The Great Affirmative Action Lie

The Abigail Fishers and George Wills think that minorities have unfair advantages. Not by a long shot. By: Edward Wyckoff Williams | Posted: October 11, 2012 at 12:01 AM

 

Abigail Fisher and attorney Bert Rein (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

- Four decades after legalized discrimination was still codified in law, racial disparities persist at nearly every level of American society. From criminal justice to education, employment to housing, minorities in general and African Americans in particular continue to face an uphill battle toward social and economic equity.

Affirmative action policies -- originally designed to redress problems created by centuries of slavery and Jim Crow -- are being derided by some as racial discrimination against white people. The fundamental ideology is being challenged this week in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white woman claims she was disadvantaged in college admissions. A similar argument failed in 2003, but today's more conservative court may be more apt to side with the plaintiff, since the white-victim mentality has recently gained mainstream momentum -- both in education and politics.

George Will, the renowned conservative Washington Post columnist, echoed these sentiments when he claimed that President Obama's recent success in polls against his Republican challenger is solely due to his being black. Will argued that voters are reluctant to fire Obama -- suggesting that African Americans not only are living in a postracial era that requires no affirmative government policy but are also actually enjoying some kind of benefit by virtue of their blackness. Herein lies the cognitive dissonance of white privilege and the fundamental conundrum of trying to explain the need for affirmative policy to a white majority that sees nothing wrong with the status quo.

Welcome to the land of make-believe.

Abigail Noel Fisher, the white woman who claimed that the University of Texas policy discriminated against her on the basis of race, has since graduated from Louisiana State University. The facts of her original case reveal that she failed to meet the threshold of being in the top 10 percent of her graduating high school class -- which would have automatically guaranteed admission to UT. Instead Fisher competed in a general-applicant pool that, along with merit-based variables, considers race, athletics, community service and other factors.

According to UT, this method ensures a diverse class and enriches the educational experience. Fisher, however, concluded that being white somehow disadvantaged her and, as such, any policy that considered race was a violation of her constitutional equal-protection rights.

But Fisher needs a brief civics lessons.

Joan Walsh, in her new book, What's the Matter With White People?, posits that too many whites incorrectly believe that minorities have benefited from affirmative action at their expense. Walsh takes a historic view, showing that most white Americans enjoyed the benefits of the Great Society social welfare programs, in particular the postwar GI Bill, expansion of public universities, FHA mortgage-lending guarantees and union jobs.

Together, these benefits created upward mobility for a strong middle class. They were social welfare programs -- amounting to affirmative action government policies for poor and low-income whites -- and often, almost explicitly, excluded African Americans and other people of color.

After the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, access to these programs expanded slowly for minorities. And in 1972, Title IX was passed to guarantee women equal access to higher education, but even that mostly assisted white women, since the gains of the civil rights era were embryonic, at best, and still being negotiated.

The results speak for themselves, since many women -- mostly white -- now enjoy positions of privilege and power from the classroom to the boardroom. Fisher's claims aside, the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, released last week, reveals that for most white Americans, discrimination is the least of barriers.

The unemployment rate for white women and white men over the age of 20 stood at 6.3 percent and 6.2 percent respectively, well below the national average of 7.8 percent and just shy of what is considered full employment -- this even in tough economic times. In contrast, although the overall African-American unemployment rate has improved significantly from its peak of 16.7 percent, it remained well above the national average at 13.4 percent.

Fisher's own story ignores the most crucial fact -- namely, the original need for affirmative action. For descendants of African-American slaves, the combination of brown skin and state-sanctioned discrimination left no alternative option or recourse.

At the heart of Fisher's argument is the misguided view that African Americans and Hispanics are given preferential treatment on race alone and, as such, are undeserving. Yet historical data show that white American women have been the biggest benefactors of affirmative action policies -- undermining Fisher's own argument.

