Racist, Sexist Attacks on Sotomayor

The Women’s Media Center has put together a devastating compilation of TV-commentators’ racist, sexist attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (3:32):

As the confirmation hearings begin this morning, you may want to take action to support Sotomayor, and you can do that through the Women’s Media Center.

Comments

  1. Darin Johnson

    Does it seem ironic to you that the evidence of racism or sexism against Judge Sotomayor seems to consist mainly of people accusing her of racism or sexism?

    I’m not sure how “devastating” those clips actually are. Seems like the same old boring stuff we hear all the time. Don’t like somebody? Must be a racist. “Racist” has become a catch-all accusation — for the the Left and the Right — whenever they don’t like somebody. Not particularly helpful, not at all interesting. I’d much rather hear a truly “devastating” critique of Sotomayor’s ability and temperament, and a likewise “devastating” rebuttal, than this silliness. What if we just agree that both Sotomayor and her critics are racists? Or that neither are? Then can we trash each other for our stupid ideas instead of imagined moral failings? Pretty please?

    Of course, a website like this, dedicated to rooting out racism whether it exists or not, is the worst of all.

  2. bev

    Thanks for posting this today. Speaking of, the NYTimes is running an article today with the headline: “Sotomayor Says Identity Won’t Distort Decisions”. The article describes her response to a question posed by Senator Sessions (R-AL) regarding whether or not she will allow her identity – essentially as a well-educated Latina activist turned judge from a poverty stricken inner-city, et cetera – to distort her decision-making ability as a Supreme Court Justice. The irony of this is as fascinating as it is unjust. Have White male nominees been as pointedly-questioned as she has regarding their identities as White, male, wealthy, privileged et cetera??? Of course not. And of course we could go on and on about that one subject in particular, but I just wanted to point that out briefly.

    Her response, while necessarily constrained and diplomatic was simply “We’re not robots.” We’ll see how it continues to play out … Thanks again!

  3. @bev –

    Have White male nominees been as pointedly-questioned as she has regarding their identities as White, male, wealthy, privileged et cetera??? Of course not. And of course we could go on and on about that one subject in particular, but I just wanted to point that out briefly.

    Don’t you know it! It’s like they think that she’ll just automatically side with the person of color regardless of the law. Is that what white people think we’d do? I’m asking seriously. Is that what white people think of people of color? Considering that up till . . . I don’t know when exactly, the law has been ignored in favor of a white person. So I guess I can understand how they’d think we’d do the same to them. That aside, I find the fear that “identity” would prevent Sotomayor from being just insulting, annoying, but confusing. I just can’t make sense of the logic unless Sessions thinks a person of color who’s self-aware is just out to get revenge.

  4. Nquest

    Catching part of the hearing, I like the way Sen. Durbin was explicit in how “the tables were turned”:
    .
    When we asked questions of the white male nominees [Roberts and Alito] of a Republican president, we were basically trying to find out whether — to make sure that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities, because clearly that was not in their DNA. The questions being asked of you from the other side primarily are along the lines of, will you go too far in siding with minorities?
    .
    While other Democrats on the committee, including the chairman, have tried to address the race-driven attacks against Sotomayor, they missed several opportunities to fully expose the bs Graham, Sessions et al tried to pull.
    .
    Nobody seemed to note the reason why the questions about Roberts and Alito ability to empathize were questioned — and it wasn’t merely on the basis of one or two speeches or cases… From what I recall, especially when it came to Roberts, there was a judicial track record that matched or surpasses the inferences made off of not-so-politically correct extra-judicial statements he made.
    .
    Also, nobody debunked Graham’s nonsense that his career would have been over had he, a white male, stated that his racial/ethnic experience could, in some way, help him to hopefully arrive at better decisions than a “minority.” First of all, there is no moral equivalence (and Sotomayor’s statement inherently invokes a socio-historical context). More importantly, the fact of the matter is that has never been the case.
    .
    Case in point — the long political careers of Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond. The U.S. Senate, CNN, the [White] American public are fortunate that I’m not the nominee because I’d be direct and frank and tell people like Graham to stop lying and dropped their “woe is me, the white male” racial politics.

  5. Nquest

    Is that what white people think we’d do? I’m asking seriously.
    .
    I’m convinced that White people like Sen. Sessions don’t know what the hell they think beside the fact that the only so-called minority they’re willing to tolerate is a compliant, self-subjugating one.
    .
    Seriously, Graham and Sessions were just all out of sorts, struggling for something to say… a strategy… a f-ckin’ life line… anything to deal with the blow to their fragile psyche that some person of color would dare think they could be equal to or better than the average White male in any respect. It’s must be hard to keep that WHITE SUPREMACY (WS) mask on and they could hardly do it.
    .
    Stupid Sessions exposed himself (and Rachel Maddow ‘clowned’ him on her show about this) by insisting, in trademark Republican, cynical “this is what minorities think” projection, that Sotomayor should have voted just like the other Puerto Rican judge…
    .
    Again, I return to the question: how come White people who say things like that never think about how they look? What their clever, to them, comments says about them instead of the “minorities” their WS ego makes them think they’re out foxing?
    .
    I almost felt sorry for Graham/Sessions because of the kind of unraveled, unintelligent and incompetent they are. Oh and I forgot to mention the ironic and long career of Sessions himself — a flat out racist whose in the position to judge and has the nerve to stand in judgment of Sotomayor on some hyped, hypocritical up bs.

  6. Darin Johnson

    Asking whether white male appointees have been questioned about whether they’ll let their background influence their decisions is specious. The issue is that Sotomayor has stated that her race and sex will cause her to reach different decisions than someone else would. Don’t you think that’s important? Don’t you think somebody should ask whether she means a) that only a “wise latina” can accurately interpret the text of the Constitution, or b) that she’ll disregard that text when it suits her?

    Seems like an important distinction to me. We need a court of either nine “wise latinas” or none. I’d like to know which.

    On conciliatory note, one thing we all can agree on is the fatuousness of senators. The only difference is that I think they’re fatuous because they are, you all seem to think they’re fatuous because they’re white men. Not very charitable, but whatever.

