I did. The race is might be inferred but I didn't read a racial term in there. I guess it might mean that considering the topic title. However I didn't read black or latino in there. I stated this earlier in the thread as well.
[quote] I haven't read all of Matsu's points and I honestly don't care to defend them all, but I have seen a theme through some of the rebuttals that is troubling to me.<hr></blockquote>
It is a bit obvious that he enjoys using semi-stereotypes to prove that people accusing other of prejudice to be prejudicial themselves.
Here is another quote:
[quote] Did I say that they were dumb? Some of you seem to think stupidity is genetic, or you must think that I think it to make your case for racism. I don't. I think it juvenile, but that's different. Part of the problem with these discourses is that they force us to either appear defensive or offensive. One time, in my early days of university, a professor sensing some discord, asked me do I have a problem taking orders from women? As a talking point, she asked it in front of class filled mostly with women.
What does Matsu say? "Yes, I do."
If I said no, they would point out the obvious inconsistencies with other opinions I had expressed , and I would appear defensive, dishonest. Why do that? I choose instead to give people what they want, with a twist, for the second part of my answer was not entirely expected:
"Yes, I do, but I have the same problem taking orders from men."
Confused looks.
"Why not ask me that? Do I have trouble taking orders from people?"
"Because this is a Women's Studies class." (Which, BTW, it wasn't, it was a philosophy class, but anyway...)
I reply, "If you look for sexism, you can find it whether it exists or not, you can create it. Who is more biased, I who answer your question, or you who set a snare with every question? A colleague in a discipline that sets out with sexist questions to begin with? You seem to have an interest in forcing me to answer one way or another, but what if I want to reject the question?" <hr></blockquote>
<strong>I did. The race is might be inferred but I didn't read a racial term in there. I guess it might mean that considering the topic title. However I didn't read black or latino in there. I stated this earlier in the thread as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
- He has stated that he was discussing minorities in posts after that one.
- He identifies a race (in a derogatory manner) to identify a race within the posted paragraph.
- "greasy carnale" doesn't identify race? heh
[quote]<strong>It is a bit obvious that he enjoys using semi-stereotypes to prove that people accusing other of prejudice to be prejudicial themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does one talking as if one is racist prove that anyone else is racist, especially when he is reprimanded for the words?
A pathetic plea for attention coupled with poor understanding of complex situations? Yes.
An indictment of anything other than his own foolishness? No.
[quote]<strong>In other words he is hitting your buttons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your contention is that he's a troll, not a racist.
what the heck do you mean by "minority"? Yes, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans are minorities. How about Asians? I'd like to point out, perhaps i don't have to, that asians score considerably higher on SAT tests and higher percentage of them go to college.
Who were/are the dorks/ners when you were/are in high school? who is most likely to be the over and high achievers? mostly Asians, and yes, some whites. Im not trying to suggest asians are superior or anything, but im simply saying that the title of this thread: "What holds back 'minority' academic achievement?" is flawed.
what you mean to ask is this:
what holds back dark skinned people's academic achievement? but perhaps it's not political to say "dark skin" these days.
the point about Asians and the obsurdity of the title was dealt with in my first post.
anyways.. if you were present at the screening of the documentary on the Murder of Emmet Till such a question as "why blacks..." would be easily explained, though not neccessarily justified.
Legacy enrollment is a problem for minorities. Bush was rejected by the law school of the University of Texas, but was able to get into Harvard (or was it Yale?) because of Legacy. It's going to take minorities a long to to overcome that obstacle.
"We must understand the cynicism that exists in the black community," he said. "The kind of cynicism that is created when, for example, some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but you hardly heard a whimper from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests."
<strong>Just another thought on the subject: Legacy.
Legacy enrollment is a problem for minorities. Bush was rejected by the law school of the University of Texas, but was able to get into Harvard (or was it Yale?) because of Legacy. It's going to take minorities a long to to overcome that obstacle.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder what percentage of colleges even have something like a "legacy" enrollment.
I think Powell's position is just wrong, though I have disagreed with that position for quite a while. To receive points simply for being something is a silly and shallow way of dealing with the problem.
