So where is the outrage for affirmative action for white people?

[applegrove]

So where is the outrage for affirmative action for white people?

by Laurence Lewis at the Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/23/1294100/-So-where-it-the-outrage-against-affirmative-action-for-white-people

"SNIP.....................


Affirmative Action continues to be under attack, and the Supreme Court's Schuette decision was no surprise. But if it is a moral and perhaps legal outrage for colleges and universities to give admissions preference to specific demographic groups, why aren't the ostensibly principled warriors against Affirmative Action also fighting against legacy admissions? Paul Waldman explains:

Meanwhile, the preferences whites enjoy remain firmly in place. There have yet to be any successful laws or ballot initiatives to ban “legacy admissions,” in which applicants who had a relative who attended the university are given special preference. No one can come up with rational grounds for retaining this affirmative action for wealthy white people, yet universities all across the country do. And there are other only slightly less blatant forms of favoritism; for instance, the reliance on standardized test scores provides a boost for wealthy students, most of them white, whose parents can afford expensive test prep courses and tutoring. Again, no serious person contends that SATs or ACTs are a pure measure of “merit,” yet they continue to play a huge role in college admissions.

Legacy admissions are blatantly racist, because at many American colleges and universities, minority admissions were prohibited or restricted until at least the latter half of the 20th century. Generations of white families established legacies at those colleges and universities, while minority families couldn't. The continued favoritism granted those often growing legacy families necessarily perpetuates the legacy of racism from the era of explicit minority exclusion. But about this form of affirmative action, those white supposed champions of equal opportunity are curiously silent. Perhaps they're not really concerned with fairness, perhaps they're really most concerned with protecting their historical privileges. Perhaps they fear that if admissions standards were truly fair and unbiased, they wouldn't be able to compete.


...................SNIP"

[Avalux]

1. Hey now. White people (MEN) are entitled, always.

Dontcha know that's the way things work in this country? Who give a crap about women and minorities; they are inferior and should do what white men tell them to do.

(the mind of a sexist, racist white man)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. It's a caste system - the rich have every advantage.

Legacy preferences or legacy admission is a type of preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. (Students so admitted are referred to as legacies or legacy students.) This particularly refers to university and college admission, and this preference is most common in admission to American universities and colleges[1]

The Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 30% of each entering class using this factor.[3][4]

Because private universities in U.S. rely heavily on donations from alumni, critics argue that legacy preferences are a way to indirectly sell university placement. Opponents accuse these programs of perpetuating an oligarchy and plutocracy as they lower the weight of academic merit in the admissions process in exchange for a financial one. Another criticism is that the wealthy are given an insurmountable advantage which hinders economic mobility within the society, in effect creating a de-facto caste system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

[The Straight Story]

3. So, wait a sec, you mean not all white people get this perk?

I thought because I was white I could just show up to any college and be accepted?

It seems like some are saying that the wealthy have more perks than the poor. But I am white, and poor, why aren't I getting the same perks? I am white! I am entitled and even have my 'So, you are white' benefits booklet right here beside me.

Of course we could see all white people the same based on the few. I guess that is an acceptable method of looking at things.

[applegrove]

7. You make a good point. We are generalizing. Which we do often in this world

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 06:02 PM - Edit history (11)

that is so black and white (by black and white I am talking about the type of thinking adolescents do where something is all good or all bad., I am not refering to anybody‘s race).. And the GOP has worked hard to start class/race warfare and the resulting black and white thinking. Shades of grey and fine details are how adults think. The GOP needed a war so they encouraged their base to think like teenagers. And they attacked a middle class way of life. And this is how I would combat the GOP‘s use of race, or feminism, or inequality in American politics (this is in no way meant to imply how you combat these very important issues outside of today's politics, but simply to combat the childishness the current GOP creates by using these serious problems to make mayhem ).

We need to get the political debate back to a serious discussion about issues that affect people‘s lives rather than allout warfare. Some Republicans behave in blatantly racist ways. So we think all Republicans are racist or they are all stupid. And some Republicans resent that. And they feel slurred. And they may have been moderates. But they feel slighted. So they stay on their side. I know, I know it is somewhat racist to be in a party that uses the Southern Strategy every day. But they don't know it ( which makes them stupid - which they don't see themselves as) And the war continues. And reinforces the war and hate.