George Will, in his misguided op-ed, reveals the cognitive dissonance at the heart of so many attacks on any success achieved by blacks -- dismissing them as affirmative action babies. Yet he willfully ignores (pun intended) any privilege he himself experienced as a Princeton- and Oxford-educated white male, born into an America that legally deprived blacks of any opportunity to compete with him.

Though Will claims to be postracial, it is only the success of African Americans that he overtly racializes. As such, Will -- whose career of covering American presidents extends over 30 years -- has never once suggested that the re-elections of Reagan, Bush or Clinton hinged, in part or entirely, on their whiteness.

So why, in Will's opinion, is race the sole factor of Obama's potential return to the White House? Likewise, could it be that Fisher simply didn't impress the UT admissions officers as much as another white candidate? Why must it have been a black or brown person who received the spot she is convinced belonged to her?

America's original sin created a de facto affirmative action for white people that still plagues the broader sociopolitical consciousness. This malignant disease leads some white Americans to believe that they deserve something that, in an increasingly minority-majority nation, is being taken by someone who looks different from them.

The result? Hispanics and Asians are stealing their jobs. Blacks are taking their seats at university. Their Oval Office is occupied by a foreign-born, illegitimate president.

The line between white privilege and the status quo has become so blurred it's invisible. It is time to redraw the line in black and white.

Being a Teen's Dad

So, my son Jaylen turned 13 years old last week. I woke up the morning of his 13th birthday filled with both excitement and tons of apprehension. What does it mean to be the parent of a teenager? Well, when I think of a 13 year-old Elijah I think of the awkwardness, the changes the body experiences(puberty), the inquisitive nature about things(girls), etc. While I feel like I had great teen years, I'm not sure how my parents dealt with it, especially with me being their first child and all. I heard someone say the other day that kids are different these days. I don't believe that one iota. I think times have changed, but kids are still the same. Yes, they have more technology at their fingertips, are exposed to a lot more on TV than we were, but kids are kids in my opinion. Kids listen to rap music filled with violence and misogyny today. I grew up listening to Tupac, Biggie, Snoop Dogg and a cast of others during Hip-Hop's heyday. Kids watch TV that can be considered violent and chock-full of sexually suggestive situations. We had those shows too, they were always on cable back then, but you can find them on "regular" TV now. Not much difference there. Kids are more prone to violence now, people will say. Actually, violent crime has decreased over the past decade. Kids may have more access to weapons now, but if we had had them as accessible, I'm quite sure more people would have been shot at. I think that speaks to less of a willingness to fight and the cowardice of children raised without decent male role models-but that's for another blog! Kids today are dealing with the epidemic of 'bullying' and the attention it has garnered. We had bullies, but we also were raised to stand-up for ourselves and never felt ostracized like I guess some of the victims of incessant bullying feel. We also weren't subject to bullying via social-media and other forms of technological outlets. I feel like the topic of sex isn't taboo being that I've been talking to my son about it for a few years now. I'd like for him to be equipped with knowledge that I didn't have at that age(not like I needed it) being that sex seems to be everywhere.

All in all, I guess my worries are common place. I worry about his education, college affordability and the fact that college loans are the largest area of debt for people these days, surpassing medical bills (hopefully Obamacare will rectify some of that,Yay Obamacare!). He's 4 years away from his college freshman year, and I know I can't afford that currently. I worry about how he views the world and how the surrounding world views him. I know he'll have a lot a questions as he grows and matures-at least until he hits the phase where he thinks he "knows it all". Gosh, I remember going through that phase too. How did my parents ever deal? Not looking forward to that. All in all, I hope I'm prepared to help guide my son through these upcoming teen years. It can be a tough road to slog. So, what does it mean to be the parent of a teenager I still wonder? I guess I could always pick up the phone and give my parents a call, after all-I think they may have some expertise in this area.

Black or African American? Which Do You Prefer?

