Supporters of affirmative action, using good electoral strategy if thin evidential grounds, often shout that white women have common cause with minorities concerning the programs. Here, as in the Michigan higher ed case, we see that is simply false. Many a woman has been denied an opportunity by affirmative action, because they were the wrong ‘color.’ Bravo to this news. Let’s end this sordid sorting by race.

Ken, at 9:15 am EST on February 15, 2007

Reset your criteria

Members of the majority group in America refuse to see that they get to set the criteria on things that provide them opportunities that are not made available to members of minority groups. There is this privileged mindset that everything should be open, despite the fact that everything that is reported as open from their programs actually has exclusionary or limiting criteria. Maybe if the “majority” programs were not so exclusionary, there wouldn’t be a need for programs aimed at helping members of minority groups.

My suggestion to the program administrators is to reset your goals as a means to capture more of the students you really want to help. Beyond increasing the numbers in the field, there must be some educational component that attempts to help the students understand the need for them being in the field. This would necessitate resetting the criteria of the program. Criteria can include socioeconomic status, residency “i.e. within the city limits", and required involvement in organizations or community service that serve minority groups. Everyone accepted into this program should be “required” to have a goal of seeking to change the negative messages in the media (print and TV) as it pertains to members of minority groups. In this case, your goal is to not be exclusionary, but to have a directed focus of making America better for all through the media Since that is not everyone’s life goal, some people may self select out. You may not be able to keep the privileged students out, but you certainly can continue to find ways to keep the program open to those who need it most, and have a goal to make America better.

CF, at 9:50 am EST on February 15, 2007

Dow Should Eliminate College Role

I recommend that Dow Jones completely eliminate the colleges as participants in the award of these opportunities. By keeping the program completely private and having students apply directly to the company, it would arguably avoid the legal and consitutional issues that arise because a public university was involved. Don’t eliminate the program by broadening it and making its original purpose a nullity. Make it entirely private.

Elimiating affirmative action is to accept the status quo of privileges for non-minorities. Affirmative action eliminates centuries-old preferences; it does not promote them. Ironically, as in the case of Jennifer Gratz in the Michigan case, white women, who have benefitted most fom affirmative action, are used to challenge such opportunities for others.

Shirley W,., at 11:25 am EST on February 15, 2007

At least at the more prestigious schools, affirmative action gives aid to the African American who least need it (the upper middle and upper class) by hindering whites and Asians whether their ancestors benefited from (or were actually burdened by) past quotas in academia or not, or were even in the country at that time or not.

If I stole $1,000 from you 100 years ago, I’m happy to pay it back with interest. If somebody else was responsible, I’m not interested paying 10 cents merely because I look like that guy. The people who benefited in the past still get the benefit today (legacy admissions). If anybody wants to correct that, if they want to end alumni influence in getting people admitted, and other privileges that exist college admissions today, there is nothing stopping them from doing that with or without affirmative action.

Whether women were the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action or not, Jennifer Gratz, an applicant in the 1990s benefited little. Without knowing her family history (whether her mother went to college; where/if she worked), it’s impossible to know to what extent she was in a higher socio-economic strata than she would have been without it. But as of today, and at the time she applied to the University of Michigan, the boosts given to gender vs. race aren’t in the same ballpark. If you want to help the poor and oppressed, help the poor and oppressed. That isn’t affirmative action’s focus.

ASD, at 12:16 pm EST on February 15, 2007

Private is a Limited Solution

The award in private hands can do anything it wants. A short term solution for only this program.

But that avoids the big picture questions.

How long blacks must be helped to correct the 100 years they were denied the opportunity to learn to read. When will integration take away the prejudice directed toward them because of their skin color?

Women who are black have the double whammy of gender discrimination.

Who said, and based upon what research, that the playing field is now level?

Quizzical, at 1:35 pm EST on February 15, 2007

Affirmative Action for Disadvantaged

The issue is one of economics. As one of the officers quoted in the article noted, her program has included low-income whites (and I would hope Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) along with Black Americans. Growing up poor in the South of the 50’s, I only came to understand very late in life just how much opportunity I had been denied because my father had no job and no money. It remains a problem today and with the widening economic divide, is only getting worse. So open the gates to all who need the opportunity, regardless of color.

