The general topic is fascinating, as is what has become all too routine in the Supreme Court; a 5-4 decision. My interest in this particular case includes several facets, from the law, what is fair or unfair about the case, and the remarkable tendency of the court to split along ideological lines on nearly every major decision these days.
So if you don't already know the basics of the case, here's what I've gathered from my reading about it:
The case arose when the city of New Haven, Connecticut, chose to deny promotions for qualified people within it's fire department. The specific reason for denying those promotions was that there were not enough minorities qualified for promotion, therefore the city would not promote anyone. The reason given was fear of legal action by minority firefighters, as no blacks and two hispanics passed the qualification examination.
So the firefighters who passed the examination and reportedly qualified in every objective measure for promotion to leadership positions in the department filed suit.
What makes the case interesting to many is the involvement of Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a summary judgement in favor of the City. In other words, she essentially decided without any hearing or serious review of the facts of the case that it did not have merit.
So what did the court say about the law? Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that the court narrowly struck down Sotomayor's appeals court ruling because the Civil Rights Act does not permit such public employee policies being denied simply because of a fear of a lawsuit. Unless the testing and qualifications process in place at New Haven is found to unfairly favor majority candidates (which was never alleged), the City cannot arbitrarily refuse to promote the candidates who qualified for promotion under the City's own criteria.
The court steered clear of the larger constitutional issue, which of course most conservatives have hoped to see addressed for years; the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Affirmative Action programs across the country are designed not to provide equal opportunity, but instead preference in hiring, promotions, and university admissions to members of racial minorities. The left-wing argument for this practice is that such preferences are remedies for past discrimination.
So even though the law seemingly could not have been clearer on the subject, Judge Sotomayor and the 4 liberal justices who banded together in support of Justice Ginsberg's dissent would prefer to ignore the law in favor of their ideology.
As a simple matter of fairness, it is astounding to me that anyone would think it fair to slam the door on the most qualified candidates for promotion in any situation for the plain and simple reason that the candidate does not have the right skin color or ethnic background. It seems to me that such discrimination is always unfair, regardless of the individual victimized by it.
What other conclusion can any resonable observer reach from this decision, other than this: Barack Obama, Sonya Sotomayor, and the 4 liberal justices on the court, are driven by political and left-wing ideological priorities only. When the law on a specific issue before the court is crystal clear and without ambiguity, they will manufacture their own logical pretzels in pursuit of an outcome that fits their ideology.
That's what is called "Judicial Activism". And that's one more item on the Obama agenda to remake America. Apparently part of remaking America is destroying its constitution and rule of law. I'm not even certain the objective is their socialist utopia, but it seems more likely that dream is absolute power.
Thus my somewhat mixed feelings on this judgement, somewhere between relief that reason and sound interpretation of the law prevailed and disappointment that the court failed to address the underlying constitutional issue.
Do I think Sotomayor should be stopped from taking her seat on the court? Actually, I wish it were possible, but it's not. There aren't enough senators with the courage to stop her, the President was elected and has the right to pick his appointments, my interpretation of the constitutional role of the Senate to "advise and consent" doesn't mean blocking a nominee on ideological grounds, and blocking Sotomayor will simply lead to Obama naming another justice just as bad or worse.
Then again, if she can be proven to be incompetent, unqualified, or openly hostile to the oath of preserving and protecting the constitution of the United States, then shame on any senator who allows her nomination to be approved.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
He probably will ignore me, but I wrote this anyway.
Dear Congressman Hill:
I recognize that my position on the healthcare reform initiatives currently pushed by the White House is not consistent with yours. So I hope you will consider my argument that other reforms can be much more effective than the proposed government-centered proposals.
I believe that as a small business owner who has struggled to obtain and keep a painfully expensive health insurance plan that has to date paid almost nothing for my actual healthcare services, I have standing to make a case in this area.