  7. Darin, the judge didn’t say either that only a “wise latina” can accurately interpret the Constitution or that she’ll disregard it at her whim. What she said, in that one sentence, is that she would expect a wise latina to come to a better conclusion than a white person without her experience. The truth is, white people seem to be stuck in seeing the world only one way – themselves at the social top. The white racial frame of reference needs to be questioned. Yes, her race and sex shapes her thinking and she may very well see things differently from others, and by others, I guess you mean white males. But that’s not wrong. It’s just different. Also, without judges who have real life, everyday experience, you get decisions like the Ledbetter one.
    ~
    As far as the fauousness of the senators – I guess I’ll try to kill 2 birds with one stone and make my point both about race and gender, and about empty-headed senators. I think Sessions is the one who said that for 240 years, justices for the Supreme Court had been chosed based on blah, blah, blah objectivity. We know that’s not the case. We know that for over 240years, white male justices have rendered decisions that were racist, sexist, and classist.
    ~
    This whole discussion, including your pov, Darin, assumes that white males don’t have any particular “perspective” or that they don’t make decisions that have been influenced by their privileged positions as whites and as male. These assumptions are false. Graham, Sessions, and others, including apparantly yourself, worry that Sotomayor will side with the person of color, or the poor person regardless of the facts of the case. None of her statements indicate that she would. That’s just some nightmare scenario dreamed up by white men who can’t imagine a world of justice and equality. And it’s not as though from 1786 to the present, white males haven’t made decisions that benefitted white people or rich people or men, regardless of the facts of the case. In fact, it’s all those decisions supporting a white-supremacy that’s gotten us to where we are now.
    ~
    So, you have nothing to worry about, if you’re sincerely worried, when it comes to Sotomayor. When it comes to the hypocrisy of the whole “wise latina” vs white man discussion on the part of white men, yeah. You should be worried.
    ~
    I may have more to say about this later after a bite to eat.

  8. Darin Johnson

    No1KState, your post is one big contradiction. Sotomayor and you can’t have it both ways. Either race matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then for goodness’s sake let’s quit talking about it. Of course, Sotomayor thinks it DOES matter, which is why she and Obama bring her race up as much as they do.
    .
    Okay, let’s say it matters. That must mean that Sotomayor will reach a different decision than a white man would — simply on the basis of her race and sex. (If she reaches the same decision, then her race did not matter.) Now, I’m going way out on a limb here and saying that if there are two available decisions, they generally aren’t both going to be consistent with the text of the constitution — at least one of them is wrong. So, which is it? Hers or theirs? Does a “wise latina” reach better decisions or worse ones? This is important!
    .
    Please don’t say something like, “Some decisions will be better, some will be worse. But they’ll be different.” And don’t say, “It’s not a question of ‘better’ or ‘worse,’ it’s about perspective and background.” Those are childish statements, which ignore that a judge’s job is to apply the law as written — even Sotomayor acknowledges this. She’s implying that the white men have been screwing it up because they’re not “wise latinas” like she is.
    .
    I’m not saying white men don’t have a perspective. Everyone has a perspective. My problem with Sotomayor and those who think like she does is that they believe a judge should embrace that perspective rather than set it aside. They believe that the courts are just an extension of politics, and that it SHOULD be that way.
    .
    I’ll pass. Give me a woman, black man, or a Martian — I don’t care. But give me somebody who understands unintended consequences, who has the humility not to believe he can bring about heaven from the bench.

  9. Anybody else just catch Patty B? Will they fire him already?
    ~
    I think Kristen made a point in another thread they maybe useful to you, Darin. When people of color talk about racism, or a “wise latina” coming to a better conclusion, etc, we’re not talking about racism in terms of personal animosity. We’re talking about an entire system based on placing and preserving a superior position for white Americans. White males may understand this in terms of reading the research and studies, but they have no personal experience. So to them, it’s unfair to deny promotions to 20 white and 2 latino firefighters as the process wasn’t intentionally discriminatory. A “wise latina” understands that just because there was no malicious intent on the part of one person or group doesn’t negate that destructive impact of discrimination on people of color.
    ~
    So to the basic question, will she ignore the law and Constitution just to reach pre-determined, anti-white conclusions . . . no. That’s not what anti-racism is about. She may very well one day judge that paying for schools with local property tax is unConstitutional because by the very nature of things, some schools will have more resources than others. Would that be a decision that defied the law, that was made just to get back at whites and males? Or, would that be a decision protecting equality in education and the integrity of the system? – disclaimer: I don’t actually know where she stands on the issue of local education and how to pay for it. Just making an example.

  10. Kristen

    @Darin’s 1st question, in her original speech comments, Sotomayor was pointing out that white men have a perspective that shades their decisions, as does she. No judge is truly “objective,” and we have lots of cases where justice has NOT been served by Court decisions. Therefore, we NEED judges from many different backgrounds if we want to do our very best to approach justice. It’s truly unfortunate that one phrase from a speech was lifted and hardly ever attached to its original intent. Here’s a larger excerpt from the speech, which probably a lot of you have already referenced on your own:

    our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

    However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

  11. Shari

    Darin, I think it is specious to suggest that she will disregard the Constitution, there is nothing in her record to indicate that she will disregard the law in any way.

    However, if she were inclined to disregard the constitution, she would have a host of white male supreme court justices who have set the precedent for her.

    We could start with the disregard for Native treaty rights, specifically delineated in the constitution and repeatedly disregarded by white male justices with a particular point of view based on their background for more than 200 years.

  12. How was my post contradictory? I’m a bit lost on that point.
    ~
    Let’s just be clear. The only people who keep bringing up Sotomayor’s race and gender are white conservative males.
    ~
    To attempt to make it a question of either/or is simplisitic and indicative of Western philosophical thinking. First, I challenge you to question this dualism. Not everything’s black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. If you can grasp that, and I’m sure you can, then this next concept should be fairly cut and dry.
    ~
    When the question is one of talent, ability, and/or qualification: no, race does not matter. When the question is one of perspective and experience: yes, it does matter. Right now, the Court has 7 white men. The perspective of white American men is overrepresented. So, on one hand when it comes to academic qualification and judicial experience, race doesn’t matter. But when it comes to life experiences and perspective, it does. Let’s not play dumb, here. Being a white male in America gives a person privileges and powers others aren’t privy to. That’s why Graham would take a beaten in the press had he said the same thing(, by which I mean that one sentence and not the entire speech): he’d be piling on to benefits of doubt white males regularly receive in this country. He’d be adding to a legacy of racist and patriarchal thinking that already presumes white male qualification. That’s why he’d been deemed a racist. Double standard? If that’s the way you see it. Offensive? Only absent history and acknowledging current racism.
    ~
    Clearly, the people who really think it matters are the Republican senators all asking her the same question during the hearing. Clearly, they realize it’s important.

