Skip to main content

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Why Grutter Was Correctly Decided


** It is funny how house Negroes will still fight against AA...while remaining silent on schools like texas a&m where the incoming class is 82% white, they refuse to even consider race in admissions....while the young republicans and frats give jiggaboo and jungle parties and pimp/hoe parties while dressed in black face....personally i hate uncle tom blacks more than anybosy.....and the slaves should have killed them all when they stopped revolts or runaways to freedom by aiding the oppressive white slave owner....it would have served as a lesson to the modern day rag-head bootlickers......

by Cass R. Sunstein

Editor's Note: A major constitutional scholar contends that conservatives on the Court failed to see that affirmative action in higher education is an important and constitutionally protected institutional liberty.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan Law School. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court struck down the undergraduate affirmative action program at the same university.

I believe that Grutter was correctly decided and that Gratz was a big mistake. The reason has everything to do with the importance of judicial restraint "” an idea that should have special power in the context of educational policy, which ought to be set by educators, not judges. Affirmative action may or may not be a good idea, but the Constitution does not forbid it. Federal judges should allow educational institutions, subject as they are to political constraints, to reject or embrace affirmative action as they see fit. It is ironic indeed that conservatives, who have been rightly skeptical of judicial activism, now embrace an extreme form of judicial activism in their attack on affirmative action.

To understand my position, we need to back up a bit. In higher education, the basic constitutional framework was established in the famous Bakke case, decided in 1978. The Court's ruling was set out by Justice Lewis Powell, who broke a tie between four justices who wanted to require color-blindness and four justices who would have permitted colleges and universities a great deal of room to maneuver in their affirmative action programs. Justice Powell acknowledged that racial diversity was a legitimate and even compelling interest for schools of higher education to pursue. He pointed to the need for courts to respect reasonable choices by educators. But he insisted that diversity could, and must, be achieved through methods that were flexible and that avoided racial rigidity. In his view, a quota system was constitutionally unacceptable. On the other hand, a university could consider race "as a factor" alongside other factors. Hence colleges and universities could give a boost to African-American candidates "” so long as every applicant received individual consideration.

For decades, then, the law was reasonably clear. Quota systems would be struck down, but colleges and universities could consider race as a plus. The hard questions arose only when a program did not clearly fall within one of Justice Powell's two categories.

In the last decade and more, however, the Supreme Court has been increasingly skeptical of affirmative action programs, and it has struck down a number of those programs. There are many ironies here, especially because the attack on affirmative action has been led by those ordinarily characterized as conservatives. The two leading conservatives on the Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, claim to be committed to "originalism" as a method of constitutional interpretation. For originalists, the meaning of the Constitution is settled by asking what the document meant when it was originally ratified. And to their credit, Justices Scalia and Thomas do usually practice the method that they preach. But in the context of affirmative action, originalism apparently goes down the drain. A great deal of historical work suggests that affirmative action was accepted by those who ratified the equal protection clause. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress engaged in numerous race-conscious efforts, singling out African Americans for special help. Perhaps the historical work is mistaken; but Justices Scalia and Thomas have not even bothered to investigate it.

In any case many members of the current Court claim to be committed to judicial restraint. Those who believe in judicial restraint are reluctant to disturb the practices of state and local authorities unless the Constitution clearly requires them to do so. But in the context of affirmative action, the Court has shown little reluctance to forbid states and localities from doing what they would like to do. In the context of affirmative action, restraint, along with originalism, has been abandoned. (Note that the Constitution does not apply to the acts of private universities, which are governed by civil rights laws instead; the Constitution is applicable only to public institutions and public universities.)

