Well said, Jim. Affirmative action is just another form of racism. Why else do we make a distinction between a poor Chinese-American student and a poor Malaysian-American student applying to the UW?

Right on, brother, right on.

Jim, the luxury of colorblindness can only be taken by those who belong to the dominant group. As individuals, whites benefit from the group advantages, just as people of color have suffered the disadvantages of not belonging to that group. You fail to mention in your piece the extensive history of racial discrimination against people of color that continues to this day. Read “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” by Peggy McIntosh and then rewrite your article.

“Such a view treats values, customs and experiences as products of ethnicity rather than products of individuals. Yet every virtue an individual possesses is a product of his mind � his ideas, actions and choices. These are his and his alone. When an individual attends college he represents himself not as a myriad others who happen to share his race.” This point needs to be revisited, Jim, as we do not live in this ideal world of which you speak. Every person of color has had experiences that happened specifically because of the color of their skin, and not just because of their individual thoughts, etc. And unfortunately, people of color are still judged as representatives of their particular racial/ethnic group, and judged negatively in general, disproportionately more than whites. Take this racial bias test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/ and then rewrite your article.

“The antidote to racism is not more racism, but colorblindness.” I think here you mean for the second “racism” the word “discrimination.” Please revisit your definitions of these words.

I would also recommend interviewing Professor Crawford Young, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, about how racism impacts the politics of our society and then rewrite your article.

Instead of arguing for “colorblindess” in such an abstract way, try to open your mind to the realities of our country’s history and educate others on concrete ways to combat the racism that still exists, not just the vague “Organize around ideas, not ethnicity.”

Two books that may be helpful to you are: Portraits of White Racism by David Wellman(1993) or Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression by Joe R. Feagin(2006).

Overall a good argument against affirmative action but one piece is incorrect: you keep saying that selecting a candidate based on race is not “rational.” How is this so? A diverse university community or staff is something that, for better or worse, is viewed positively and thus comes with benefits. For a university, if their student body appears more diverse they can claim it on their student brochures, say it in information sessions, and their applicant base will increase as well as the quality of accepted candidate.

Be real and accept affirmative action for what it is: a supremely rational endevaor. The UW does not want to promote diversity simply because it wants to “eradicate �social, educational, economic and emotional biases� due to race.” The UW wants to promote diversity simply because diversity is valued in the American university system and their stock is raised by accepting it. Sounds like a rational approach to me.

Jim,

“There is no value in having some arbitrary mix of skin colors in a classroom any more than there�s a value in having a mix of eye color or shoe size. These are irrelevant to learning. If certain ideas or viewpoints are beneficial then it is these ideas that must be targeted, not ethnicity.”

This would be so if race weren’t a social construct that links and binds a population. Eye color and shoe size are indeed irrelevant because no one chooses either nor IDENTIFIES based on shoe size.

The notion that everyone with size 13.5 shoes would bind together is ridiculous, whereas the notion that people who are Mexican is not ridiculous because it speaks to something more personal about them than purely physical characteristics.

Judging solely from your graduate studies’ focus, you’re likely to see this as a fair comparison, but it fails to account for the reality that there are distinct cultures in society and that those differences do in fact matter. When you choose your friends you are choosing them based on common values and characteristics and race is one way people identify, shoe size is not.

“But in any case, the standard is the ability, character and circumstances of that individual, not his or her skin color or ancestry.”

While I think you raise a cogent argument in the preceding sentences, this is arguably moot. Under the law, quotas in collegiate admissions are long departed and formulas that place too heavy a value on race are as well. What you speak of as acceptable is a “holistic admissions policy” which is more or less a fancy way of saying you’re going to look at everything. That is what most schools, including UW, employ and it seems to be working well enough that the Supreme Court doesn’t care.

However, I want to address something else I see on the comment boards. There’s an implication that race based distinctions are no different than blatant racism. There’s a significant difference in intent.

In old admissions policies that specifically kicked out a group (let’s say white women who just so happen to be the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action thus far), women were excluded BECAUSE they were women.