  13. Nquest

    All that needs to be done is to stop with all the political correctness and pose the kind of rhetorical question that’s as obvious as it is unspoken:

    With all the racist and sexist decisions White males have made from the bench since the founding of this country (Chief Justice Roger B. Taney finding that “the [Black] man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect”):
    Do you think it would have taken African-Americans as long as it did to receive the kind of judicial relief in Brown v. Board had the court been diversified sooner?

    Repeat the same kind of question for women, etc. and end with the resounding NO! Hell, I even think Clarence “White Folk Done Shamed Me Into Believing I’m Inferior” Thomas would have objected to Justice Taney who, I sure, believed he was one hell of an objective “trier of fact” and by the way bold-faced racists like Sen. Sessions, who despite his history of racism (like Jessie Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc.), have had long careers (thank you very much, Lindsey LYING Graham), no matter how much they’ve said White men were/are “far superior“…

  14. Darin Johnson

    The evil white males aren’t the ones who brought up race. In fact, those mincing, fraidy-cat senators would have liked nothing better than to talk about something else. As somebody, correctly, pointed out above, they look bad when they talk about sex and race. Sotomayor and Obama are the ones who brought it up, so they have no choice but to address it — for political reasons unrelated to whether she’ll be confirmed, I’ll be the first to admit. Those same senators did not question Clarence Thomas about his race because he never claimed that his race gave him special powers of perception not available to white men. And, perhaps more importantly, they knew his views reflected their own when it came to the care and feeding of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court is not about “representation.” The fact that some here seem to think otherwise is sad and a little un-nerving. In fact, the assumption that white men produce racist decisions to the detriment of minorities is very odd. Ask yourselves: would you rather have the next judge be like Stevens, a white male, or Thomas? It would make more sense if you said that the liberal, racial-grievance viewpoint is under-represented.

    Nquest asks an important question (it’s in bold, so it must be important): do I think a racially diverse court would have produced a Brown v. Board sooner. I don’t know, probably. But here’s what I definitely do think. Court decisions like Brown and laws like the Civil Rights Act are given far too much credit in the “relief” effort than they deserve. As is typical when you’re talking about regulation and government, the changes in the law usually come along after the fact and simply reflect the reality that already exists.

    Those of you who are suggesting that the whole thing is a racist scam because it was put together and run by racist white males for 230 years, I’d like to know where you plan to take that line of thought. Unfortunately, if you want to live in a civilized, liberal society, white males are about the only option. You may wish that John Adams and George Washington had been “wise latinas,” but they weren’t.

    Do you guys even care whether she’s a capable judge?

  15. I’m going to take on the points you raise Darin, in no certain order.
    ~
    1) She is accomplished. Let’s keep moving.
    ~
    2) No, she and Obama were not the ones to bring up race. And just so we don’t forget, white males have a race and gender, too. I don’t recall any outcry coming from these “indignant” senators when Alito clearly spoke about the impact of his immigrant background. The only reason they’re up in arms now is that they’re afraid her decision may begin to undo white supremacy and patriarchy. If they felt she would protect the racial status quo, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. They’re not concerned that she’ll make decisions apart for the Constitution. No. They’re afraid she’ll make decisions based that preserve the mandates of the Constitution in regards to the rights of everyone, regardless of race, gender, or class, and the responsibility of the government to protect these rights and ensure equal protection to everyone.
    ~
    3) You misunderstood my point about “representation.” Clearly. Even before people of color were allowed to attend law schools, it was fairly clear and obvious and intentional that the law and the Constitution are subjective and you can have two equally intelligent people, who’re both white and male, come to two different conclusions. So, let’s disabusive ourselves of the notion that there’s only one right way, or a fixed range of ways, to understand the law, the Constitution, and precedent. That all being the case, my point was that different life experiences give people different perspectives, or angles of view, on the Constitution. Men have a different angle than women; people of color different from people of privilege. Now, this isn’t to say that you can’t have a person of color purposefully adopt the perspective of white privilege; and it’s not to say that a white male can’t be open to information and other perspectives, etc. So when it comes to “representation,” it can’t hurt to have to have a different view point on the Court.
    ~
    4) Thomas does make claims about his race. Claims that most other black people find offensive. He operates from the dominant racial frame of reference. If nothing else, he’s a clear example that you’ll always have members of a disadvantaged group adopt the view point of the advantaged group. That’s nothing new or odd.
    ~
    5) I find the term “racial grievance” offensive. It is one of the terms, like “self-flagellation,” racists use to rationalize and excuse their support of a system that privileges white people for no other reason than their whiteness. Use of that term comes across as derisive and dismissive of the real illegal and unConstitutional racist discrimination that takes place everyday as well as the unrestituted past. It’s not about “grievance”; it’s about justice.
    ~
    6) Let’s get our history right. In most cases, yes, the law is just catching up to social norms. That was not the case when it pertains to the civil rights of people of color. A glaring example is that though the 14th amend “equal protection” clause “strictly constructed” and put in with the intention of protecting newly freedmen, not only was it ignored on the basis of “states’ rights,” it began being used to protect corporations and businesses.
    ~
    7) As to Nquest’s question, there’s no probably about it.
    ~
    8) You’re the only one to label Session or Graham as “evil.” So let’s stop being self-righteous about that. You’re also obviously ignoring our comments as to the qualifications of Sotomayor.

    Darin, I think it is specious to suggest that she will disregard the Constitution, there is nothing in her record to indicate that she will disregard the law in any way.