Rice's position is a bit better though she still shows the flaw with Affirmative Action and that is how it creates a need and is self perpetuating. Rice received it and now likely believes that she might not have gotten where she were without it. As a result she will not believe it has to exist, of likely forever.
That will never create a colorblind society. The only way to create a truly race neutral society is to simply have government stop dealing with race as a catagory.
The solution that was implemented out here in California was pretty innovative and I would endorse it regardless of what side of the spectrum it came from. For the UC, and CSU system, they are admitting the top % of each high school.(I don't recall the exact percent)
I suppose there could still be issues with this. I mean you could have a high school that is 80% black, 15% white and say 5% asian and perhaps the top 5% of students might be almost exclusively asian and white.
I really don't think a government policy could solve a scenario like that though.
I wonder what percentage of colleges even have something like a "legacy" enrollment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I don't know. It might be a non-factor, but it was represented as being problematic when I heard the story.
As for Condi's statement, I thought it was pretty good too. In an AA thread I was thumping my drum about using AA until something better came along because flawed or not AA is better than nothing.
<strong>Wow, Matsu, you must be a real hit at parties.
You might want to avoid such blatant racism in future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, OK, he is a little coarse with what he originally said, and the stereotypes (there's no need for that), but he's right about the victimization. He could have made the same statement about other ethnic minorities in other eras or parts of the world, and he'd be right there too.
I was going to reply to the title of the thread, as a hoot, "The Man." Doesn't TMan know that it's The Man that's keeping us down?
Seriously, though, there's a great deal of political capital and economic gain to be had by reducing the visions and self-worth of young blacks and latinos. Plus, there's a sense of group denial that's hard to compete with. Once that group thinks that they need some leader or another to represent it to The Man, those leaders are secure for life. Ask Jesse Jackson. Ask Al Sharpton. Do they contribute anything of substance to fixing the problems of their supposed "communities"? Not anymore. But they guarantee their lifestyles and popularity by race-baiting.
There's NOTHING holding back minorities, or at least nothing that is out of their collective or individual control.
As for the back and forth about Powell and Rice's statements, I think the criticisms of these individuals show how devisive affirmative action really is. The undertext seems to be "we can't listen to them -- they benefitted from AA and therefore they will be biased or hypocrites" when really folks mean "how do we know if they're qualified for their jobs since they received AA?"
AA is wrong, no matter how you dress it up. Either you are against racial and gender discrimination, or you are not.
<strong>Just another thought on the subject: Legacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>Exactly. It's interesting how Bush doesn't come out against that.
As I understand it, these Michigan policies are NOT quotas, and yet Bush's speech used the term 'quota' to describe them. And yet when he got more specific, he talked about points for race. Well legacy status gets you points too. So is that a quota?
The whole point of Bakke was that quotas were made illegal, but an opening was left as to whether race could be considered as a plus factor. But then Bush goes on about quotas as if it isn't already settleed law. This case is going to be about whether you can give points for race solely to increase diversity.
His statement was just muddled. And I'm sure it was intentional.
Groverat seems to think that by crying racist over and over again he can make the claim true. Since I don't care to defend myself too much, I let it go because I know that the bones of American cultural production are distinctly black. But knowing that, for instance in music, or dialectic poetry, only makes the present position of black caricature all the more depressing. The voice that inspired Elliot and Pound and Presley too, has not become a whisper but a ridiculous fun house image of itself in popp culture and throughout poor communities. When a young black boy can tell you all about Tupac's life, but can't tell you anything about Langston Hughes, the community itself is doing something wrong, doubly so when white boys can't tell you. Now you'll say that there are plenty of white boys who can tell you all about Kid Rock and nothing about a number any number of dead white guys, or living ones too, and you're right, you don't need to understand the delicacies of politics or fine art to lay brick or steam fit pipe; fine, but the skin of America isn't black, just the bones. If it is an unfortunate lesson, it's a lesson all the same.
It's not legalistic at all. It is just badly reasoned. If anything his own reasoning works against Affirmative Action. He goes to great length to say that after the civil war the Constitution was amended in very specific ways to insure intended results. He breaks these results down by civil, political, and societal.