The fundamental problem with the system today boils down to cost. Physician friends tell me the biggest drivers of cost in their businesses are malpractice insurance premiums, patients who fail to pay, Medicare and Medicaid payments that are often late and more often not enough to cover the actual costs of care, and filing claims with many insurance companies with a different form or requirement for each and hounding them for late payments.
In business, we solve problems in a very different way from government. Since we don't have unlimited taxpayer resources to build a bureaucracy and task it to "solve" the problem, we actually have to understand and solve it on our own. The standard approach is to define the problem, identify alternative solutions, then implement those solutions.
So instead of a government healthcare takeover, why not simply help solve the problems?
Implement a serious Tort Reform that requires malpractice suits actually demonstrate that malpractice has occurred before the case actually gets heard.
Get the insurers to form an industry standards group that establishes a universal electronic claims reporting system, so any provider can simply submit online claims in the same way for all insurers. Permit providers to charge insurers interest on past-due payments, so they stop playing the float on the backs of the providers.
Let private insurers play in the Medicare and Medicaid space, so those who qualify can choose the plan that works best for them individually. My preference would be to outsource Medicare and Medicaid entirely, changing it to a simple voucher that allows qualified families to buy their own insurance in the market.
I believe a bold plan would propose detaching health insurance from employers. Everyone should be free to choose their own health plans on the open market, where insurers may not pick and choose only the healthiest for their plans. In other words, everyone buys their health insurance just like they buy auto insurance. If they want a major medical plan only to save cost, they simply pay cash for routine services.
Ultimately, giving people more control is better than giving them less control (per the government model). The market will compete, people will discover that changing their lifestyles can help them cut their premiums, and insurers will have to compete for customers.
Thank you for considering my ideas, and my hope is that you will vote against any plan that promises a federal bureaucracy that imposes their healthcare decisions on all of us.
Dear Congressman Hill:
I recognize that my position on the healthcare reform initiatives currently pushed by the White House is not consistent with yours. So I hope you will consider my argument that other reforms can be much more effective than the proposed government-centered proposals.
I believe that as a small business owner who has struggled to obtain and keep a painfully expensive health insurance plan that has to date paid almost nothing for my actual healthcare services, I have standing to make a case in this area.
The fundamental problem with the system today boils down to cost. Physician friends tell me the biggest drivers of cost in their businesses are malpractice insurance premiums, patients who fail to pay, Medicare and Medicaid payments that are often late and more often not enough to cover the actual costs of care, and filing claims with many insurance companies with a different form or requirement for each and hounding them for late payments.
In business, we solve problems in a very different way from government. Since we don't have unlimited taxpayer resources to build a bureaucracy and task it to "solve" the problem, we actually have to understand and solve it on our own. The standard approach is to define the problem, identify alternative solutions, then implement those solutions.
So instead of a government healthcare takeover, why not simply help solve the problems?
Implement a serious Tort Reform that requires malpractice suits actually demonstrate that malpractice has occurred before the case actually gets heard.
Get the insurers to form an industry standards group that establishes a universal electronic claims reporting system, so any provider can simply submit online claims in the same way for all insurers. Permit providers to charge insurers interest on past-due payments, so they stop playing the float on the backs of the providers.
Let private insurers play in the Medicare and Medicaid space, so those who qualify can choose the plan that works best for them individually. My preference would be to outsource Medicare and Medicaid entirely, changing it to a simple voucher that allows qualified families to buy their own insurance in the market.
I believe a bold plan would propose detaching health insurance from employers. Everyone should be free to choose their own health plans on the open market, where insurers may not pick and choose only the healthiest for their plans. In other words, everyone buys their health insurance just like they buy auto insurance. If they want a major medical plan only to save cost, they simply pay cash for routine services.
Ultimately, giving people more control is better than giving them less control (per the government model). The market will compete, people will discover that changing their lifestyles can help them cut their premiums, and insurers will have to compete for customers.
Thank you for considering my ideas, and my hope is that you will vote against any plan that promises a federal bureaucracy that imposes their healthcare decisions on all of us.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Doomed to Repeat?