[OPINION] WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AFRICAN AMERICAN? SHAHIDA MUHAMMAD SAYS THE 'POLITICALLY CORRECT' TERM DOESN'T SAY ENOUGH

BySHAHIDA MUHAMMAD

I have never been offended by the use of 'African American,' but personally there a few reasons I don’t particularly like the term. I have used it in my writing when making efforts to be politically correct, or as an alternative reference to Black people. Yet I have always viewed it as just that: a politically correct alternative to Black. Never something I whole-heartedly embraced. I have checked it on applications, but never used it to self-identify in real-life. It has always felt forced, redundant, and quite frankly, inaccurate. Using the term 'African American' feels like using Kente cloth made in China trying desperately to authenticate myself. In theory I know where I'm from, but in actuality I wasn’t made there.

I’m very much aware that my ancestors were from Africa, and in no way would I want to distance myself from that fact. From an early age my family taught me the painful context of our history in this country, and also that our history as a people did not begin solely with slavery. We come from great peoples and civilizations, and it’s something that has always given me a sense of pride and dignity. However, knowing all of this, there is still no way to pinpoint exactly where my African ancestors came from. Therefore, I have no direct lineage, specific heritage, language or traditions to lay claim to.

I see 'African American' as both ambiguous and limiting at the same time. It’s an ethno-cultural term that has become synonymous with race and “regular Black folks.” It’s used exclusively in reference to Black people in the U.S. who are descendants of the Transatlantic slave trade, yet excludes anyone who is an African immigrant or first-generation citizen--who in my opinion would be most fitting of the title. African American is also very vague and simplified. Africa is a vast continent, made up of various nations, cultures, languages, traditions, etc. So to associate myself namely with the continent, without a specific point of reference, doesn’t  bring me any closer to my roots, yet it subtly reinforces the misconception that Africa is a simplistic, homogeneous land. The history of the term is said to have begun with poet and civil rights activists, Johnny Duncan. In 1987, his poem “I Can” was published in the Black History Calendar. Towards the end of the poem he writes: “The last 4 letters of my African Heritage and American creed spell "I can"!” It was this line that inspired Jesse Jackson to coin the term and he along with other civil rights leaders began to encourage Black people to begin using it shortly after. During a 1988 press conference to discuss a national Black agenda, Jackson confidently announced that Black people now preferred to be called 'African American,' opting for an ethnic term opposed to a racial one. He stated that “to be called African American has cultural integrity,” citing groups like Italian Americans and Arab Americans as examples. 

While I can understand why one would want to have a distinct cultural identity, the difference between our people and the ethnic groups Jesse Jackson referenced that day to support his statement, is that they all came here willingly, as immigrants. And of course, we did not. In addition to this, we have systematically been far removed from our cultures of origin. Making our ethnicity and nationality far more complex.

Finally, 'African American' just does not invoke the same bold pride as Black does. (And  I’ve always suspected that was one of the reasons we’ve been encouraged to use it). During the heights of Black consciousness and the Black Power Movement  throughout the 60s and 70s, when everything black had previously been associated with inferiority and despair, our people began redefining and embracing it as a means of identification. It took on a spirit of self-pride, self-love, dignity and even resistance. And we began opting out of terms that had been previously imposed on us such as colored and negro.

Black connects me with that struggle. Black also connects me to my people throughout the world, whether they are in South America, the Caribbean, Africa or elsewhere. 

I identify as Black in terms of race, American (by default) in terms of nationality; always keeping in mind that my ancestry ties me to Africa and the original peoples of this earth. To me, Black unites us beyond our various geographic locations, nationalities or cultures; whereas we can all say we are Black, connected and proud.

The First Lady's Speech

So I'm quite sure that you all have seen it, but I wanted to post it here. It was not only the best speech of the DNC convention (the RNC included) at that point, but one that's sure to go down in political lore. It was a stunning strike of efficacy, emotion and empathy, with a hearty dose of inspiration. Michelle Obama embodies everything we should desire in our First Lady for America from here on out. She truly has shifted the paradigm.