In his view the 14th amendment dealt with civil, the 15th political and the societal...well he cites some relief bills.
The third issue wasn't dealt with by using an amendment and that is why we are still dealing with it today. However it is quite a logical leap to say that when the Constitution dealt with the first two in a color-blind manner that the third was not meant to be dealt with in that regard. If anything I would say it meant that the framers could not have imagined to what degree their contemperaries were racist and to what means they would go to insure that it continued.
Interesting to note that he supports Roe v. Wade which has entire rights regarding privacy read into the constitution that don't exist. Seems he can find whatever he cares to find...
It's not legalistic at all. It is just badly reasoned. If anything his own reasoning works against Affirmative Action.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
As far as I could tell he wasn't arguing for or against. He was pointing out a logical inconsistancy in a stance taken by certain supreme court judges on the issue of AA based on their reading of the constitution (which he claims to be selective). That's why I said it was legalistic.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
The third issue wasn't dealt with by using an amendment and that is why we are still dealing with it today. However it is quite a logical leap to say that when the Constitution dealt with the first two in a color-blind manner that the third was not meant to be dealt with in that regard.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I assume you meant non-color-blind when you
wrote color-blind.
I think you have totally misread his comments. His position is best summed up in his closing.
[quote]
The fact that neither Scalia or Thomas has ever confronted the history of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in any of their opinions on race and racial equality is, to say the least, interesting, and tends to undermine confidence in the principled nature of their attachment to the concept of originalism.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Assuming I treat some guys blog as my legal reading...</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Well, assuming that he really is a law professor as he claims, then he has better qualifications in this matter than I or you do.
roe vs wade I only skimmed this but again I feel you miss the point. He is explaining why it is still around. In his opinion it is tied to the party system.
Explaining it's longevity is very different from supporting it.
[quote]<strong>There's NOTHING holding back minorities, or at least nothing that is out of their collective or individual control.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing? Nothing at all?
The significance and strength of the factors "holding back" blacks in a general sense is another matter, of course, but I think there can be little doubt that such factors exist.
Comments
<strong>
Did you even read his posts?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did. The race is might be inferred but I didn't read a racial term in there. I guess it might mean that considering the topic title. However I didn't read black or latino in there. I stated this earlier in the thread as well.
[quote] I haven't read all of Matsu's points and I honestly don't care to defend them all, but I have seen a theme through some of the rebuttals that is troubling to me.<hr></blockquote>
It is a bit obvious that he enjoys using semi-stereotypes to prove that people accusing other of prejudice to be prejudicial themselves.
Here is another quote:
[quote] Did I say that they were dumb? Some of you seem to think stupidity is genetic, or you must think that I think it to make your case for racism. I don't. I think it juvenile, but that's different. Part of the problem with these discourses is that they force us to either appear defensive or offensive. One time, in my early days of university, a professor sensing some discord, asked me do I have a problem taking orders from women? As a talking point, she asked it in front of class filled mostly with women.
What does Matsu say? "Yes, I do."
If I said no, they would point out the obvious inconsistencies with other opinions I had expressed , and I would appear defensive, dishonest. Why do that? I choose instead to give people what they want, with a twist, for the second part of my answer was not entirely expected:
"Yes, I do, but I have the same problem taking orders from men."
Confused looks.
"Why not ask me that? Do I have trouble taking orders from people?"
"Because this is a Women's Studies class." (Which, BTW, it wasn't, it was a philosophy class, but anyway...)
I reply, "If you look for sexism, you can find it whether it exists or not, you can create it. Who is more biased, I who answer your question, or you who set a snare with every question? A colleague in a discipline that sets out with sexist questions to begin with? You seem to have an interest in forcing me to answer one way or another, but what if I want to reject the question?" <hr></blockquote>
In otherwords he is hitting your buttons.
Nick
<strong>
If my culture didn't value education...</strong><hr></blockquote>
BOOM!
