on a generation that did not commit the sins. Don't blame a person for where or to whom they are born, which implicitly, at least, is what you are doing. You want to place the burden on those who did it (the sins)? Fine. But not innocent people who happen to be born white. Guilt doesn't transpose itself through skin color. Probably what this comes down to, for me at least, is that I think there a two arguments on this issue. A social policy argument, and a constituional argument. As a constitutional matter, I think (my opinion) it is unconstitional, the same as I think affirmative action was when first implemented (unlike my least favorite Justice, O'Conner). As a social policy matter, it's a different question, particularly during affirmative action's first decade or so. Regardless of the social policy question of when it was implemented, I think its time has long since passed. If you want to do it by economic status in today's times, fine. But don't throw me the disingenuous argument about how blacks in today's times are suffering at a rate even in the ballpark of when affirmative action was first implemented. Nor are they suffering enough (if at all) to justify affirmative action.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T22:24:12-06:00

ID

86694

Comment

The last part of my comment could be woefully misinterpreted. If so, feel free to web-flogg - I'll respond.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T22:28:49-06:00

ID

86695

Comment

BTW, "...Acknowledging that there are definate perks to being white is not the same as feeling a displaced guilt for what someone in the past did or didn't do." I'm not sure what that means. Please clarify.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T22:54:13-06:00

ID

86696

Comment

And, if the answer is that I should feel displaced guilt, I don't. Again, guilt dosn't tranpire through skin color. Now, do I want to do what I can to correct past wrongs? Yes. But that is a different question.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T22:56:23-06:00

ID

86697

Comment

Matt, I believe your arguments are a bit emotionally charged Maybe it's my ears, but I'm hearing words like "burden," "guilt," "suffering," that sound as if you are expressing a resentment that is personal in nature. Maybe I'm full of psycho-dookey, but that's what it sounds like to me. Suffering and burden are overly dramatic words. And guilt - I hear so much about guilt from other whites that it begins to sound very much as though they are protesting too much. It's not good for a person to feel too much misplaced guilt - it's followed by resentment and defensiveness. I don't believe that we are responsible for what was done in the past, and I don't feel guilty - but that doesn't stop me from seeing those wrongs of the past and wanting to help right them. And Matt, that "disingenuous argument" you put in my mouth doesn't belong there. Respect me enough to wait til I throw you one of those before you try to bat it down.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-17T23:32:52-06:00

ID

86698

Comment

"Maybe it's my ears, but I'm hearing words like "burden," "guilt," "suffering," that sound as if you are expressing a resentment that is personal in nature. Maybe I'm full of psycho-dookey, but that's what it sounds like to me. Suffering and burden are overly dramatic words." I didn't put that in your mouth...just anticpating what might come. Sorry. And, I think this can only come from the source, you are hearing "psycho-dookey." I don't claim to be victimized by affirmative action, nor was I in reality. No resentment here, just more amusement. Is it overly dramatic to say that a black in today's times suffers a burden or suffers? Just curious.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-17T23:46:12-06:00

ID

86699

Comment

Mallen, 9:26 p.m. I think it is dishonest to argue that today's white's don't bear the price tag for the sins of yesteryear. I don't think that is fair that people like me pay this price; last time I checked, I didn't do the things that are used now as jusitification for affirmative action Mallen, 11:46 p .m. I don't claim to be victimized by affirmative action, nor was I in reality. So, which is it, Matt? It sounds like you're arguing with yourself here; you doth definitely protesting a lot. I'm still not in this argument, by the way. I simply cannot have an intelligent discussion about this topic with people who believe that the playing field has already been leveled for the descendants of centuries of slavery, black codes and Jim Crow. There's nothing more to say to people who believe that; it's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society. They already know the answer, and it's that nothing else needs to be done on this front. They have it figured out. Spread the magic dust; all is well. So be it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T00:18:28-06:00

ID

86700

Comment

Oh, and it's not about burden, Matt. For the record, that's the primary flaw in your thinking.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T00:19:57-06:00

ID

86701

Comment

It's late, so the point will be short. To act as if there are not some people out there, who happen to be white, that are not affected by affirmative action is non-sense. Let use take it in tiers of law schools. If you took any school off the list of the last tiers of law schools, there are students who didn't get in who are white, and a student who did get in who is of a minority - when the minority had the lower score. At the lower tier level, that means the white person doesn't get to be a lawyer (or other profession) while the minority does - despite the lower credintials. Let's step it up to the highest level: Yale Law School. Minorities get into Yale Law (I know because I've heard their scores) who, if they were white, would not even waste the time to apply, because the admission committee would basically laugh at them. Fair? No (before someone says I'm envious, I'm not, I just find it amusing). Which bring about another point: you don't have to be hampered by affirmative action to criticize it. And about burden being the primary flaw: I'm sorry, but that is half of the equation. One might ignore it, but it is still there.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-18T01:30:02-06:00

ID

86702

Comment

"I simply cannot have an intelligent discussion about this topic with people who believe that the playing field has already been leveled for the descendants of centuries of slavery, black codes and Jim Crow...." And this, my friend, is where we disagree. Races all across the globe have gone through trauma, at one time or another. I think it is insulting to blacks to suggest, that for some reason, they, unlike many other races, can't get up and wipe the dust off their pants. They are perfectly capable, in spite of the atrocious things that occurred in the past.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-18T01:34:36-06:00

ID

86703

Comment

David Bowen: There are no more segregated hotels, restaurants, schools or water fountains. ... Donna Ladd: Bullshit. Especially on the schools point. He needs to get his head out of the sand. Care to elaborate? Schools may be comprised of an overwhelming majority of one race, but that's not because state laws of any sort are demanding they be that way. Nobody is getting turned away from the schoolhouse door because of skin color.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T05:22:08-06:00

ID

86704

Comment

Affirmative action is intended to help historically disadvantaged groups and help rectify wealth disparities. But look at most (certainly not saying all) of the black students at top graduate schools -- they're from affluent backgrounds: children of doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc. While it can easily be shown that their race as a whole was disadvantaged, they probably weren't disadvantaged growing up.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T05:38:48-06:00

ID

86705

Comment

Guys, I haven't abandoned you on this - I have a lot more I want to say, but can't because I'm on the way to the Blues Symposium. Will try to pick back up after the busy weekend.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-18T07:47:03-06:00

ID

86706

Comment

RE: Segregation This is one of those unfortunate words that has two connotative meanings - each very correct within their own context. When White Southerners speak of "segregation", they usually mean legally enforced segregation like actual Jim Crow, South African Apartheid, and the like. Donna is using the broader definition of segregation - essentially meaning the opposite of actual integration: any separation of the races, whether legally enforced or voluntary. I don't like this word for this very reason. If we insist on using the word, it should be prefaced by either de facto (the type Donna speaks of) or de jure (Jim Crow, Apartheid)

Author

Philip

Date

2005-02-18T07:52:16-06:00

ID

86707

Comment

The fact of the matter Allen is that you bypassed the competitive bidding process out of convenience. You aren't the only Councilperson to receive the information packet. All that other justification is noise to mask the process you did not follow. You subjectively voted to bypass the competitive bidding process. Please, say you didn't.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-02-18T08:57:16-06:00

ID

86708

Comment

Thanks, Philip. You're absolutely right. Those are phrases we used all the time in grad school that are a bit more modern and applicable to today's world. Matt: And this, my friend, is where we disagree. Races all across the globe have gone through trauma, at one time or another. I think it is insulting to blacks to suggest, that for some reason, they, unlike many other races, can't get up and wipe the dust off their pants. No, it's not, Matt. You are clearly too blinded by your initial position on this issue (which I'll get to) to see what other people are trying to say on it. No one here is arguing that there are not capable black people -- YOU are condescending to people of color by trying to imply that his argument is even about that. This discussion is about opportunity and access to education and thus good jobs. It's not as if every white person in a major position of authority or power is "qualified" to be there. (Ahem.) They got there because of their connections, their string-pulling, who they knew, what they looked like, how they talked, and so on. Put in that Clintonian way, this is about opportunity, stupid! And you can't realize, or acknowledge, that "opportunity" is built up from the resources, the network, the history you could from, then you are never going to rumble with me on the "equal playing field" point. You are just going to keep muttering about how affirmative action is unfair to some white guy you know. And, you know, America can be unfair to a lot of people, but not its white guys. No, sirree, Bob.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T09:12:26-06:00

ID

86709

Comment

Affirmative action is intended to help historically disadvantaged groups and help rectify wealth disparities. This is a laudable goal. The problem is that to achieve this goal, affirmative action programs treat other individuals unfairly, it does them an injustice. Not just white people; the group most treated most unfairly by educational affirmative action programs is Asian Americans. UC Berkley, I think, had an affirmative action program that attempted in its admissions to mirror the racial makeup of the community. The problem was that qualified Asian-American applicants were overrepresented and qualified African-American candidates were underrepresented relative to the racial makeup of the community (there's a supreme court case on this). So basically, there were too many Asian Americans; so after their slots were filled, less qualified black applicants were admitted and more qualified Asian Americans were rejected. This violates a fundamental principle of justice: equality of opportunity. Also, it seems to me that affirmative action is detrimental to black people as well. It creates a new hierarchy: preferred vs. unpreferred. So even a black person who has not benefitted from affirmative action must live with stigma of recieving preferrential treatment. Even if a person is the most qualified for a job, people still might think that he was hired because of an affirmative action program. Paradoxically, in order to overcome past victimization, affirmative action requires black Americans to become invested in their own victimhood.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-18T09:12:48-06:00

ID

86710

Comment

Please say your name. You may be Proud To Be Right, but launching anonymous gripes to a city official is nothing to be proud of. If you want to contact Ben Allen, email him.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T09:13:19-06:00

ID

86711

Comment

This is the very reason I don't like to have discussions about affirmative action with people such as yourself -- you indicate right off the bat that you have it figured out: usually because, "well, I didn't do those horrible things." No shit. I didn't, either. So it's really good that that's not what this debate is about, isn't it? It's about the conditions of society today, the conditions of the *legacies* of centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, black codes (everyone clear on what those were? need to be here), Reconstruction and the refusal to actually give the 40 acres and the mule. (Boy, would that have helped today.) It is about the conditions of inner-city neighborhoods that started out as forced ghettoes, it's about years of intentional attempts to re-segregate the schools right here in Jackson by people working closely with the government (you know Bill Simmons and the Council Schools Foundation were up and running until almost 1990 in some form, right?) It's about the refusal of white society to even consider the need for any kind of economic justice in order to level the playing field for ENOUGH BLACKS TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE in those communities that got that way due to both de facto and de jure segregation. It's not about tokenism or assauging your guilt. Our guilt shouldn't be about what happened 40 years ago here, or 200 years ago, it should be about not acknowleding reality in today's society, and then doing something to help level that playing field. But if you won't even have the playing field argument, how in hell how can you expect someone to have a smart talk with you about the best ways to level it without being unfair to too many of your buddies?? You've decided; everything's hunky-dory from your perspective. Discussion over. Oh, but it's not. These things aren't about reality generations ago. They are reality TODAY. Instead, though, peope are perfectly happy to go around yapping nonsensically about how poverty has nothing to do with crime, you know, and it's OK to spend lots of money on prisons and more cops and drug raids, and of coursem ore blacks are in Mississippi prisons; well, they commit more crimes you know. But that doesn't have anything to do with the poverty in their communities, the low expectationos of them by society; the fact that their schools have been re-segregated (not by their family's choices), that guns are pumped into their communities by gun companies, and so on. None of this is important because, because by dab, all that bullshit is behind.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T09:14:19-06:00

ID

86712

Comment

That is, (a) YOU (meaning you and your friends and other folks who look like you) shouldn't have to pay the price for sins of your fathers or grandfathers, etc., (b) the level field is clearly level, why look at all the (black) folks who are doing just fine, thank you very much, (c) that the primary reason anyone would argue for affirmative action is some sense of white guilt for all those past sins that you didnt' commit, (d) it's just not fair to some guy that you can find out there who will back you up. I can find a whole lot of people whom the lack of affirmative action is unfair to as well, should I care to go toe-to-toe with you on it. Matt, not of this is to be rude to you (or Mr. Bowen). But the point is that you are closing the door on a discussion that needs to happen because you have already made up your mind about what other people think, and how other people live, before it even begins. This is the primary problem with race dialogue in this country -- it has to play by your rules, or it's not going to happen. Done now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T09:14:40-06:00

ID

86713

Comment

Thanx sny guy...I deal with dumbasses all the time and he doesn't know what he is talking about. If anyone has a gripe i am the only Ben Allen in the phone book and they can call...but you are RIGHT....this thread is not about the subject that this angry person is obsessing about...we had nothing to put on "competitive bid". That process is up to the "economic idiots [joke] " at Parkway...you know...the Fortune 500 Company headed by 2 local "dunces" [joke] Steve Rogers and Leland Speed. Proud, give me a call or email me, but don't hijack this thread on insignificant personal issues. Go home and kick your dog instead.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-02-18T09:24:16-06:00

ID

86714

Comment

ladd .... take 10 seconds ..... take a deep breath ..... think pleasant thoughts (unicorns, waterfalls, wintry electronic music, pabst blue ribbon) Now I know they didn't teach you those some of those words at Columbia. But hey, you're passionate, a true believer, an advocate for social justice, and we need those. I credit you for not being satisfied by the status quo. That being said, and now that the thought of waterfalls and pabst has settled you down, start thinking about some pragmatic policy changes Mississippi could make to alleviate the inequality that exists out there. You've definitely made yourself heard about what's broken in Mississippi. Now, it's time you talk about how it should be fixed.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T09:44:01-06:00

ID

86715

Comment

Truly not trying to close the door on a discussion...my intent is quite the opposite: get a discussion going. That said, on the affirmative action issue, I do have a strong stance against it. Some of that stance may be tough to swallow for those who are strongly for it. In fact, my stance may come off as down right rude and insensitive. It is hard not to sound rude when voicing some of the arguments against it. I guess all I can say to that is that it's a touchy subject for many, with lots of emotions involved, and my intent is not to embroil those emotions. Rather, it's to have a debate on the merits of the policy. And I think their are merits to it. I just think they are outweighed by other considerations.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-18T09:46:50-06:00

ID

86716

Comment

Sny guy, please don't condescend to me. You and Ben, whom I consider a friend, should probably just stick to the topic at hand rather than trying to deflect my points by treating me like a child and talking about unicorns and shit. I don't do that to you boys when you get serious and passionate on a topic. Now, which of those words do you mean that I wasn't taught at Columbia? Don't follow. Many of them I picked up in Neshoba County and Starkville, actually. ;-) (You're not clumsily trying to play the "elitist card" there, are you, Sny? That's the conservative white equivalent -- that is, calling someone who's bothered to get a well-rounded education an "elitist" -- to folks in the black community telling young people they're "acting white" if they try to get a good education. Both are equally as offensive, and anit-education and though, although if it was up to Mr. Bowen, we wouldn't talk about that, either. I do wonder which points I made that you made so offensive that I need to take a breath? Odd posting, Sny. Are you one of those folks who simply find it offensive that "dialogue partners" bring up such things? But if you'd care to talk about the main point I'm making -- Is the playing field level? -- why don't we do that. Otherwise, it's really hard to have a smart affirmative action discussion. Per your last comments, yes, I'm known wide for not talking about solutions. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T09:55:07-06:00

