See also:
Obama retakes web traffic lead from Ron Paul
Paul still leads Clinton, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani and McCain - Mainstream media fails to report
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_retakes_web_traffic_lead_from_Ron_Paul/blog

Although affirmative action policy is directed towards race, I'd submit that as "Legacies," Sen. Obama's children would (in all likelihood) gain admission to Harvard, anyways. I'm not convinced that the children of prominent alum are in need of race based affirmative action to gain admission to their parent’s alma mater, especially when there is presumed entitlement of admission as a "Legacy" admit. However, I am certain, that an "AA" seat in a Harvard freshman class would most benefit an African-American scholar from a lower rung of privilege.

What follows is a link to "The New Yorker" which published an article in October 2005 that chronicles the admissions practices of three Ivy's (primarily Harvard) during the 20th century.

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html

However, given the admissions landscape of Ivy League institutions, what would make for an interesting study, would be the rate of non-admission of African-American (Ivy League) "Legacies," whom possess comparable admissions characteristics to their Caucasian counter-parts.

As it always has been, racism is something that is inside one's mind enacting them to treat a person a certain way and to make judgements based on skin color; therefore, a Black millionaire's child can be just as PRE-judiced against as a poor Black child in the classroom.

More so today than 10 years ago, overt racism seems to be growing and there is a resentment towards wealthy Blacks as well as poor Blacks.

Racism is racism and a racist society is a racist society, period. Therefore Affirmative Action needs to stay in place as long as there are severe racial disparities that exist.

Tests to get into college are geared towards a white mind with interests that encompass, basically, White people's realm of interest. Test need to be changed to be more inclusive of what other-than-whites are interested in.

Take Jeopardy for example, the categories are basically about European history and people. Well, I'm Black and I know Black history and there aren't that many questions that are well-rounded to include information that is not of interest to White people. The same goes for these tests.

Keep Affirmative Action until we don't need it anymore and right now with 50 percent of Black students not graduating from even high school, we need all the help we can get.

All students still need to compete in their studies, no entitlements there. In order to compete in a good college, one needs to be pretty-much obsessed with studying.

The achievement gap is based on two things the quality of the elementary and secondary school attended and the quality of test preparation. Kaplan and Princeton Review really do improve test scores.
I think that affirmative action presumes that children from certain backgrounds do not have the same opporunties as their white counterparts. Obama is in a position to provide opportunities for his kids thus they shouldn't beneift from affirmative action. Affirmative action should be overhauled. But before we tackle affirmative action. He need to tackle the real problem which is that poor education received by kids in big urban school districts accross the country. Until we improve public education, we shouldn't waste time and energy with tinkering with affirmative action. For affirmative action to really work, the kids need to be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities. Right now we aren't preparing the kids.

We will never solve the educational problems in this country until we accept the politically incorrect fact that family structure, culture and societal expectations are far more important than test preparation or school funding.

The achievement gap is already in place by the time children enter kindergarten, and by the third grade, the die has been cast. A student with good reading skills and comprehension will be successful; those struggling will likely never catch up unless extreme intervention efforts are initiated -- beyond the scope of most of our public schools.

It doesn't help matters any when a child looks around and sees a culture that values everything but education.

Paul,

I agree with Obama. Rich black kids who had access to an education that should prepare them for an elite education should not get an advantage because of race. From my experience, those kids didn't need it anyway as their scores were comparable or better than those of rich whites.

We all know that race and class are incredibly intertwined, which is why Obama said "if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society." You can't remedy race without remedying class. At many selective institutions, race is irrelevant if you have the resources to fund most of your education.

And everything I've read has said affirmative action has disproportionately helped WHITE WOMEN, not middle class blacks. And enrolling blacks in elite institutions hasn't maintained a black middle class. Enrolling blacks in HBCUs has. More blacks graudate from HBCUs than elite institutions annually.

Interestingly, if we are to believe data on jewish enrollment provided by Hillel.org, White Christians are nearly as underrepresented in elite colleges and black and hispanic students.

Will it becme necessary to create affirmative action for White Christians too given trends in admissions outcomes?

In the UC system, after affirmative action was ended, black enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA declined but black enrollment for the entire UC system didn't change much. Black graduation rates have soared and today, UC system graduates more black students than it did prior to the affirmative action ban.

The impact of affirmative action at "elite" colleges on the black professional class is ambiguous.