Thus the stage was set for Grutter and Gratz, the Court's first real encounter with affirmative action in higher education since Bakke. Essentially the Court reaffirmed the line drawn by Justice Powell: flexible affirmative action programs are permissible, but rigid ones are not. In Grutter, the Court upheld the law school's program, concluding that it was sufficiently flexible. The University of Michigan Law School used race as a "plus," but its program was "narrowly tailored," in the sense that the law school imposed no quota, reserved no places, and instead ensured individualized consideration of every applicant. Writing for the Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that "a university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity the defining feature of his application." The law school had no mechanical or predetermined system of diversity "bonuses," and it considered a wide range of qualities and experiences in addition to race. For these reasons, its program was acceptable. True, the law school sought to obtain a "critical mass" of African Americans, but it pursued this goal without compromising its commitment to give individualized consideration to every applicant.

The principal dissenting opinion in Grutter came from Justice Clarence Thomas. His opinion was exceptionally eloquent, not least because of its insistence on the moral importance of considering people's merits, not their skin color. But Justice Thomas' eloquent words would be far more convincing from a politician than from a judge who is committed to originalism and judicial restraint. Justice Thomas stresses the views of only one historical figure: Frederick Douglass. Of course Douglass was a great man, and his views are entitled to great respect. But to say the least, Douglass was not an author of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; and for an originalist, as Justice Thomas purports to be, Frederick Douglass should have little authority.

Things are worse still. In his Grutter dissent, Justice Thomas calls for an extraordinary exercise in judicial activism "” simply because his color-blindness principle would invalidate the voluntary practices of countless educational institutions in numerous states and localities. Worst of all, Justice Thomas does not defend his color-blindness principle by reference to history, even though a great deal of historical scholarship suggests that the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not mean to condemn efforts to assist African Americans as such. Justice Thomas and his fellow dissenters are certainly entitled to say that affirmative action is bad policy. But they should not read their own views into the Constitution. The Court's majority was correct, in Grutter, to allow the law school to continue with its program.

In Gratz, the Court said that the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan was invalid because it was too inflexible. Under that program, applicants were given specified "points" toward admission. A student with 100-150 points would definitely be admitted; those with 75-99 remained in contention. Points could be awarded based on standardized test scores, high school grades, alumni relationship, personal essay, strength of high school, and more. An applicant who came from an underrepresented minority group would be awarded 20 points toward admission. Nonminority students would receive 20 points for athletic ability, socioeconomic disadvantage, or attendance at a socioeconomically disadvantaged high school. Applicants would also receive 10 points for being residents of Michigan, 5 for leadership and service, 5 for artistic talent, and so on.

The Court's majority objected that this point system failed to provide individualized consideration to each applicant. Whether or not the system was a quota, the Court complained, it "automatically distributes 20 points to every single applicant from" a minority group. In the Court's view, this automatic distribution of points has the effect of making the factor of race a decisive one "for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant." The University of Michigan contended that because of the sheer volume of applications, individualized consideration of each applicant would be impractical. To this the Court responded dismissively: "The fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system."

I believe that the outcome in Gratz is most unfortunate. The initial problem is that in principle the program upheld in Grutter is no more objectionable than the one in Gratz. The major distinction is that the undergraduate system used numbers, rather than a system of individual discretion. But this should not make a constitutional difference. In trying to get minority students, the law school was probably as aggressive as the undergraduate program was. The law school avoided numbers, to be sure; but its admissions officers used the practical equivalent of numbers in exercising their discretion to ensure that enough minority students were able to attend its law school. The Supreme Court found it crucial that the law school did not make explicit the weight that it gave to minority applicants, whereas the undergraduate program did so. But what's wrong with explicitness? Why does the Constitution require admissions offices to hide the ball?

Perhaps the Court thought that the law school gave less weight to race than the undergraduate school did "” that the law school gave the equivalent of 5 points rather than 20. But there is no evidence that this is true, and in any case the Court seems to be objecting to any system of points as such. What the Court is therefore requiring is a more costly system of individual discretion in which race does count as a factor, but in which the university is not permitted to be candid, even to itself, about how much of a factor it is. Nothing in the Constitution justifies this peculiar rule.