And now the war is about women as Hillary, not Obama, is the target. With right wing nuts saying crummy, horrible stuff about women. Which makes democrats think republicans have to be anti-woman to vote that way. Which slurs those republicans who don't have sexist attitudes. But they resent being painted that way. And Democrats point out that they support a party that supports sexist attitudes. So the black and white warfare continues on into the 2016 election. Same process, different topic (feminism). And the centre is gutted. And it is exactly as the GOP want it to be.

The only way out of it is for Democrats to appeal to the adult by being specific in who they accuse. Like an adult. Just like you point out. Accuse racism when have details. Use words like Southern Strategy. Give specific examples.

Here is an example of what speaking in general terms will get you. This topic is inequality:
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/30/the_rights_paranoid_tribalism_new_poll_reveals_how_the_left_should_attack_extremists/

When you say it the GOP and the democrats will hear completely different things unless you specifically say what you think causes inequality (tax cuts and advantage of the rich). Same thing with racism. Say specifically what racial incident you are talking about: Clive Bundy, the Southern Strategy, Paul Ryan or whatnot. Or else those on the right who are low information voters and don't see themselves as racist will not be reachable by us on the left. They will not learn anything. They will not hear if they think generalizations are being made against them. If you charge the GOP with racism and give a specific example then the GOPer you are talking to either says yup I‘m racist or not me but someone in my party sure is racist. Either way they‘ve been taught something direct. They‘ll just deny a vague charge of racism in a preprogramed knee jerk way if you don't cite specific examples and reasons. And generalized war between both sides will continue with the Republicans learning nothing about themselves or their sick, sick party.

[mountain grammy]

9. The wealthy have more perks than the poor regardless of color. Money buys the right schools

and all the comforts and help necessary for success. The perks poor white people have over people of color is being white. I was a poor white kid in a very racially mixed school, with white students a minority (about 45%) but all but a couple of teachers were white. I saw the difference in treatment every day. That was many years ago, it must be better, but sometimes I wonder. That's education, as far as the justice system, I'd say the situation is worse now.

[Niceguy1]

10. when most people

Say white privilege ..they are wrong.

Mainly it is wealth privilege...

[noiretextatique]

14. just for wealthy white people

You left out the wealthy part in your pity party post.

[LittleBlue]

4. The title should be changed to "rich people"

Most white applicants to universities aren't from wealthy, powerful families. The Chinese elites, for instance, just write fat checks and get their kids into elite American universities.

[Igel]

17. Legacy admits are all rich?

Who knew?

So there are two kinds of alumni: Those who are awarded the benefits of having legacy points added to their kids ranking because they're rich and those who aren't?

Not my experience. You check the "legacy" box or fill out the appropriate form, they check (or don't) that your mother/father attended, and that's that. Whether your legacy is because your mother's a social welfare worker or the CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation.

Unless we want to redefine "rich" as making $35k or more per year. We could do that. But then we have to be consistent: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of, well, fools.

[Jamaal510]

5. K&R

[seveneyes]

6. No, not the white people...families and people with money

It has nothing to do with race. Money talks and they listen. There is plenty of guilt to go around without assigning it to someone because of their race.

[bettyellen]

11. You mean there's diversity in this group of legacy students?

Where'd you get that idea? Because there isn't - it's 95% white. Maybe you have the luxury of believing that's irrelevant but I assure you it isn't to many people.

[AngryAmish]

16. this

It has to go.

[Igel]

18. It's on the order of 95% white.

However, the percentage that's all-white is decreasing as the number of potential non-white legacy admits increases.

It reflects the average state of affairs for 20-40 years ago. In 30 years, if legacy admissions continue, they'll reflect the state of affairs for 20-40 years before then.


First gen students shouldn't always go to the most selective school they can get into. It really depends on the student and the school. I've had low SES kids whose GPA and SAT scores could get them into really good schools. I've discouraged them because they'd have a really, really hard time succeeding there without massive amounts of emotional and psychological support and a lot of counselling. Watched one kid crash and burn at a selective school perhaps 5 years ago: he had the intellectual ability but was unclear on the expectations, on how to interact with faculty, about what options were available for him socially, financially, academically. One or two years and he was gone. Another one did the same thing 20 years ago, where she assumed that the abuse she got was because she was black, that the relative social isolation was race related--when, in fact, the abuse she got was from a teacher notorious for abusing students psychologically (since gone) and the social isolation was stock-standard until you established your own network.

