I'm writing this in retrospect, and I don't feel very secure that I'll remember what I wanted to say well enough to express my disgust sufficiently enough, but I'll try.
Yesterday, 4 October 2007, Professor Lino Graglia from the University of Texas, a constitutional law professor, was invited to lecture on the horrors of Affirmative Action by the Federalist Society of the University of Kansas. That nigga is a bigot! I generally try to conserve such accusations for those who might be offended by such suggestions. Lino Graglia, perhaps, would not care about being labeled as such. Anywho, I wouldn't be fair if I didn't at least give a brief synopsis of his arguments:
"Affirmative Action...blacks...blacks...blacks...blacks...blacks...blacks...blacks...blacks...racial preference...blacks...blacks...blacks...Italians...blacks...blacks...blacks in the 12th grade at the level of 8th grade whites...blacks...blacks...blacks..."
If you haven't caught my first complaint, it's the abnormal fixation upon blacks. Gragley justified his obsession in the question and answer section by stating that "if it weren't for blacks (whining?) there would be no affirmative action." He then went on to say that Latinos and Asians merely jumped on the race preference bandwagon after schools began to develop programs for blacks.
Gragley's central argument was that blacks in the 12th grade, at some point in time, were only educated to an 8th grade level. Such an academic disparity did not warrant "racial preferences" because "race preference" programs merely placed inferior black students in Ivy League schools that they can't handle. At no point did Gragley suggest a solution for the root problem of academic disparities. In fact, if I recall, he actually suggested that there is no solution for such a racial disgrace. He instead supported the ending of affirmative action so that "blacks" can go to schools where they can compete.
End of his lecture!
Racial insensitivity aside, Graggs must be stupid if he thinks that everyone in the audience isn't at least minutely aware of the number of black youths who disproportionately suck at life. What astounded me, is that despite the glaring fact that white women have been the leading beneficiaries of affirmative action programs ever since they fanagled their way into being a minoritized group (which I'm not denying that they are, but white women need aff. act. in the workplace so much more than in undergraduate colleges, but that's a separate discussion), but he proceeded to bypass all other minority groups, saving his most scathing attacks for "blacks." (he NEVER mentioned white women.)
Furthermore, Graggila made it a point to first make an erroneous distinction between "race mixing" programs and diversity programs--as if by having a diversity of races, you don't automatically acquire diversity. And then, after making the distinction, he proceeded to attack the importance of diversity in general! (That man must have wet dreams of his experiences at CSU--Caucasia State University.)
I call Grag-gizzle a bigot because: 1) his unusual desire to lay all of the blame on "blacks" reveals an internal conflict between himself--as a white male--and black people in general. 2) The only possible explanation for why he would carry such opinions of affirmative action, while simultaneously declaring that the central cause of his objections is the academic disparity between the races, is a (perhaps subconscious) desire for racial self-preservation--the man is languishing in his own white privilege and white supremacy, the simple fact that he chose not to research the causes of black under-education but instead the birth pains of black over-education is evidence that his concern lies not with blacks, but with whites; his concern is not with education, but with race; he cares little for collective progress, and denies the potential for collective oppression (simply put, ivy league blacks threaten white privilege and superiority over time).
Attacking affirmative action is a defense mechanism that overprivileged whites develop to justify their privilege. Attacks on affirmative action that are based upon the failures of the American public (secondary) education system are merely a defense mechanism to support and maintain notions of white (academic) superiority. Attacking the scores of blacks in high schools--most of whom never make it to Universities, sadly--says nothing of the blacks in college. Such statistics have no place in College Affirmative Action discourse!
He disacknowledges claims that blacks deserve affirmative action if for no other reason than they weren't granted the right to an education by law at one time. (Alternately, blacks could deserve affirmative action because it generally will improve competition in white collar arenas (that is if whites were willing to hire highly educated blacks that are not conservative) but Graggle Rock apparently is not interested in competing with blacks--at least not on an equal footing. Also, one could argue that the reason for Groggles opinions is because when he was in school, he was drowning in a sea of white opinion. Perhaps, a little diversity would have saved him from the sin of ignorance. But he addresses none of these ideas either.)
One of the more frustrating discussions was about a timeline. Graggy Bear didn't even suggest timelines, the more moderate Federalist Society guy did. He asked "When are affirmative action programs supposed to end?" This is all I have to say on that matter: Blacks were not supposed to be legally treated as equals under the law from the first time black slaves walked on colonial American soil until the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No one has any right to discuss timelines until we get close to the same number of years. If actual equality is achieved--not just in law, but in society--there should be a discussion regarding the ongoing merits of affirmative action policies. Until then, shut your goddamn bigot mouth!
My greatest indictment of the whole concept is this: Why are school admissions programs a matter of law subject to the constitution? Education is not guaranteed by the constitution. If it was, no one would ever PAY to go to college, it would be completely subsidized/socialized. Since schools receive government funds, but are not government entities, I imagine that they should receive the same legal treatment as any other non-governmental BUSINESS that receives government aid. If the federal government can give billions to the airline industry without controlling basic hiring procedures, if the federal government can subsidize farmers without telling them what and when to plant, then why is the government sticking their greasy palms in my education. If a school wants to increase diversity, then let them do so. Don't ride the University of Michigan's dick just because they create a quota system that WORKS.
As an aside, I don't know a single white person that has a right to complain. Let's talk rhetoric: if a white person chooses to attack a school for creating a race-based affirmative action policy while simultaneously maintaining that "blacks" anything, they are rhetorically subjecting themselves to racial grouping as well. In that sense, we can talk raw numbers. Because he (or she) is white, and 70% or more of the college is white anyway, they have no complaint. If I am supposed to be grouped in with my black brothers and sisters whenever you make a flagrant generalization about my race, I too reserve the right to generalize about yours. And white people single-handedly dominate college campuses. So shut your trap and be glad that white supremacy still stands.
~Thank your lucky stars that Harvard, Yale, or Princeton doesn't decide to go entirely over to merit based admission. The moment the United States decides to suppress race admissions in favor of pure merits, I personally will make a movement to have minority students of excellence enroll in those schools. I will demand that they flood traditionally white Universities with brown faces until white students are the minority of the freshman...sophomore...junior...and someday Senior class. What could they do in a merit based system? They would have to let us in. Eliminate legacy programs, balance the financial aide programs, tame the athletics privileges, and BOOM! Be prepared to lose your much coveted spot to SUPERIOR minority academics.
But that would never happen. I just thought I might suggest the possibility. There's no way I could rally that many black, latino, and asian academics to a single school for four years. But if it were possible, if there was that much unity, I think affirmative action programs would be largely unnecessary. But there's not. And black people need a real reason to come to a school with a hostile racial environment. And yea, from what I hear, Ivy Leagues do not favor middle and lower class black youth. So suck it up white people, in the general sense, it's not so bad.
Oh, and Lino Graglia is a BITCH!!!!
And here's a general list of arguments from his lecture:
1. the only reason for race preference is because blacks underperform
2. the gaps (between the races) are too great to be ignored or overcome
3. the root (of the problem) is poor black academic performance
a. there is a 4 yr gap in reading and math between white and black students
4. the gap IS NOT decreasing--that is "pure fantasy"
5. without "preferences" the number of blacks (at ivy league schools?) would drop below 11%
6. instead of going to schools where they can compete, blacks go to schools where they are academically inferior
7. "Ethnic Studies" (was created) to (try to) prove white racism and conceal inferiority
And here's a link to one of his essays, ***warning, it is not for the egalitarian of heart***:
"The Affirmative Action Fraud"
Posts