But the problem goes much deeper. Academic institutions have strong claims to self-rule "” to be free from close judicial oversight, at least where the Constitution is not clear. Indeed, the protection of academic institutions is connected with the free speech principle itself (and federal courts have on occasion stressed the connection). On the issue of racial preferences in higher education, hundreds of American universities have engaged in affirmative action as part of their traditional right to determine what they will teach, whom they will admit for instruction, and what kind of classroom suits pedagogical and social needs. Racial preferences in higher education are not a new experiment. The nation's colleges and universities have been doing this for three decades. In this respect, the University of Michigan cases are very different from the other cases where the courts have banned racial preferences "” say, considering race in allocation of public contracts.

Universities legitimately seek diversity of many different kinds. They have many different ways of attempting to produce diversity. Some go the path of the University of Michigan Law School; others try the undergraduate program's approach; other routes are available. In our federal system, one that is committed to decentralization, different approaches are entirely permissible. Now of course the Constitution forbids some imaginable approaches by educational institutions. It would not be constitutionally acceptable to put a ceiling on the number of Catholics, or to refuse to admit Hispanics or African Americans, or to say that a school may not have more than 10 percent Asians. But all of these principles come from the unmistakable meaning of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The principle of color-blindness is not part of that unmistakable meaning. On the contrary, it is a distortion of it, using a provision that was meant to eliminate the social subordination of African Americans and converting it into a weapon by which to combat reasonable efforts to undo that subordination.

Let me conclude with two cautionary notes. First, Gratz was incorrect, but it is not a disaster. Because of Grutter, colleges and universities can do a great deal to ensure that they are not all white. So long as admissions offices allow individualized consideration and avoid rigidity, they can take steps to promote a diverse educational setting. Second, my objections to Gratz are not meant to express approval of any or all steps that go by the name of "affirmative action." Americans reasonably disagree about that topic "” about the sense and legitimacy of race-conscious efforts to assist members of traditionally disadvantaged groups. In many settings, including many educational settings, color-blindness is the most appealing principle. In principle, I think that Justice Thomas' arguments have considerable force.

What I am urging here is that these difficult questions should not be decided by federal judges. The nation has long been in the midst of an intense dispute about affirmative action programs. Sensible people have different perspectives. Sensible educational institutions have different practices. The Court should be faulted for its ruling in Gratz "” for its aggressiveness in using the Constitution to forbid a reasonable approach by one of the nation's great universities. The Court should be praised for its restraint in Grutter "” for its willingness to allow the nation's colleges and universities to take steps, if they choose, to ensure that the nation's classrooms are not all white.


Cass R. S
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A little racist history in academia......for the unknowing ignorant, white-defender blacks......

The Leading Academic Racists of the Twentieth Century

Editor's Note: The twentieth century produced a bounty of academic racists who openly declared the biological inferiority of black people. Many of them were generously funded by Wickliffe Draper's Pioneer Fund.

by William H. Tucker

Unfortunately, the term "racist" is invoked all too frequently and much too imprecisely, regularly applied to persons whose only offense is to have taken a position believed to be disadvantageous to what are perceived as blacks' interests. Like curse words, which have become so common in contemporary society that we have lost the power to shock, calling someone a racist loses the power to generate moral outrage if it becomes the preferred descriptor for every opponent of affirmative action. Over-usage has also produced the strange situation in which both sides in some controversies "” such as the debate over Proposition 209 in California "” call their opponents racist.

In his recent book, Racism: A Short History, historian George M. Fredrickson proposes the definition that I find most compelling. He maintains that there are two components to racism, both of which must be present for the term to be warranted: difference and power. First is the belief that there are, in some personal characteristics, innate differences between races that are permanent and unbridgeable, defining a racial essence beyond the visible, physical traits on which informal classifications are based. Although such a view essentializes differences, by itself it does not constitute racism. Rather it is what Kwame Anthony Appiah refers to as racialism, and although Appiah finds it a false doctrine, he concludes "” correctly, I believe "” that racialism is "a cognitive rather than a moral problem"; people can be wrong without being racist. It is only when these essentialist racial categories become the basis for social and political structures in which one group dominates or excludes another, argues Fredrickson, that racialism progresses to racism. The use of differences, perceived as hereditary and hence immutable, to justify racial hierarchy is thus the core of racism.