    Or perhaps, we’re all just taking for granted that she’s capable. But I find the intimation that all that matters to us is her race and gender quite condescending.
    ~
    8) No one suggestion the whole thing was a white racist “scam.” So let me be as clear as possible. Throughout US history, racist and sexist white males have made decisions about the Constitution and the law the perversely effected people of color and women. That doesn’t mean that the whole thing was a scam. That means that suggestion. that for 240years of US history, only white males were chosen for the court because only white males could objectively interpret the law and Constitution is a scam.
    ~
    9) White males have clearly not been the only option, and especially not these slaveholding white males. Even at the commencement of the African slave trade, you have white males objecting to racialized enslavement of others. What about them? What about the denial of women and people of color of their ability to lead and develop and “civilized, liberal society.” After all, the crimes against humanity perpetrated against women and people of color by white males are hardly civilized or liberal. The wars and destruction from one era to another on the part of white males is hardly civilized or liberal. What’s more is that by your statement, you obviously know nothing, or perhaps care nothing, about the many civilized and liberal societies of Africa and America and Asia prior to European exploration, destruction, genocide, slavery, and colonialism.
    ~
    10) I would really appreciate it if you would respond to questions asked you and the comments as they are written as opposed to what you assume we think or mean or intend, or with this stereotype of angry black people and guilt-ladened white people that you seem to have.
    ~
    11) You’re not TTj, or you?

  16. Darin Johnson

    I don’t know what TTj means. I’m sure you can appreciate that I’m trying to juggle several people’s comments, here, so I’m not going to do an itemized response exactly as written. I’ll just have to ask your indulgence on that.
    .
    Does accomplished mean the same as qualified? Or desirable? Leave open the possibility that someone could be an accomplished appellate court judge and not be a qualified Supreme Court Justice. Right? That being said, my question is not so much about her qualifications but about whether you care about her qualifications. Other than her race, I mean. And the fact that you expect her biases to reflect your own.
    .
    What do you mean she and Obama weren’t the ones to bring up race? I refer you to his announcement of his choice. Her race was front and center. Then there is her asinine “wise latina” comment. Here’s the difference between Sotomayor and Alito or Thomas. Her race has been painted by her and her supports as a reason to believe she’ll reach better decisions than those who don’t share her background. If you like the kind of decisions — lawless, activist — that many on the left seem to like, then you’re probably right.
    .
    And of course that’s why I don’t like her. Not because of her race or her sex, because I think she’ll take the country in a direction that will ultimately be worse for everyone, including those who expect to benefit from her “representation.”
    .
    I fail to see the connection between “racial grievance” and “self flagellation.” But rather than dwell on that, maybe you could point out some examples of how the system as it is today privileges white people for being white. Just a few examples, so I’ll know what the heck you’re talking about.
    .
    I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making in number 9. Are you saying there’s a civilized, liberal place out there somewhere that doesn’t have white males’ fingerprints all over it? Where? This isn’t a point of pride, but it certainly isn’t a reason for white males to be ashamed, either. I’ll take the US as it is after 200 years of leadership by white males over the alternatives — especially bearing in mind that utopia is not an alternative.
    .
    Looking at your last smiley face, I believe you’ve got it exactly backwards. No one that I’ve heard is saying that only white males are qualified for the Supreme Court. On the contrary, Sotomayor seems to be implying that they are distinctly unqualified — at least relative to a “wise latina,” such as herself.
    .
    I disagree with your notion that the law and Constitution are subjective in any meaningful sense. They are what they are, they say what they say. There are disagreements about what exactly is meant here or there, but that’s not the same as subjectivity. The tendency among progressives has been to identify what they think is “good,” then figure out how to interpret the law say that. However you feel about the sentiment behind this, its awfully hard to defend it intellectually. If you want the law to say a certain thing, you should change the law to say that, not just interpret it to mean that regardless of what it actually says. Perhaps we should be discussing Sotomayor as a Congressman or President. Then her “perspective” and “background” would be fully relevant. What do you think about that idea?

  17. Nquest

    Darin said: “Those same senators did not question Clarence Thomas about his race because he never claimed that his race gave him special powers of perception not available to white men.”

    WTF are you talking about? The clear hypocrisy of the issue is how so many White males SCOTUS nomineeswith racial skeletons in their closets including Roberts and Alito, not to mention Rehnquist, etc., weren’t questioned by those white Republican senators from the “bugs the hell out of me” standpoint and suspicion that they were racially biased. Of course, that’s all because of those Republican senators (and those before them) and their rather obvious white male identity politics. So, as I suggested, Lindsey Graham was lying his azz off when he claimed that had a white man said what Sotomayor said (re: the “wise Latina” speech) their career would be over. The proof of which I already noted and Sessions, himself, being the most blatant contradiction of that bs.
    .
    Now, regarding Thomas… Well, let’s just say, Judge Sotomayor sure hasn’t used, how do you say, “the race card” during her confirmation:
    .
    “This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
    .
    Now, considering Thomas and the Ricci decision, it’s clear these white Republican senator didn’t give a f-ck when it was someone like Thomas who was denied the fruits of his hard work and study:
    .
    “Whites would not hire him, he concluded, because no one believed he had attended Yale on his own merits. He felt acute betrayal: his education was supposed to put him on equal footing, but he was not offered the jobs that his white classmates were getting.”
    .
    Nor do they give a sh*t when whites benefit from preferences:
    .
    June 16, 2008: Jian Li, 19, was rejected from Princeton and four other elite institutions in 2006 even though he had perfect SAT scores and graduated in the top 1 percent of his high school class. Li, who was enrolled at Yale and now studies at Harvard, cited a white classmate from his high school who was admitted to Princeton with lower test scores and grades as alleged proof of racial discrimination.
    .
    WANTED: College Republican bake sale to illustrate the long history of unjust white racial preferences via Asian (and before them Jewish) college admissions-capping quotas.
    .
    (See, I can go off on a tangent, too.)