ID

86717

Comment

It seems "smart" discussion is agreeing with your opinions. Here's what happens: "progressives" preach open-mindnessness but berate people like me -- people who are politically centrist or center-right -- and make accusations of playing cards and making "offensive" statements. See, we aren't that different. We like living in the city. We want urban renewal. We don't particularly like sprawl. We appreciate good books, desire better education, embrace new technology, and don't look down on intellectualism. I don't know if this is fathomable, but to be in "the creative class" a person doesn't have to share your weltanschauung. And it's kind misguided that you would claim I was playing an elitist card. Do you even know my educational background? I'm bothering to get a well-rounded education and have gotten the same comments that you complain on here. But maybe it's unfathomable to you that someone could be moderate/conservative and care about education. Let me fill you in: it's possible.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T10:25:03-06:00

ID

86718

Comment

But, Matt, your stance seems, from your comments, to be simply that (a) you don't believe blacks don't have the same opportunities and (b) you shouldn't have to make up for what your forebearers did. And you haven't even defined affirmative action -- there are so many different types (and you'll notice I haven't given any actual positions, other than I haven't slammed the door ont he whole idea). When Proverbs talks about solidarity with the poor, I really don't think it means "solidarity with only the poor that you directly yourself made that way." I read this, and other spiritual teachings and my own heart, as meaning that we freeze at a given moment in time, look around us with our eyes open, take in the situation honestly, and then ask, "what can we do to help society?" My impression is that you don't want to look around because, by damn, it wasn't your fault and why should you and your friends suffer to fix it. It's simply a different way of looking at the world. I, too, am not trying to be rude, and I know you're not, either (although Sny's condescension qualifies). These aren't easy discussions, and people don't usually have them because they're not easy -- and, frankly, rreveal that your view of the world isn't everyone else's by far. My point to you: We cannot have a good discussion about "affirmative action" if we start on different planes about the playing field itself. Respectfully, I don't believe you've really surveyed the playing field in an honest way. If so, prove to me why it's level and that our society doesn't still need to work to correct hundreds of years of problems that our society perpetuated. This is simply first base in any affirmative action discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T10:39:15-06:00

ID

86719

Comment

It seems "smart" discussion is agreeing with your opinions. No, it's not. It's also not chiding someone about the clouds and unicorns when they're trying to express something very serious. I also note that you haven't added a whole lot of substance here, yet, Sny. You're welcome to, however, whatever the view. Here's what happens: "progressives" preach open-mindnessness but berate people like me -- people who are politically centrist or center-right -- and make accusations of playing cards and making "offensive" statements. Now who's being sensitive? I remind you, Sny, that you played the unicorn card. ;-) And it's kind misguided that you would claim I was playing an elitist card. Do you even know my educational background? Actually, I probably do, but that's beside the point. I apologize if I assumed that you were mentioning Columbia (which I didn't do) in that condescending post because you were trying to send the code that I'm just one of those elitist liberals. I'm serious: I'm sorry if I assumed wrong. However, this is a primary way that conservatives try to shoot down so-called "liberal" comments they don't like -- rather than responding to the issue itself, they go after our education and connections as if we went to Liberal Training School (and all the folks in these schools think alike). So my point still stands about how this is just as offensive as Bowen's concern about kids "acting white" (and does the same thing) -- but I stand corrected that you were not trying to do that. But maybe it's unfathomable to you that someone could be moderate/conservative and care about education. Let me fill you in: it's possible. I know that. Doh. I am actually quite moderate, if not by Dixiecat standards. ;-) (Not calling you a Dixiecrat, Sny, don't worry.) But a smart conservative who cares about education should not automatically shoot down a discussion about affirmative action with generalizations about guilt and having white friends who might get screwed. It's more complicated than that. That's my point if you'd care to talk issues.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T10:46:07-06:00

ID

86720

Comment

Nobody is getting turned away from the schoolhouse door because of skin color. You guys are the ones who complain (edited/dl) about not living in the past so much. Has it occurred to you that segregation can and has taken on new forms and new dimensions. And it's not as if it was an accident: this is exactly what groups like the Council School Foundation (good old Mr. Simmons of the Citizens Council), the state of Mississippi and even the state-funded Sovereignty Commission were trying to make happen in the 1960s and 70s. Do you know how many white people pulled their kids out of the Jackson Public Schools in 1971 alone? Do you know how many white teachers quit to work for Council schools and seg academies because they didn't want to teach black kids? Do you know how many people moved from their homes of many years not only blacks were/might move into the 'hood -- but so that they could send their kids to school with other white kids? And if one really cares to understand the history of segregation, then and to the present, you could go back to the era and understand that when the Hederman kids were on the homecoming court at Murrah (and the kids were posing in the yearbook in blackface for fun) that it was perfectly fine then that the schools were pay for by tax dollars. The point is: the re-segregation was purposeful and deliberate, and here in Mississippi had the help of government officials and tax dollars. The move to de-fund public schools started in this state with Brown v. Board and has, so far, culminated in Haley Barbour in the governor's mansion pushing for a return to inequity between school districts and, ultimately, the closure of poor schools, which No Child Left Behind has put a system in place to make happen. That is, the public schools were raped and robbed so to speak of resources because black kids had to attend them, too, and now that very fact is what is being used to close them down altogether. To put it simply. Thus, my point that Mr. Bowen's "segregation" conclusion is patently absurd.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:08:29-06:00

ID

86721

Comment

LADD: It's not as if every white person in a major position of authority or power is "qualified" to be there. (Ahem.) They got there because of their connections, their string-pulling, who they knew, what they looked like, how they talked, and so on. This is either stating or imploying that "every white person in a major position of authority or power" LACKS credentials or qualifications, which is obviously false. Ladd, if I am misunderstanding your words above, please clarify. As to the "level playing field:" black students and/or job applicants who come from middle-class or wealthy families have MORE opportunities than I had as a result of race-based affirmative action programs. Noone responded to my post above, so I repeat: If we agree that blacks and minorities of all colors and cultures have the same innate abilities to compete in a given market, as I believe, then why have race-based affirmative action? The real difference in our society is not based on race but rather on MONEY. Money provides opportunity for advancement, no matter what color you are or what creed you follow. Are black students whose parents are doctors or lawyers any less able to compete with their white classmates for the fact that they are black? No. For that reason, if affirmative action should exist at all, I contend that it should exist based not on color, creed, or race, but rather on economic background. Are poor white people facing any fewer challenges than those facing poor people of a given ethnic minority in this country? I don't think so.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-18T11:17:13-06:00

ID

86722

Comment

Also, inequity between school districts is a fact of life, for better or worse. As school funding is related to property values in a given area, some school districts will necessarily have more money than others. While this might not please everybody, particularly those in poorer school disctricts, it could theoretically be remedied by legislation at the state level. Good luck with that, though . . .

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-18T11:20:19-06:00

ID

86723

Comment

Buck wrote"LADD: It's not as if every white person in a major position of authority or power is "qualified" to be there. (Ahem.) They got there because of their connections, their string-pulling, who they knew, what they looked like, how they talked, and so on. This is either stating or imploying that "every white person in a major position of authority or power" LACKS credentials or qualifications, which is obviously false. Ladd, if I am misunderstanding your words above, please clarify. Buck, you are dramatically stretching and twisting logic to say the first sentence means the same as the second. I don't even know how to respond to such a ridiculous contortion of "not every white person is qualified for their job" into "every white person in a major position of authority or power LACKS credentials or qualifications"! Read closer, please, and think about what it actually says before hitting submit. There isn't even any gray area on this one! Jeesh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:25:48-06:00

ID

86724

Comment

Since this is the big discussion we have going at the moment, I will anounce here that I am now officially the anti-blogger again. I have a BIG special issue to put out this week, so I must try to stay offline. Talk among yourselves, and no killings.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:35:13-06:00

ID

86725

Comment

Oooo, before I go, a link or two for y'all to chew on. 1. The Harvard Civil Rights Project's report, Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality More and more of the still standing court orders and plans for desegregated schools are being terminated or challenged in court, and the leaders of the small number of high achieving segregated schools in each big city or state are celebrated. The existence of these schools is being used to claim that we can have general educational success within the existing context of deepening segregation. Clearly the basic assumption is that separate schools can be made equal and that we need not worry about the abandonment of the movement for integration whose history was celebrated so extensively last year on the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision even as the schools continued to resegregate. There has been a continuous pattern of deepening segregation for black and Latino students now since the 1980s. What if this basic assumption is wrong? What if the Supreme Court was correct a half century ago in its conclusion that segregated schools were ìinherently unequalî? What if Martin Luther Kingís many statements about how segregation harms both the segregator and the segregated, drastically limits opportunity, and does not provide the basis for building a successful interracial society are correct? What if the Supreme Courtís sweeping conclusion in the 2003 University of Michigan case that there is compelling evidence that diversity improves the education of all students is true and applies with even greater force to public schools? If, however, it is wrong to assume that segregation is irrelevant and policies that ignore that fact simply punish the victims of segregation because they fail to take into account many of the causes of the inequality, then current policy is being built on the foundation that it cannot produce the desired results and may even compound the existing inequalities. We believe this to be true. Segregated schools are unequal and there is very little evidence of any success in creating ìseparate but equalî outcomes on a large scale. Full report there in a PDF

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:39:25-06:00

ID

86726

Comment

Another one: State Merit Scholarship Programs and Racial Equality In a society where 40 percent of students are non-White, it is more important than ever to be sure that minority students can go to college. In a society that does not believe in welfare or social supports, and where fairness rests on supposedly equal access to the education needed for economic success, these should be basic principles. In a society where the cost of college is soaring, affordability is a basic dimension of fairness. Unfortunately, it is being lost in too many state policy changes. Many of our states have been cutting the share of state income going to college education and allocating a larger share of it to relatively new but very rapidly growing programs of ìmeritî aid. At the same time there has been a huge expansion of federal aid to middle class families and students, mostly in the form of loan subsidies and tax subsidies, which are now far larger than federal aid provided to poor students. In contrast to the period of the l970s, when public four-year college tuitions were low and aid for poor students to go to college was rapidly rising, we have seen a quarter century of tuitions rising much faster than family incomes, family incomes becoming more unequal, huge disparities of wealth and savings by class and race, and a dramatic shrinkage in the proportion of college costs funded by need-based student aid. In this situation it is surprising that states with relatively weak and unusually expensive public higher education, with severe problems of access for minority students (who are driving the nationís population growth), would choose not to fund access but to provide aid to students extremely likely to go to college without aidóstudents who have little or no financial needówhile not covering access for low income students. Rapidly accumulating research on merit aid programs shows that this is what is happening in most state ìmerit aidî policies. ... This research, as well as the projected impact of the Massachusetts policies (as shown in Chapter 2), suggests that funding the Adams scholarships in Massachusetts would be a decision to disproportionately aid affluent White students, with little scholarship money available for the stateís African American and Latino young people or for students living in poverty. In a state that is resegregating in highly unequal schools, has clear discrimination in its housing markets, has been raising barriers of tests for high school exit and college entry, loses a large share of its minority students before high school graduation, and refuses to adequately fund voluntary transfer policies for students wanting access to suburban schools with good college prep curricula, this use of college subsidies adds to existing racial inequality.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:42:39-06:00

ID

86727

Comment

Go to this page to read material about slightly more nuanced points in the affirmative-action discussion than have been brought up here so far -- including the politics behind it. OK, I'm out now. More later.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:48:48-06:00

ID

86728

Comment

OK, only one last question: Sny, why are you pointing toward the "top graduate schools" to argue against affirmative action? PRIVATE schools can take who they want, right? (Like sons of alums with poor grades.) We're talking primarily here about state-financed institutions, right? Different ball of wax.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T11:52:00-06:00

ID

86729

Comment

I agree with Buck that in an ideal situation, the most effective form of affirmative action would be based on economic need. However, give American minds a few months to figure out the system, and many people would have found ways to trick the system, making their families come across more needy than they actually are. (Kind of like our tax code) You hate to think the worst of people, but at the same time, you have to pragmatic. Affirmative action is not a big issue with me. I don't think it's effective, but I don't think it's wrong either. Diversity -- of ethnic background, geography, ideology -- is typically beneficial to institutions, and I would go ahead and say it is beneficial on college campuses, especially very selective ones. Go visit a campus of any Top 10 law school in the country and examine the student body. Even with affirmative action, there's not much diversity. Most of the students are white children of upper-class professionals who attended good high schools and prestigious undergraduate universities. They're heavily concentrated in urban centers in the Mid-Atlantic or New England states. And most had the resources to pay obscene sums of money on LSAT prep courses. If they judged law school applicants purely on the entrance exam, it'd be even more skewed. So they look at a person's background and how that individual can enhance the quality of life at the school. They look at tangible qualities (race, geography), intangible qualities (leadership skills, outside activites), and a hybrid of the two (letters of recommendation) to get a sense of who could contribute not just academically, but in others ways to the school. Diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints is great. A person should want to learn in an environment with different perspectives. That's how you learn. And in most places, there are more qualified applicants than spots available, so distinctions should be made, and thefore, background plays a pivotal role. I don't agree that a grossly underqualified person should be accepted solely because needed an organization has set a racial or geographic quota it needs to fill. (This does exist in some places, but not all) But I don't see that huge of a problem of an admissions officer looking at a person's record and trying to decide if the obstacles a person has overcome or other factors outweigh 2 or 3 questions on a standardized test. As a person who has been judged on this basis when applying for graduate schools, affirmative action probably helped me since I was a southerner, but certainly hurt me since I am a white male. So I've seen both sides. It's while it's not a perfect system, it's not getting scrapped (and probably shouldn't) anytime soon.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T12:05:09-06:00

ID

86730

Comment

I don't agree that a grossly underqualified person should be accepted solely because needed an organization has set a racial or geographic quota it needs to fill. (This does exist in some places, but not all) Quotas are already illegal. We really need to define "affirmative action" before trying to have this discussion, y'all. As in ... Cart to Horse: "You go first." Horse: "I believe I will, sir. It will make this journey easier, won't it?" Really gone now. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T12:09:16-06:00

ID

86731

Comment

Yeah, Ladd, I certainly wasn't cracking on Columbia (great school in a unique part of Manhattan) or trying to label you an elitist. I just got to thinking that some of the language you'd been using probably wasn't encouraged in the AP stylebook (though I know it is standard fare in any newsroom in the country -- and basically most other places of worship) I think people should pursue the best educational opportunities out there for them, wherever they may be. And I will agree with you that some regressive individuals, typically in state politics but less so in the private sector, try to label those people who "went North" or "out West" to receive an education as elitists uninformed and unconcerned about typical Mississippians. These ignoramuses treat a diploma from a prestigious university as if it's some sort of scarlet letter. And you're right -- that kind of thinking is wrong.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T12:26:56-06:00

ID

86732

Comment

horses? I thought we were talking about unicorns.

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T12:28:30-06:00

ID

86733

Comment

YOU were talking about unicorns. Now leave me along. I gotta work, dreamer. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T12:32:46-06:00

ID

86734

Comment

As an aside from this thread--since I just read the column--I'm going to be charitable and liken the Congressman's comments as the opening salvo at the settlement table. It's his hard-line position about what's NOT on the table. I am very interested in what he has to say, and there is more than a germ of political reality in there. Donna, as someone that despises the battleflag component of our state flag, I agree with you that it should never be a "dead issue." Yet pragmatically and politically speaking, is it dead? Absolutely, and resoundingly. Are there other things on the table we can talk about? Yes. We lost that one issue, and we must shift focus. I think the changes done in our civil justice "reform" are disastrous. Are they open for discussion? No. Politics is not about what happened yesterday; it's about how we can work today to change tomorrow. If the Republicans were actually wanting to talk about funding schools, addressing the drop-out problem, and adjusting our tax structure to aid the disenfranchised and the impoverished, I'd be encouraged. But they ain't.