The exact quote escapes me, as does its attribution, but it's something along the lines of, "Those who do not understand History are doomed to repeat it."
Boy is it ever true!
Here we are repeating history in so many ways. I have to wonder, is the Great and Powerful OB really aware of what utter failures his policies were in the past? Does he know that and just not care, because power is his ambition? Or does he think they somehow did it wrong back then, and he knows how to do it right this time? Or is he simply ignorant and dismissive of history?
I can't think of any alternatives to those questions, which gives me heartburn.
Let's go back.
FDR took office shortly after the economic collapse that spurred the Great Depression. His response was to implement massive new socialist programs. Many citizens apparently loved him for that, but did they actually work? As far as I can tell, and from what a pretty high number of economists smarter than I have determined, they did not. In fact, they served to deepen and entrench the Depression. It took World War II and the optimism in its aftermath that turned things around.
Now some say that the GI Bill was responsible for that turnaround, and perhaps it had a positive impact. But raising taxes on the rich to an 80% top marginal rate and giving it to politicians and bureaucrats to dole out a small sliver to the needy obviously did much more damage.
What about LBJ and his Great Society? Did it work? Definitively not. Welfare programs that hand out a subsistence-level lifestyle create a permanent underclass of dependents. It's so amazingly clear, yet so many refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.
Then there's Jimmy Carter and his weak, naive foreign policy. There's no way to spin the fact that Jimmy's weakness led to the regime change in Iran that's front and center in today's immediate threats to our own security.
So the Great and Powerful OB is eager to assume the mantle of FDR, LBJ, and the peanut farmer. Luckily his poll numbers are falling, indicating more Americans are catching on. But it seems still over half the population is happily skipping behind his pied piper tune toward the cliff.
Next up, 10% unemployment. Devalued Dollar. Federal bankruptcy, along with bankruptcy in many states. Attacks on the homeland by nuclear Iran and North Korea, not to mention the odd terrorist bombings. Illegal immigrants flooding over open borders to either accept under-the-table jobs or terrorize the citizenry with drug trafficing and gang violence. All while the military and defense systems are de-funded to clear the way for federal socialized medicine.
Our only hope is that those Emerald City OB worshippers awaken from their trance in time.
Boy is it ever true!
Here we are repeating history in so many ways. I have to wonder, is the Great and Powerful OB really aware of what utter failures his policies were in the past? Does he know that and just not care, because power is his ambition? Or does he think they somehow did it wrong back then, and he knows how to do it right this time? Or is he simply ignorant and dismissive of history?
I can't think of any alternatives to those questions, which gives me heartburn.
Let's go back.
FDR took office shortly after the economic collapse that spurred the Great Depression. His response was to implement massive new socialist programs. Many citizens apparently loved him for that, but did they actually work? As far as I can tell, and from what a pretty high number of economists smarter than I have determined, they did not. In fact, they served to deepen and entrench the Depression. It took World War II and the optimism in its aftermath that turned things around.
Now some say that the GI Bill was responsible for that turnaround, and perhaps it had a positive impact. But raising taxes on the rich to an 80% top marginal rate and giving it to politicians and bureaucrats to dole out a small sliver to the needy obviously did much more damage.
What about LBJ and his Great Society? Did it work? Definitively not. Welfare programs that hand out a subsistence-level lifestyle create a permanent underclass of dependents. It's so amazingly clear, yet so many refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.
Then there's Jimmy Carter and his weak, naive foreign policy. There's no way to spin the fact that Jimmy's weakness led to the regime change in Iran that's front and center in today's immediate threats to our own security.
So the Great and Powerful OB is eager to assume the mantle of FDR, LBJ, and the peanut farmer. Luckily his poll numbers are falling, indicating more Americans are catching on. But it seems still over half the population is happily skipping behind his pied piper tune toward the cliff.