In a particularly remarkable insight, Fredrickson observes that the development of egalitarian norms was a precondition for the emergence of the phenomenon of racism. In societies committed to revolutionary notions of freedom and human rights, some sort of rationalization became necessary to deny to specific individuals entitlements otherwise proclaimed to be universal. The most common strategy for accomplishing this paradoxical result has been to justify the exclusion of certain persons on the basis of some unalterable deficiency in their nature.

Numerous academics have played an important role in this process during the last century, not only proclaiming the existence of racial differences in intellectual ability "” and sometimes in other traits as well "” but also providing the intellectual authority for the claim that, as a consequence of these differences, official measures to dominate blacks or to exclude them from the society or polity were both rational and necessary. It is the most notable members of this group "” the academic racists "” that I wish to describe briefly. Although I shall concentrate on their pronouncements about blacks, it is unsurprising that many of them expressed similarly objectionable views about Jews, a reminder that racism and anti-Semitism are frequent traveling companions.

Leadership of the Pioneer Fund

Although all the other persons discussed here are scientists, indisputably the most important academic racists in the twentieth century have been the leaders of the Pioneer Fund, in particular Wickliffe Preston Draper, the organization's founder, and Harry Weyher, its president from 1958 until his death in 2002. Scion of a wealthy manufacturing family, the multimillionaire Draper was not himself a scholar "” indeed, except for a brief period of service as a high-ranking army officer, he never held a job or had an occupation of any kind, devoting much of his life to travel, hunting, and other outdoor activities. Nevertheless, he became the most important source of financial support for academic racists, both through direct contributions from his own pocket and through grants from the fund that he created and to which he left much of his fortune after his death in 1972.

During Draper's life most of his support for racists was kept secret and has been revealed only recently. In the 1930s he provided the resources for an attempt by Klansman Ernest Sevier Cox, founder of the White America Society, to pass legislation that would repatriate all blacks to Africa. In the 1960s Draper supplied the funds for numerous segregationist initiatives in opposition to the civil rights movement, including 85 percent of the money for what the Washington Post called the "best-financed lobby" up to that time "” an official Mississippi organization created solely to discredit and defeat the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While Draper was the deep pocket behind these activities, their operation was often supervised and coordinated by Weyher, his attorney and president of his fund, who surreptitiously disbursed checks "” gifts as well as grants "” to scientists opposed to racial equality and intent on convincing the public that blacks were genetically less intelligent than whites.

With two exceptions, the persons described below all benefited from Draper's or Pioneer's generosity, which, in one form or another, has supported almost every scientific racist in the second half of the twentieth century.

"¢ William McDougall: Born and educated in England, where he became a fellow of the Royal Society, McDougall came to the United States in 1920 to become professor of psychology and chair of the department at Harvard, spending the next eight years there before accepting a professorship at Duke for the last decade of his life. Probably the most important social psychologist of his day and the primary exponent of the instinct school, McDougall maintained not only that blacks were intellectually inferior but that they were instinctively "submissive," making it quite appropriate for them to be dominated by the bolder and more enterprising whites. The racial discrimination and rigid segregation then in force in the South was thus merely a manifestation of racial instincts, and Mc-Dougall had nothing but praise for the Ku Klux Klan and other "sensible" white southerners who refused to cooperate with the few meager federal attempts to grant blacks greater rights.

In fact, McDougall believed more radical measures were necessary to protect whites from the biological threat posed by the presence of blacks. Half a century before South Africa instituted apartheid, he recommended that blacks be confined to a separate territory where they would have no contact with whites whatsoever. McDougall also proposed an ethical system consistent with his scientific conclusions. He argued that members of other races did not merit the same degree of humane treatment or moral consideration that whites rightly reserved for their own kind.