Author

David McCarty

Date

2005-02-18T12:37:27-06:00

ID

86735

Comment

I'd say it's definitely functioning as an "opening salvo." ;-) Per the flag, David, I absolutely agree that the flag shouldn't be a primary focus right now. I'm not exactly wasting my time writing Editor's Notes calling for another campaign against it. I took it as a symbol how much work, and education, there was left to be done, and conversation, and dialogue. That's the part I'm focused on making happen. As I've written, I prefer that that damned flag "rot off the pole" due to its irrelevance at this point. But I would not characterize the issue as "dead" by any means. Public school, after all, wasn't dead after the majority of (white) Mississippians voted to close them in the '60s to keep black kiddies out. I'm a writer, an editor, an idealist and an agitator -- so I will not declare any important issue "dead," or go along with someone who does, just because a majority of people voting in a particular election said it was. I'm more stubborn than that, and history doesn't teach that it's true. However, that's a game of semantics, and we're agreeing on the big point: the need to focus energies elsewhere, which I think you and I are certainly doing. The "civil justice" changes are disastrous, and people don't even understand what's going on and how badly they're being bamboozled and by whom (including corporate media) on this one. But I will continue discussing these issues until people start to open their eyes; we're going to have to take our judicial system back at some point. And, of course, I agree with you on the last point. We just get platitudes and wedge issues to divide us, instead of real discussion about the actual issues. But Democrats do it, too, especially the "New" ones. And Mr. Bowen above. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T12:46:23-06:00

ID

86736

Comment

What about blacks that now send their children to public schools? I dont know of any private school that still keeps blacks out, most actually have agressive recuiting initiatives. As far as the public schools, they are a failure. There is no discipline, no accountability, low test scores. I do no think it is at all "ignorant" for a parent to want their child to have the best education possible. Are you aware that a fromer PRESIDENT of parents for public schools, ended up with all of her children graduating from Jackson Prep? You wont find many parents willing to use their child as a social experiment.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-02-18T13:15:55-06:00

ID

86737

Comment

What about blacks that now send their children to public schools? I dont know of any private school that still keeps blacks out, most actually have agressive recuiting initiatives. Well, there are white academies, and there are white academies. And there are both de facto and de jure ways of keeping kids of color out, don't forget. As far as the public schools, they are a failure. There is no discipline, no accountability, low test scores. That is a vast generalization, and therefore incorrect. Because of its vastness, it's too silly to spend time responding to.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-18T13:18:05-06:00

ID

86738

Comment

Clinton High School is an extremely good public school in the Jackson area. When I was in middle school, this over 10 years ago (starting to feel old), many children in the Jackson area attended elementary school at McLeod, Casey, Spann, and Boyd. But then middle school rolled around, and most of the children from those elementary schools went to Chastain. Back then (I can't say I know what it was like now) Chastain had a lot of discipline problems -- fighting -- all that stuff. Grudgingly, parents began pulling their children out of Chastain and enrolling them in St. Andrew's, Prep, JA, and St. Richard's. Believe me, people want public schools to flourish. After all, it's economically sensible to send children to public school, especially when your tax dollars are funding to the public schools anyway. A family that puts three kids through St. Andrews -- you're talking about nearly $30,000 annually for education. And people do it all the time. Some people on this board may call that 'white flight', but I'd say that's genuine concern and sacrifice for their children's education. I know Chastain and other schools have great teachers and produce great students -- I know plenty of them. But a school is only as its good as its lowest-performing, most troublemsone students. And because large public schools with rolls of bureacratic red tape are more handicapped in dealing with problem chidlren that create strife and chaos in the classroom, parents just feel like it's better to send their child to a less tempestuous, more flexible learning environment. We live in age where people believe in public schools. They just don't want to send their kids there

Author

sny guy

Date

2005-02-18T14:11:34-06:00

ID

86739

Comment

To add to Sny's post, the US Supreme Court has held that a "voucher system," whereby parents can obtain government vouchers and apply them toward private school tuition, is constitutional. Does Mississippi currently have such a system? I recall it being debated, but don't recall whether it was created or not. As a result of whatever combination of factors, lack of money being #1, Mississippi's public schools are among the worst in the country. If I had kids, and had to ability to pay for private schools, I would not send them to public schools there.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-18T14:18:16-06:00

ID

86740

Comment

Okay, I'm fired up because David McCarty, an old friend from undergrand, chimed in. Knowing David, he'll probably disagree with much of what I have to say, but hey, it's a free county. Do I think that a black person, just because they are black, is disadvantaged? No. I don't believe that blacks, as a class and as applied to each individual are discriminated againt. Now, are some black disadvanteged because the they went to terrible inner city public schools (and, I'm betting, Ladd, we agree on this point)? Yes. But here is where I think affirmative action ("the policy") gets it wrong. The policy makes no distinction between poor whites, asians, hispanics, blacks, etc. It simply places the term "minority" as a proxy for disadvantaged. I just don't think that is true. What I'm trying to do here, perhaps unsucessfully, is have us talk to each other rather than by each other. As applied to Mississisppi, where, unfortunately, everything is thought of in biracial terms, it means that blacks are getting a preference for simply being black. But we all know many wealthy, eduated blacks (see Justin's column above for general reference) are out there. Does the history of their race justify preferences? I don't think so.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-18T21:36:03-06:00

ID

86741

Comment

Point being, why don't poor redneck whites (who are among the only people left whom it is politically correct to make fun of) given the same preference?

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-18T21:38:33-06:00

ID

86742

Comment

Point being, why don't poor redneck whites (who are among the only people left whom it is politically correct to make fun of) given the same preference? Right Matt. It seems to be a rather hasty generalization to assume that a young black boy who grew up in a middle class family and went to a private school is in any way more disadvantaged than say a poor white kid from Appalachia.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-19T11:33:03-06:00

ID

86743

Comment

Earlier I said that "The policy makes no distinction between poor whites, asians, hispanics, blacks, etc." I meant to say that the policy does make an implicit, if not explicit, distinction between the races, i.e., poor whites need not apply for affirmative action preferences. For some reason, poor whites aren't considered disadvantaged enough to fall under the policy, but rich blacks are. If affirmative action were really about aiding those who are disadvantaged (which I think we all agree does not solely include minorities), then the policy would apply to poor whites as well, and would not apply to rich blacks. But currently that is not how the policy operates.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T14:06:36-06:00

ID

86744

Comment

These recent postings on affirmative action are driving me a bit crazy because, in my opinion, you are not focusing on the real questions. It is simply a logical fallacy to try to say that the playing field in this country is level for groups disadvantaged due to government/society policy toward their group (important point, by the way) because you know a black guy who is well-to-do and has all the advantages as most white people. Missing the point there big time. And in the long run, that argument won''t work for you, because someone who disagrees can line up many MORE members of minority cultures who are disadvantaged and have fewer opportunities; thus, you will lose on a pure bean-counting technicality. And the "redneck" point would be more interesting to me if there weren't already affirmative-action efforts in place to benefit poor whites. I've benefitted from them personally. I know. However, it does bear more discussion -- see below. SO, what I suggest is that you face this question squarely in order to have a real, non-emotionally charged conversation about it (which ends up centering on your desire that white guys be treated fairly, whether you mean it to or not). A way to do that, as I've alluded to already, is to start at the beginning in the discussion (as the courts have historically done) and then work forward from there. Fine to agree and disagree along the way, but at least deal with the actual issues underlying this debate. Thus, ask these questions, and try to answer them honestly, and then debate them: 1. Is the playing field, in academics and in the work force, truly level in this country for previously disadvantaged groups (due to government and societal policies)? You determine that not by going out and finding exceptions that will "prove" your point. You must rely on dispassionate research, for one, and I'd respectfully suggest, a bit of common sense. Perhaps the answers are that the opportunity playing field is more level for certain groups than others. Be honest about this. Affirmative-action programs were never meant to last forever, but cutting them off before they've fully leveled the playing field is only going to set up back, and then we'll have to start over. And if you're arguing that the playing field is level and therefore that we should discontinue polcies that are currently legal, then present the evidence that shows that to be true and not just bias or wishful thinking. Simply saying that it's because you know some black guys at Harvard is wholly unconvincing. I'll be honest with you: one of my biggest problems with the Columbia j-school was that it had so few black students there, so my own educational experience does not hold up the truth of the arguments on that point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-19T14:57:16-06:00

ID

86745

Comment

2. IF the playing field for any disadvantaged groups is not truly level, then what is the best way to level it, while being the most fair to members of other groups? The Supreme Court found long ago that plain quotas are not the best strategy. But what are other ways that we can make the playing field level while making the strategy the most fair to members of the majority culture that have traditionally benefitted from the discrimination, while not overdoing the strategies to the point of "victimizing" the members of the minority cultures? (As Justin alluded way above; a legitimate discussion that I find much more interesting than "I know a smart black guy, therefore..." 3. Very important: define affirmative action before you rip it to pieces (or sing its praises, for that matter). Or try to, and you'll discover that there are many different definitions and strategies -- some better than others. Having a generalized discussion about "affirmative action" without knowing what you're talking about (and using the political scare rhetoric of "quotas" and "racial preferences") is a waste of time and intellectually lazy. Know of what you criticize. While studying that, determine the difference between a private and a public institution and what their obligations would be on this front. For instance, I would think that a state institution such as UMC would have an interest in selecting qualified candidates who are also likely to practice in low-income areas in poorly served regions of the state. The public uses of affirmative action should also take into consideration the benefit to taxpayers and the public good. 4. Remember that a test score is one thing; but looking someone in the eye with a slightly lower test score and seeing a passion for helping people who can't afford insurance is another. Test scores (especially of tests that are proven over and over again to benefit the majority culture) are simply not enough to say whether someone is qualified for anything. Sure, they should be a factor, but so should other issues. Some are more subjective, and they are used all the time to benefit white men. We all know this. It doesn't hurt to admit it. And if an institution is solely relying on a test score, they are being wholly unfair to people who don't "test well." So let's go after that, too, while we're on the fairness crusade.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-19T14:58:30-06:00

ID

86746

Comment

5. Be intellectually honest in these discussions. If you're talking about an affirmative action policy that only allows race or gender to be used as a one factor of many (therefore ensuring that the winning applicant will be qualified), don't try to say that makes it a quota. And if a person who wasn't admitted due to a long list of factors that allows race or gender to be considered, at least ackowledge that. I somehow doubt, for instance, that UMC only looks at a single test score. I could be wrong, but Lord I hope not. 6. Understand that the affirmative-action debate doesn't exist in its own vacuum. It's one thing, for instance, to argue for abandoning affirmative action if you can point to a stellar public-school system with full public support. But right here in Mississippi, many schools are almost fully re-segregated -- with many of the same problems schools faced under de jure segregation. And now the wonderful governor of Mississippi is determined to defund the Adequate Education provision set up to level the public education playing field in the state. Therefore, there are going to be fewer kids coming out of schools in the first place who can earn their place in the meritocracy without some sort of boost from the same society that is limiting their education opportunities in the first place. That is, it is damn disingenuous to support dismantling and de-equalizing the public schools at the same time that you're trying to rip apart affirmative action policies. If you're supporting both, your motives are highly suspect in my book; maybe you really do want to return to education policies prior to 1971. and, if so, I have nothing more to say to you.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-19T15:02:42-06:00

ID

86747

Comment

7. Now, if you're willing to consider affirmative action in a full, non-defensive way, you can really get to the nitty-gritty of what works and doesn't work, and how it should be phased out over a period of time, as we work to improve the K-12 education system that is feeding colleges and then the workplace. There are compelling arguments about the problems with it, and the solutions -- but they just do not start with, "well, everything's fine now" and "it's unfair to people who look like me." I also think the discussion about whether affirmative action should be extended to more poor whites from schools that, say, are underfunded by states like Mississippi should take place. The class issue is very real, especially under this administration (state and national) that is trying to do everything to widen the wealth and opportunity gap. So, yes, there should be a populist component to affirmative action. But how in hell can you get there by saying that people of color shouldn't get affirmative action because poor whites are bad off, too? We can entertain both thoughts at once, and figure out an equitable way to even the playing field -- but not if we're blinded by political rhetoric that defends the wealth gap from the very start of the conversation. That makes so sense whatsoever to me. 8. Finally, watch out for people who are just trying to push your emotional buttons on issues such as this, who just want to make you think that black people (or other minority group) are just trying to get something for nothing. Our state's demagogues have long served up this rhetoric, and aren't about to stop anytime soon (although they code it better these days.) This is incredibly ignorant and won't serve a real discussion on affirmative action and the quest for equal opportunity for groups that the government and society have kept down for hundreds of years -- a fact that has hurt us all, and will continue to if we don't ensure that a member of a minority group has the same OPPORTUNITIES as members of the majority culture. Now, what he/she does with it is up to them; but it needs to be there in the first place. OK, enough from me. Call this my preface for the type of discussion I'm willing to have about affirmative action personally. Clearly, you don't have to take my advice on it, but I challenge you to at least try. I'm trying to give my brain a rest today, so I bid adieu.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-19T15:06:57-06:00

ID

86748

Comment

Donna, these are great points, and there are many, so I'll do my best to cut to the main thrust. You're right in that affirmative action can be defined in many ways. When I refer to it, I'm referring to it as how I see it currently operates, in the education admissions process (I think affirmative action in business in another debate). This is how I think the policy is could be defined, or more aptly put, could be described. The Supreme Court has somewhat tied the hands of affirmative action in that you can't explicitly seek a quota. But that doesn't mean that schools are doing this, although they are no longer posting explicit target numbers. Schools are not being honest, I don't think, when they simply say that race is a "factor" in admission. There are reasons I say this, the largest of which is that the numbers (GPA and test scores) that minorities are admitted with - as average statistics of the whole race; of course there are individuals with stellar numbers - are so, so far below the particular school average that it suggests that the argument that race was only a "factor" is dishonest. For instance, take the University of Texas School of Law. In the litigation surrounding the Hopwood decision, a Fifth Circuit decision which occured before the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan, it was recorded that the presumptive admit scores for black students were lower than the presumptive deny scores for white students. To explain, the admissions committe place applications in stacks when the application was received. Let's say an applicant had a 3.5 GPA and a 155 LSAT. If the applicant was white, he or she was placed in the presumptive rejection stack. If they were black, they were placed in the presumptive admit stack. In fairness, I have to acknowledge that this practice was declared unconstitutional, and is no longer in practice, at least explicitly. The problem is that now schools can hide behind the term "factor" and basically do what they were doing before - lowering the standard in some instances to such a degree that it is beyond the pale. In response to your earlier question as to if the playing field is equal for historically disadvantaged groups, I think the answer is yes. Particularly in the eyes of an admissions committee. Admissions committees are not known for harboring racists intent on keeping the majority as a majority in their particular school. I think its quite the opposite. These committees bend over backward, sometimes to an embarrasing extent, to recruit minorities.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T15:40:04-06:00

ID

86749

Comment

And some might argue that affirmative action actually tips the balance in their favor. Now, there are real issues about a disproportionate number of minorities who are in failing schools, broken homes, etc., and how that affects their ability to prepare for higher education. But I don't agree that minorities are victims of a "system" that has set them up for failure. And I don't think affirmative action is the right solution. What is? I'm not sure, but I don't think affirmative action is it.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T15:41:12-06:00

ID

86750

Comment

And, I would add, affirmative action has a consequence. For students at a school with affirmative action, students of the majority can't help but wonder, every time the see a minority student, if that minority student had the qualifications to be admitted, or if they were admitted because they were a minority. Black students testified to this in the Hopwool litigation; the feeling that fellow students were supsicious as to if they really belonged in law school. Thankfully, when I was at UT, affirmative action was not in place. Ergo, when you saw a minority student, you knew they earned every bit of their place there.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T15:47:33-06:00

ID

86751

Comment

yes. ladd, let's give out brains a break. meanwhile, let me say, if this is pertinent or not I don't care, I see minority students everyday, except they are not minority!!! at Hinds Raymond. I don't know much , but I do know, as as whitey, if that's ok to say, I am impressed by the effort, they deserve more support. smart young people, imho. can't name names but . Business Law class for one. Hinds deserves more funding for sure, Let's Get It Started.