Sally, at 2:35 pm EST on February 15, 2007

“’The elimination of Affirmative Action is rationalized by the idea that race and racism no longer matter.’”

“No, it is mandated because discriminating against anyone based solely on race is anathema to American values.”

I’m curious about where I can find these “American Values,” just when in our history the values associated with legal discrimination shifted (can values be legislated?), who has the authority to define these values, and how it is that you have managed to identify these “values” in every American? Abstract discussions of our “shared values” are all well and good. But at some point one has to contend with reality.

Simply suggesting that a problem doesn’t exist is not the same as solving it. If opponents of affirmative action who assert that it is discriminatory are really so concerned about abolishing oppression, why are there no similarly vigorous arguments for addressing institutional discrimination against People of Color coming from that camp.

The suggestion that Affirmative Action is anathema to American values demonstrates a misunderstanding of Affirmative Action, American values, or both. We have not arrived. The fight for social justice is ongoing. Affirmative Action is intended to address issues of both unfair disadvantage and unfair privilege. The two go hand in hand.

Trotting out a White person who didn’t get into the college of her/his choice does not make an empirical argument. Why don’t critics find the overwhelming evidence of racism and inequality as compelling as anecdotes about so called “reverse discrimination?” And while we’re on the subject, why is attention never paid to the many examples of “less qualified” white applicants who were accepted?

*note — This is not to suggest that interventions based on social class are unnecessary. There are indeed white folks who are oppressed by economics. I contend that both race and class (and gender and sexuality, etc) require our attention. Social justice is not a zero-sum game.

mike, at 4:06 pm EST on February 15, 2007

Affirmative Action is Race Neutral

Hooray for the Center for Individual Rights.

Their victory against racially-exclusive educational programs is another nail in the coffin of “group membership privileges".

Affirmative Action, as enabled by the original, unamended Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as enforced by President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965, mandated that no person should be denied or granted an opportunity based on race, skin color, or national origin. Period.

The racial victimization lobby quickly distorted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by demanding racially proportional representation (equal results regardless of merit) in all jobs, contracts and educational admissions. But the U.S. Constitution mandates that ALL citizens be treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity.

Thank god that another “racially sensitive” program has been struck down by defenders of equal opportunity. — Tim Fay

Tim Fay, at 9:10 pm EST on February 15, 2007

Apples and Oranges

Mike makes a mistake common among supporters of reverse discrimination: “Trotting out a White person who didn’t get into the college of her/his choice does not make an empirical argument. Why don’t critics find the overwhelming evidence of racism and inequality as compelling as anecdotes about so called “reverse discrimination?” “One can acknowledge racial disparties exist, but affirmative action programs are legally mandated discrimination. These are two different things. Racial disparities exist for a great many reasons, but in this nation right now they are not the result of legally mandated discrimination. We can prevent the latter simply by passing a law. The disparities however are much trickier. In fact currently hundreds of government programs are trying, in more indirect ways to be sure, to lessen these disparties. Of course, the existence of one fact (disparity) also certainly does not justify the other (reverse discrimination).

Ken, at 9:10 pm EST on February 15, 2007

Missed the point

Those who have sought out to attack these programs have missed the point entirely of what they seek to do. Diversification of the newsroom does not only make social sense, it makes economic sense. These programs have diversified the newsrooms of countless media, providing a perspective that is needed in order to attract the large number of audience members this business needs in order to keep its head above water. It’s called exposure to those segments of the population that have not been privy to these careers. Now, because those who have access to it in countless ways dont have access to 100 percent of it, its unfair? It’s like arguing that the Civil Rights movement was unfair because it did not address the rights of whites as well. We will all suffer from this.

ironic, at 9:11 pm EST on February 15, 2007

I like the idea that the rightness or wrongness of affirmative action might hinge on whether its supporters are hypocrites.

For the sake of the argument, assume they all are.

Assume they’re heartless elitists who care nothing about the plight of the poor and are closet racists. Now that we’ve established that—is affirmative action both productive and ethical? Has it led to a lowering of the gap? In the last couple decades have scores of non-minorities and minorities closed (I’m asking this as a serious question; if anybody wants to provide links I’m interested)?