"¢ Charles Benedict Davenport: A Harvard-educated geneticist, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and director of the Eugenics Record Office for three decades beginning in 1910, Davenport was widely recognized as the most important single figure in the eugenics movement during the first third of the century. Believing that Anglo-Saxon world dominance was the fitting result of its genetic superiority, Davenport was obsessed with the threat to racial purity caused by "mongrelization" "” the interbreeding of Anglo-Saxons with southern and eastern European immigrants as well as with blacks. His widely cited work explained that the children of such mixtures would suffer from genetic disharmonies caused by the inheritance of conflicting traits from their different racial backgrounds. The most serious of these disharmonic mixtures, he noted, occurred in the mulatto, who inherited an ambition to achieve from the white parent but intellectual inadequacy from the black, making the unhappy hybrid bitterly dissatisfied with his own lot in life and a nuisance to others.

Supported by one of the first financial contributions from Wickliffe Draper, who shared Davenport's concern over race mixture, the geneticist supervised a famous study in Jamaica designed to determine whether blacks in general and "hybrids" in particular possessed the capacity to carry on a "white man's civilization," although there was little doubt that he had decided on the conclusion before any data had been gathered. Like many of the pre-war academic racists, Davenport also admired the racial policies of the Third Reich, which was similarly concerned about the dangers of race mixture.

"¢ Harry Hamilton Laughlin: Trained in animal and plant biology, Laughlin was second in command to Davenport at the Eugenics Record Office, where he became the movement's most energetic public lobbyist, instrumental in its two major legislative accomplishments. He testified as an expert witness before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, influencing the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act, and crafted the model involuntary sterilization law eventually adopted by 30 states and the Third Reich. Also obsessed with hybridization, Laughlin was particularly interested in aiding the enforcement of southern "race integrity laws" by developing techniques to detect light-skinned persons who were passing for white.

More than any of the other pre-war scientific racists, Laughlin was enamored of the Reich, praising a regime that did not hesitate to translate science into policy as a model that the United States should emulate, and reprinting speeches of high-ranking Nazi officials in a journal he edited; his personal papers contained lengthy handwritten lists of "Jew traits," containing almost every known anti-Semitic stereotype. When Ernest Sevier Cox proposed the repatriation of all blacks to Africa, Laughlin called him a greater "savior" of his country than George Washington for offering the only real solution to "the worst thing that ever happened to the United States": the presence of blacks. Indeed, archival correspondence suggests that Laughlin was instrumental in first bringing Cox together with Wickliffe Draper, the source of financial support for his repatriation campaign.

When Draper created the Pioneer Fund in 1937, he selected Laughlin to be its first president, an appointment the biologist saw as an opportunity to promote conservation of the nation's best racial stock and prevent increase of the undesirable and unassimilable races. To the man who considered Cox a hero and looked to the Reich for inspiration there was little doubt who would fall into the latter categories.

"¢ Raymond B. Cattell: Probably the most prominent of the academic racists, Cattell was a distinguished researcher, named sixteenth in an American Psychological Association survey of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, and particularly well known for his contributions to personality theory and statistical methodology. The author of some 55 books and more than 500 articles in a scholarly career that lasted for 70 years until his death in 1998, he was selected in 1997 to receive the prestigious American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement. At the last moment, however, the honor was withheld pending the report from an APA committee formed to investigate accusations of racism in his work, and an ailing Cattell removed his name from consideration, leading to outraged charges from his sympathizers of political correctness run amok.

Whatever one may think of allowing sociopolitical factors to influence scientific awards, there is no doubt that, throughout his life, Cattell encouraged adoption of a system of scientifically derived, racist ethics, of which most other psychologists were unaware. Beginning in the 1930s he argued that, through such peaceful measures as sterilization and confinement in reservations, the more intelligent races had an obligation to eliminate the "backward" races. Blacks, in particular, he cited as a group that, for all their endearing qualities of humor and religiosity, had made no contribution to progress and should be subjected to euthanasia. Although his later writings were phased with less candor, he continued to emphasize the necessity for the lower races to give way to their betters and the importance of rigid segregation to ensure that racial categories did not become blurred. With Cattell's cooperation, his work became the intellectual justification for Far Right activists who support a racial balkanization of the United States.