  18. Nquest

    A brief point to add on my last post… Sen. Lindsey Graham pretty much admitted that Republicans didn’t give a f-ck about Judge Thomas’ situation (if so, white Republicans would consider, propose and support vigorous enforcement of existing civil rights or affirmative action law to remedy untold number of cases/realities like Thomas’ that continue today). No, the clear evidence is that Republican “outreach” is a cynical game of politics. And let’s not forget how Republicans brag about the number of “minorities” Republican presidents include in their administrations. Now to story of the truth serum that gave Graham diarrhea of the mouth:
    .
    “People now understand the role of the court in modern society when it comes to social change. That’s why we fight so hard to put on the court people who see the world like us…”
    .
    See Clarence Thomas and his “White Folk Done Shamed Me Into Believing I’m Inferior” mindset. Back to Graham:
    .
    “What I want to tell the country is that Republicans very much do sit down and think about political picks and appointments in a political sense to try to show that we’re a party that looks at all Americans and wants to give an opportunity.”
    .
    See Clarence Thomas and his anti-thetical, ANTI-RICCI take on the kind of indisputable racism that resulted in his white classmates, somewhat like Jian Li’s white classmate, getting preferences via jobs/college admission as a result of such indisputable racism. (Anti-Ricci because, even though Ricci wasn’t harmed — he didn’t lose any opportunities and no one was promoted before/over him — Thomas didn’t view his experience where his hard work and study wasn’t rewarded as the product of the clear racism/discrimination present.)

  19. TTj was another commenter. The smiley faces . . . I don’t know where they came from.
    ~
    She will be the first person of latino heritage. That’s the context in which it was brought up. The speech was made years ago, not last month when her nomination was announced. And your quibble is over one sentences which doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means, not the whole speech. She didn’t say that a latina by default comes to a better conclusion than a white guy. That seems to be what you think she said or meant. It’s neither. Did you even read the excerpt Kristen left?
    ~
    She’s superbly qualified. Why you would start a issue over the semantics of qualified vs accomplished, I don’t know. I was using the words synonomously.
    ~
    Google housing, employment, income, lending, education discrimination. Are read through the thread for the story of Valley Club swimming pool outrage. I already went through quite a list. Don’t care to repeat.
    ~
    The Constitution is clearly subjective. That’s why you have so many papers and articles arguing various viewpoints as soon as it was ratified.
    ~
    The connection is in who’s using them and to what end; not their meaning. Conservatives and racism-deniers use these terms to dismiss and pathologize anti-racism.
    ~
    Did I say that? No. I said the things white males did to women and people of color around the world can hardly be considered civilized. I said that part of the reason white males did so much is that they beat, killed, or enslaved, physically or mentally, everyone else.

  20. Nquest

    Oh, this is definitely bold print material…
    .
    “Unfortunately, if you want to live in a civilized, liberal society, white males are about the only option.”
    .
    CIVILED, LIBERAL SOCIETY = WHITE MALE RUN SOCIETY.
    .
    Put in bold for further emphasis:
    .
    CIVILED, LIBERAL SOCIETY = WHITE MALE RUN SOCIETY.
    .
    Darin, thank you for your contribution and self-exposure. (Note: Your statement is both ridiculous and curious given the context of highly-qualified and accomplished people like Judge Sotomayor. And I really shouldn’t have to explain that.)

  21. Nquest

    Also, your ridiculous deduction and curious equation doesn’t make sense in the context of your begrudged admission:
    .
    “…do I think a racially diverse court would have produced a Brown v. Board sooner. I don’t know, probably.”
    .
    Please explain what was “liberal”, much less “civilized” about the pre-Brown USA. And please don’t tell me that considering slavery and the kind of neo-slavery and apartheid that existed for a century after it was abolished in the USA somehow is given too much weight in assess the degree of liberalism and civilization present in the USA.
    .
    US history is such that those “evil” white men, AS YOU CALL THEM, never decided to change things in terms of racialized slavery or discrimination out of the kindness of their hearts. Perhaps that’s what your point about “changes in the law usually come along after the fact” was all about. With regards to Brown v. Board, though, I’ll have to challenge you to make the case of when and where school desegregation was the reality before the decision. (That’s right… don’t try to use some general idea, even a general truism, unless you can prove it’s applicability/trueness in the particular thing you call yourself disputing.)

  22. Darin Johnson

    I’m going to ignore you, Nquest, because I haven’t got the faintest clue what you’re talking about. You seem to be quoting the daily newspaper from your college campus or something.

    No1KState, at this point, I’m not questioning her qualifications. I’m questioning whether those of you who are in high dudgeon care one way or the other whether she’s qualified. This is the third time we’ve been around this loop, so either I’m missing something or you are.

    You mention housing, employment, etc.. Listen, and this is a really important point, the fact that some categories of people have “more” than other categories is not by itself evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, including a racist one. Could there possibly be any other reason besides a racist conspiracy? I’m completely serious about this: if you can’t offer any other plausible scenario, whether you believe it or not, then I’ll know you’ve simply drunk the Kool-Aid and you’re not worth debating. I’m completely serious — offer another possibility. You don’t have to believe it, you don’t have to defend it, you don’t have to like it. Just offer one other reasonable explanation for why white people own more homes than blacks that doesn’t involve a racist conspiracy. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in return — at every opportunity. I promise.

    We clearly differ on this whole “subjective/objective” question. I doubt either of us is going to change the other’s mind here, so I’ll just point out that even Sotomayor acknowledges that her job as a judge is to apply the text of the law as written. (I doubt she believes that, but she says it.)

    Yeah, whites are the only race with any history of aggressiveness, racism, slavery, or treating women as second-class citizens. Every other part of the world has been like Abercrombie and Fitch for at least a thousand years. Come on, be serious.

  23. 1 – Darling, you’re missing something. I said she was qualified.
    ~
    2 – I didn’t say whites were the only race with an aggressive history. You can read what I said perfectly fine. I ask you again to stop reading into comments what isn’t there.
    ~
    3 – First off, one reason whites have more is because of they have been allowed to accumulate and pass down wealth. This includes the jobs that were open to whites but closed to blacks pre70s as well as the fact that GI Bill school loans and mortgages that black veterans had earned weren’t granted to them. Check the history. So the whole “one group has more” is due to racism.
    ~
    4 – I wasn’t talking about “has more.” I was talking about the fact that regardless of credit score, downpayment, credit history, loan amount, income, etc, blacks still pay more for the same mortgages as white. For the same experience and education, blacks still make less than whites. For the same crime, blacks receive harsher penalties. In education, black students are punished more often and more harshly despite acting out just as much as whites. Also, black students are often placed in academic tracks beneath where their standardized test scores indicate they should be. Even though black parents check their kids homework at a slightly higher rate than white parents, and black and white students all study the same amount of time. Again, I went through these and other things in another thread on this same blog.
    ~
    5 – Yeah, I suspect you didn’t really expect to change anyone’s mind.
    ~
    6 – My patience has been worn with you. If you have a sincere inquiry, then fine. But if you insist on remaining in denial, then I must insist you take it upon yourself to educate yourself much the same way I did, and not demand that others do it for you.