Does it look like the gap is going to close within O’Connor’s deadline of 25 years (if not, shouldn’t the system be revamped while there’s still time to do this sort of thing—or are we hoping something will allow it to stay in place beyond that)?

Is it ethical to give somebody a boost even if they came from a privileged background and put an obstacle in front others (even if they didn’t) because of their race? If not, it should be changed.

ASD, at 10:10 pm EST on February 15, 2007

What no more institutional racism. It is time we stop descriminating against Whites and Asians.” Affirmative action and all of its sundry manifestations should be completely eliminated. We ought to be marching on Washington to end affirmative action; not marching to keep it” Quotes from Shelby Steele. Until black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson stop representing blacks their complaints will not be taken seriously by the educated public.

Jerry Wolfskill, at 9:30 am EST on February 16, 2007

Flip-Flop

I wish the ‘diversity supremists’ would get their story straight.

Invidious racial discrimination is inferred by combining non-proportionate results with the presumption that all groups possess the same distribution of inherent qualities and abilities.

Yet ‘diversity’ presumes inherent and substanial differences between groups that justify “putting a thumb on the scale” to prefer some group members.

So what is it PC-taliban? Are individuals from these groups presumed to be fundamentally the same or different? You keep flip-flopping on this foundational issue.

eddy, at 2:25 pm EST on February 16, 2007

WE CAN BE THE SAME YET DIFFERENT

In the summer of 1976 I became road kill on the Affirmative Action superhighway when a visibly uncomfortable supervisor, called me into his office and informed me that I would not be able to continue working for the company after the summer because the only permanent full time slot was going to a co-worker who was not white.

Unfortunately, some 30 years later, that superhighway turned out to be more like an unpaved road.

Affirmative Action suffers from the paradox that the very characteristics we are supposed to ignore when hiring individuals are the same as those we need to consider while we attempt to rectify institutional racism.

It is not a matter of flip flopping at all. The young woman who was hired instead of me did share the same inherent qualities and abilities of intelligence and moral character as I. Before Affirmative Action policies were implemented, the inherent and substantial differences of race, religion, et al, that we did not share were going to be the reason that I would have gotten the job, because my grandfather, father, uncle and four cousins all worked for the company. I would have just been next in a long line. But that was not a healthy strategy for the company and she needed the extra benefit that these policies provide.

We need diversity measures to show people that the important qualities that we all share are much more significant than those that make us different.

Mary Harper, at 5:50 am EST on February 17, 2007

As I was reading the comments this one really struck me

Hey, Affirmative Actionistas, don’t worry. Even though “privileged” whites may now be eligible to apply to these formerly exclusive journalism programs, I’m sure you’ll find ways to turn them down and still let your own favorites in. You wouldn’t let merit get in the way of “justice,” would you?MB

This is crazy. I cant understand why people have an issue with having a program for minorities. There are plenty of other journalism that this caucasian female could have applied to and would have prepared equally as well. It seems that everytime minorities get something a white person will come in and say thats not fair. Slavery wasnt fair but we got through it right. Not that I have anything aganist white people today, but you have to understand the plight of blacks and other minorities in America is unique and honestly with the lack of adaquate public schooling and the drugs and liquor store that are placed in our neighboorhoods we deserve programs such as these that ais us to achieve more. Everyone knows racism exists, but honestly as a black student i feel more comfortable learning in a class of black students just because i have someone to relate to. You dont see us black students running up to private schools sueing them because its not fair we dont recieve the same education and instead have to go tot schools with crappy books and teachers who dont care, so im sorry im not gonna feel sorry for a white girl who cant get something she wants. Just by being white you have doors open to you that us minorities have to work 10x harder for. so tell me what the point is. we open the door for white kids who have other options and less minorities get in, where does that leave us, with even less oppurtunites in life. we were already robbed of our cultures when we were brought over here and enslaved, can we please have something. without affirmative aciton less and less minorities are getting accepted because the white kids have more money. Its not even a question of merit and such a stupid comment that MB made. there need be no quotes are privledged because thats what you are. and colleges turn black kids down not based on merit but money so if thats what this program is doing to white kids, fine have a taste of your own medicine. its pure ignorance and your hurting minorities more by not giving them a chance to succeed, would you rather us be on the streets becuase we didnt get a chance? think about it.

Betial, at 4:25 am EST on March 7, 2007