Imagine a scenario in which University of Michigan football
fanatics were told that the best possible team that could be recruited will not
take the field in the fall. Instead, the Wolverines would include a mix of kids
that includes those with inferior skills. These players will receive extra attention
from the coaching staff in an attempt to bring them up to speed. It’s only fair
because, in high school, they weren’t able to post better stats because they
played for weak teams with sub par coaches and equipment.
fanatics were told that the best possible team that could be recruited will not
take the field in the fall. Instead, the Wolverines would include a mix of kids
that includes those with inferior skills. These players will receive extra attention
from the coaching staff in an attempt to bring them up to speed. It’s only fair
because, in high school, they weren’t able to post better stats because they
played for weak teams with sub par coaches and equipment.
Under those circumstances, the outrage by sports fan would
reach an apex of fury.
reach an apex of fury.
Yet, a similar claim has been made regarding academics at
U-M since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the ban approved by
Michigan voters on race-based college admissions is constitutional.
U-M since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the ban approved by
Michigan voters on race-based college admissions is constitutional.
Over the past week, we’ve heard countless liberals argue
that, if minority students cannot gain acceptance into U-M and other Michigan
public universities, then maybe the standards should be reformed (lowered) for
kids who received an inferior K-12 education.
that, if minority students cannot gain acceptance into U-M and other Michigan
public universities, then maybe the standards should be reformed (lowered) for
kids who received an inferior K-12 education.
Seriously? If kids grew up in a poor or low-performing
school district, that means the universities’ bar, based on metrics such as
high school grade-point average and scores on standardized tests, should be
altered? These left-wingers howling about the high court ruling have a strange
concept of equality that casts aside a system of meritocracy.
school district, that means the universities’ bar, based on metrics such as
high school grade-point average and scores on standardized tests, should be
altered? These left-wingers howling about the high court ruling have a strange
concept of equality that casts aside a system of meritocracy.
Another absurd conclusion is that public universities must
assemble a student body that matches the demographics of their state, or of the
United States. Really? Do these do-gooders want to throw out the entire process
of upholding a university’s academic standards in favor of a numbers game? Do
they want to cut back on the number of Asian students in college based on the
U.S. Census? With the growing problem of a relatively small percentage of white
males on U.S. campuses, do these egalitarians want to push out women in favor
of men?
assemble a student body that matches the demographics of their state, or of the
United States. Really? Do these do-gooders want to throw out the entire process
of upholding a university’s academic standards in favor of a numbers game? Do
they want to cut back on the number of Asian students in college based on the
U.S. Census? With the growing problem of a relatively small percentage of white
males on U.S. campuses, do these egalitarians want to push out women in favor
of men?
Jennifer Gratz, who led the charge on Proposal 2 of 2006,
the ballot proposal that ended race-based admissions in Michigan, has been
making the rounds on TV and radio news programs since the court decision, battling
with liberals who bemoan the possible end to affirmative action.
the ballot proposal that ended race-based admissions in Michigan, has been
making the rounds on TV and radio news programs since the court decision, battling
with liberals who bemoan the possible end to affirmative action.
“I think that it is
unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say that prohibiting racial
discrimination is a racist decision. That tells us where the level of discourse
is today,” Gratz said during a Sunday appearance on Fox News.
unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say that prohibiting racial
discrimination is a racist decision. That tells us where the level of discourse
is today,” Gratz said during a Sunday appearance on Fox News.
More to come…
Recent Posts:
Liberal purists cheer GOP moderates, hate Dem moderates- Michigan companies can’t fill jobs because too…
- Warren ranked the most ‘white trash’ city in Michigan
- Michigan avoids being Foxconned – Snyder bailed out…
- The recession recovery: Michigan No. 1 while 35…
- Islamophobic SH candidate calls on Michigan Tea…
- Michigan counties face a heavy hurt under…
- Michigan Obamacare rate increases could average 28 percent
Instead of making up a bunch of strawman, how about you address real arguments in favor of affirmative action, such as Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion on the case? She stated in very clear terms that racism is still a problem in this country, and that affirmative action helps to prevent racism against minorities.
The pathetic argument against affirmative action is the claim that racism doesn't exist, that if a black person didn't get into college it was their own fault. This is false. The fact is that white males benefit in our society more than most, and it's because we live in a system that, while not overtly racist, still allows white males to live under the guise of "white privilege".
And I'm saying this as a white male.
Enjoy the quote from Justice Sotomayor:
In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.
Let's see….The voters voted for it, the supreme court upheld it and yet the crybaby liberals still can't accept it.