Whether an individual deserves affirmative action during elite college admissions competitions depends on the other contestants against whom the individual would compete doesn't it?

Obama's children would deserve affirmative action if most of the students they had to compete against were even more privileged than Obama's children, and were more likely to have achieved better grades or test scores than Obama's children due primarily to their superior privileges rather than their superior work ethics. I doubt a university exists where Obama's children would find themselves in that kind of a competition. So I believe Obama’s children shouldn't get the same affirmative action benefits middle-class or lower-class Blacks should get when they compete against more privileged middle-class or upper-class Whites for elite university seats. Obama’s children should be tagged as top 15% affluents (special cases) and should have to compete against their extremely privileged White peers in head to head numerical showdowns.

I'm a fan of John Roemer's model for measuring deservedness as described in his 1998 book Equality of Opportunity. And, I believe the hardest working students who would be able to complete the rigorous curricula at our top universities should get the seats ahead of all the lazier yet very privileged students who get a bigger share of the seats than they deserve (assuming Daniel Golden's 2006 The Price of Admission is mostly true).

Using Roemer's mathematical tools, our elite university admissions experts might be able to develop methods to separate the lazy smart students from the hard working smart students more effectively. The hard working smart students deserve to have the seats at our very best universities and the lazy smart students deserve to get their educations elsewhere unless their parents/relatives would make huge financial contributions to the elite universities that would, in essence, serve as special penalty fees for their underperforming students' laziness. These special penalty fees could be principled ways to enable hard working students to benefit from the extremely privileged students’ laziness at those elite universities that do not yet have colossal endowments like Harvard’s, Yale’s, Stanford’s, or Princeton’s.

Should Clarence Thomas' children benefit from Affirmative Action? Afterall, he did. In all seriousness, of course Obama's kids deserve the same benefits of affirmative action as any other African-American child. The whole income and class nonsense is just a smokescreen by Whites opposed to affirmative action to diminish their culpability in creating the conditions that require affirmative action in the first place--racism. Blacks were not denied access to these schools because of their income, it was because of their race. Admissions decisions are made before financial aid considerations are taken into account (in theory). Most of the Whites kids in these schools can't afford them, so what's the point of even taking income into consideration when the issue is past RACIAL discrimination? Maybe when there is more than 1 Black Senator out of 100, we can revisit this issue of whether or not the kids of high fallutin' Blacks need affirmative action to get into these schools. One Black senator does not mean racism has ended. In fact, in a nation that is 25-30% non-White, it indicates that it is alive and well and entrenched.

cmoney,

If the issue is past racial discrimination, why don't jews and asians receive affirmative action as well?

And while the US is indeee 30% non-white, most elite colleges are 35-45% non-white.

If the issue is past racial discrimination, why don't jews and asians receive affirmative action as well?

Because neither group was discriminated against by force of law for starters..., but then presumably you know that already and are merely up to your typical trolling antics.

That's simply not true. Asians were discriminated against rather severely by force of law for many years - at east as much as Hispanic/Latino Americans.

But we were talking about discrimination in the admissions process of elite colleges. These colleges had explicit quotas on the enrollment of various ethnic groups (including at different times and places, jews and asians).

Incidentally, why is my post "trolling?" Is it because I dared to question the dominant point of view on this board?

I thought AA was in place to give advantages to all people who have been historically discriminated against, which goes beyond race and is why women and the poor benefit from it, no?

In the UC system, after affirmative action was ended, black enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA declined but black enrollment for the entire UC system didn't change much. Black graduation rates have soared and today, UC system graduates more black students than it did prior to the affirmative action ban.

Prove it with data.

Aaron: Asians do receive benefits from affirmative action. They are counted as a minority, just like everyone else. In fact, Asians account for much of the 35-45% non-whites at the "elite" colleges that you noted. Jews have opposed affirmative acttion traditionally because of the alleged "quotas". Quotas were used by some schools to LIMIT the number of Jews that could be enrolled. For example, a school might limit Jewish admissions to 10 students per class. If more than 10 qualified for that class, only 10 could get in. Hence, their understandable opposition to quotas (which are not a part of affirmative action, BTW). I don't think we need to throw out the affirmative action just yet. Yes, there are some very successful Blacks who could probably get their kids the best possible pre-college preparation, but they are few and far in between. If their kids happen to benefit from AA as well, is that such a crime? Afterall, the Bush twins and their ilk can still get into any school they want based upon who they are, just like their father.