Next up, 10% unemployment. Devalued Dollar. Federal bankruptcy, along with bankruptcy in many states. Attacks on the homeland by nuclear Iran and North Korea, not to mention the odd terrorist bombings. Illegal immigrants flooding over open borders to either accept under-the-table jobs or terrorize the citizenry with drug trafficing and gang violence. All while the military and defense systems are de-funded to clear the way for federal socialized medicine.
Our only hope is that those Emerald City OB worshippers awaken from their trance in time.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Base Discourse
There are a number of examples of the most base forms of discourse in the country lately. Rather than improving, it seems to be getting worse, as disgusting and demeaning language is used to destroy people who are guilty of nothing more than having a particular worldview.
The David Letterman "jokes" about Sarah Palin and her daughter illustrate this point. Calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant" is certainly disgusting and disrespectful, not only to her but to women in general. Then going after her daughter, regardless of which daughter he actually meant to insult, was out of bounds.
The best way to answer his semi-apology splitting hairs about which daughter he was trashing is this simple question: Dave, would you have ever in a thousand years considered telling the same or a similarly vile joke about Chelsea Clinton? Or the Obama daughters?
We all know the answer. Somehow in the leftwing mindset of which Dave is clearly a member, only members of your own ideology deserve respect. As the MSNBC pundits and Bill Maher are saying, Sarah and her daughters are "fair game". Sure, and just imagine Rush Limbaugh saying anything remotely similar about a prominent daughter of a Democrat politician. I wonder what the same folks on the Left would have to say about that. The answer's pretty obvious to anybody who would be honest.
Then there's the story about the Inspector General that got fired by Obama for doing his job. Apparently he uncovered corruption and misappropriation of funds in Sacramento. But the culprit was a good friend of the President. We couldn't have that, so he was unceremoniously fired without notice, which just happens to be against the law.
So how does the Obama team respond to questions about this firing? Well, the guy's an old geezer who is losing his mind. Rather than answering the question truthfully, they chose to add insult to injury by destroying the poor guy's reputation. Does this really happen in America?
Even the CBS Evening News anchor recently got in the act at a College Commencement, where she trashed Sarah Palin. This is what passes for the head of the objective journalism at a major network news organization? A rabid partisan basking in left-wing adoration by personally attacking a conservative politician is supposed to be credible the next day on the Evening News? And they wonder why nobody watches CBS News anymore?
My third example is a PBS special I happened upon recently about the murder of Dr. Tiller. The program made me physically nauseous, and so upset I turned off the television for the night. The entire "documentary" was designed as an undisguised propaganda piece to deliver a horrible message: Tiller and his colleagues are heroes and martyrs for the cause of women's health and even women's rights. Their services are necessary for women, as if somehow if Tiller and his ilk were not there for women, they might just die from some horrible disease (is a baby some sort of tumor now?). And those Anti-Abortion fanatics (no mention of Pro-Life allowed here) are all nothing but hypocrites and murderers who can't wait to shoot down all the doctors who so compassionately and bravely provide healing healthcare for women. The explicit message from this sickening propaganda piece was that all pro-life activists must be locked up. It added more fuel to my ongoing concern that I may yet become imprisoned, along with many like me, for simply refusing to abandon my faith and moral code.
What is it with everybody? When did it become OK to demean and spread evil lies and rumors and launch baseless investigations against people just because they happen to express a certain political point of view, mostly from a conservative perspective?
Who decided that the best way to make an argument was to destroy the credibility of the person making the opposing argument? How many times must we be subjected to the canard, "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party". He's no more the leader of that party than I am. It's as ridiculous as a Republican going in front of the press and proclaiming that Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Michael Moore is the leader of the Democrat party. I'm guessing there would be as many Democrats offended by that suggestion as most Republicans are by the Limbaugh stuff. It is as untrue as it is meaningless.
There is talk of a groundswell of backlash against the extremes of the leftist power base that's taken over our government and society. We can only hope that the movement succeeds in recruiting fresh talent for our elective offices and sweeps aside the totalitarian Left before they are able to harden the foundation of permanent iron-fisted rule.