Author

sunshine

Date

2005-02-19T18:48:25-06:00

ID

86752

Comment

Sunshine, if I may so inquire, what in the heck are you even talking about? Your post looks like a mad ranting.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T19:14:12-06:00

ID

86753

Comment

As I said in one of my previous posts, the major problem with affirmation action programs is that they can result in an injustice to persons who are not black by denying them equal opportunity. The principle of equal opportunity is really what the affirmative action debate is about. Let me explain further (Iím going to be longwinded here, but given laddís previous post, I think itís okay): First, we need a definition of equal opportunity. The legal definition has been shaped by years of case law, and Iím no lawyer. So Iíll borrow John Rawlsí criterion of fair equality of opportunity: for any two people with the same natural ability and the same willingness to develop and use them, they should have the same chance at getting a job, or getting into law school, etc. If W (a white person) and B (a black person) are competing for a certain position, and Wís relevant qualifications for the job are greater than Bís, yet B gets the job, then W has been denied equal opportunity, generally speaking. But consider the following case. Suppose B and W have roughly the same natural abilities, but Wís education was far superior to Bís, and this difference is a result of past unjust discrimination against black people. Suppose further that B, given this disadvantage relative to W, has worked substantially harder than W to turn his natural abilities into the skills needed for the job so that Bís qualifications are only slightly less than Wís. CONT....

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-19T19:56:15-06:00

ID

86754

Comment

If, in cases like above, the job position systematically went to the person with the greater qualifications, this would violate black peopleís right to equal opportunity, because B had the same natural abilities as W and actually worked harder to develop and use them. On the other hand, if in this case the position went to B instead of W, it would be in accordance with the principle of equal opportunity. So it is not unjust to give a job to the person who is slightly less qualified in the situations like the one above. The problem is that is if a policy is adopted of systematically preferring the slightly less qualified black applicant over the slightly more qualified white applicant (an affirmative action program), there will be some cases in which the white applicantís greater qualifications reflect not past discrimination but superior natural ability or harder work. Is these cases, to give the job to the black applicant does an injustice to the white candidate; his right to equal opportunity has been violated. So if there are situations where a black applicant is slightly less qualified than a white applicant because of past discrimination and not inferior natural abilities or less hard work, and there are situations where a white applicant is more qualified because of greater natural ability or harder work, we have a case of moral perplexity: To not adopt an affirmative action program we do black people an injustice, but to adopt an affirmative action program we do white people an injustice. The question thus is whether or not past discrimination against black people is the cause of deficient qualifications like poor education. I think it is safe to say that at one time is was. But how long of time of affirmative action programs in place is sufficient to remedy the effects of past discrimination? A decade? A century? CONT....

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-19T19:58:38-06:00

ID

86755

Comment

My problem with affirmative action is that I think it contributes to the lingering effects of racism. As I stated in my previous post, affirmative action can result in an implied inferiority towards black people because one might think that the only reason a black person gets a job or gets into law school is heís black and benefited from preferential treatment. This can encourage resentment among whites and other races, such as Asian Americans, who are denied opportunities. This is bad for race relations. Moreover, I think affirmative action has negative effects on the feeling of self-worth among black people. Paradoxically, it encourages black people to become invested in their own victimhood in an attempt to overcome past victimization. Sorry for the lecture, but this issue is complicated and requires serious analysis.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-19T20:01:18-06:00

ID

86756

Comment

Justin, you damn well should be a lawyer. You arguments were excremly persuasive, but, granted, I'm biased in this debate. I do disagree on one point. You said that "So if there are situations where a black applicant is slightly less qualified than a white applicant because of past discrimination and not inferior natural abilities or less hard work...." In fairness, I don't think you meant this as a proposition. I think you meant it as a hypothetical. But for those who think this is the way the policy works, I submit, you are dreaming. Many, many of the minority applicants who are admitted are not admitted with "slightly" less credentions than whites(or Asians). Rather, they are admitted with scores with which a white person would not even bother to apply. If this were a game of admission numbers that were fairly close, I probably wouldn't get all rowled up. But it's not. Affrimative action is a policy that results in many, many qualified people not getting into a particular school or program or school, while other unqualified individuals do - simply because of the color of their skin.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-19T23:11:59-06:00

ID

86757

Comment

Let's be honest here: in analyxing race-based affirmative action programs, asians are not the "minority" being aided for past discrimination. Why is that? What do we mean by "minorities?" Why are some given preferential treatment while others are not? Is this fair? No. More to the point, is it Constitutional? To borrow a phrade from Ms. Ladd, "Hell, no."

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-19T23:29:01-06:00

ID

86758

Comment

buckallred- That is exactly my point: Asian Americans are actually hurt by affirmative action programs. Matt: But for those who think this is the way the policy works, I submit, you are dreaming. Many, many of the minority applicants who are admitted are not admitted with "slightly" less credentions than whites(or Asians). Rather, they are admitted with scores with which a white person would not even bother to apply. And this would probably be wrong. But a lawyer would know (and I gather that you are one from your previous post) that according to the Supreme Court in Adarand v. Pena, race based classifications are presumptively invalid and should be reviewed under strict strutiny.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-20T02:19:41-06:00

ID

86759

Comment

From the November issue of the Stanford Law Review - a controversial article by Professor Richard H. Sander of UCLA law school. Some of his comments on the extent of preferences given to selected groups and how schools won't talk about the extent to which they extend these preferences. " The admission preferences extended to blacks are very large... * * * ...I try to make clear how Bakke (a Supreme Court decision which predates the Michigan decisions), while legitimating affirmative action, created distinctions that produced a code of silence among law schools about their racial preference programs, and deterred meaningful research. *** What has been consistent since Bakke throughout the world of legal education is a code of silence on preferential policies. Schools have been loath to disclose the degree to which they depend on numerical indicators and have been even more secretive about the extent to which they take racial factors into account.... 57 Stanford Law Review 367 of November, 2004.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-20T22:32:14-06:00

ID

86760

Comment

More from Sander on the fallacy of the "factor" proposition: "The AALS (the American Association of Law Schools), which had been forthright in advocating for racial preferences, now faced the task of providing nuanced instruction to member schools in the art of sub rosa preferences. "It is difficult to see how an admissions officer or committee can exercise any degree of preference in a race-conscious program without some notion of how many minority applicants are desired in the final mix of the student body," an AALS report noted, but Bakke seemed to permit schools "extremely broad discretion." The difference between a pre-Bakke quota and a post-Bakke "plus," an AALS lawyer noted, is "nothing more than a smirk and a wink." The response of law schools--and indeed, of higher education in general--was to go underground. Racially separate admissions tracks were draped with fig leaves of various shapes and sizes to conceal actual practices, which changed hardly at all."

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-20T22:51:43-06:00

ID

86761

Comment

The difference between a pre-Bakke quota and a post-Bakke "plus," an AALS lawyer noted, is "nothing more than a smirk and a wink." Good point Matt- Law school admissions is a zero-sum game. So if you admit more applicants of one race, then less applicants of another race are admitted, regardless of whether you call this policy a quota or not.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T08:22:11-06:00

ID

86762

Comment

The difference between a pre-Bakke quota and a post-Bakke "plus," an AALS lawyer noted, is "nothing more than a smirk and a wink." Ah, now I'm convinced that any attempt to level the playing field for members of groups that our government and societal policies have historically discriminated against is misguided. If you can't figure out how to do it, why bother? Or, maybe I'm not convinced just yetóespecially based on the AALS lawyer's snide comment, or on Mr. Sander's "controversial" analysis. ;-) What "controversial" oftens means is that it differs widely from opinions of other experts -- not always a bad thing, but one should consider the other analyses first in order to see just how rogue his opinion is, and where it fits into the overall discussion. It certainly is not convincing standing by itself and made by people who clearly already have their minds made up that because every possible way that affirmative action is administered is not the best, it means the whole idea is bad. Argh. So if you admit more applicants of one race, then less applicants of another race are admitted, regardless of whether you call this policy a quota or not. Or, you could call it historical discrimination against certain groups, because that's what happened until very recently, and one could argue strongly still happens. (By the way, that proves in itself that you don't necessarily call "discrimination" on behalf of one race a "quota." They didn't during Jim Crow times, I believe.) The question is how to make up for this historical discrimination to benefit society, as well as be fair to individuals. (And don't try to argue that the only thing the Constitution cares about is individual rights -- it's a balancing act, whether you're talking about the Patriot Act or kicking disruptive kids out of school or regulating dangerous speech.) The only question here is not whether the policy is going to be fair for every single person. That is a good goal, but it's not the only one -- and it has never been the sole policy of U.S. decision-making. I realize now that it's, mostly, white males who might feel the sting of societal decisions that it's harder to swallow for them, but that doesn't mean your pain is greater than anyone else's.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T10:29:20-06:00

ID

86763

Comment

Again, I remind y'all that this discussion logically should be broken into two parts, which everyone resists doing in the rush to find a problem with affirmative action that, therefore, means that the whole idea is bad. 1. Is the playing field for different historically disadvantaged groups (due to government/societal policy) level? Which ones is it level for? Which ones not? I haven't seen any convincing evidence presented that would sway anyone who doesn't already believe the whole thing is hogwash -- and there are a lot of us out here. Put a bit of elbow into this one. Clearly, if the playing field has been unleveled by policy, then it has to be leveled by policy. If you CANNOT make a convincing argument that it is level across the board, that leads us THEN to question 2: 2. What is the best way to level it? This is the part to discuss the various forms of affirmative action and what's wrong and right with them. But be careful here: a common fallacy is to point out a problem with a type of affirmative-action effort (or that a particular group no longer needs it) and then argue that that means the whole thing is doomed. That's intellectually lazy (or worse). That is, if you can't convince us that the answer to No. 1 is "yes" for all groups, the playing field is level, then it's not going to work to cherrypick the options for problems to then say there's no reason to bother trying to level the playing field. You don't say that we shouldn't pave highways because they get potholes. You fill the potholes and figure out how not to get so many. My only other comment right now, and I gotta fly. Matt's argument that affirmative action is negative because, on certain campuses, everyone walks around looking at them as if they wouldn't be there without affirmative action is mind-boggling at best to me. I have two responses: a. I'd argue that anyone who would look at them that way, and say that, has some closet bigotry and needed to have been taught better at home -- not to mention taught that merit is about a whole helluva lot more than how people do on tests that historically benefit white men. And ... b. This is a red herring. Yes, I know students (particuarly an Asian American woman from California I knew in graduate school) who complained about the way people looked at her (Again, I'd ask who was responsible for that??). However, this is not the overwhelmingly consideration in a discussion about society/the state should level the playing field it unleveled. It's interesting, but not particularly compelling. If we'd dealt with all the other questions, and that was the only thing standing between affirmative action and doing away with it, that might be different. But, Lord, that's not the case.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T10:39:49-06:00

ID

86764

Comment

The question is how to make up for this historical discrimination to benefit society, as well as be fair to individuals. ladd: Right, and I think I addressed this in my previous post, or at least made some honest attempt to understand the complexity of this issue. I was agreeing with Matt's position that the new, post-Bakke affirmative action programs have the same effect as the pre-Bakke quota progams.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T10:39:50-06:00

ID

86765

Comment

Right, and I think I addressed this in my previous post, or at least made some honest attempt to understand the complexity of this issue. I'm not saying you're not, and you raise very compelling questions about the PRACTICE of types of affirmative action. However, that isn't really an argument for chunking the baby out the window just yet. I was agreeing with Matt's position that the new, post-Bakke affirmative action programs have the same effect as the pre-Bakke quota progams. I think that is a FAR reach to say, although there are certainly instances where they have still tried to slip more direct "quotas" through (the bigger question to me here is that a straight quota isn't very beneficial except for an institution's annual report; I'm so not about hiring/admitting just to help your look. That's not what real affirmative action should be about. But I'll get to that later, once we move the discussion to second base.) Regardless, though, a discussion of post-Bakke quotas is about the second half of the equation: the how, not the if. Enforcement. Administration. Again, I encourage everyone not to mix up the components here. Otherwise, I'm the anti-blogger. It's press day. I'm very interested in this topic, and it gives me the chance to dig through some of the mountains of notes and materials on this topic from grad school (at Columbia, I also studied in the law school, Teacher's College and the African-American Studies institute, with the express purpose of focusing on these types of issues, including affirmative action, school discipline and [re]segregation issues.) That doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I did hear all sides of these discussions by some of the main players in the discussions. (Frankly, the best thing about a school like that is the guest speakers, and their hand-outs! Makes up for some of the annoying stuff, but that's another topic.) Carry on ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T10:45:43-06:00

ID

86766

Comment

Hey, Matt! Actually, seeing you on here is what prompted me to register & post. You noted that college "committees bend over backward, sometimes to an embarrasing extent, to recruit minorities." My question is, embarassing to whom? I was deeply concerned when I was in law school at what I felt was a low minority percentage. Why would a school in the heart of the blackest state in the nation, a half-block off Farish Street, have that few African-American students? And where were all the women? I believe it is not only a permissible goal of educators to attempt to achieve diversity (even just to a statistically fair point!), I think it should be a paramount concern. My old boss often emphasized that diversity of background and experience could make ANY process better, especially in the worlds of law and education. However, if there isn't a voice at the table, that whole idea gets left in the dirt. As much as I don't want to turn this discussion into a flag argument, I think one of the sticking points in that debate was the failure of a lot of people to really recognize the pain the symbol represents to whole sections of our population. Look, I grew up wearing rebel flag emblems on my ball caps, on whatever--I thought it was cool, I was from Alabama, and it was just "my" thing. I had no conception that it might be taken as a racist symbol, because I certainly didn't mean it that wayómy parents were stridently anti-racism. It took years, and a lot of discussions and reading, before I did begin to see it a different way, and understand a different point of view. Thatís the value of diversity, and why schoolsóour places of learningóshould be as diverse as possible. E pluribus unum, and all that.

Author

David McCarty

Date

2005-02-21T10:50:13-06:00

ID

86767

Comment

Quickly: When considering the "controversial" arguments of Richard Sander that affirmative action is leading to fewer black lawyers because it means they're applying to schools too hard for them (ahem) ... be sure to read some of the opposing views to his research. http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/research.html There is a link there to a PDF of an empirical critique of Sanders' findings that also appears in the Stanford Law Review this month by David Chambers and Richard Lempert of the University of Michigan Law School, Equal Justice Society researcher William Kidder, and Tim Clydesdale, sociologist at the College of New Jersey. "We show that available data on law school admissions, law school performance, and bar exam performance indicate that Sander's article is premised upon a series of statistical errors, oversights, and implausible assumptions. We conclude that if affirmative action in law school admissions were eliminated tomorrow, there would probably be a 30-40 percent decline in the numbers of African Americans entering the legal profession, not the rosy 7.9 percent improvement that Sander forecasts."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T12:37:18-06:00

ID

86768

Comment

Let's not forget that allowing individuals of any race or ethnicity into law or medical school (for any reason) who are not qualified for that program will result in incompetent lawyers and doctors. Does that matter to anyone else???