What the hell is a 'black blog?' I wasn't aware one could attribute phenotypical characteristics of human beings to an entity in cyberspace. Perhaps you could flesh this concept out some more?

This blog is run by 'black' law professors but the blog (and the associated comments) deals with a multitude of issues of race, ethnicity, gender, equality etc that are not limited in scope to the travails of black Americans. Even if it were, can issues facing black Americans really be disentagled from issues facing other Americans? Come on -- that's ridiculous.

Perhaps some day you will be able to locate a 'black blog' that's more to your liking.

Aaron, don't think Jews and Asians don't benefit from AA. Some schools use AA very broadly.

cmoney,

It's been shown that Asian admissions rates are substantially below what one would predict on the basis of objective qualifications. It's also been shown that affirmative action reduces Asian enrollment while having no impact on white enrollment. I think it's difficult to argue that Asians benefit from affirmative action in college admissions. They have been admitetd to elite colleges in large numbers despite tacit attempts to limit their enrollment.

Bush's daughter almost certainly benefited from a form of affirmative action in getting into Yale. It's particularly unsettling given all the advantages she had that a poor student would not have had. To a libertarian, there's nothing wrong with affirmative action of any sort at a private college but that affirmative action is unacceptable at a public college.

Right now, affirmative action is the law of the land except in a few states. It's a fairly low impact public policy, despite all the controversy it engenders.

ETS,

I'm sure there are always *some* schools which will give affirmative action to asians and jews. Bob Jones University? BYU? Who knows. But under current laws, Jews are considered Caucaisan and thus do not receive benefits. Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected.

It's been shown that Asian admissions rates are substantially below what one would predict on the basis of objective qualifications. It's also been shown that affirmative action reduces Asian enrollment while having no impact on white enrollment. I think it's difficult to argue that Asians benefit from affirmative action in college admissions. They have been admitetd to elite colleges in large numbers despite tacit attempts to limit their enrollment.

Again, alot of unsupported assertions. Provide links and relevant passages.

Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected.

What asians; chinese, vietnamese, laotians, pakistanis? In what percentage of schools?

In other words, show us some data to back up your mythmaking. Or a study from an objective, preferably academic, party.

keto,

I gatehred some links but I got a message when I tried to post that my comments were pending approval by the blog owner. I have no idea why.

keto,

If you have an anonymous email address you don't mind posting, I am happy to email you the links I found. I'm not sure if I am being censored or if its just technical difficulties.

OK, then cite:

1) Your claim
2) The relevant passage
3) The reference (author, org, title of study, etc)

Let's try one at a time....

"Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent."

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml

"During the Michigan campaign, a group that opposes affirmative action released a study bolstering claims that Asian students are held to a higher standard. The study, by the Center for Equal Opportunity, in Virginia, found that Asian applicants admitted to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score of 1400 on the 400-1600 scale then in use. That was 50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

"In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians' slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn't bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard's preferences for athletes and alumni children -- few of whom were Asian -- that accounted for the admissions gap."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

what's so hard to understand? he's saying that the biggest barrier to equality in education - cost - has been greatly diminished, and that, since affirmative action fosters racial animus, it will eventually need to be done away with if we want to realize true racial equality in this country. what's so hard to understand about this? of course financial aid and AA are "different." but then again, obama wasn't asserting that they weren't. your post is a gigantic straw man from hell.

"In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians' slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn't bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard's preferences for athletes and alumni children -- few of whom were Asian -- that accounted for the admissions gap."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

"The University of California came under similar scrutiny at about the same time. In 1989, as the federal government was investigating alleged Asian-American quotas at UC's Berkeley campus, Berkeley's chancellor apologized for a drop in Asian enrollment. The next year, federal investigators found that the mathematics department at UCLA had discriminated against Asian-American graduate school applicants. In 1992, Berkeley's law school agreed under federal pressure to drop a policy that limited Asian enrollment by comparing Asian applicants against each other rather than the entire applicant pool."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html

The profs are on to you too!

Actually, it's their movable type spam filter that's set on automatic kill. If you embed more than one link in a post, your post gets rejected as SPAM, and no, most of the profs do not check their comment queue to see if there are substantive posts stuck in moderation.

ooh boy...., can't wait to see what conservative stink tank these predigested and heavily spun links will point to...., heritage, AEI, manhattan, amren....,

Here's the Princeton study in full: http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf

cnulan,

Thanks for the info about the embedding links....