  24. Nquest

    I’m going to ignore you, Nquest…
    .
    Typical cop-out.
    .
    You went on some bs Clarence Thomas tangent that had nothing to do with anything said then when your idiotic equation is placed in bold, all of a sudden, you can’t understand straight forward English and direct counters to your bs.
    .
    You seem to be quoting the daily newspaper from your college campus or something.
    .
    Stop lying. You’ve never read a college newspaper entry like the direct counters I posted to your stupid for claiming Clarence Thomas never made any race-based statements or claims. You obviously haven’t been paying attention because both Thomas and Alito invoked their racial/ethnic background and upbringing to answer the “empathy” question during their confirmations. But, what you were actually presented with earlier, was Thomas injecting race, “playing the race card” in his confirmation when he was under fire re: Anita Hill.
    .
    Per your “Sotomayor and Obama are the ones who brought it [race] up” statement, clearly Thomas “playing the race card” in the most naked and shameless of manners… Well, because you’re like some little grade school partisan $#%*… Quite naturally you got the shut ups when it comes to trying to run (i.e. stick with) that kind of bs.
    .
    And yet, your declaring that you’re ignoring (when you could have just done it without saying another word)… Well, it makes me no never mind because your little public declaration changes nothing with me… Because stuff like this just won’t move:
    .
    Please explain what was “liberal”, much less “civilized” about the pre-Brown USA.
    .
    Like I said, thanks for exposing yourself.

  25. Nquest

    Oh and the challenge still stands:
    .
    I challenge you to make the case that school desegregation was the reality before the Brown v. Board decision.
    .
    You know the related-to-nothing-in-particular bs your tried to slide by:
    “the changes in the law usually come along after the fact and simply reflect the reality that already exists.”
    >
    The challenge is simple: was that the case with Brown v. Board or not?
    .
    Given that it was NOT… Flush that “usually come along” bs down the drain right with the rest of your unsustainable logic and factually flawed comments.

  26. Darin Johnson

    If your patience is worn out, don’t respond, for goodness’s sake. It’s not like I’m standing at the door of your house. I certainly don’t have an “inquiry” for you — although I’m sure there are plenty of things you know that I don’t, you seen disinclined to share them with me. I’m not sure how many of them are true, anyway.
    .
    Okay, back to it.
    .
    If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that because the past law wasn’t fair in some places at some times, the current playing field is poisoned and must be tilted to make up for the head start that the previously advantaged groups have. Is that right?
    .
    I have a few problems with that. What about immigration? For example, my relatives came to the US after the Civil War, to a state that never had slaves or Jim Crow laws. Assuming for a moment that I’m white, why should I be considered part of the formerly-privileged group?
    .
    Many Africans, and other people, came to the US in just the last 20 years. Why should they be considered part of the previously-disadvantaged group?
    .
    Maybe my (assume white for a moment) great-great grandfather died in the Civil War. He was an abolitionist from Vermont, never held a slave and gave his life in the hope that the slaves in America would be set free. I was denied the benefit of his last forty years. Should I be compensated by the former slaves’ families, who benefited from his sacrifice?
    .
    Why are Asian immigrants so different? How can you possibly explain that in your racial conspiracy context?
    .
    The examples you give, about blacks paying more for mortgages and black kids being punished more severely (assuming they’re true, which is of course an empirical question), seem to contradict your justification for tilting the field. With these examples, you’re not saying that whites are richer because of past injustices, you’re saying its because of subtle present-day injustices. Maybe it’s both, huh? I have to say, your second explanation, which is going to be tough to sustain, is still better than your first one. Income and status mobility in the US is huge, and its going to be hard to explain why people who were poor 150 years ago are still poor without identifying some kind of ongoing effect.
    .
    However, like we talked about before, disparate outcome is not by itself a plausible proof of racist conspiracy. You either have to show that racism is actually the motivation or you have to show that there’s no other explanation. It’s going to be tough for you, because there’s always this Asian question. Why are Asians, who had it as rough as any immigrant group except Africans, doing so much better now than, say, Mexicans? Can you explain this in the context of racist conspiracy? Or Jews! Everybody hates the Jews, right? So why are they doing so well?
    .
    Here’s the deal. I think we’re having a heated but interesting discussion. If I’m asking you to educate me it’s only in terms of your own viewpoint, which I’m sure there’s no other way for me to learn about. If you don’t want to continue, fine. But get off your high-horse and don’t act like you’re doing me a favor.
    .
    I hope you’ll respond.

  27. I’m not on any high horse. You keep reading what you want to read, and understanding what you want to understand. If you’re gonna stop trying to put words in my mouth, ok.
    ~
    It’s both past racism and present racism. Most of the laws don’t “tilt” any historic injustice; they only correct present injustice. The only “tilting” I can think of would be in higher education, and even that only mitigates the accumulation of the consequences of racism.
    ~
    Your immigrant grandfather still benefitted from racism: given jobs not given blacks; paid more than blacks, etc and so on. The whole “Asian question” is a bit of a red herring. From what I can gather, they don’t appreciate being used to rationalize anti-black racism, especially since the white majority still has anti-Asian racism. They experience a lot of the job and income discrimination blacks have experienced. Mel Gibson and his ilk aside, Jews have successfully assimilated into whiteness.
    ~
    This isn’t from my “experience.” This is my having looked at research and studies and read books on the issue. This isn’t my personal opinion, racism is documented fact.
    ~
    Disparate outcome isn’t itself evidence of racism, but it’s a pretty strong indicator. Anytime we dig beyond the surface, we set the accumulated effects of past racism. Even with the Ricci case. The majority didn’t say that the test itself and the process was on the up, just that fear of litigation alone doesn’t justify the city’s actions.