"¢ Henry E. Garrett: Chair of the psychology department at Columbia University for many years, Garrett held a number of prominent positions in his field during the 1940s: fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, editor of the American Psychology Series, and president at various times of the American Psychological Association, the Eastern Psychological Association, and the Psychometric Society.

After the Brown decision overturned segregated schools, however, Garrett returned to his home state of Virginia, where, lavishly financed by Draper, he led the scientific attack on the civil rights movement, calling blacks "savages" who resembled a white European after frontal lobotomy. A tireless polemicist for segregation, in addition to journal articles Garrett churned out a series of pamphlets that were distributed unsolicited to hundreds of thousands of teachers and residents in northern suburban school districts. One pamphlet was titled "Breeding Down"; another included photographs of a smiling white schoolgirl with a group of cheerful black playmates captioned, "Will YOUR child be exposed to THIS?" Garrett also testified as one of the segregationists' expert witnesses in two court cases financed by Draper "” Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Board of Education in Georgia and Evers v. Mize in Jackson, Mississippi "” both of which attempted to overturn Brown on the basis of scientific evidence of blacks' intellectual inferiority. When the efforts to prevent school integration failed, Garrett recommended that blacks in "white schools" be treated so badly that they voluntarily withdraw.

When Draper died, Harry Weyher selected Garrett to be his replacement on the five-member Pioneer board.

"¢ R. Travis Osborne: Probably the least well known in this group, Osborne has been a professor in the University of Georgia's department of psychology since just after World War II, though he now has emeritus status. Another scientist funded by Draper, Osborne too was a witness in the legal attem
yeah sunnubian....and the funny(sad) thing about house negroes is how they will rail on their own...but if a klan member raped their mamas....they would say she seduced them......I have tons of social research that outlines the true racial landscape here in america.....and shows on a daily basis the level of racism and discrimination in every sector of society....


Now imagine if their thinking is that peverse in academia, where intelligence is supposed to rule.....imagine their mindsets in politics...and in the everyday laymen's world...

I do not understand where self-subjugating blacks get the notion that white people love them or even intend to play fair with them.....but thats okay....i'll keep posting what is really going on....and watch them remain silent.....because they dare not speak out against massa.......
Are any of these old racists on admissions boards? If so, where are they?

And Kevin, you continually use the "82% white" figure for Texas A&M without any mention of test scores and number of applicants. I take it you wouldn't like to look any deeper into the issue?

I'd think that maybe, just maybe, information on the criteria for entering the school, such as applying, test scores and GPA, would be important to draw an accurate conclusion from the statistic you gave.
Oh yeah toussaint.....if you really believe that the highest scoring black kid is below the lowest scoring white kid, then you have really got it confused...i am from Texas.......A&M has always been a racist school since its inception.....look at the social atmosphere....jungle-bunny parties in black face, young republicans holding insulting AA bake sales....I did my undergrad at PVA&M...the black counterpart school.......that had to fight for its share of the state funding so its campus could have the same facilities and not be dilapidated.....once PV really took off and the students like me and my homies started getting PHD's at a high azz rate....then they cancelled the state fund after being forced to share it and make back payments for 100's of years of discrimination...and by the way PV now has accreditations that A&M doesn't....and the nursing school students passed the state board exams at 100% for a decade or so.....and PHD programs in engineering and the sciences were started.....guess what? Now that PV is not relegated to poverty... TA&M tried to dissolve it in order to lower the graduation rates.....PV alone has over 1200 Engrs and sciene grads working at johnson Space Center in Houston...maybe you need to read more and get involved in the black political scene to see what is REALLY going on....as a person who went to integrated public schools where blacks performed as well as whites, black colleges where blacks excelled and entered grad school at high rates, and integrated grad and post grad schools where blacks excelled and came out on TOP of the class. So all of this about test scores i really do not believe because there are millions of illiterate whites in the south and ozarks who DO NOT even send their kids to school because they would have to attend with blacks.....go research it yourself.....so always coming at me from the premise of blacks being underacheivers does not register....i come from a part of the country where blacks do as well as anyone else academically.....and have strong black institutions of higher learning to prove it........so i am through talking to you blacks who always find fault with the majority black position on issues....but gives whites a pass on all the racist shit they do....and never attack them with the same effort you attack blacks.....and we are not even in the position to do the racist evil shit they have done to us historically and to this day still do in a more covert way.....I focus my efforts on blacks who understand reality and want to work hard and succeed DESPITE racism....and not because racism has gone away or does not exist........your views are pro-white across the board...and will remain that way...so there is no sense in me spinning my wheels anymore.....i'll just post research that outlines and quantifies the black reality in america.............
why? when the brunt of the case was to call out black students......the white students were never even mentioned.......so they really should not be defended...or not discussed as much as the black students were....i wonder what inside of a black person's head will make him rail on the black students but totally ignore YT when they do the same thing? Not only do that not give equal criticism...they try to even deflect conversation away from the similarities that somehow was only focused on blacks.....all I have to say is one word:
PLAN-TAT-TION!!!!!!!
the term "racist" is invoked all too frequently and much too imprecisely, regularly applied to persons whose only offense is to have taken a position believed to be disadvantageous to what are perceived as blacks' interests.