One of the links is from a libertarian (NOT CONSERVATIVE!) think tank. The rest are from the Justice Dept or from academia. And there's more to come.

And as much as I hate Heritage Foundation's stuff, comparing them to Amren which is a racist organization is really indefenisble.

"It is true that after Prop 209 went into effect, as opponents had predicted, black and Hispanic populations at California's two most elite universities – Berkeley and UCLA – dropped by nearly half and have never fully recovered. According to admissions data, between 1995 and 2004, black admissions to Berkeley dropped from 6.66 percent to 3.59 percent and Hispanics from 17 to 10.22 percent. UCLA reported similar drops.

Yet, despite these drops, the overall population of minority students across the University of California system has remained remarkably stable."

Source: http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061107.shtml (op ed appeared in the SF Examiner. The data are publicly available from the state of CA).

And from the above op-ed:

"Four-year graduation rates for blacks at UC San Diego, for example, doubled from 26 percent in 1995 to 52 percent in 2001 – nearly on par with whites and Asians. Similarly, Mexican-American graduation rates are up from 27 percent in 1995 to 42 percent in 2001."

cnulan,

yeah, attack the source instead of the facts. that's the mark of someone who knows what they're talking about. it's also a good argument technique. ad hominem arguments are just great.

(and you're automatically discredited for claiming that heritage "spins" anything: they're probably the most respected and objective thinktank out there.)

And the data on CA prop 209 from a law review article (not sure of the extent of peer review): http://www.law2.byu.edu/JPLNew/Vol%2020.1/4Hadley.pdf

Chauncey,

I hate to disagree with the only guy out there who is supporting me, but Heritage is absolutely ideological and, while respected in some circles, is far from objective in its research output.

That said, one cannot simply dismiss their research without reading it. They may be ideological but the research could still be solid.

And while Heritage is generally a mouthpiece for a conservative political agend,a it's not a racist organization like American Renaissance. Shame on anyone who compares the two!

Although this story is not about Asians, it is interesting to note that the Asian community is divided on affirmative action. Those who support it are quick to debunk the "model minority" stereotype of Asians as all being rich, highly educated, free from discrimination, and overrepresented in certain fields. This blogger seems to make a cogent argument:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aamodel.htm

Some Whites use the model minority stereotype to argue against AA for Asians. Some Asians feel that AA hurts them in terms of admission slots to some schools in that they are losing spaces to non-Asian minorities. I think they would all agree, however, that Asians have been subjected to harsh discrimination in this country (especially in California) and continue to be regarded as "foreigners" by many.

oh Lawd..., suspicious like Uncle Clarence say;

In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference. Regardless of the category into which Thomas would put himself, this response suggests how even beneficiaries of affirmative action can oppose it without hypocrisy.

and mad too?

what's so hard to understand? he's saying that the biggest barrier to equality in education - cost - has been greatly diminished, and that, since affirmative action fosters racial animus, it will eventually need to be done away with if we want to realize true racial equality in this country.

ah know I sho don't wont massa mad at me for gettin some'a what he been takin fo hisself since 1627...,

cnulan,

I don't care much for Clarence Thomas either but trivializing him using the same racist terms used for many years by white racists is truly despicable.

Where I come from, everyone has the right to be treated with dignity even if the ideas that person expresses are not those you agree with. That you invoke racist references to mock him only makes it worse.

And while Heritage is generally a mouthpiece for a conservative political agend,a it's not a racist organization like American Renaissance. Shame on anyone who compares the two!

Sorry for the momentary digression, but this bears periodic repetition here when conservatives and their kneegrological water carriers periodically come a-calling..,

Conservatism is a form (indeed the original form) of identity politics. It is expressed through multiple forms of political ideology based on justifying elite rule and the division of the human race into dualized classes (ideal and counter-ideal) in terms of some “natural” moral order.

Conservatism appears in various forms as the rationalizations and dualized classes shift over time, and in three distinct states of realization, reflecting different levels of development of the self. The overt rationalizations commonly mistaken for conservative ideology are, in fact, derivative phenomena—tertiary at best. The primary phenomena is the creation of a conservative identity, the subject of conservative political narratives. The secondary phenomena is the supporting ideology of superior and inferior groups, casting conservative identity as something to be preserved, promoted, and defended against the forces of evil, embodied in its demonized others. The primary and secondary phenomena are relatively constant over time, while the tertiary phenomena vary considerably.

