Friday, June 13, 2008

Race Preferences: Obama vs. Connerly

It simply stretches credulity to argue that an "opportunity" given to one, on the basis of race, is not discrimination against another for the same reason.

How does Mr. Obama expect America to compete with China and India when we abandon the principle of individual merit and elevate skin color and sex above performance?

If either Barack Obama or John McCain want to be a truly "post-racial president," then it is essential that they support efforts to place our nation on a path to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Americans. That means preferential treatment for none on the basis of their race, ethnic background, skin color or sex.

~Ward Connerly in today's WSJ, "Obama Is No 'Post-Racial' Candidate"


At 6/13/2008 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If either Barack Obama or John McCain want to be a truly "post-racial president," then it is essential that they support efforts to place our nation on a path to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Americans.

So is Mr. Con-nerly proposing a dream legal team for all people charged with a crime or shall everyone be required to suffer with a public defender?

At 6/13/2008 4:27 PM, Blogger spencer said...

I'll be very happy to listen to his argument once he demonstrates that minorities do not suffer from racial discrimination in the US..

At 6/13/2008 5:22 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

I'd be very happy to listen to you, Spencer, if you ever dropped that lame lefty device of demanding perfection (to your definition!) from everyone else first.

To paraphrase, let him who is without sin pull that honking big beam out of his eye.

At 6/13/2008 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Article regarding the work of Richard Sander on affirmative action:

Richard Sander study on the effects of affirmative action in law schools confirms Connerly's contentions that affirmative action can hurt the very people it was intended to help. What Dr. Sander found was quite interesting and surprising. The original study can be downloaded below:

Mr. Obama would be familiar with this study since it created considerable controversy among liberals when it was unveiled by one of their own. Few question whether affirmative action was well intentioned or whether it was necessary to address the tremendous economic and social barriers facing blacks, in particular, and women in 1964. Like any public policy, affirmative action needs to be reassessed objectively to determine whether the benefits outweigh the deliterious effects identified by Sander and many other researchers.

Affirmative action conjures strong emotions but the objective should be to determine if the policy is working or what improvements can be made. The purpose is not to assuage white consciences but to help black people. If affirmative action fails on this fundamental level, then it should be abolished.

The concerns raised by Sander remain unaddressed as politicians scramble to show they are "for black folks". Being "for" or "against" anyone is not a issue.

At 6/13/2008 8:20 PM, Blogger (Q) said...

The real question is why did the good professor think it necessary to post a pic of Ward Connerly above the article? An article on race preference, to boot! Did everyone miss the irony? Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that I was tipped to the fact that Mr. Connerly is black, because I was dangerously close to thinking this was a poorly written piece of nonsense.

Seriously, Mr. Connerly does hit the bulls-eye with this: "The issue that troubled many Americans about the widely publicized sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright was his view that America is an "institutionally racist" society. This view lies at the heart of the defense advocates of race preferences make for "affirmative action." It is also at the core of Black Liberation Theology." Unfortunately, Mr. Connerly sidesteps that discussion entirely, imo.

At 6/13/2008 9:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You have also fundamentally sidestepped the issue. Does affirmative action work or not. You have failed to address the issues raised by Richard Sanderson's work. See link above.

Would it be too much to ask you to consider in an unprejudiced and unbiased manner, the results of this study.

At 6/13/2008 11:23 PM, Blogger (Q) said...

anonymous, I don't think I can comment on this study - it really is above my head. But what numbers is Richard Sanders talking about? - several hundred black students a year? several thousand? And what is the great "harm" being done to them, i.e. the black students admitted through race consideration? That's not sufficiently clear to me... but, even if a number of these students, because of "mismatch," don't do as well or even drop out... I don't think it rises to national importance. (Am I wrong on the numbers?) Besides, abolishing race preference would not be the only solution or even the logical one; I would guess there are ways to improve black students' academic scores and diminish the "mismatch," if that is what "we" are committed to.

Obviously, if we try to apply Sanders' "proofs" about these law students to all affirmative action programs, we'd need a lot more data. But if affirmative action does not work, if it brings little or no benefit to people it is trying to help, then, yes, it should be abolished. I don't know that this evidence exists.

At 6/15/2008 2:26 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> I'll be very happy to listen to his argument once he demonstrates that minorities do not suffer from racial discrimination in the US..

I'll be happy to bother taking you seriously when you manage to show concern that virtually every policy you promote causees recognizable, demonstrable harm to the very individuals you suggest you care about.

But they DO make you feeeeeel better about having doooooone something.

And that's all that really matters, right? That some people (generally white and well-to-do) "feel" better.

All those people you stole money from at gunpoint to fund these harmful programs (themselves often substantially composed of those you purport to help, most ironically)? Screw 'em!!

At 6/15/2008 2:30 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> and women in 1964.

Not to suggest that there was none at all, this is often far overblown:

The U.S. Census Bureau found that as early as 1960, never-married women over 45 earned more in the workplace than never-married men over 45.
- Warren Farrell -

Much of income equality where females are concerned was and still is is often tied to choices women make vs. choices men make -- in educational pursuits, in family obligations vs. work obligations, and other similar optional clauses of one's life goals and desires.

"Sexism" rarely enters into it, even more so today than at any time in the past.

At 6/15/2008 12:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


The mismatch element is material if one considers that at the end of the process, black law students are stuck with a $200,000 debt.

A much greater percentage of students who experience mismatch are failing to pass the bar exam leaving them with a whopping debt and little to show for their efforts. The issue raised by Dr. Sander does need further study to determine the extent to which the mismatch factor is at play.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
---Martin Luther King


Agree 100% that women's choices effect their earning potential. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

With regard to affirmative action, is it not the legacy of a society of appartheid rather than a society that is egalitarian? Are black Americans still disenfranchised to the extent that they need a white man to enact their rights or can they do that themselves?

Isn't the power of Senator Obama's message that he is a man running for president rather than a black man running for president? Hasn't the landscape of America taken a fundamental shift when such a man becomes the nominee for the Democratic party?


Post a Comment

<< Home