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-21T14:01:07-06:00

ID

86769

Comment

Of course it does, Buck, as in when I said just above that a problem with straight quotas (which are illegal) is that it's just filling spaces without a system that really ensures that people are qualified. The jump in logic is to assume that a whole bunch of folks who aren't "qualified" are being let into schools because their race, or gender, is used as one factor of many. That belief is just absurd -- and it assumes that qualifications should be based on some mighty slim standards, such as test scores. Of course, the national debate has moved beyond this at this point -- it is pretty well understood that quotas or "racial preferences," to use the political buzzphrase, that allow in a bunch of folks who aren't qualified to walk near a place aren't the wisest (or legal) way to use affirmative-action programs to even out opportunities previously withheld by government/societal discrimination. That's my point in this discussion: It doesnt do an iota of good to argue about duh points that people already understand.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T14:17:23-06:00

ID

86770

Comment

I'm not saying you're not, and you raise very compelling questions about the PRACTICE of types of affirmative action. However, that isn't really an argument for chunking the baby out the window just yet. This is not what I'm doing or saying. I was discussing the underlying moral question of affirmative action, the issue of justice. I certainly am not saying that we need to totally forget about affirmative actions just because there are some problems and it's a tough issue. If there are cases where a black applicant, though he has the same natural ability and has worked harder to develop it, is less qualified than a white applicant because of past unjust discrimination, then it would be wrong to give the position to the white applicant (i.e., an affirmative action program should be implemented); do not so so would do the black applicant an injustice. On the other hand, if a white applicant is more qualified than a black applicant, and this fact is due to superior natural ability or harder work, not racial discrimination, then adopting an affirmative action program does the white applicant an injustice. So, the question is, as Ladd has rightly pointed out, "is the playing field level," or, does past discrimination still result in poor education etc. leading to deficient qualifications for a particular job (or school)? If the answer is no, then we should abandon affirmative action, because it is treating non-black persons unjustly. If the answer is yes, then we must ask: Does affirmative action help remedy the problem of racial discrimination; and, is there a way to implement affirmative action than minimizes the injustice to non-black persons?

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T14:20:41-06:00

ID

86771

Comment

Ladd wrote: I don't think so. What Matt is referring to here, that race-based affirmative action programs can result in an implied inferiority for minority students or worker regardles of whether they have benefitted from preferential treatment, is a real problem. It can lead to resentment among white people (or other groups disadvantaged by affirmative action, like Asian-Americans in higher education). This resentment is conducive to poor race relations and more racial discrimination, which in turn would require more programs like affirmative action to remedy th injustice done by racial discrimination. So, in this light, affirmative action is self-defeating in that is worsens the problem it is supposed to alleviate.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T14:31:09-06:00

ID

86772

Comment

race-based affirmative action programs can result in an implied inferiority for minority students or worker regardles of whether they have benefitted from preferential treatment Hmmm. The same thing could, and has, been said of any civil-rights legislation, or efforts to remedy past discrimination. I still maintain you're beating the wrong end of the stick here -- trying to hold back (smart) attempts to level the playing field because members of the majority culture, who historically benefitted from the discrimination, look down on the people they historically discriminated against. Doesn't fly for me. I've always found that a mere excuse, in the larger scheme of this issue. Again, let's get to the real meat of the problem before we start using the victims of bigotry to help the bigoted.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T14:38:19-06:00

ID

86773

Comment

And as one who has benefitted from scholarships and other "affirmative actions" that one could argue, on the face, that certain white men of a "good" background were more qualified for, I can tell you that I don't give a damn what people look at me and think. It's about taking whatever opportunities I'm given and running with them, or not. That's where personal responsibility starts -- when the opportunities are equal. Also, I know enough dumbass white guys who clearly benefitted from some extra help, if you know I mean, to get their Ivy degrees or their positions when they graduated from universities like Ole Miss and the like. And they sure don't seem to be allowing my knowledge of their preference history to keep them back. I truly believe this is a minor issue in much larger and more complex discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T14:44:53-06:00

ID

86774

Comment

LADD: "Of course it does, Buck, as in when I said just above that a problem with straight quotas (which are illegal) is that it's just filling spaces without a system that really ensures that people are qualified. The jump in logic is to assume that a whole bunch of folks who aren't "qualified" are being let into schools because their race, or gender, is used as one factor of many. That belief is just absurd -- and it assumes that qualifications should be based on some mighty slim standards, such as test scores. Of course, the national debate has moved beyond this at this point -- it is pretty well understood that quotas or "racial preferences," to use the political buzzphrase, that allow in a bunch of folks who aren't qualified to walk near a place aren't the wisest (or legal) way to use affirmative-action programs to even out opportunities previously withheld by government/societal discrimination. That's my point in this discussion: It doesnt do an iota of good to argue about duh points that people already understand." I disagree that my point about producing incompetent lawyers and/or doctors as a result of race-based affirmative action programs is a "duh point." Noone has raised it thus far. Although racial quotas are now illegal, they were not always so, and thus there are currently-practicing doctors and/or lawyers who attained that status as a result of past racial quotas. Do you want such a doctor operating on you? The recent US Supreme Court decision on race-based affirmative action programs held that the "point system" used by the U. of Michigan law school was legal (did not violate equal prot. clause of the constitution). The "point system" used by the law school graded each applicant based on a system of points for scores, GPA, and other factors. Minority applicants got an automatic 20-point bonus for the fact of being a minority. This practice was upheld. Nonsensically, that same system was struck down with regard to UNDERGRADUATE school admissions. Why? Who knows. My point in stating all that is that these types of "point systems" are nothing other than a ruse to create a de facto quota in graduate admissions. Race-based affirmative action necessarily involves a quota, whether it is called by another name or veiled in "point system" language. Which is why it is patently unconstitutional. It will take our Supreme Court another few years to acknowledge that fact, sadly. Noone on this board has yet addressed the fact of the unfair advantage given to wealthy minorities as a result of race-based affirmative action programs, for the record. Why would Clarence Thomas' children (no idea whether he actually has kids), just to invoke Ms. Ladd's favorite justice, be entitled to preferential treatment because of their skin tone? Have they had to struggle through life?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-21T14:44:54-06:00

ID

86775

Comment

I disagree that my point about producing incompetent lawyers and/or doctors as a result of race-based affirmative action programs is a "duh point." *I* raised it, Buck, if you would pay attention to what I'm saying. Again, process, guy, process. 20 points arguably could be too much in the 21st century. That doesn't mean that 10 points, or 5 points, or 1 point doesn't make sense. Where were Thomas' children given special treatment? I'm assuming Ivy, which isn't really an issue here because they're private schools. This does prove my point well that the anti-affirmative action has succeeded mightily in muddying the definition of this enough to really confuse people -- like when Bush talked about "quotas" in his debate with Gore, a real low point on this issue.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T14:47:47-06:00

ID

86776

Comment

Again, let's get to the real meat of the problem before... Hey I'm ready to discuss the primary question of whether the playing field is level or not. My only point is that the issue of implied inferiority is not a "red-herring" as you said, because it is very relevant to the second question: if the playing field is not level, is race-based affirmative action a good remedy to the problem. we start using the victims of bigotry to help the bigoted. This type of overly strong language is not productive. I know you weren't addressing this directly to me, but it still serves to stiffle open discussion. Recognize that affirmative action programs can have a negative effect on race relations is not a "bigoted" opinion and just because someone observes this phenomenon doesn't make him a bigot.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T15:07:13-06:00

ID

86777

Comment

LADD: "Where were Thomas' children given special treatment? I'm assuming Ivy, which isn't really an issue here because they're private schools. This does prove my point well that the anti-affirmative action has succeeded mightily in muddying the definition of this enough to really confuse people -- like when Bush talked about 'quotas' in his debate with Gore, a real low point on this issue." I was using Clarence Thomas as an example of an upper-class african-american. Of course, he is also one who owes his job to affirmative action, but that's beside the point. . . The point being that children of affluent minorities are given an unfair advantage as a result of race-based affirmative action programs. An affirmative action program that is based not on RACE but on ECONOMIC STATUS would, at least, operate fairly and make some sense. Justive is blind. . except in affirmative-action analysis. Private schools obviously have affirmative action programs similar to those of public schools. These could also be attacked on a constitutional basis, although a given public school's affirmative action program would be more attractive for a "test case." After all, even if a school is private, it can't deny admission to qualified applicants based on race (for example). As for muddying the issue, I think our Supreme Court deserves much of the blame. This issue is a hot potato politically and (slightly less so) judicially. The Court decided to hear the Michigan case in 2003, which was the first such case they decided to hear in quite a few years, despite many, many appeals of affirmative action cases. And when they finally decided to hear the Michigan case, they published a mealy-mouth opinion that says more in what it *avoids* rather than what it addresses. Not the Supreme Court's finest opinion, in my humble opinion. Which is why this issue must be heard again, probably in the next decade or so. As it should be.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-21T15:49:34-06:00

ID

86778

Comment

I haven't gotten very far down from where I left this, so forgive me if I address something that has already been argued. Matt, you addressed this question to me, so I do want to answer it: "I don't claim to be victimized by affirmative action, nor was I in reality. No resentment here, just more amusement. Is it overly dramatic to say that a black in today's times suffers a burden or suffers? Just curious." In answer, if one used "suffering," "burden," "guilt" all in one very small statement about things that are not fair in today's Mississippi to blacks, one would be over dramatic, in my opinion. In re, your ëamusement,í I'm trying to think what might be so amusing about this issue, but I'm struggling, so help me understand. Speaking to someone else (Donna?), you made the comment, "Let's step it up to the highest level: Yale Law School. Minorities get into Yale Law (I know because I've heard their scores) who, if they were white, would not even waste the time to apply, because the admission committee would basically laugh at them. Fair? No (before someone says I'm envious, I'm not, I just find it amusing)." Hmmm, more amusement. What's with that? Let's just bring in all of Ivy League. How about addressing all the whites who get in because one of their relatives is a graduate of that university; many of those students would not stand a chance of being admitted otherwise (because the admissions committee would just laugh at them). That's a form of affirmative action you don't seem to have a problem accepting, and it's much less fair than the Affirmative Action to which you're taking offense. And speaking of fair, who in the whole wide world ever told you that life was going to be fair? If they told you that, they lied. Maybe they just told you that life "should" be fair, but guess what....

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-21T17:20:50-06:00

ID

86779

Comment

Donna: "But the point is that you are closing the door on a discussion that needs to happen because you have already made up your mind about what other people think, and how other people live, before it even begins. This is the primary problem with race dialogue in this country -- it has to play by your rules, or it's not going to happen." Bravo, bravo! On the little back and forth on the flag between you and Mr. McCarty, can I say that I have come to appreciate the bumper stickers many "pro-battleflag" people had. You know which one - "We Don't Need to Change the Flag - We Need to Change the Heart". Of course, if we change the heart, the flag will take care of itself. It would have been nice to have a symbol of change, a gesture of goodwill from majority to minority, but I suppose that would have been "cart before horse" and might be too hypocritical of Mississippi at this point. Better we just be honest about it. (the majority of white Mississippi simply doesn't care if the flag offends or hurts - at least not enough to do anything about it.).

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-21T17:40:40-06:00

ID

86780

Comment

C.W., I could be wrong, but I think I intended that question to be rhetorical, and not as one addressed to anyone in particular. Granted, I haven't re-read the post you are referring to, but I think I'm remembering this correctly. As for alumni preference in admissions, I'm against that to. At least, if one is going to attempt to tow the line against affirmative action, I think they probably ought to be ready to concede that one, and, at that should concede it. The part I find amusing is what I think affirmative action has to rest its hat on as it is currently practiced: i.e., the theory that because someone is born a minority, they are automatically disadvantaged, and therefore should get a preference. The way the policy is implemented rests on this assumption, either implicitly or explicitly. I can't buy that. Because I think it is ridiculous, I find it amusing (example: Justin's reference to Justice Thomas' children - assuming he has them; are they disadvantaged? Of course not, and I think it's ridulous to assume or argue that they are, which is what affirmative action - as currently practiced - suggests).

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-21T18:55:48-06:00

ID

86781

Comment

C.W., I could be wrong, but I think I intended that question to be rhetorical, and not as one addressed to anyone in particular. Granted, I haven't re-read the post you are referring to, but I think I'm remembering this correctly. As for alumni preference in admissions, I'm against that to. At least, if one is going to attempt to tow the line against affirmative action, I think they probably ought to be ready to concede that one, and, at that should concede it. The part I find amusing is what I think affirmative action has to rest its hat on as it is currently practiced: i.e., the theory that because someone is born a minority, they are automatically disadvantaged, and therefore should get a preference. The way the policy is implemented rests on this assumption, either implicitly or explicitly. I can't buy that. Because I think it is ridiculous, I find it amusing (example: Justin's reference to Justice Thomas' children - assuming he has them; are they disadvantaged? Of course not, and I think it's ridiculous to assume or argue that they are, which is what affirmative action - as currently practiced - suggests).

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-02-21T18:56:09-06:00

ID

86782

Comment

Easy for me, Matt, because I just read it (since I've been gone a few days. Doesn't really matter if it's rhetorical or not, because I gave my opinion anyway, but just for the sake of argument, I do believe it was addressed to me, in a reply to my post to you, "And, I think this can only come from the source, you are hearing "psycho-dookey." I don't claim to be victimized by affirmative action, nor was I in reality. No resentment here, just more amusement. Is it overly dramatic to say that a black in today's times suffers a burden or suffers? Just curious." As far as what you are saying about minority vs. class as the criterion for AA, there is some merit in pursuing an AA course that is tweaked to class considerations as well. I am a bit confused, however, because some of your other arguments seem to be opposed totally to AA. How about clarifying whether you are against AA, or only against AA in it's present form. I have read in a number of places that statistics show that women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA. As a woman, I would not feel at all that I was being "given" something unfairly that might reflect on my intellectual abilities, and neither should other minorities. I would feel that some of the unfair advantage of white males was being addressed, and I would imagine most other minorities feel that way (unless enough white males got to them and made them feel inferior for accepting a scholarship or college placement partially based on their minority status).

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-21T20:26:47-06:00

ID

86783

Comment

"Paradoxically, in order to overcome past victimization, affirmative action requires black Americans to become invested in their own victimhood." So, Justin, are you saying that women (the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action) are required by affirmative action to become invested in their own victimhood? I have a feeling you wouldn't want to say something like that in a roomful of women - because you would find yourself very quickly surrounded by angry women. Does that help you put this in context? It should.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-21T20:33:11-06:00

ID

86784

Comment

"Paradoxically, in order to overcome past victimization, affirmative action requires black Americans to become invested in their own victimhood." I don't mean to be rude here, but I just find this a crock. I don't feel the least bit "victimized" because I get an opportunity because I'm a woman. Do you boys feel "victimized" every time you get an opportunity because your daddy or your uncle knows somebody? This is so incredibly condescending to try to make people who have been historically discriminated against suddenly feel "victimized" because you think it's unfair that they now get chances they would have never had without various attempts at affirmative actions. I can't get past the feeling that we're dealing with a lot of excuses and avoidance of the real question -- *give us the evidence that playing field is level* -- that matters the most. Again, once we come to that conclusion, we can move onto figuring out the most "fair" way to level it, unless of course y'all come up with some mighty impressive evidence beyond your own perspective and wishful thinking. Sorry. I know that sounds snarky, but I really do tire of chasing tails (not to mention elusive unicorns) in a discussion so important.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-21T21:29:27-06:00

ID

86785

Comment

Avoidance. Yes, indeedy - liberally greased with resentment. Doesn't sound at all snarky (especially considering some of the better-qualified statements in here).