  28. Kristen

    Darin,
    There is a clear link between past injustices and current discrimination and inequalities. Just using common sense, how could it be otherwise? We had widespread, extreme, and perfectly legal forms of discrimination and injustice towards people of color as a whole until just a few decades ago. Strong racist stereotypes remain, and whites continue to receive systemic advantages. Discriminatory practices continue to occur in schools, workplaces, housing, hospitals, retail stores, courts, and other places. There are hundreds of empirical studies, conducted by social science academics, governmental and other organizations. Some of the studies I find most fascinating use a social audit method. (This particular one published in 2003 is very well-known: http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2003/pagerajs.pdf)
    There’s a lot of information out there. The posters here will debate you all day, but it really does not boil down to viewpoint if the topic is whether the U.S. is a country that has been or continues to be discriminatory towards people of color. It is empirically established.

  29. Nquest

    Darin asked: Why are Asian immigrants so different?
    .
    This asked after Darin conveniently ran away from considering:
    .
    June 16, 2008: Jian Li, 19, was rejected from Princeton and four other elite institutions in 2006 even though he had perfect SAT scores and graduated in the top 1 percent of his high school class. Li, who was enrolled at Yale and now studies at Harvard, cited a white classmate from his high school who was admitted to Princeton with lower test scores and grades as alleged proof of racial discrimination.
    .
    The source link, here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/06/16/princetons-admissions-policies-investigated.html
    .
    Note: Nquest makes no statement about Mr. Jian Li’s “immigrant” status or any stupid azz “conspiracy” nonsense. The views expressed only reflect a stiff punch of reality for the criminally ignorant and an answer to same.

  30. Darin Johnson

    Kristen, you say there’s a clear link between past injustice and inequality — based on common sense. Well, I appreciate the fact that you posted a study, at least attempting to bring some intellectual rigor to your argument. But I’m still not convinced that you guys even acknowledge that there are rational, clear-eyed arguments out there that go the other way — that racist conspiracy is not a particularly powerful explainer of the differences in outcomes between races.
    .
    Do you know that?
    .
    Let me give you an example of somebody playing this game, and maybe you’ll see what I mean. On page 21 of the study you linked, Kristen, the author acknowledges that there is debate about whether race itself, apart from “correlated characteristics,” is a good predictor of outcomes. Then he proceeds to ignore every possible correlating characteristic and measure only whether there’s a relationship between race, criminal history, and employment. That’s a major stolen base! It’s not “empirically established,” its hotly contested and I think argued in bad faith. Perhaps on both sides, I’ll admit.
    .
    So I’ll ask again: can you suggest even one other possibility besides a racist conspiracy that explains the differences in outcomes between whites (and Asians) on one hand and blacks (and Hispanics) on the other? If you can’t, then you’re saying this isn’t an empirical question, not a question of fact at all. It will be a matter of faith, and you’d excuse me for concluding that this is more like a religion than an intellectual position; and those of us who disagree with you will ask why your religious beliefs should be of particular importance in making policy.
    .
    Kristen, I want to make one other point clear. I am sure there are people out there who are wild-eyed racists. And I’m sure we’re all partial to our own races (to our shame) — evolutionary biology demands it. The question is whether those facts are helpful in explaining the differences in achievement between races. You say the US as a country continues to discriminate. Of course I agree, but we probably have diametrically opposed ideas of what valid examples of this look like. I would point to the fact that blacks are admitted to college with lower (empirically measured and objective) test scores than Asians. I would point out that public contracting is still tilted towards “minority” races in most parts of the country. I suspect you, on the other hand, would find more examples of disparate impact than examples of policy or law favoring whites. Am I right about that?
    .
    (By the way, Nquest is making my point for me. Asians are treated completely differently from Blacks or Hispanics. If there were a black girl with a perfect SAT, she could go to any college in the country free of charge. I promise. Why can’t an Asian? Can you guys explain this in the racist conspiracy context?)

  31. Nquest

    By the way, your evasions are making my point for me. You claim Asians are treated completely differently but that’s not the case. And Jian Li’s case wasn’t a case of “a black girl with a perfect SAT”… This was the fact of the matter:
    .
    Li, who was enrolled at Yale and now studies at Harvard, cited a white classmate from his high school who was admitted to Princeton with lower test scores and grades as alleged proof of racial discrimination
    .
    No doubt, a similar situation existed in the U of Michigan undergrad case when Jennifer Gratz sued and claimed it was because of affirmative action, even though there was almost two times as many lower scoring/testing Whites who were admitted when she was not and a number of students from all racial/ethnic backgrounds who had higher scores than she did who were not admitted — i.e. she was not, in any wise, entitled to admission but some ideas she inherited from the past gave her that impression.
    .
    But back to what you want to avoid… Mr. Jian Li is but one example of the long and well documented history of Whites receiving preferences — i.e. Whites are admitted to college with lower (empirically measured and objective) test scores than Asians. But, just like colleges have tried to maintain gender balance… admitting lower scoring male students “over” higher scoring female students, in universities like Stanford and Berkeley, keeping the proper White balance, regardless of grades, has a long history to it.
    .
    There is also a history where Whites receive scholarships at traditionally “Black” colleges far and above anything anti-black, anti-affirmative action people complain about.
    .
    Fall 2001: For example, Alabama State University is currently operating under a 1995 federal court ruling by District Judge Harold L. Murphy, requiring that it set aside nearly 40% of its academic grants budget for scholarships to whites. The state augments the university’s $229,000 contribution with public funds, bringing the “whites only” scholarship fund to $1 million a year. Until recently, a white student applying for such a scholarship needed only a “C” average. African Americans vying for admission to the university, meanwhile, had to earn almost a full point higher to even merit consideration.

    http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_01/Lies161.shtml

  32. Darin Johnson

    Wait a second. Are you honestly saying, Nquest, that blacks with high scores are being denied admission in favor of whites with lower scores? Are you saying it’s true in general — that black perform better but are denied entrance to state universities so lower-performing whites can go instead — or is this something particular to this specific case?
    .
    I seriously doubt this is true. Even the most strident of the racial-grievance crowd don’t usually claim that high-performing blacks are being kept out of college. The fact is that colleges, which are among the most capital-L-Liberal places in the country compete heavily among themselves to attract high-performing black students so they can print up nice, shiny brochures about diversity and culture on their publicly-funded campuses.
    .
    You’ll have to convince me.