In affirmative action politices the party presumably affected (white males) are not being excluded, denied admission, harassed or any other thing that accompanies traditional invidious racism. They are the (supposed) victims of a policy that operates IN SPITE OF their race/sex. In other words their exclusion (which there is little evidence of) is done not because of who they are.

That distinction is enormous. To loosely quote Justice Stevens, there’s an appreciable difference between a welcome mat and a no trespassing sign. I suggest you and the other commentators take heed of this distinction as well.

Screw ya, bunch of liberal a-holes! Whites are now the minority, so why do nonwhites still need protection from us?

Jim, life is a lot more complicated than your biological perspective suggests, as you will discover. I hope you step up to the challenges here and do some of the recommended readings, then let us know what you think. This is a great environment for stretching your mind and discovering new perspectives. This century requires the abilities to do those things.

Check out a discussion group, The Leadership Institute, if you want to think about this and discuss with others in the university community who may share your perspective, or disagree with it, depending on the topic.

Please don’t leave here without continuing to examine these beliefs.

2:47 wrote: “The notion that everyone with size 13.5 shoes would bind together is ridiculous, whereas the notion that people who are Mexican is not ridiculous because it speaks to something more personal about them than purely physical characteristics.”

So if people start binding together around shoe size because they feel it “speaks to something more personal about them,” then we should embrace shoe size as a value?

No, I would tell these people that shoe size is IN FACT irrelevant and they should come to see this fact. Likewise, race is IN FACT irrelevant and people need to come to accept this fact.

Jim,

247 here. As someone who appreciates the distinction between “facts” and “opinions” I’ll let your dramatics slip by, but I can’t let your characterization of race slip by.

You see race, it is IN FACT (sorry I couldn’t resist) relevant to you. If it isn’t, consider the times that you grabbed your wallet when you saw a big black guy on the street or cringed about illegal immigration when you saw a mariachi band. Point being, just because you, a white male, think race is irrelevant (big surprise) doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant to everyone else or even yourself.

You might be wise to lighten up a little bit and pick battles you can control. You’re in a good school, you earned it - congrats. You even did it in the presence of the all powerful form of bigotry known as affirmative action. You’re a star - now leave everyone else alone and let people who know what they’re talking about deal with this situation.

“But while it is true that extenuating circumstances may arise when judging an applicant�s ability, it is still his or her ability and qualifications that need to be judged, not his or her race.”

How do you judge fairly when you have 25,000 applicants to this University? Its safe to say the average black or latino has it much worse than the average white person applying here. And its safe to say that the minority students had worse schools to go through. So they basically had to work extremely hard just to apply here and to judge them next to white and asian students more privildged background isnt fair.

If there was no affirmative action then UW would suffer… a lot.

stick to science

6:28pm

Because 1) Whites aren’t the minority, 2) even if they were, they are still dominant. Think about Apartheid in South Africa. Whites still run the political system, the economy, and the media.

Hey 6:28pm, if whites are the minority now, which race is the majority? oh yeah, white people. get a clue.

“You’re a star - now leave everyone else alone and let people who know what they’re talking about deal with this situation.” -What an incredibly ignorant statement 247… Somehow you have decided to proclaim yourself an expert in this area… Setting your arrogance and righteous indignation aside there are other issues that you and many others on this board fail to take into consideration.

1) If you would like to begin quoting Supreme Court judges then I encourage you to read Judge Clarence Thomas’ opinion about Affirmative Action. In a nutshell, it is unconstitutional and racist. This is coming from a black judge - an expert if you will. Someone who “…knows what they’re talking about.” He hasn’t come to this conclusion in a vacuum, he has LIVED affirmative action and was embarrassed by it: “Now I knew what a law degree from Yale was worth when it bore the tain of racial preference. I was humiliated - and desperate,” he wrote.

I will readily admit that the life of many minorities is hard and the progress has seemingly plateaued as of the last 20 years, however are you so foolish to think that the life of a white kid with a father in prison, a mother on meth, living in a trailer in rural Wisconsin hasn’t had it hard either? I understand that per-capita terrible childhoods are more of a reality for minorities than whites, however to say that a white child who grew up in a shitty situation and worked hard somehow deserves something less than a minority child who grew up in a shitty situation and worked hard is foolish and absolutely racist.