Election Season is Here! Make Sure You Know the FACTS!

FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech

By JACK GILLUM and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laying out the first plans for his party's presidential ticket, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took some factual shortcuts Wednesday night when he attacked President Barack Obama's policies on Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit.

Sen. Rob Portman, a former U.S. trade representative, glossed over his own problems when critiquing Obama's trade dealings with China. A day earlier, the convention's keynote speaker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, bucked reality in promising that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will lay out for the American people the painful budget cuts it will take to wrestle the government's debt and deficit woes under control.

And former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum stretched the truth in taking Obama to task over his administration supposedly waiving work requirements in the nation's landmark welfare-to-work law.

A closer look at some of the words spoken at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla.:

___

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.

___

RYAN: "The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal."

THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies.

One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build "sustainable demand for green jobs." Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.

___

RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."

THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.

___

RYAN: Obama "created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing."

THE FACTS: It's true that Obama hasn't heeded his commission's recommendations, but Ryan's not the best one to complain. He was a member of the commission and voted against its final report.

___

CHRISTIE: "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths we need to hear to end the torrent of debt that is compromising our future and burying our economy. ... Tonight, our duty is to tell the American people the truth. Our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. We all must share in the sacrifice. Any leader that tells us differently is simply not telling the truth."

THE FACTS: Romney has made a core promise to cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget by 2016 to bring spending below 20 percent of the U.S. economy, and to balance it entirely by 2020.

His campaign manifesto, however, is almost completely devoid of the "hard truths" Christie promises. In fact, Romney is promising to reverse $716 billion in Medicare savings achieved by Obama over the coming decade and promises big increases in military spending as well, along with extending tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthiest.

The few specifics Romney offers include repealing Obama's health care law, cutting federal payrolls, weaning Amtrak from subsidies, cutting foreign aid and curbing the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

But it'll take a lot more than those steps for Romney to keep his vague promises, which are unrealistic if he's unwilling to touch Medicare and Social Security in the coming decade. Even the controversial budget plan of his vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., largely endorsed by Romney, leaves Medicare virtually untouched over the next 10 years.

What's left for Romney to cut is benefit programs other than Medicare and Social Security, which include food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies and retirement benefits for federal workers. The remaining pot of money includes the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies, which have already borne cuts under last year's budget deal. There's also widespread congressional aversion to cutting most of what remains on the chopping block, which includes health research, NASA, transportation, air traffic control, homeland security, education, food inspection, housing and heating subsidies for the poor, food aid for pregnant women, the FBI, grants to local governments, national parks and veterans' health care.

___

PORTMAN: "Take trade with China. China manipulates its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage. So why doesn't the president do something about it? I'll tell you one reason. President Obama could not run up his record trillion-dollar deficits if the Chinese didn't buy our bonds to finance them. Folks, we are as beholden to China for bonds as we are to the Middle East for oil. This will end under Mitt Romney."

THE FACTS: Portman is an expert on commerce, having served as President George W. Bush's trade representative from May 2005 to May 2006. But he didn't fare particularly well in stemming China's trade advantage, either.

Under Portman's watch, the U.S. trade deficit with China soared by 25 percent in 2005, and the next year it climbed more than 15 percent. By contrast, the deficit rose 10 percent over the first three years of Obama's presidency, according to U.S. government figures.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have launched unfair trade cases against China at the World Trade Organization, but neither has been able to rebalance the relationship.

___

SANTORUM: "This summer (Obama) showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare. Now, I helped write the welfare reform bill. We made a lot crystal clear. No president can waive the work requirement, but as with his refusal to enforce our immigration laws, President Obama rules like he is above the law."

THE FACTS: The administration did not waive the work requirement. Instead, it invited governors to apply on behalf of their states for waivers of administrative requirements in the 1996 law. Some states have complained those rules tie up caseworkers who could be helping clients directly.