Black folks got a HUGE amount of experience combatting the racist drivel passing itself off as conservatism.

Paul Rosenberg's complete analysis (multiple links) bundled in a single post at Cobb.

back to our regularly scheduled, and on-topic banter...,

"But under current laws, Jews are considered Caucaisan and thus do not receive benefits. Asians have been shown in various studies to lose enrollment due to affirmative action while white enrollment is unaffected." - Aaron

Can you please show me a law that said Jews are considered white? And even if they are, like I said before, some schools use AA very broadly and will admit people based on religious diversity. Yeah some Asians may lose AA to bring in more whites at some schools, but it's all relative. At other schools being Asian benefits you and not just at the ones you mentioned.

cnulan,

I'm not a political conservative and I have no great love for the vast majority of the tenets of politcal conservativism. I think muc of what you say is probably true, on avearge. That said, just because racists have masked themselves in the cloak of conservativism (and they've masked themselves as liberals too!) doesn't mean it makes a scrap of sense to link the two as if they are the same or descendent from the same root ideology. That's ridiculous. And it's also unfair. And that argument is often used to support the practice of calling anyone who disagrees with a liberal/progressive political agenda, a racist.

I don't care much for Clarence Thomas either but trivializing him using the same racist terms used for many years by white racists is truly despicable.

Where I come from, everyone has the right to be treated with dignity even if the ideas that person expresses are not those you agree with. That you invoke racist references to mock him only makes it worse.

oh no Aaron, you got it twisted. I mocked Uncle Thomas extensively on Sherilyn Ifill's thread preceding this one. no, the above archaic vernacular was directed at none other than your would-be present water carrier who has made it abundantly clear that he believes that kneegrows must strive to be loved by white folks - and that Black folks who scorn such self-abasing kneegrows (of which Uncle Clarence is an exemplar) are likenable to hateful crabs in a bucket...,

ETS,

Go to the Office of Personnel Management homepage. People with ancestral originas in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are considered Caucasian under federal employment guidelines.

Several years ago, an Egyptian immigrant with features and skin color that most Americans would identify as 'black' sued the OPM because he was classified as 'Caucasian.' OPM refused to reconsider because his ancestry was tied to a country in North Africa.

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

ETS,

I don't have the patience to sort through the OPM mess of a webpage but here's a UC Berkeley page that references the guidelines:

http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/seads/aaeeodef.htm

"Caucasian - Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (not of Hispanic origin)."

That said, just because racists have masked themselves in the cloak of conservativism (and they've masked themselves as liberals too!) doesn't mean it makes a scrap of sense to link the two as if they are the same or descendent from the same root ideology.

Please enlighten us all concerning what precisely it is that the so-called conservative seeks to conserve?

That's ridiculous. And it's also unfair. And that argument is often used to support the practice of calling anyone who disagrees with a liberal/progressive political agenda, a racist.

for as long as I can recall, the term "librull" has served as a less odious functional equivalent of the archaic usage, nigger lover - nobody is fooled by these post southern strategy terms and nearly every politically conscious Black person knows EXACTLY what the overwhelming majority of conservative code words actually mean.

What's an even more fascinating focus of study is that tiny minority of kneegrows whose minds and identities have been "snatched" by the conservative mimetic onslaught - reducing them in the process to racial cannibals (duppies) quick to attack, rend, and if possible devour the vital and succulent sensibilities of sane and self-possessed Black folks...,

Clarence Thomas can surely disagree with you on affirmative action without being likened to a "self-abasing" negro, can't he?

Whether he agrees or disagrees with me is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether he is constructively engaged in interpersonal communion with Black folks and the documented opinions he has expressed - which expressions carry more authority than the average man on the streets..,

By both measures, Uncle Thomas is a deranged kneegrow duppy..., and an indisputably documented hazard to the legal health and well-being of Black folks in America.

cnulan,

I'm not a conservative and I don't want to put myself in the position of havin to defend their viewpoints. But my understanding is that many conservatives believe the government should promote a moral or religious agenda, that government should be small when it comes to the economy but big when it comes to enforcing social norms, etc.

In any case, by denying a black person his right to a racial identity if he happens to disagree with you on a political issue, you are robbing him of his right to individuality. I think that's terribly unfortunate.