The David Letterman "jokes" about Sarah Palin and her daughter illustrate this point. Calling Palin a "slutty flight attendant" is certainly disgusting and disrespectful, not only to her but to women in general. Then going after her daughter, regardless of which daughter he actually meant to insult, was out of bounds.
The best way to answer his semi-apology splitting hairs about which daughter he was trashing is this simple question: Dave, would you have ever in a thousand years considered telling the same or a similarly vile joke about Chelsea Clinton? Or the Obama daughters?
We all know the answer. Somehow in the leftwing mindset of which Dave is clearly a member, only members of your own ideology deserve respect. As the MSNBC pundits and Bill Maher are saying, Sarah and her daughters are "fair game". Sure, and just imagine Rush Limbaugh saying anything remotely similar about a prominent daughter of a Democrat politician. I wonder what the same folks on the Left would have to say about that. The answer's pretty obvious to anybody who would be honest.
Then there's the story about the Inspector General that got fired by Obama for doing his job. Apparently he uncovered corruption and misappropriation of funds in Sacramento. But the culprit was a good friend of the President. We couldn't have that, so he was unceremoniously fired without notice, which just happens to be against the law.
So how does the Obama team respond to questions about this firing? Well, the guy's an old geezer who is losing his mind. Rather than answering the question truthfully, they chose to add insult to injury by destroying the poor guy's reputation. Does this really happen in America?
Even the CBS Evening News anchor recently got in the act at a College Commencement, where she trashed Sarah Palin. This is what passes for the head of the objective journalism at a major network news organization? A rabid partisan basking in left-wing adoration by personally attacking a conservative politician is supposed to be credible the next day on the Evening News? And they wonder why nobody watches CBS News anymore?
My third example is a PBS special I happened upon recently about the murder of Dr. Tiller. The program made me physically nauseous, and so upset I turned off the television for the night. The entire "documentary" was designed as an undisguised propaganda piece to deliver a horrible message: Tiller and his colleagues are heroes and martyrs for the cause of women's health and even women's rights. Their services are necessary for women, as if somehow if Tiller and his ilk were not there for women, they might just die from some horrible disease (is a baby some sort of tumor now?). And those Anti-Abortion fanatics (no mention of Pro-Life allowed here) are all nothing but hypocrites and murderers who can't wait to shoot down all the doctors who so compassionately and bravely provide healing healthcare for women. The explicit message from this sickening propaganda piece was that all pro-life activists must be locked up. It added more fuel to my ongoing concern that I may yet become imprisoned, along with many like me, for simply refusing to abandon my faith and moral code.
What is it with everybody? When did it become OK to demean and spread evil lies and rumors and launch baseless investigations against people just because they happen to express a certain political point of view, mostly from a conservative perspective?
Who decided that the best way to make an argument was to destroy the credibility of the person making the opposing argument? How many times must we be subjected to the canard, "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party". He's no more the leader of that party than I am. It's as ridiculous as a Republican going in front of the press and proclaiming that Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Michael Moore is the leader of the Democrat party. I'm guessing there would be as many Democrats offended by that suggestion as most Republicans are by the Limbaugh stuff. It is as untrue as it is meaningless.
There is talk of a groundswell of backlash against the extremes of the leftist power base that's taken over our government and society. We can only hope that the movement succeeds in recruiting fresh talent for our elective offices and sweeps aside the totalitarian Left before they are able to harden the foundation of permanent iron-fisted rule.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
No Psychic Powers Required
It doesn't take psychic powers to predict what's going to happen as a direct result of the Obama-led redefinition of America into a socialist utopia. In fact, all it takes is a modest understanding of history. Who was it that said, "There's nothing new under the sun"? There's nothing new about Obama's socialist agenda, nor will there be anything new about its result.