In a July 18 letter to congressional leaders, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that to be eligible for a waiver, governors must commit that their plans will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work. Moreover, states must show clear progress toward the goal within a year, or lose the waiver.

"We will not accept any changes that undercut employment-focused welfare reforms that were signed into law fifteen years ago," Sebelius wrote.

Ron Haskins, a former senior Republican House aide who helped write the welfare-to-work law, has said "there is merit" to the administration's proposal and "I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform and it eliminates the work requirement."

Haskins, now co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families, says the administration was wrong to roll out its proposal without first getting Republicans to sign off on it. But he said the idea itself is one both parties should be able to agree on, were it not for the bitter political divisions that rule Washington.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Andrew Taylor, Henry C. Jackson and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at claims made in political campaigns and how they adhere to the facts.

Chad and Evelyn...Until Drama Do Us Part?

By now you all have heard the story of Chad Johnson a.k.a .'Ochocinco' and Evelyn Lozada of 'Basketball Wives' fame and the domestic incident that led to a gash and stitches, then the loss of Chad's job with the Miami Dolphins.

Now-there are all sorts of stories out there about the genesis for the fight that led to the 'gash' on Lozada's forehead, but  I wasn't in the car with them-so I don't know if it was really over a receipt for condoms or what. But what I do know is that while this may lead to the decline of one person's career, it may be a major stepping stone for another. Let me explain...

First of all, let me state emphatically that I do not condone domestic violence of any kind-regardless of the perpetrator  man or woman. Physical and/or verbal abuse are both no-goes in my book.

Here we have Chad, who by various accounts is a laid-back, easygoing guy. We've witnessed his silliness, philanthropic ways  and willingness to be self-deprecating at times. He doesn't drink, and has not been known to have any off the field issues of any sort.

Then we have Evelyn, who rose to 'stardom' via 'reality-television' as a basketball 'wife'. I use the term 'wife' very loosely in this case due to the fact that she was never married and neither are majority of the women featured on the show. She was the hot and feisty Latina(that's not stereotypical at all!) who had a quick temper and would curse you out or throw a glass at you if she was upset.

Hmm...

This leads me to wonder, was Chad really the aggressor in this situation? Unfortunately, in cases of domestic violence it is automatically assumed that the male is the guilty party, though that is not always the case. According to many scientific studies, about two in five victims of domestic violence are men. Let's give this some thought. Evelyn has a history of violence, at least we've seen some of her aggressive acts on TV, why didn't the media jump to Chad's defense? Why did the Dolphins act so swiftly to release him without all the facts? Apparently, the Dolphins didn't want all of the 'drama' that accompanied Chad and his new wife. VH1 dropped their reality wedding show. VH1? Haven't they recently built their brand off of physical attacks on shows?

Today, Lozada released a statement saying that Chad needed 'help' and no woman should be subjected to domestic violence. I agree, however, I have a difficult time embracing this from someone who has built their relative 'career' off of aggressive acts and intimidation all of sudden turning about face to what she's well known for. Not saying it can't be done, just saying.

Chad's career might be over now, none of us are quite sure. The justice system has to run it's course first.Then there's Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL. He may suspend Chad as well. This can be done when the player is without a team. Who knows where Chad goes from here.

Evelyn's star may actually be rising though. Maybe she uses this as an opportunity to re-brand herself or get another show. Who knows? One thing is for sure, people are wondering if the couple can work through this. Will we ever get the truth? If Chad is guilty will he own up to it, will Evelyn if she is?

What I do know is this; violence cannot be accepted in any form. Whether it's domestic. Whether it's a man attacking a woman. Whether it's a woman attacking a man; or whether it's a woman attacking another woman with a drink or grabbing her hair and calling her a b*tch because it makes for good ratings on a TV network.

One of My Favorite Speeches

I wanted to share this speech with you. It's made by Bryan Stevenson, Executive Director and lawyer at the Equal Justice Institute in Alabama. Worth watching.