Black America is not a monolith. Every person is an individual. Even if some similarities exist, every person has lived a different life and been subject to different experiences. Who are you to claim that all black people must stand in your line or suffer racial insults .... from you?

This really turns my stomach.

cnulan,

If you don't like Clarence Thomas' viewpoints, are you nevertheless capable of criciticing him without resorting to name calling? "negro," "Uncle Thomas" etc.

Is that really necessary?

I am sorry to say that some issues are not pointing to solutions but are knee jerk reactions to the racist.

Why did the working middle class in this country not fight for affordable college?
Let the brightess from all races into college and not be burden by 75k afterwards.

Why do we focus on college when many jobs need 14 years of education and a good High School education?

Barack Obama does not seem creative and fresh. Who is he talking too?

Spinning wheels in the air
What do they change
Just the flow of hot air!

Nana,

College is incredibly affordable. The average college graduate earns several hundred thousand dollars more over a lifetime than a non-graduate. Even a four-year private university at $40k a year pays for itself many times over. And state university is much cheaper.

If you want to go to college, take out loans like the rest of us do!

Aaron: If the shoe fits, then Uncle Thomas has to wear it. If any Black man is worthy of scorn an derision, it is Clarence Thomas. Political views aside, he is disgraceful as a person and a mockery to the image, intellect and accomplishments of Black lawyers. Yes, he is a classic Uncle Tom and he wears the badge proudly.

cmoney,

Your above post is pure, unabated racism. I don't know what else to call it. This is no different than if a white politician were to refer to Al Sharpton using a racist term.

If you think he's a despicable person, then call him despicable. If you think he's a womanizer, then say so. But to use his racial background to scorn him is, in my mind, completely unacceptable. In my opinion, it crosses a line that decent people shouldn't cross.

I don't want to say anymore about this. I honestly find it very upsetting.

Aaron,

well, HF is generally regarded as rather objective.

but you're right about cmoney. i think the fact that he resorts to silly racist comments indicates two things: 1) how unintelligent or immature he clearly must be, and 2) that he recognizes how weak his position truly is.

Aaron: If the shoe fits, then Uncle Thomas has to wear it. If any Black man is worthy of scorn an derision, it is Clarence Thomas. Political views aside, he is disgraceful as a person and a mockery to the image, intellect and accomplishments of Black lawyers. Yes, he is a classic Uncle Tom and he wears the badge proudly.

When among home boys, why are we offended by remarks.

The myth of how individual we are is one of the last we have to fight. The studies are being proven that we are more shaped by external forces than we think
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9275
Clarence Thomas own words prove this out.

So folks who look at the institutions that shape our children, understand how important it is to fight the fight.

Chauncey: I could say a few things to you, but I will restrain myself. It's quite clear that you are nothing more than a White racist conservative who resorts to name calling yourself when people, such as myself challenge the racist, right wing drivel you post up here everyday. I could care less what you think of me. Just know that I know what you are and where you are coming from. By the way, it is not racist for me as a Black man to call Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom. Of course, being White, you and Aaron (probably the same people) wouldn't understand that.

cmoney,

not all conservatives are white. for example, uncle thomas isn't white, and his views basically mirror mine. it's pretty hard to understand why this extremely obvious point is completely lost on you, but i think it has a bit to do with your intelligence and maturity level (like i said above). only dumb people with the brains of children can't see past race.

"uncle tom" is racist. "sambo" is racist. mentioning "massas" in the same sentence as a black man is racist. thus, if i'm "racist" like you said, then i'd be the one saying these things. wait, but i'm not. so who said these things?

you.

funny, no? or maybe ironic?

cmoney,

Black people are perfectly capable of expressing racism against other black people. The names you have called Clarence Thomas are a perfect example of this. Being black does not grant you permission to use race as a means of objectifying and demonizing others of the same race. You don't get a free pass. No one does.

OK, now I'm really done with this garbage.

Aaron, those guidelines do not apply in all admissions decisions - especially those of private, elite colleges.

ETS,

That's correct. They don't apply to private, elite colleges. But private, elite colleges have, nevertheless, come to rely on them.

In any case, if you think there are a large number of private elite colleges that give preference to jewish applicants for religious reasons, can you cite links with evidence of this? It's very hard to believe given that applicants are not asked to specify religion on their application. Not for some time.