In effect, the term has been 'overplayed', as has the issue itself. The only thing disputed in the michigan case was the issue of using 'quotas'. Affirm action is still used at U of M. All this hubbub is over nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
why? when the brunt of the case was to call out black students......the white students were never even mentioned.......so they really should not be defended...or not discussed as much as the black students were....i wonder what inside of a black person's head will make him rail on the black students but totally ignore YT when they do the same thing? Not only do that not give equal criticism...they try to even deflect conversation away from the similarities that somehow was only focused on blacks.....all I have to say is one word:
PLAN-TAT-TION!!!!!!!


I think this pretty much proves that you will offer up a knee-jerk response opposed to everything I say, regardless of what it is I am saying.

All I said was that white people who got in with lower scores on tests etc. needs to be taken into account in the case. Are you disagreeing with this?
why is it knee jerk and not a empirical observation of the behaviors some of you exhibit...you could archive the posts of some of you and it would consistently espouse white, right-wing soundbites and nothing at all that is pro-black in particular....but that is not my problem,......at all.....because one can be highly successful without tommism.....it is just much more work to walk around defending the black position on issues and not allowing yourself to be punished for it.......because once one expands his knowledge base beyond that of the average black tom or acist white..then they are just a novelty..and nothing you never have to worry about competing against.......and that is real kool.........
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
why is it knee jerk and not a empirical observation of the behaviors some of you exhibit...you could archive the posts of some of you and it would consistently espouse white, right-wing soundbites and nothing at all that is pro-black in particular


I espouse liberty. Liberty is pro-everyone... save, of course, those who are enemies of liberty.
I am still waiting to hear all of the complaints and reason why white women who scored lower on an exam, etc., and were still accepted or hired is wrong, and the same for all the other minorities in America.

I am still waiting to hear why is it never complained of how many white women and other minorities benefitted from Affirmative Action and how unfair it is and how much reverse discrimination it is to accept or hire white women and other minorities that score less on an exam, etc.

I am still waiting to hear why it is that everyone that wants to present an apposing argument against Affirmative action continually present Affirmative Actions as a government program, or law that was enacted exclusively for African Americans.

If you do not include white women and all other minorities in your examples, and agruments, then you have not argument other than a racist or a racist induced attempt to dismantle a program that benefits African Americans.

Sometimes I wish that it will be dismantled so that all of the house niggers, white women and other minorities will see how fast they find out that the racist right were just playing on their inner prejudices and ignorance in order to dictate in a world that automatically places the white male (especially the wealthy white male) first and absolutely in charge.

If affirmative action is dismantled, white women and other minorities as well as African Americans will see themselves losing job, position, promotions, and opportunities so fast that it will make their heads swim.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×