<strong>I did. The race is might be inferred but I didn't read a racial term in there. I guess it might mean that considering the topic title. However I didn't read black or latino in there. I stated this earlier in the thread as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
- He has stated that he was discussing minorities in posts after that one.
- He identifies a race (in a derogatory manner) to identify a race within the posted paragraph.
- "greasy carnale" doesn't identify race? heh
[quote]<strong>It is a bit obvious that he enjoys using semi-stereotypes to prove that people accusing other of prejudice to be prejudicial themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does one talking as if one is racist prove that anyone else is racist, especially when he is reprimanded for the words?
A pathetic plea for attention coupled with poor understanding of complex situations? Yes.
An indictment of anything other than his own foolishness? No.
[quote]<strong>In other words he is hitting your buttons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your contention is that he's a troll, not a racist.
I'll say it's a mix of both.
what holds back minority academic achievement?
what the heck do you mean by "minority"? Yes, Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans are minorities. How about Asians? I'd like to point out, perhaps i don't have to, that asians score considerably higher on SAT tests and higher percentage of them go to college.
Who were/are the dorks/ners when you were/are in high school? who is most likely to be the over and high achievers? mostly Asians, and yes, some whites. Im not trying to suggest asians are superior or anything, but im simply saying that the title of this thread: "What holds back 'minority' academic achievement?" is flawed.
what you mean to ask is this:
what holds back dark skinned people's academic achievement? but perhaps it's not political to say "dark skin" these days.
how bout this: black people have black skin.
I'm a racist
[ 01-09-2003: Message edited by: Wagnerite ]</p>
anyways.. if you were present at the screening of the documentary on the Murder of Emmet Till such a question as "why blacks..." would be easily explained, though not neccessarily justified.
note self: gotta read *all* the rebuttles before posting
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=573&e=7&u=/nm/20030115/od_nm/words_dc"; target="_blank">This</a> = good?
Legacy enrollment is a problem for minorities. Bush was rejected by the law school of the University of Texas, but was able to get into Harvard (or was it Yale?) because of Legacy. It's going to take minorities a long to to overcome that obstacle.
[quote]
"We must understand the cynicism that exists in the black community," he said. "The kind of cynicism that is created when, for example, some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but you hardly heard a whimper from them over affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax codes with preferences for special interests."
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Just another thought on the subject: Legacy.
Legacy enrollment is a problem for minorities. Bush was rejected by the law school of the University of Texas, but was able to get into Harvard (or was it Yale?) because of Legacy. It's going to take minorities a long to to overcome that obstacle.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wonder what percentage of colleges even have something like a "legacy" enrollment.
Nick
Rice's position is a bit better though she still shows the flaw with Affirmative Action and that is how it creates a need and is self perpetuating. Rice received it and now likely believes that she might not have gotten where she were without it. As a result she will not believe it has to exist, of likely forever.
That will never create a colorblind society. The only way to create a truly race neutral society is to simply have government stop dealing with race as a catagory.
The solution that was implemented out here in California was pretty innovative and I would endorse it regardless of what side of the spectrum it came from. For the UC, and CSU system, they are admitting the top % of each high school.(I don't recall the exact percent)
I suppose there could still be issues with this. I mean you could have a high school that is 80% black, 15% white and say 5% asian and perhaps the top 5% of students might be almost exclusively asian and white.
I really don't think a government policy could solve a scenario like that though.
Nick
<strong>
I wonder what percentage of colleges even have something like a "legacy" enrollment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I don't know. It might be a non-factor, but it was represented as being problematic when I heard the story.
As for Condi's statement, I thought it was pretty good too. In an AA thread I was thumping my drum about using AA until something better came along because flawed or not AA is better than nothing.
<strong>Wow, Matsu, you must be a real hit at parties.
You might want to avoid such blatant racism in future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, OK, he is a little coarse with what he originally said, and the stereotypes (there's no need for that), but he's right about the victimization. He could have made the same statement about other ethnic minorities in other eras or parts of the world, and he'd be right there too.
I was going to reply to the title of the thread, as a hoot, "The Man." Doesn't TMan know that it's The Man that's keeping us down?