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-21T23:02:19-06:00

ID

86786

Comment

This is so incredibly condescending to try to make people who have been historically discriminated against suddenly feel "victimized" because you think it's unfair that they now get chances they would have never had without various attempts at affirmative actions. I'm not trying to be condescending, or imply that people who have historically discriminated against should feel victimized, or that it's unfair that these people got some chances that they wouldn't have without affirmative action. Read my previous posts: I said that affirmative action is necessary if the playing field still is not equal. My only point is that affirmative action leads people to dwell on their past discrimination, to as Shelby Steele has written, "become invested in the very condition [they] are trying to overcome." This is the paradox I was referring to. Maybe victimhood was a strong word; I was really paraphrasing Steele's quote anyway. I think that it's somewhat important because it hinders the levelling of the playing field. Anyway, I'm willing to admit that, though there have been significant advances, the playing field is still not level. Some people do not have the same opportunities to succeed, particularly because of disparities in education. We need some form of affirmative action program that takes this into account and ensures fair equality of opportunity for all (which for me means that two people with the same natural ability and the same level of hard work have the same chance succeeding). The question is how to do this while minimizing the collateral injustice done to non-preferred racial groups. Are race-based affirmative action programs the best way to level the playing field, and how should these programs be structured? Oh, and CW: there's a lot of things I wouldn't say in a room full of women.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-21T23:03:03-06:00

ID

86787

Comment

Speaking of avoidance: see my post above.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-02-21T23:27:37-06:00

ID

86788

Comment

Congressman Bowen was actually in my office today and pointed out that he was the FIRST US Congreesman from Mississippi to have black members on his staff.

Author

RightonTarget

Date

2005-02-22T13:04:42-06:00

ID

86789

Comment

Justin, I'm sure you're not trying to be condescending (people rarely do). We do a lot of things without realizing we're doing them, until it's pointed out to us. You said, "Read my previous posts: I said that affirmative action is necessary if the playing field still is not equal." I read your previous posts (but since I read most of them in one lump, I probably missed something.). Did you state whether you thought the playing field is equal yet or not? If not, what is your opinion? "Oh, and CW: there's a lot of things I wouldn't say in a room full of women." What about a room full of blacks?

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-22T19:26:11-06:00

ID

86790

Comment

ROT, Congressman Bowen deserves kudos for making a giant first step all those years back. All the more reason for him not to falter at this point. Since you spoke to him, I certainly hope you asked him to clear up whether this article was as he wrote it or if it was butchered by the C/L I've certainly had letters published by them in which they took out a few words and totally changed the meaning of what I said (and also where they took out portions that made the whole letter sound like nonsense).

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-22T19:31:57-06:00

ID

86791

Comment

Did you state whether you thought the playing field is equal yet or not? If not, what is your opinion? es, I said that the playing is still not completely equal, primarily due to disparities in education. The question is how to remedy this deficiency and maximize fair equality of opportunity for all. It might be that race-based affirmative action programs are not the best way to do this, for the reason I stated in my original post. Some sort of income-based program might promote greater justice. "Oh, and CW: there's a lot of things I wouldn't say in a room full of women." What about a room full of blacks? I'd be fine in this situation (I guess you're assuming I'm not black). The room full of women comment was meant ironically.

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-22T21:17:06-06:00

ID

86792

Comment

No, Justin, I'm not assuming you are white, but I am making a somewhat educated guess that you are more likely white than black and am even guessing that you are male rather than female (smile). If I'm wrong, just tell me so. You didn't answer my question on either scenario, except ironically. I guess it sounded like a rhetorical question, but I had a point in asking that addresses the stated point to Bowen's article. (letís just skip trying to decide if he meant the rest the way it appeared in the Clarion Ledger). Iím not asking this to be a smart aleck, but for what I think is a valid reason. Here's the way I see it, and, please, if you think I'm wrong, speak up, because I'm not just in here to talk, I'm listening as well. Here's my take on it - If a person, whether male or female, made that statement about investing in victimhood by accepting AA help in a room full of women, they'd likely get a big argument. Wouldn't affect that too much if they were male or female, except the male might get more hostility (smile). If a person made that same statement in a room full of blacks, they'd likely get a big argument if they were black themselves. If they were white, however, they might get some argument, but they'd get a lot more silence, and people would turn away or change the subject (and might be swallowing some anger). The median age of the room would affect the amount of talk very much as well. And that is the crux of what this discussion in here is about (I hope). Not about affirmative action, but about being able to talk honestly across color lines, gender lines, generational lines. You can't talk honestly unless people on both sides of whatever line are willing to both listen and talk, and carrying in a loaded statement (and I believe that 'victimhood' statement is loaded) will close a lot of ears and mouths. White people need to shut up and listen without trying to direct the conversation, and black people need to speak up and say what's on their minds. That's very simplistic and I realize it's not going to happen without some trust and ground rules being established. This where ideas are needed. I've been "evesdropping" on some listservs where people involved in leading such dialogues are discussing the best ways to conduct them, and I'm trying to learn from them, but I have a long way to go. I'm thinking that having help from folks who are trained in this discipline could help here in Mississippi or just down there in Jackson if the whole state is too big a bite to chew at once.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-23T12:35:19-06:00

ID

86793

Comment

C.W. I said that victimhood was a rather strong word and I apologive if it was offensive; I was tryting to recall a quote from an article I'd read by Shelby Steele, and I paraphrased it poorly. Shelby Steele has some interesting opinions on affirmative action...more

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-23T13:16:51-06:00

ID

86794

Comment

My bad on the typos. Here's the link

Author

Justin

Date

2005-02-23T16:53:47-06:00

ID

86795

Comment

Buck, folks might be "avoiding" your posts because they don't see much to engage about because your mind is so made up; also I'll remind you of how dramatically you can sometimes mis-read someone's post and then restate what someone else said (see Feb. 18, 11:17 a.m. and my response at 11:25, and the User Agreement about misstating what other people say). Also, we've already discussed most of the points you're trying to make in your recent post. The one about Clarence Thomas is particularly off-base. I guess you're trying to use him to prove the "exception" -- but affirmative action policy (or any others) are never based on whether there's a rich exception who doesn't need the help, or even a bunch of them. It's based on formulas for PUBLIC policies that have a "disparate impact" on certain groups (due to previous policy; important), as well as the state's "compelling interest" for instituting the policies. That is, affirmative action is not only about an individual getting into law school (whether one of Matt's white buddies or Thomas' son, or a graduate of Lanier); it's about a state's interest in reversing past discriminatory policies (not so much individual discrimination) that have tainted the pool to date. This is the level playing field stuff that everyone is avoiding so far (still waiting on the evidence that it's level, by the way). It's also a reason that it would make sense for different states to have different different affirmative action policies geared to their own set of needs and level of historic discrimination, need for doctors and lawyers (and elected officials) of color, and so on. You might want it to be as simple as pointing to one guy or another and saying, "see, see ...", but it's just not, legally, morally or otherwise. Also, I think you're a little confused about the public v. private issue on affirmative action. All the cases, so far, I believe have been about public institutions because private ones have much more leeway to discriminate (and, by the way, "discrimination" in and of itself is not constitutional; it's about "disparate impacts," pools and all that; very interesting points if we have a real de-segregation talk on here; many people do NOT understand what busing was about). Constitutional issues pop up in private schools due to Title VI, and if they receive any federal funding, including grants and the like. But it's much more complicated.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-24T10:35:45-06:00

ID

86796

Comment

Now, in Texas, private schools like Rice reacted to the court decision and dropped affirmative action out of fear of being targeted due to Title VI as I understand it -- thus, so far, the biggest way private schools have been affected. (And their enrollment of minorities dropped mightily and scarily as a result, thus proving a big point of AA proponents.) But they are not bound by the court decisions so far, and may never be, depending on how Title VI continues to be interpreted. Of course, this is a double standard issue for conservative who don't want non-dscriminatory federal legislation such as Title VI -- except when it means that private colleges can't "discriminate" by using affirmative action policies. It's all very cynical. And some proponents of AA say that Title VI should be amended to allow private schools to use AA policies if they want, so one could argue there are double standards there as well. OK, enough from me now. I hope all this makes some sense. I don't have time to very deep into this here. But I do have some very thick binders here in the office of info on all sides of these issues from my ed-law classes, so anyone every wants to read up .... I should also add that I'm not as up on changes in these issues in the last couple years, so definitely do your own research should any of this pique your interest.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-24T10:36:15-06:00

ID

86797

Comment

States, colleges increasing merit-based financial aid - Wednesday's Sun Herald http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/10973226.htm

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-24T21:10:25-06:00

ID

86798

Comment

Very interesting article, Justin. I don't agree with him on Affirmative Action, at least for the time being. He may well be right about it being moribund in ten years, but I'm not sure. I think it might depend on the part of the country. In places in the deep south, particularly the Mississippi delta, where white resistance to black progress has been so strong for so long, I think AA will be needed much longer than in some other places.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-24T21:20:20-06:00

ID

86799

Comment

I hope it will be moribund in 10 years; that's been the idea all along. However, with so many people fighting against what they think is "affirmative action" based merely on not wanting the playing field level, it's going to take longer to get that way. We may well be going backward, then have to bring back strong policies. It's really dumb not to give centuries of discrimination time to work itself out with smart affirmative-action policies, with checks and balances along the way. If we want true equality, we have to work for it -- on all levels. If Barbour gets his way with rolling back Adequate Education, this state is going to fall even further behind. Of course, the demogagoes don't mind, because uneducated people aren't as likely to vote their asses out. However, the fat lady ain't sung just, yet. Y'all keep with this one. We gotta fight for progress.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-25T12:10:11-06:00

ID

86800

Comment

Have y'all seen the great op ed that Eric Stringfellow wrote about this? Race council needs input from men like Bowen http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050227/COL0601/502270399/1189/NEWS01 He says: "Probably the most refreshing element of Bowen's piece was his candor, which is hard to get from white males of his generation. This group must be involved in any broad discussion about race. Bowen's leadership is encouraging, even though some of his views are debatable." There are other parts I want to quote, but I'm not sure how much of that is allowable - so, just go read it, folks. I don't always agree with Stringfellow, but he's spot on this time, and gets his point across with a remarkable dispassion that may open more middle-class eyes than an emotionally-charged appeal.

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-27T13:58:49-06:00

ID

86801

Comment

The Ledge's Eric Stringfellow defends David Bowen's comments, as discussed in this thread for a while now, in his column yesterday. I don't quite follow it, though; he seems to be tapdancing quite a bit. The part of Bowen's thesis likely to produce the most dialogue centers around his views about slavery and segregation. African Americans are preoccupied with slavery and segregation because society has refused to acknowledge the crippling and lingering effects of this inhumanity. To suggest that affirmative action is adequate compensation, frankly, is offensive. Historians trace slavery back to 1619. President Johnson signed the executive order for affirmative action in 1965. This confuses me about as much as Bowen's column. I think he's disagreeing with Bowen here about affirmative action, and saying it's not enough. Stringfellow is on record as saying that reparations need to be discussed; is that what he's saying here? I'm really not sure. If he would just come and say things directly more often, I'd enjoy his columns more. As it is, I have a hard time following many of them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-28T10:00:43-06:00

ID

86802

Comment

Maybe it's more fair to say "kinda defends, kinda doesn't." Feel free to translate this better for me.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-28T10:02:25-06:00

ID

86803

Comment

I read it as being a disagreement with Bowen about affirmative action. I'm not sure if he's talking about reparations (I really didn't think so, but I could be wrong). I didn't read this as a defence of Bowen, but as Stringfellow saying that there are a lot of white males with the opinions that Bowen has who are not honest enough to express them in public. He was noting that honesty is needed (how can you argue with what a person thinks if they don't have the guts to tell you what it is?) I think he's right - that people like Bowen are going to have to open up - even if we don't like what they are saying. The only waffle I thought Eric had was in not calling Bowen on Bowen's attempt to control the dialogue before it even began. It really sounded to me as if Stringfellow was working hard at mediating, and I thought he did quite well. Looks like we just don't see this one the same way. :-)

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-02-28T20:25:23-06:00

ID

86804

Comment

It probably means I just need to re-read it, C.W. I probably agree with Stringfellow more often than I don't, but sometimes I just have a hard time understanding his point. He seems to circle the wagons a bit (is that the phrase I mean?) -- or, maybe I should, not be as direct as he might be. However, I'm sure that has a lot to do with where he works. Besides, it took me about three reads before I understood what Bowen was saying. I should read Eric's at least two more times before I decide for sure. ;-) I do agree that we need to know that folks like Bowen feel that way -- but, Lord, I can't imagine not calling him out on trying to tell black people what they should, and should not, say in a discussion such as this. That is so incredibly condescending.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-02-28T21:14:04-06:00

ID

86805

Comment

Uh, Not trying to start a fight here (I agree with parts of Bowen and disagree with parts-- kinda do, kinda don't), but doesn't a lot of the Black leadership and hosts of PCers of all colors tell whites (and everyone else) what they should and should not say all the time? No one says they are condescending.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-03-07T15:27:54-06:00

ID

86806

Comment

Not a good, but a great cartoon re race relations, and affirmative action: View the cartoon

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-29T00:24:45-06:00

ID

86807

Comment

I came, I saw, I forwarded it along to about 30 people. Brilliant. Who drew this? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-03-29T02:18:30-06:00

ID

86808

Comment

I dunno. Casey sent it to me. Sheer brilliance, though, especially in its simplicity. Makes me think of that cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" and how friggin' hysterically funny it was, even in its brutal honesty.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-03-29T02:57:57-06:00

ID

86809

Comment

Wow. I bunch of people completely sidestepped a great question by GDI Moderate. Answer the freaking question, please.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:04:08-06:00

ID

86810

Comment

Yes, massa. MAllen, I seem to remember a whole shitload of questions posed to you on the blog that you never answered. If you'd hadn't noticed, blogging is a free will kind of thang. Careful: condescension is hereditary.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:08:39-06:00

ID

86811

Comment

For the record (sigh), I actually don't think GDI's point in this instance is that compelling -- mostly because the second someone starts trying to play the "aren't you damn PC" card, it usually means they've run out of something better to say. Also, it doesn't take a law degree to see the difference between what GDI is (presumably) talking about: a black person telling a white one when the white person is saying something offensive toward someone of another race. (Which a white person should be able to do as well; it's happened many times on this site, say, in response to redneck comments.) What Bowen did above was tell a white person to tell a black person that the white person was not going to even try to listen to a black person's concerns, so don't bother to even bring it up, damn it. Not the same thing. Overly simplistic analogies don't cut it here for me. And David Bowen's arguments are still asinine weeks after he made them. Glad he made them, though. Good discussion resulted. All that's what I would have said had I been compelled by GDI's original question.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:16:40-06:00

ID

86812

Comment

Indeed, posting is a free-will thing. And my reply to that is, well, what? Again, a poster sidestepped the question under the guise of "racism"(at least implicitly). As far as the questions to me, re-fire them. Sorry about that - very busy at work. But if anyone wants to tear at my rear end, here is your chance. Ladd, I still owe you and Todd a drink.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:22:03-06:00

ID

86813

Comment

That should be "redneck" comments. The quotes matter in this case. I'm still waiting for lots of requested definitions of "racism" and "affirmative action," while we're thumbing through old blogs looking for unanswered questions.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:22:32-06:00

ID

86814

Comment

Posted the above without the benefit of you reply.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:25:27-06:00

ID

86815

Comment

Other people are busy, too, MAllen. Personally, I got a bit tired of this thread -- although it served its purpose -- because so many people were sidestepping the real issues around affirmative action. And I don't just mean that I believe there's a need for it -- but blatantly defining it in a narrow way that served their purposes in arguing against it. It went circular on us. Otherwise, I think it's rude and bad netiquette to harangue people because they haven't answered your question of choice -- especially in the way you just did. I tend to get pissy when someone does that as you just did. So, it's not personal. Just a response. Yes, we should have that drink soon. E-mail me. (You do remind me of someone we both know, by the way. )

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:28:38-06:00

ID

86816

Comment

As far as the definition of "racism" and "affirmative action," I am completely dedicated to attempting to providing one. However, I have to take a break from the chatboard. Spousal Unit is calling....