Let's start with taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The poor generally see that as a pretty good idea, but what if they knew the real consequences of that part of the plan?
Although the number seems to keep coming down, let's just use Obama's original number of $250K. The idea is, if an individual earns more than $250K, somehow that's not good citizenship. Therefore, the government has the right to confiscate most of the earnings in excess of that amount.
So, let's say I've got my small business going great guns, and am on track to earn $500K this year. But Obama's new tax plan will take 70 cents on the dollar for the second $250K. Adding in State & Local Taxes, I would end up keeping a tiny fraction of those earnings for myself; possibly approaching 10%.
Being a rational person, I will do whatever I must to avoid those confiscatory taxes. Since I'm a consultant, with earnings based on hourly fees, once I realize there's no profit in working for that second $250K, I just won't. I'll cut my hours in half, or I'll work until I've earned $250K and take the rest of the year off. Then I'll resign myself to the fact that my earnings will be capped at $250K, at least until somebody from the conservative philosophy takes office. And I'll continue limiting my efforts to earning $250K and only $250K.
The Obama crowd might say that's a good thing. More work for other consultants, and isn't it great for me to earn so much money and still be able to get so much time off?
Maybe there's a personal attraction to making pretty decent money and still having lots of free time. But compare that to what I would have done without the confiscation:
I would have looked at expanding my business or investing in another business. After all, what if I could invest that second $250K into something that might pay off in bringing me an additional $250K a couple of years down the road?
Having the freedom and incentive to invest the profits from my success opens all sorts of possibilities. Maybe I am able to open a new business that employs lots of people. Maybe I'm able to invest in the development and sale of a new invention that makes everybody's lives better. I certainly will contribute a nice chunk of that income toward my church and favorite charities.
All it takes is the smallest bit of thought, which even the tiniest mind would be able to grasp. Obama thinks he will get 70% of that second $250K to pay for his universal healthcare and general income redistribution. But in reality, all he'll get is the 35 or 40% of the first $250K. Because it's not worth anybody's time to simply have the fruits of their labor confiscated by the government, which will waste most of it anyway on the bureaucracy and lining pockets of Democrat cronies.
It didn't work in the Jimmy Carter 70's. And it won't work in the Barack Obama 00's and 10's.
And the worst part, I'm pretty sure he knows it. What conclusion might that thought lead you to?
Me too.
Let's start with taxing the rich and giving to the poor. The poor generally see that as a pretty good idea, but what if they knew the real consequences of that part of the plan?
Although the number seems to keep coming down, let's just use Obama's original number of $250K. The idea is, if an individual earns more than $250K, somehow that's not good citizenship. Therefore, the government has the right to confiscate most of the earnings in excess of that amount.
So, let's say I've got my small business going great guns, and am on track to earn $500K this year. But Obama's new tax plan will take 70 cents on the dollar for the second $250K. Adding in State & Local Taxes, I would end up keeping a tiny fraction of those earnings for myself; possibly approaching 10%.
Being a rational person, I will do whatever I must to avoid those confiscatory taxes. Since I'm a consultant, with earnings based on hourly fees, once I realize there's no profit in working for that second $250K, I just won't. I'll cut my hours in half, or I'll work until I've earned $250K and take the rest of the year off. Then I'll resign myself to the fact that my earnings will be capped at $250K, at least until somebody from the conservative philosophy takes office. And I'll continue limiting my efforts to earning $250K and only $250K.
The Obama crowd might say that's a good thing. More work for other consultants, and isn't it great for me to earn so much money and still be able to get so much time off?
Maybe there's a personal attraction to making pretty decent money and still having lots of free time. But compare that to what I would have done without the confiscation:
I would have looked at expanding my business or investing in another business. After all, what if I could invest that second $250K into something that might pay off in bringing me an additional $250K a couple of years down the road?
Having the freedom and incentive to invest the profits from my success opens all sorts of possibilities. Maybe I am able to open a new business that employs lots of people. Maybe I'm able to invest in the development and sale of a new invention that makes everybody's lives better. I certainly will contribute a nice chunk of that income toward my church and favorite charities.