Any anthropologist will tell you the fact that there are more differences within races then there are between races - and that racial division is a social creation that finds its roots in a thick history that we can all agree is disgusting and shameful, however, that being said shouldn’t this ‘colorblindness’ be something that we all strive for? I think so. Unfortunately, you clearly do not agree. Your opinion is one that stems from the perpetuation of racism.

It perpetuates because it pisses of the majority, and to their own fault, instead of blaming the policy makers who turn it into law, they blame who they see as the beneficiaries of it.

It perpetuates racism because it subtly teaches minorities that they are at the bottom and they need help getting up (like Judge Clarence Thomas) instead of telling them that they can do whatever they want to do as long as they put their mind to it, they are shown that they can do whatever they want as long as they get a little extra help.

It perpetuates racism because instead of moving towards colorblindness where character counts and color does not, it moves away from it and solidifies the racial barriers that run rampant in our society.

I encourage you to open your mind as well.

Drew-

Thomas’ opinions in all of those cases are dissenting or concurring (like Parents Involved) and have no precedential value. Thomas’ opinions arguably should be given no weight at all because they are tainted by his own personal experience and therefore the byproduct of an unfair evaluation. And yes, his experience HARDLY qualifies him as an expert as there is a significant distinction between expertise and experience.

But, read between the lines, Drew. Look at Grutter, Gratz, Parents Involved or Adarand and you’ll find that Thomas isn’t just suggesting that affirmative action is wrong, he’s suggesting in many ways that Brown was wrong. He feels it was the byproduct of a racist society that couldn’t deal with the notion that an all-black school is somehow equal to an all-white school. As a matter of fact, Thomas is incorrect on this stance, because the schools were unequal in many ways beyond the fact that there was disparate funding. But as you’d give weight to Thomas’ opinions clearly you’re on board with overturning Brown as well. Be careful what you wish for, Drew.

But back to my criticism of Jim, it relied in large part upon Jim’s arguments having virtually no legal merit. Jim’s argument relies, largely, upon the idea that race is irrelevant - the mere fact that we’re talking about it shows that it isn’t. It might not be relevant to you or Jim, but it is relevant to many people.

When I specifically said that last bit, which you claim is the product of ignorance (I argue it’s more arrogance) I was addressing the fact that Jim hasn’t even considered the distinction between invidious and benign designations. If he’s not even going to give weight to that idea, he surely should expect to be labeled a non-expert in the field, and I simply called him out on it. Jim is not qualified to be writing an opinion like this without having his opinions or his credentials questioned. Simple.

But I don’t want to let this slip by - you can say all you like that Thomas is right, but the point is that his interpretation of the constitution is and was not accepted by the Court. And that goes to what my opinion is based on - the law - and not “one that stems from the perpetuation of racism.”

So how about this, Drew - I’ll “open my mind” to arguments that haven’t been accepted as valid (keeping in mind that they are invalid), if you’ll actually read the ones that have. Sounds like a deal to me.

2:47

RE: December 3, 2008 @ 2:47pm: the affirmative action policies that target women and minorities absolutely do discriminate against white males. The holistic admission policy at UW specifically attempts to increase minority representation. Since they are not also increasing the overall number of students admitted to allow for this increase in minorities, they are required to deny white males in favor of minorities. Hence, another way of saying “increase diversity” would be to say that the goal is to DECREASE the number of white males on campus. White males are explicitly being excluded and denied admission in favor of increasing diversity.

And speaking of women, they outnumber men on campus by a full 5%. Can you imagine the outrage if the situation were reversed? Where are all the policies, student orgs, and offices of diversity trying to get that number back to 50/50? Affirmative action is just institutionalized racism against white males, plain and simple.

To help minorities graduate, we should lower their requirements on exams and assignments. After all, we’ve already lowered their requirements for admission.