One of the two was white male. The other African-American female.

And, no, I don't think it was the responsibility of the school to intervene on the students' behalf. They were in graduate school. They were 22 or 23 years old, not babies.

[redqueen]

22. I'm so disgusted by the lack of outrage over the SCOTUS decision.

Thank you for bothering to point out this fact. It seems like few here give a half a shit, really.

[noiretextatique]

13. sure...there are just as many black astors and roosevelts

As whites...really? There are just as many deep pocket old money blacks as there are whites...sure Why do you think making a false equivalence is an actual cogent argument?

[tritsofme]

8. Are legacy admissions common at public universities?

Could be wrong, but I always assumed this to be a private school phenomenon. If that's the case, not a very good analogy as affirmative action is not restricted at private schools.

[Igel]

19. Few legacy admits at public schools.

Percentage wise.

[tritsofme]

24. Right, essentially what I thought, this thread is not a serious policy discussion.

Only emotive. The Supreme Court ruling had nothing to do with admission policies in private schools, the only place legacy admissions are really found.

[noiretextatique]

12. legacy admissions are outrageous

I don't think any one would disagree. However, what about the affirmative action that happened post-slavery until recently? I hate it when people trot out the "two wrongs" excuse to oppose AA that benefits females and people of color. Yeah...let's talk more about the AA that benefits white people...where IS the outrage?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Comparing test scores to skin colour does not deserve to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

I do agree that legacy admissions are appalling - this is the first I'd heard of them (I'm not an American) and I'm moderately shocked they happen, or even that they're consitutional. Don't they violate the equal protection clause?

But comparing admission on grounds of test scores to admission on grounds of skin colour without *covering* that remark with caveats makes me question the author's credibility, I'm afraid.

[Igel]

20. At private school there is no "equal protection clause."

That's a constraint on government, not private citizens. Governments in the US provide equal protection under the law. They usually apply to public schools, but some are set up as quasi-private organizations to protect them from political meddling by politicians.


The clause has a lot of exceptions, as well. AA itself is a violation of the clause on its face. Something like having an official policy of prosecutorial discretion that's race- or ethnicity-based would also violate it.

Just like the meaning of the word "fair," so the meaning of the word "equal" has changed a bit.

[mainer]

21. Then there's affirmative action favoring men over women:

women face tougher standards than men do in college admissions. Because not enough men have the same qualifications as women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?_r=0

[mountain grammy]

23. Here's my take; I don't give a shit about wealthy people, regardless of color

they don't need any assistance or student loans, they don't worry about health care, heating bills, the price of gas, etc. and probably never will. They and their future generations are set for life but they are a small minority of voters. It does seem, for most of the very wealthy, the main concern is not paying taxes, even if they have to cheat, because they don't want their "hard earned money" redistributed to the vast unwashed who don't "work hard," because the rich know best where their money should be spent. Everyone of us know this is a lie, but racism trumps reality when it comes to the sinking middle class. Enough voters are convinced if they don't support the policies of the rich, they will never climb the ladder, and the real enemies are minorities and immigrants. Here's a flash for working people who vote Republican; you will never climb the ladder, you are vulnerable to the whims of the ruling class because you have given them power over you and, surprise, you may be convince of your superiority as a white person, but that won't pay your bills either when the "job creators" only create low paying jobs.

Try to convince the militia types who flocked to Bundy's aid that it's the Kochs, Fox Noise, and Bundy himself who are wrong and not the BLM agents who were doing their job with due process. Where are these yahoos when the government does become the enemy? Where were the militias when unarmed people were peacefully occupying public parks and were pepper sprayed, beaten and dragged off to jail? Where are the militias when cops are caught on camera time after time, beating the hell out of unarmed and restrained citizens? Well, see, if Fox doesn't get em going, they sit back, crack a beer, and enjoy the real assault on people's constitutional rights.

The voters who elected Republicans who appointed our current majority on the Supreme Court are plain and simple, fucking racist idiots. Not every Republican is a racist, but every racist is a Republican and they're all idiots.