All it takes is the smallest bit of thought, which even the tiniest mind would be able to grasp. Obama thinks he will get 70% of that second $250K to pay for his universal healthcare and general income redistribution. But in reality, all he'll get is the 35 or 40% of the first $250K. Because it's not worth anybody's time to simply have the fruits of their labor confiscated by the government, which will waste most of it anyway on the bureaucracy and lining pockets of Democrat cronies.
It didn't work in the Jimmy Carter 70's. And it won't work in the Barack Obama 00's and 10's.
And the worst part, I'm pretty sure he knows it. What conclusion might that thought lead you to?
Me too.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Observable Results of Racial Preference
Commencement season has just ended. I attended two, for a child and for a nephew. To deny an evident fact of those commencement ceremonies would be to feign blindness.
The freshmen gathered to begin their undergraduate journeys four years ago. The incoming class was plainly racially diverse, proving the success of the university's efforts to attract and recruit students of various backgrounds.
Four years later, how diverse was the graduating class? If you count the Asian, Indian, and to a lesser extent Hispanic graduates, you might say pretty diverse. But what about Black?
The entering freshmen had a significant population of black students, perhaps close to a third of the matriculating class. But the graduating seniors were missing most of them. Sure, there were Black graduates, but as a percentage of the whole could not have been more than a low single-digit. And surnames of those graduates strongly suggested a significant part of that small successful group were from countries other than the United States.
Which naturally leads to the question: How does the practice of giving preferences and lowering admission standards for the purpose of building diverse university classes help those in the preferred group succeed, if obvious success rates for those students are so dismally small?
Would it not be better to make university admissions color-blind? Would it not be better to focus our efforts on improving education at the lower levels? If a racially identified sub-culture in America has rejected the education system as run by racist white guys, and shuns anyone in their group daring to excel in school, calling him "Uncle Tom"?
We should strive to support success not for a single racial group, but for all who grow up in poverty and without strong adult role models. We should focus on positive messages that tell young people they can succeed beyond their wildest dreams, if they only show up and study hard in school. We should encourage young women to pursue an education and career as the far superior option to dropping out and having babies out of wedlock.
This is why I could never be a politician in today's world. When you dare speak the truth, especially about issues such as this one, those who prefer the status quo will attack you personally and viciously.
But truth is.
The freshmen gathered to begin their undergraduate journeys four years ago. The incoming class was plainly racially diverse, proving the success of the university's efforts to attract and recruit students of various backgrounds.
Four years later, how diverse was the graduating class? If you count the Asian, Indian, and to a lesser extent Hispanic graduates, you might say pretty diverse. But what about Black?
The entering freshmen had a significant population of black students, perhaps close to a third of the matriculating class. But the graduating seniors were missing most of them. Sure, there were Black graduates, but as a percentage of the whole could not have been more than a low single-digit. And surnames of those graduates strongly suggested a significant part of that small successful group were from countries other than the United States.
Which naturally leads to the question: How does the practice of giving preferences and lowering admission standards for the purpose of building diverse university classes help those in the preferred group succeed, if obvious success rates for those students are so dismally small?
Would it not be better to make university admissions color-blind? Would it not be better to focus our efforts on improving education at the lower levels? If a racially identified sub-culture in America has rejected the education system as run by racist white guys, and shuns anyone in their group daring to excel in school, calling him "Uncle Tom"?
We should strive to support success not for a single racial group, but for all who grow up in poverty and without strong adult role models. We should focus on positive messages that tell young people they can succeed beyond their wildest dreams, if they only show up and study hard in school. We should encourage young women to pursue an education and career as the far superior option to dropping out and having babies out of wedlock.
This is why I could never be a politician in today's world. When you dare speak the truth, especially about issues such as this one, those who prefer the status quo will attack you personally and viciously.
But truth is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)