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:29:34-06:00

ID

86817

Comment

Posted the above without the benefit of you reply. Understood. It was obvious.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:30:08-06:00

ID

86818

Comment

Notice: everyone refuses to answer a very simple, simple question.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:37:49-06:00

ID

86819

Comment

Huh? You're reverting back to condescension again. I just answered the damn question. What: You didn't like my answer? That's the way you handled the affirmative-action discussion above, as I recall. You don't like the answer, so you keep re-phrasing the question. (Proverbially calling special sessions: you know the Barbour Doctrine: keep asking until they say what you want.) And where does "refuses" come from, Matt? That's a loaded word. Who's refusing? Have you noticed how many threads are here? You're not making sense, and you're irritating me with your tone that is treating other people like they're scared to answer what I considered a silly question that has a rather obvious answer. IT'S A FALSE ANALOGY. Now, isn't the spousal unit calling? I'm rather sick of this particular path. You're wasting my time on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T20:45:21-06:00

ID

86820

Comment

"Uh, Not trying to start a fight here... but doesn't a lot of the Black leadership and hosts of PCers of all colors tell whites (and everyone else) what they should and should not say all the time?" My opinion. as crazy as that might be, this is a fair question Just because you are black does not mean you are bulletproof from criticicsm.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:54:39-06:00

ID

86821

Comment

And yet I wait for someone to answer GDI's comments?

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-03T20:56:25-06:00

ID

86822

Comment

Just because you are black does not mean you are bulletproof from criticicsm. No one has said this, Mallen. You're projecting an answer you want other people to give, so that you can shoot it down. Straw, Meet the Man. Are you truly not seeing the problem with this argument, Mallen? I can see it with some others, but I honestly believe you're capable of power-reasoning through this one. And what is it about race discussions that make otherwise-smart folk defy their own logical skills? Come on, Matt. I'm rooting for you on this one. Why don't you try this old law-school trick: try to see it from the "other side" for a moment, and see if YOU can figure out what the answer to that question might be, being that you don't want to accept what I'm trying to tell you. Try it; reverse gynnastics can be fun. Otherwise, I'm out on this one. My arm is getting tired from beating that old dead horse to death. (Disclaimer: No animals were hurt in the preparation of this blog.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T21:02:08-06:00

ID

86823

Comment

Also, Matt, if you continue to repeat the same question in an apparent attempt to harass people into saying something you want, or to be generally obnoxious, I will consider you a troll and ask you to leave. I know you're intelligent; please act like it on here. Right now, you're being a jerk.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T21:05:16-06:00

ID

86824

Comment

Regarding the discussion (sort of) of the term "redneck" above: Ironically, the 'rednecks' or 'white trash' in this country are the ones who are now being (and will continue to be) treated unfairly as a result of race-based affirmative action programs.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-03T21:06:51-06:00

ID

86825

Comment

I presume your evidence of that melodramatic statement is forthcoming in your next post, Buck? I wouldn't mention this except that I know you're a big fan of anecdotal evidence (see your other posts), but I came straight out of a trailer park, and affirmative action programs for blacks didn't hurt me one iota. I give thanks that they are there -- at least in intelligent form -- and pray that they continue to be. I, personally, don't know a single redneck who have been held back by affirmative-action programs, and I know me some rednecks. Sigh: We've come full circle. Perhaps this time, gentlemen, you both will try to actually engage this discussion by moving past unconvincing anecdotal arguments (such as the one I just shared) and address the question: Is the playing field level? Because, to date, you have both presented carbon-copy arguments of each other's, and they're not dealing with the real question. On this issue, you both show a misplaced obsession over whether some black guy is going to keep some white guy from a promotion or admission. Respectfully, you've both missed the point in this brand of race defensiveness. But, you know what, I've tried to have this discussion, but neither of you listen to A DAMN THING I SAY ON IT, so it's like talking to a brick wall. So why don't you both fuss at each other for a while about how much affirmative action hurts the white folk. My patience is thin for both of you on race issues.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T21:13:33-06:00

ID

86826

Comment

Ms. Ladd: To the contrary, I have listened to every "damn thing" you have said, and find all of it (on this subject) to be unconvincing at best and meritless at worst. Trust me, the fact that I do not agree with your position is not due to any lack of "listening." Relevantly, another favorite argument of yours is that "anecdotal evidence" of a given trend or idea is not proof of that idea's (or trend's) validity or truthfulness. Interestingly, you then proceed to cite your own anecdotal evidence: that you do not know a single redneck who "have [sic] been held back by affirmative-action programs . . ." To repeat myself, you are consistent in your inconsistency. As my position has been stated and re-stated in this thread many times, I thought it unnecessary to repeat it along with my 'melodramatic' statement above. But, for you, anything: Race-based affirmative action programs will necessarily result in lesser-qualified minorities receiving opportunities that would ordinarily have gone to better-qualified members of racial majorities. As race-based affirmative action makes no provision for economic background, these opportunities will in some cases go to members of ethnic minorities who came from wealthy or upper-class economic backgrounds. Thus, those members of the ethnic majority who come from poor or lower-class economic backgrounds are denied those same opportunities via 'affirmative action,' which to me reeks of injustice. And is patently unconstitutional. And congrats, Ms. Ladd, for making it in spite of (per your post) coming from an economically-challenged background. You have proven that individuals can achieve success in the face of challenges without the need for any affirmative action or unfair advantages being given to them . . . err. . haven't you?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-03T21:28:48-06:00

ID

86827

Comment

Nope, Buck. It's not about being convinced. You simply do not engage the arguments when it comes to race. The evidence is all over the blog. You don't even try to convince on these topics, and it's as if you don't even read what someone else posts well enough to try to refute it. I don't find talking about race with you interesting at all because it's such a blind spot for you, at least on the blog. On the other hand, I've had many discussions about the complexibites of race issues, affirmative action, etc., with many other people over the years whom I've learned from because they were real discussions -- not thinly disgruised treatises against doing a single thing to help black people get equal opportunities. So, you must excuse me while I don't waste my time trying to get you to at least listen to my arguments on it. You're repeating yourself, and you weren't convincing the first seven times. But you don't add anything to make it more convincing or to alleviate other people's concerns; you just repeat the same thing over and over again, believing you're absolutely right and there's no room for nuance or discussion. I find it useless. And congrats, Ms. Ladd, for making it in spite of (per your post) coming from an economically-challenged background. You have proven that individuals can achieve success in the face of challenges without the need for any affirmative action or unfair advantages being given to them . . . err. . haven't you? Ooo, I apologize for setting you up, but I was hoping you would say something like that and rather believed you would (you are utterly predictable on race topics). So, my answer: Yes, I am a fine example of what your affirmative-action efforts might get you. I received many different forums of affirmative action to get me some schoolin'ósome because I was female, some because I was poor, some because I was from Mississippióand all gave me a leg up over someone more "qualified" than I was -- at least on paper, or to look at 'em. You see, I hadn't had all the same opportunities, and I grew up with an illiterate mother who never read to me, once, because she couldn't. You wouldn't have known based on, er, objective criteria that I was a whole helluva bunch smarter than lots of the boys and girls but mostly boys out there scooping up the opportunities. So, yes, I NEEDED affirmative action to give me a chance to prove myself without being stamped "not qualified" before I got a chance to overcome my upbringing. And I'm not the only one. So, yes, BuckóI consider myself one very good example of my point that, without intelligent forms of affirmative action, there are many young people who will never get the chance to get some learnin', start their own newspaper and blog, and stick it to all the smarter folk every chance they friggin' get.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T21:44:03-06:00

ID

86828

Comment

Buck, I look forward to the day when we don't really need race-based affirmative action. But let me put it to you this way: Right now, statistically, someone growing up African-American in this country is going to have a tougher time of it than someonbe growing up white in this country. Unless you're prepared to say that whites are just genetically better (and there's a name for that belief), then it seems to me that the discrepancy can and should be blamed on external factors. Like, oh, I don't know, centuries of government-sanctioned slavery and oppression (starting in 1538 if you count the Spanish-American slave trade, 1617 if you only count the Brits). In fact, I think any historian of American industry would tell you that the relative economic comfort of whites is built, in large part, on the oppression of African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, and (particularly on the west coast) the occasional Asian American (though large-scale Asian-American immigration didn't happen until the immigration law reforms of the 1960s). How would you compensate for that? Say tough noogies and expect the situation to iron itself out one day, or encourage a temporary policy of affirmative action geared toward making up the difference? You're a smart guy, and a liberal to boot. I don't understand why you find this concept so hard to grasp. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-04-03T21:59:40-06:00

ID

86829

Comment

I will also note for the record that you did not provide any evidence in the next post. And will not, I assume. Your evidence, to date, on race issues usually consists of a link to a crime committed by a rapper to prove that all consumers of hip-hop are heathen and to justify racist comments by mayors who believe that certain brutality is OK in the inner city, but not the white suburbs (I think of it as the Jim Giles School of Logic). You have developed yourself a neat little space in which to exist on affirmative action. The problem is, again, that your arguments make certain false assumptions and a whole lotta leaps in logic. For instance, you just wrote: Race-based affirmative action programs will necessarily result in lesser-qualified minorities receiving opportunities that would ordinarily have gone to better-qualified members of racial majorities. As race-based affirmative action makes no provision for economic background, these opportunities will in some cases go to members of ethnic minorities who came from wealthy or upper-class economic backgrounds. Thus, those members of the ethnic majority who come from poor or lower-class economic backgrounds are denied those same opportunities via 'affirmative action,' which to me reeks of injustice. And is patently unconstitutional.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:19:07-06:00

ID

86830

Comment

Congratulations for repeating the White Man's Treatise Against Affirmative Action. Of course, if this were fact-based, it might be convincing. (Remember, that evidence request.) Several quick problems with your statement: 1. You have yet to define "race-based affirmative action," if I recall correctly. You want us all to believe that A.A. is all about "racial preferences." It's not, Buck. If y'all would at least act a bit interested, we could have a real discussion about this. But I can't seem to get anyone to bite. You're too busy ignoring me when I try to explain that (legal) AA action isn't about quotas or letting unqualified folks into college. You have a frame, and you aint' lettin' go! Thus, if you don't do this, the discussion ends. Without common definitions, everyone's just spoutin' rhetoric. That leads me to: 2. How do you define "qualified"? Same problem. 3. If it's based on "objective" tests, then what about all the research that shows the bias in those "objective" tests toward certain groups. I presume you think that's all junk science. (Why? Because it doesn't support the premise you're STARTING with. I persnally prefer ENDING with a premise after a whole lot of research, but I'm just a trailer-park gal. What do I know?) 4. You said affirmative action programs never account for economics? You can have A.A. that (proverbially or literally) "gives points" for economic background, race, geography, or whatever is the current "disadvantaged" or "under-represented" group status. Thus, a poor black woman might get three points, thus giving a slight leg up over a rich black woman. But they still must be "qualified" in other ways. (Private schools do this stuff all the time; thus the reason a lot of lesser-qualified southern kids like myself got into hoity-toity schools in the first place and then help bring back some bacon to the home turf after pickin' up some learnin'). Thus ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:19:55-06:00

ID

86831

Comment

5. The big one y'all like to ignore: Constitutional (and intelligent) A.A. does not placing a lot of unqualified people in places that don't belong. Er, that would be quotas, and that was declared unconstitional long ago. 6. Oh, but you say, some institutions are still using de facto "quotas." Answer: That's an enforcement issue; burn their asses. But it has nothing to do with whether A.A. is a good idea in the first place. Now, you ask, why is it a good idea? 7. Beyond the obvious that the playing field is nowhere near level yet (just look around past y'all's own eyelashes, white guys) -- a discussion y'all just refuse to have -- you guys also like to forget that A.A. is not employed to help individuals. The kind you're talking about, Buck (by a governmental entity--thus, why it has anything to do with the U.S. Constitution), is done to ensure that societal inequities are alleviated and that the state's interests are served. Therefore, a school like UMC needs to look at the state's need for doctors who are willing to work in the Delta, in poor areas, for instance. Then it becomes a compelling state need to help young people from those areas who might be more predisposed to go back, make less money and help bring medical services to mama's friends. But if you only look at this through a defensive lense of, "I'm got a white buddy who might need that extra point to keep his spot" (remember: not about not being qualifiedñred herring), you're never going to understand that. Why? Because you're not *engaging* in the entire argument long enough to even understand that your own pre-set view that you ain't changin' no matter what is missing a whole lot of points -- and is designed to support your own view that white guys are gettin' screwed. 8. Finally--no, Buck, affirmative action that meets constitutional standards (which are not about whether one guy believes he's more qualified) is indeed constitutional. Enough stream of consciousness on this. I'm sure that Matt and buck have no intention of listening to it anyway. Because, you know, it's all so very clear that there's no need to even try to define or discuss. [As I was posting this, I see that Tom Head has joined us and said this stuff much more succinctly than I. He's right -- as usual. Thanks, Tom, for your intelligence and your brevity. And I apologize for typos in this one; no time to proofread. Shouldn't be rehashing it all for people who won't try to listen to it anyway. Ta.]

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:21:22-06:00

ID

86832

Comment

so being a jerk is asking a simple question that begs for a simple answer ....and being called names by the "administrator" [jerk, obnoxious, troll , " i know -you -are - intelligent -but -if- you- are-how-can-you-possibly- disagree-with-the obvious-omnipotent-opinions-of-me-the always -right-and-overseer-of-the opinions-of-"progressives"-of-the-world" etc, etc] and by doing this attempting to intimidate and browbeat those that do the same thing the "administrator" requests [ie: attempting to have "open" discussions on topics, except for when those that do not abide by the mind set of the "administrator"] as that is condesending... this is i would think be "beneath you" as you are wont to say....but i can't do this or ask this...it would be being "obnoxious"....a troll so to speak.. will SOMEONE simply answer the fair question....oh...there i go again....asking a "progressive" a simple question that begs a simple answer....i am being a troll again....sorry go ahead....talk down to me as wellll

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-04-03T22:29:34-06:00

ID

86833

Comment

No, in this case, Ben, it is not liking the answer and then badgering over and over again with the same question (for an example, see above). And for the record, I don't think Matt is a jerk, but I think he's being a jerk in the posts above. You've, likewise, been a jerk here on occasion, as have I, Councilman. So there's really no need to act so thin-skinned about it; I've heard your radio show. You can handle it. Again: I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. Just because you "conservatives" (just returning your "progressive" swipe; don't get all hot and bothered) can't understand my answer doesn't mean it's not one. Or, is it always about asking (or calling for special sessions) over and over again until you get the answer you want? Ahnt. Thanks for playing. And, Ben, you wrote the book on sweeping in here and "talking down" -- but you usually apologize for it, so I like you anyway. Most of the time. Meantime, would someone pick this apple up and put it back on the tree? ;-P

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:35:12-06:00

ID

86834

Comment

truth is , you do not want open discussion....you want to rant and rave ad nauseum your opinions on every subject....see every thread....more opinions from you than anyone else....that is ok cause it is yours to do....you own it....but don't be so afraid of honest opinions from very smart, intelligent, well schooled open-minded [yes....much more TRULY OPENMINDED ....see websters on this one.....] people that simply disagree with you....dish it out....take it.... i am sorry....a troll again....[or is it obnoxious this time?]