Seriously, though, there's a great deal of political capital and economic gain to be had by reducing the visions and self-worth of young blacks and latinos. Plus, there's a sense of group denial that's hard to compete with. Once that group thinks that they need some leader or another to represent it to The Man, those leaders are secure for life. Ask Jesse Jackson. Ask Al Sharpton. Do they contribute anything of substance to fixing the problems of their supposed "communities"? Not anymore. But they guarantee their lifestyles and popularity by race-baiting.
There's NOTHING holding back minorities, or at least nothing that is out of their collective or individual control.
As for the back and forth about Powell and Rice's statements, I think the criticisms of these individuals show how devisive affirmative action really is. The undertext seems to be "we can't listen to them -- they benefitted from AA and therefore they will be biased or hypocrites" when really folks mean "how do we know if they're qualified for their jobs since they received AA?"
AA is wrong, no matter how you dress it up. Either you are against racial and gender discrimination, or you are not.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
<strong>Just another thought on the subject: Legacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>Exactly. It's interesting how Bush doesn't come out against that.
As I understand it, these Michigan policies are NOT quotas, and yet Bush's speech used the term 'quota' to describe them. And yet when he got more specific, he talked about points for race. Well legacy status gets you points too. So is that a quota?
The whole point of Bakke was that quotas were made illegal, but an opening was left as to whether race could be considered as a plus factor. But then Bush goes on about quotas as if it isn't already settleed law. This case is going to be about whether you can give points for race solely to increase diversity.
His statement was just muddled. And I'm sure it was intentional.
<a href="http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_balkin_archive.html#87709052"; target="_blank">http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_balkin_archive.html#87709052</a>;
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>I found this short article, it talks about the constitution, the supreme court and 'color-blindness'. Quite legalistic but still interesting:
<a href="http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_balkin_archive.html#87709052"; target="_blank">http://www.balkin.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_balkin_archive.html#87709052</a>;
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not legalistic at all. It is just badly reasoned. If anything his own reasoning works against Affirmative Action. He goes to great length to say that after the civil war the Constitution was amended in very specific ways to insure intended results. He breaks these results down by civil, political, and societal.
In his view the 14th amendment dealt with civil, the 15th political and the societal...well he cites some relief bills.
The third issue wasn't dealt with by using an amendment and that is why we are still dealing with it today. However it is quite a logical leap to say that when the Constitution dealt with the first two in a color-blind manner that the third was not meant to be dealt with in that regard. If anything I would say it meant that the framers could not have imagined to what degree their contemperaries were racist and to what means they would go to insure that it continued.
Interesting to note that he supports Roe v. Wade which has entire rights regarding privacy read into the constitution that don't exist. Seems he can find whatever he cares to find...
Nick
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
It's not legalistic at all. It is just badly reasoned. If anything his own reasoning works against Affirmative Action.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
As far as I could tell he wasn't arguing for or against. He was pointing out a logical inconsistancy in a stance taken by certain supreme court judges on the issue of AA based on their reading of the constitution (which he claims to be selective). That's why I said it was legalistic.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
The third issue wasn't dealt with by using an amendment and that is why we are still dealing with it today. However it is quite a logical leap to say that when the Constitution dealt with the first two in a color-blind manner that the third was not meant to be dealt with in that regard.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I assume you meant non-color-blind when you
wrote color-blind.
I think you have totally misread his comments. His position is best summed up in his closing.
[quote]
The fact that neither Scalia or Thomas has ever confronted the history of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in any of their opinions on race and racial equality is, to say the least, interesting, and tends to undermine confidence in the principled nature of their attachment to the concept of originalism.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Assuming I treat some guys blog as my legal reading...</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Well, assuming that he really is a law professor as he claims, then he has better qualifications in this matter than I or you do.
roe vs wade I only skimmed this but again I feel you miss the point. He is explaining why it is still around. In his opinion it is tied to the party system.
Explaining it's longevity is very different from supporting it.
Nothing? Nothing at all?
The significance and strength of the factors "holding back" blacks in a general sense is another matter, of course, but I think there can be little doubt that such factors exist.