  33. Nquest

    I did not stutter. And your problem is that you’re not talking to some GENERAL “most strident racial-grievance crowd” (aka your stereotype-laden views)… You’re talking to an individual who presents information you continue to shrink from, ducking and dodging.
    .
    Your continued non-response to the rather specific Jian Li case, one in a long line of cases where lower performing Whites are admitted before Asian American students, is evidence that you’re “convinced” that you can’t touch that. I’m convinced you’ve conceded that and have this opinion that lower performing Whites receiving preferences and/or being admitted before a more “meritorious” candidate is excusable — which ends any debate or discussion because you have not an ounce of credibility or honesty when it comes to this issue.
    .
    Are you saying it’s true in general…?
    .
    What did I say? I cited the U of Michigan case and cited one of several cases where it exists in HBCU’s. Your “Are you saying it’s true in general…?” argument angle falls flat. My points stand unchallenged.
    .
    Either you got some information that refutes what I’ve said about what I’ve said or you can continue to flap in the dishonest dealer winds you blew in here on.

  34. Nquest

    “In 1995, the year [Jennifer] Gratz applied to UM, of the students admitted with lower scores and grades, 1,243 were white (46.7 percent) and 725 were Black (27.2 percent).”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_200205/ai_n9058235/pg_2/
    .
    By those numbers alone, Gratz never had a case. There was simply no way to tell who “took her spot.” As one columnist put it:
    .
    “It seems that Gratz, who is white, could graciously lose out to white students with lower grade-point averages and test scores. But losing out to similarly situated African Americans and Latinos was just too much to take. Second place to them? Pass the smelling salts. So she sued…”

  35. Nquest

    Whenever you get ready Darin:
    .
    Li, who was enrolled at Yale and now studies at Harvard, cited a white classmate from his high school who was admitted to Princeton with lower test scores and grades as alleged proof of racial discrimination
    .
    Alabama State University [was required to]… set aside nearly 40% of its academic grants budget for scholarships to whites… [At one time] African Americans vying for admission to the university… had to earn almost a full point higher [than the C average required of White students eligible for the scholarship] to even merit consideration.

    .
    Those data points will still be here along with all the other data I’ve provided. The post record shows that you’re convinced that you have no effective, let alone direct, counter to those exact data points. Instead, being the lamer you are, you thought you could get away with changing the subject under consideration — “Are you saying it’s true in general…?”
    .
    Again, the data points I presented won’t move. Again, my points stand unchallenged. You’ve made me the ‘winner’ by default, by your plea of NO CONTEST — by your continued non-response, non-counter to the specific points I presented.

  36. Kristen

    @ Darin’s #35,
    Thanks for taking a look at that study. I disagree with your criticism of the researcher’s methodology. She went to great lengths to isolate race – controlling for the self-presentation, diction, clothing, educational credentials, job experience, etc. of the testers. Social audit studies are the best thing out there for the “real-world” experiment (most experimental research is performed in artificial situations in laboratories, and you can imagine the problems with generalizing findings from such studies to how people behave in real life). And she still got a statistically significant discrepancy.

    I think a person could debate whether she really did isolate race, but I would need to hear a plausible alternative explanation for why otherwise equal black applicants have about half the chance of being considered for employment as white applicants. I’ve never heard anyone on the other side of the debate come up with a plausible explanation.

    And, you know, this is just one study. The others have similar findings, which illustrates to me a pattern of more opportunities and advantages going to white people. And I say “to me,” but, truly, among social science scholars who study inequality in all its complexity, there is not a big debate about this. There are some folks who argue that racial discrimination is lessening over time and that socioeconomic class has taken on a greater importance for life chances, but even those people don’t deny that there is racism. Pretty much everyone agrees that the evidence shows that race, class, and gender continue to effect outcomes, with whites being the most advantaged group, men, and those from the upper-classes.

    And, “racist conspiracy?” No one here is talking about a conspiracy, but institutional patterns that continue to privilege whiteness.

    Lastly,

    I disagree that evolutionary biology demands that we each prefer those with a few similar phenotypic traits to ourselves. An illustrative case you might’ve heard of are the classic black doll-white doll studies, where both white and black American children show a stronger preference for the white doll. Across our history as a nation we have chosen to normalize and privilege whiteness. Racial prejudice is not natural to humans and it is not inevitable, but if we believe it is, we won’t be too motivated to do anything about it, will we? We won’t take responsibility for the mess we’re in.

  37. Kristen

    I think Nquest made a good point (#36) that whites are hypocritical, or I would say schizophrenic… When blacks score lower on standardized tests than whites, we say that they don’t deserve admission (“special preferences”), and we are satisfied if blacks are underrepresented on campus compared to their proportion in society. But when whites score lower on standardized tests than Asians, we are concerned with maintaining a representative balance of white students, and Asian students are docked just for being Asian.

  38. Nquest

    Yes, schizophrenia is an apt description right along with obsessed with making African-Americans the scapegoat. Notice how Darin went right into pitting African-Americans against Asian-Americans acting as if the information I presented about lower scoring White student(s) benefiting and being preferred didn’t contradict or complicate his claim that when, as then Sen. Joe Biden said on Hard Ball back during the Michigan affirmative action case period, a number of selective colleges could consist of all Asian students, domestic and international, if strict academic testing “merit” was the consideration.
    .
    And though Darin has admitted that he’s partial to his “race” (otherwise trying to justify his inability to set-aside his decidedly White advocate perspective), it’s clear for his responses that he is the one who has drunk the Kool-Aid repeating the same ignorant arguments from the White grievance, racism deniers clique.
    .
    Somehow, the academic success of certain Asian American groups are supposed to discount claims by African-Americans…. even when Asian-Americans are have been discriminated against in college admissions and directly in terms of preferring Whites… Mr. Johnson has nothing to say about ways in which the deck is stacked and tilted to prefer/advantage Whites. As such, he’s made no mention about Legacies or the overall “Price of Admission” that favors Whites.

    http://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097967

Pingbacks

  1. Making Her Own Case | Xenia Institute

Leave a Reply