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-04-03T22:36:41-06:00

ID

86835

Comment

A few seconds before I clicked on the "Someone just responded to your post" email, I thought to myself: "You know what I need? Ellipses. I've gone all weekend and I've only seen a few ellipses. Please, God, if you're listening, just send me some ellipses." Thanks, Ben. I owe you one. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-04-03T22:42:47-06:00

ID

86836

Comment

Now, that's an intriguing admonishment coming from you, Ben. And it's interesting in light of the "question" being asked. Can you really not spy the irony here in your angry "dish it out" ... "take it" comments?? Coming from a more genteel discussor, this might hold some water. But, Ben ... have you heard your radio show? Y'all cut off anyone who doesn't agree with you. So, save the lecture and lambaste me on Thursday a.m. for daring to have a slightly different opinion than one that is repeated ad nauseum. I. Don't. Care. Re what Matt did tonight: Sharing opinions, Ben: Good. Harassing people who don't answer the question like you want over and over again with: "Answer my question. Answer my question. Answer my question.": Juvenile. And damn annoying. In addition, you will note, if you read the whole painfully long thread of ad nauseum ranting and raving from various positions, that Matt has not addressed some very important questions and discussion points on this thread that would help open up the discussion. I encourage him to do so, and stop badgering the other bloggers. And I'm not saying anything to him I wouldn't say to anyone else on here, and have, of varying viewpoints. Of course, my explaining trolldom to folks of various viewpoints doesn't fit your paradigm of my just trying to browbeat dissenters into acquiescence, so feel free to ignore it at will. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:48:01-06:00

ID

86837

Comment

Tom, I just love you to pieces, no matter what our mutual friends say. ;-) Truth is, I like Ben, too, even if he has to come on here and yell at me from time to time about having opinions and being progressive. This, too, shall pass. G'night, all.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-03T22:48:50-06:00

ID

86838

Comment

that would be tuesday/thursday/friday mornings...7:35 til 9 a.m. WJNT 1180 A.M....NOT ONLY THURSDAY BTW....ratings just out....for 4rth quarter in A ROW....WE are the # 1 radio talk show in the state....tune in on tuesdays and fridays...if you get thursday only you are missing a treat... and other than truly OBNOXIOUS tim...we cut no one off...not charles tisdale , stephanie parker-weaver, aclu's nasombi lambright, trial attorney meridda coxwell, bennie thompson , charles evers, mike moore, ronnie musgrove, you name it we get it....we enjoy discussions...implying we don't tells me you ain't listening....and if not I. DON'T. CARE.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-04-03T23:08:52-06:00

ID

86839

Comment

Nasombi? Uh, Ben......the lady's name is Nsombi Lambright. From GDImoderate doesn't a lot of the Black leadership and hosts of PCers of all colors tell whites (and everyone else) what they should and should not say all the time GDI, as soon as any "Black leadership" or "hosts of PCers" tell you what you can and can't say as a preface to an essay about how we should all have an honest talk, you can call them condescending. Also contradictory and muddle-headed. Like Bowen. Not saying that any of the above (named in your oh-so-moderate phrasing - note heavy sarcasm here) are above it, but when and if you catch them at it, you should call them on it. Does not negate anyone else's right to call Bowen on his. I love examples, so how about this one: back when you were in the sandbox, if you threw sand at someone and a sandfight ensued, with someone running crying to the kindergarten teacher, did it cut any mustard with her to point at the other guy and say - "yeah, well, he threw sand, too?" Donna, love the cartoon!

Author

C.W.

Date

2005-04-04T08:40:03-06:00

ID

86840

Comment

Congrats, Ben, on winning the talk show category. Being that you're the main one in the capitol city, I would be shocked if you hadn't. Do you have any idea how many listeners your station has a week? What do the numbers show? You're right: I don't listen to that show, or any others on WJNT much. The only times I have (except when you're hosting by yourself, which are much better), the shows are near unintelligible with the shouting back and forth and over people, especially ones Larry doesn't agree with. At least on blogs, contributors get to finish their sentences. We don't have one of those getner (sp?) buttons or anything. (Y'all may not even use those in radio any more, but you know what I mean.) I'm glad you don't care anymore whether I listen; maybe you're finally getting that I don't care about what's said in the talk-radio echo chamber. I brought it up here only because it was so ridiculous to hear you admonishing me for not giving folks a forum to voice their opinions -- on a controversial thread where nearly 200 comments of all sorts have been "allowed" by this horrible censorious chick who is out to browbeat all the po witta men in North Jackson. Please. At the risk of making other readers ad nauseus, I'll say it again: Diverse opinion is welcome here. Being a jerk and harassing others to say things you want them to say, or calling them names or such, is not. And when you do that here, I will point it out to you or, simply, delete your posts and your account. In the case of Matt, it was an odd thing for him to do, so I pointed out what he was doing, so he could see it for himself. Simply: badgering someone repeatedly to provide an answer you want to hear is not good discussion, and it troll-like behavior. And if those rules of engagement concern you greatly, Ben, I'm sorry. I'm sure life will continue on; as you like to tell us when someone gets too passionate for your taste: take a breath and listen to the birds sing. It'll be OK tomorrow. C.W., good response.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-04T10:52:25-06:00

ID

86841

Comment

Yeah, the cartoon says it better than all the rest of us put together. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-04T10:53:36-06:00

ID

86842

Comment

Being on vacation and consumed by another capital murder trial have kept me from fully reading and intellectually engaging in this discussion. Once again, Donna, you (and others) are doing a wonderful job of taking on all comers, including the angry lawyer who hates affirmitive action for reasons he can't justly articulate and defend.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-04-07T09:36:07-06:00

ID

86843

Comment

Thanks, Ray. It's all about dialogue, and not just the kind that makes people comfortable. Glad you're back. And good luck on your case.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-07T11:45:19-06:00

ID

86844

Comment

Ohhh. Harsh, Ray, very harsh. Heated at times; always passionate for a viewpoint I hold. But not angry. I'm assuming the comment was directed at me, which seems fairly obvious. As for the can't justly articulate and defend - hey, it's a free country. If you don't buy it, don't.

Author

MAllen

Date

2005-04-07T12:38:22-06:00

ID

86845

Comment

Comrade, you're not the only lawyer involved in this conversation. Nor am I. I wasn't speaking of you. It will be interesting to see if the intended person responds and how. However, MAllen, somebody once told me that if you throw a rock into a room of people, the ones you hit will holler every time. Like you, I enjoy the honest conversations whether I agree with it or not. I have never sensed anger from your postings. Likewise, I hope I don't give off such impressions.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-04-07T12:56:08-06:00

ID

86846

Comment

Ms. Ladd: Despite my honest efforts to understand your ramblings about my failure to "engage the arguments,î they make no sense at all. I read every post, and I engage every argument. Perhaps it would be more productive for you to come to grips with the fact that the reason other people do not agree with you on a given subject is not due to any lack of reading comprehension on their part. Rest assured that you will not win many arguments (or earn any credibility) by referring to those who disagree with you as having ìblind spotsî and the like. Additionally, your implication that my opinions are ìthinly disgruised [sic] treatises against doing a single thing to help black people get equal opportunitiesî is intellectually dishonest and otherwise inaccurate. Do you really consider these types of statements about who I am and what I believe to be appropriate? Your speculation about my beliefs and/or motives in this discussion only serves to destroy your own credibility (such as it is).

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-09T13:35:53-06:00

ID

86847

Comment

I assure you that I have, like you, ìhad many discussions about the complexibites [sic] of race issues, affirmative action, etc., with many other people over the years . . .î Since Ms. Ladd considers it appropriate to impugn my character in this discussion on affirmative action, let me restate my position for other readers/posters: If affirmative action should exist in the country, it should be based not on race but on economic status. The chances of success in this country in virtually any endeavor and at any stage is closely linked to wealth or lack thereof. Race-based affirmative action gives advantages to ethnic minorities based on their race alone with no regard to their economic status. Is it fair to give the children of wealthy minorities these sorts of advantages? No. Are poor ìtrailer trashî white kids any less disadvantaged by their poverty? No. For these reasons, I am opposed to race-based affirmative action programs. And as discussed in another thread, the recent US Supreme Court opinion dealing with the affirmative action program at the University of Michigan allows a de facto quote system by awarding significant points to minority applicants for the fact of their ethnicity alone. All of which is in congruence with Ms. Laddís statements above: ìYes, I am a fine example of what your affirmative-action efforts might get you. I received many different forums of affirmative action to get me some schoolin'ósome because I was female, some because I was poor, some because I was from Mississippióand all gave me a leg up over someone more "qualified" than I was -- at least on paper, or to look at 'em. You see, I hadn't had all the same opportunities, and I grew up with an illiterate mother who never read to me, once, because she couldn't. You wouldn't have known based on, er, objective criteria that I was a whole helluva bunch smarter than lots of the boys and girls but mostly boys out there scooping up the opportunities. So, yes, I NEEDED affirmative action to give me a chance to prove myself without being stamped "not qualified" before I got a chance to overcome my upbringing. And I'm not the only one.î ìOoooo,î indeed. Ms. Ladd (apparently) benefited from affirmative action based on her economic status. Again, as I stated above, if affirmative action should exist at all, it should exist to help people of ALL ethnicities who come from economically challenging situations rather than criteria that are based solely or primarily on race.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-09T13:36:23-06:00

ID

86848

Comment

Tom Head: Thanks for the kind words. Your post is, here, as in all of your posts, refreshing in its rationality and civility. Your post: ìUnless you're prepared to say that whites are just genetically better (and there's a name for that belief), then it seems to me that the discrepancy can and should be blamed on external factors.î I agree with that statement completely. My position is not to minimize the bad acts and policies our government had against minorities in the past nor the present prejudices held by many Americans today. But, again, white, black, or otherwise, if you have money in this country, you have the best of everything, opportunities included. Again, the sting of poverty is felt no less by whites than it is by ethnic minorities. I think affirmative action policies should, in fairness, reflect that fact. Further, in light of the implications Ms. Ladd is making regarding my character, let me reiterate the positions I have expressed on this site: 1. the position on affirmative actions listed above; 2. Kenneth Stokes is an idiot who makes racist statements on the public record and is the most significant obstacle to racial progress in Jackson City politics; and 3. the blatant misogyny, violence, and materialism prominently displayed in the ìgangsta rapî variety of hip-hop culture is damaging and counter-productive for all kids, black and white, and the ìartistsî and record executives of that genre should take some responsibility for that content. Additionally, parents should do their jobs by keeping this material out of the hands of kids. I linked articles detailing three (3) incidents involving ìgangsta rapî and gun violence that occurred in the last month or so, one of which occurred at a rap concert in London, England, one of the world capitols of gun control laws. Ms. Ladd chooses not to address the facts asserted in these articles, or address why these incidents are occurring at rap events (or being carried out by the millionaire rappers themselves), but instead refers to it as the ìJim Giles School of Logic.î NOW who is making ad hominem attacks, Ms. Editor? Also, as stated, Rev. Al Sharpton agrees with my position on the negative aspects of hip-hop culture. Did Rev. Sharpton also graduate from the Jim Giles school, Donna?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-09T13:36:51-06:00

ID

86849

Comment

Well, I'm afraid that I'm inclined to mostly agree with Buck that racial preferences should not be given to minorities of privilege and wealth. Perhaps, some measure should be taken to prevent this minute portion of the black race from getting unfair advantages. However, I disagree with him in many respect. It is fantasy to believe that in most regions of this country, especially the south, that poor whites feel the sting of poverty to the same degree as poor blacks. This proposition reflects a blind ignorance to the facts and depths of life and racism. I've lived all of my non-adult years in Mississippi and saw poor whites get unearned benefits, assets, jobs and other advantages over poor blacks, and blacks in general, on a daily and hourly basis soley because of race. I have seen little outside the professional arena to convince that this no longer happens. This phenomenon was so common, condoned and expected that most blacks didn't even waste their time challenging it. Gansta rap is good and bad, although presently the bad seems to outwieght the good. Growing efforts are being made to change this. I would keep my children away from it as long as I could. If Kenneth Stokes is an idiot and such obstacle to racial progress, why haven't there been great racial progress before him and despite him? He's only one person.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-04-11T08:56:05-06:00

ID

86850

Comment

Today is May 11th, and I stumbled on this thread while googling David Bowen, an old friend and my former representative. I think Ladd, who seems unusually astute, did David a disservice. It seems to me that early in the article he makes it clear that he is talking to whites, because no one can stand in another's shoes--or skin, as he puts it. It makes a tremendous difference in the way his remarks are taken, and frankly, the way Ladd quotes him, it does seem that he is offering unwarranted advice to the other side (whatever the currently appropriate politically correct word is, I am totally out of touch and in Miami where the ethnic problems are majorly different). It is a subject that is very interesting to me. I see affirmative action as both an insult and necessary to correct past inequities. I had a close friend in law school who had a Master's degree from Harvard, and barely had the language skills to pass first year. In fact, it was the combined effort of our section that got him through. But he ultimately graduated, and made a fine lawyer until he got tired of counting his fingers every time he shook hands with somebody and pursued another career. I can't help but think Harvard pencil whipped him for some reason, and affirmative action is the only thing that comes to mind.

Author

Skyray

Date

2005-05-11T13:28:30-06:00

ID

86851

Comment

Skyray, as you can above, we had the discussion weeks ago about what people thought he meant by his words. The truth is, the column was poorly written and/or edited, which happens, and it was hard to tell what he meant. I kept watching the Clarion-Ledger for a clarification, but there wasn't one. I don't think they ever admit a mistake over there. But, the fact, Mr. Bowen's words were his words, and we have had a mighty discussion based on them already, which I think was useful, no matter how he meant his odd statements. As for your friend from Harvardówatch out for that fallacy (of the whole?) in which one example is supposed to be representative of the whole. We've had a lot of those so far on this thread, and not a single use of that particular fallacy has been convincing, yet.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-11T13:40:27-06:00

ID

86852

Comment

>>>As for your friend from Harvardówatch out for that fallacy (of the whole?) in which one example is supposed to be representative of the whole. We've had a lot of those so far on this thread, and not a single use of that particular fallacy has been convincing, yet.<<< That's one of the major problems with the english language. I was certainly not arguing from the particular to the general, in fact, if anything, I was citing an example where the general didn't hold. If a bunch of first year law students could teach him english, and they did, then surely Havard with it tradition of pedagogy could teach him english. But they didn't. And why they didn't is what interests me.

Author

Skyray

Date

2005-05-11T14:26:50-06:00

ID

86853

Comment

I see your point, but as I've said, I don't think it's an argument for or against affirmative action. And I certainly know some graduates of Harvard Law who can't reason or communicate their way out of a paper bag, and I am very sure they could not qualify on any level for affirmative action, unless there was a Dixie quota those years. ;-) And I'm not sure that proves anything, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-11T15:24:19-06:00

ID

86854

Comment

Hee, Hee. You're cold. Isn't Bowen a Harvard educated lawyer? You wouldn't be talking about him, would you? Affirmative action is a complex subject with many iterations, and I think it deserves a thread of its own,--later. Much later. BTW, one of my classmates was Daryl Jones, first black to graduate from Miami Law cum laude, and once on the democratic short list for Secretary of the Air force. He is from Jackson, and we grew up in different Mississippis.

Author

Skyray

Date

2005-05-11T15:35:40-06:00

ID

86855

Comment

it censored "with honors" in latin. Your admin has dirty minds.

Author

Skyray

Date

2005-05-11T15:38:14-06:00

ID

86856

Comment

Tee, hee. Sorry about the Latin. I think the censor is already imbedded into the software. ;-) Actually, I didn't have Bowen in mind when I responded to your Harvard reference.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-11T16:00:01-06:00