As for asian students who despite being harmed by affirmative action are still vastly overrepresented at all elite colleges, it's very difficult to believe that they would receive preference for reasons of diversity.

But I'm open minded. I will take a look at any evidence you cite.

Chauncey & Aaron: So what, you don't wear a hood. Doesn't mean that what you are pushing isn't the same old racist ideology that has been used against Black people for centuries. I'm not falling for it. It's also amazing how you have this reflexive gag response whenever anyone challenges the integrity of Clarence Thomas. Maybe you are one of his former Clerks, a clear indication that you are not Black. Being a Black, and thus a potential victim of Clarence Thomas' ante-deluvian policial philosophy and self hatred gives me every grounds for calling him out for exactly what he is. There is no place for civility when it comes to race haters like Uncle Clarence Thomas--my life, my people and the integrity of Black lawyers and judges are stake. Yes, I hate him. Deal with it.

Aaron states:
"If you think he's a despicable person, then call him despicable. If you think he's a womanizer, then say so. But to use his racial background to scorn him is, in my mind, completely unacceptable."

Debbie: So then if one thinks Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom" (which he is) why shouldn't one call him an "Uncle Tom"?

There is never too much at stake to be civil. Civility is a prerequisite to meaningful discourse.

Debbie,

Because that's a racist word that objectifies him solely because of his race. After all, were he something other than black, the term would not apply to him. The term is used to single out black dissenters. It is wielded as a weapon to mute anyone who dares to express some opinion outside the norm among certain circles.

Being despicable or a womanizer is independent of race. It's a quality that exists among every population of people. To say that an individual expresses an undesirable quality is one thing. But when a person's racial background is held against him, it is another thing entirely.

I know this thread is about affirmative action, but when it comes to Uncle Clarence, he doesn't deserve the respect of civil discourse, much less the respect that would normally be due an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. If a White Associate Justice said he would never hire a Black clerk, there would be no dispute that he or she was pre-disposed to discriminating against African-Americans, but I am supposed to give Clarence Thomas a free pass when he says (and does) the same thing because he is Black? Screw him! He is a bigot and is not worthy of respect. Back to affirmative action, please.

Debbie,

I see "Uncle Tom" as very similar to "black b*tch." Inserting the word 'black' in there is meant solely to objectify the person the comment is directed towards. Uncle Tom is like this to. Why not simply say Clarence Thomas is "intellectually lazy or dishonest" or that he's a "bigot." Both of these are race neutral.

Aaron,

As spare time permits, I am looking at some your posted studies.

On the Princeton study:

1) The results of this study are based on a numerical model. I think this is an important point that is missed in your assertions and posts. There have been many real life cases from which to draw direct empirical data. I am making no judgments about the quality of the model, but it is a model nonetheless.

2) The proxy for "merit" that this model uses is SAT score alone, not GPA, not letters of reccomendation, not extra curricular activities. The authors themselves point this out in a previous paper: Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities.

3) One question that I cannot sift through at short notice is the effect of white privilege on asian admission. How many asian spots are taken by whites? This question is seldom touched upon.

Aaron said: “Because that's a racist word that objectifies him solely because of his race.”

Debbie: You mean just like the term “whore” objectifies women solely because of their sex?

Aaron said: “After all, were he something other than black, the term would not apply to him.”

Debbie: Obviously. If he were anything other than black the appropriate term would be a racist, but because Thomas is black the appropriate term would be an “Uncle Tom”. Or is there another more appropriate term one can use?

Aaron said: “The term is used to single out black dissenters. It is wielded as a weapon to mute anyone who dares to express some opinion outside the norm among certain circles.”

Debbie: No the term Uncle Tom specifically refers to a black person who serve the interests of whites at the expense of blacks if some people incorrectly use it then that’s their (your) problem.

Aaron said: Being despicable or a womanizer is independent of race. It's a quality that exists among every population of people. To say that an individual expresses an undesirable quality is one thing. But when a person's racial background is held against him, it is another thing entirely.

Debbie: Being a womanizer while independent of race, is not independent of gender (sex). It exists only amongst the male population. So would you now argue that the term womanizer objectifies men because their gender is held against them?

Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom and thus deserves to be called an Uncle Tom.

One more point about the princeton model: it only based on 3 elite universities.

The English language is full of words that are not race, gender, sex, class, etc. neutral such words include whores, womanizer, “Uncle Tom” and yes whil