23 Thoughts on “AOL News – Colleges Open Minority Aid to All Comers

  1. It’s convenient to want a race-blind policy when the institutions themselves are obviously not race-blind. Institutional racism is rampant though pervasive. By not acknowledging that problems all to often go hand in hand with race is simply convenient.

  2. It’s not just convenient, it’s proper. Combating institutional racism by more racism does not solve anything, it only perpetuates the stereotypes and injustices. By not acknowledging that the proper solution to racial disparities is race-blind, needs-based help, the cycle only continues.

  3. jess on 4/12/2006 at 12:36 pm said:

    Decades of institutional racism have left many minority groups at a disadvantage, both economically and educationally. A colour-blind society is a fine utopia to aspire to, however it assumes that all races are equally represented in every class. Race-based programs have been established to correct that imbalance. Once a balance is achieved, we can eliminate race-based aid and concentrate on needs-based aid as you suggest.

  4. A color-blind society does not assume that all races are equally represented in every class – it assumes that the best, and only way to correct disparities is to look at need, not at race.

    Race-based programs, although established with the good intention of correcting imbalances, have no mechanism for self-correction. And if they did, it would serve as a negative incentive for those who run the programs to actually correct the imbalance (since it is the imbalance that keeps them in business).

    With no agreed upon measures of success, or measures of success which promote failure, race-based programs are doomed to perpetuate and maintain imbalances.

    Needs-based programs, however, are always self-correcting. If this decade, Asians are the most in need, programs based around need will disproportionately service that particular “race”. If in the next decade, Italians are the most in need, programs based around need will inherently adjust to that change, and provide disproportionate benefit to the new low-man on the totem pole.

    Instead of looking for a race to promote economic growth and education in, we should be looking for those in economic and educational need, and providing services to them.  After all, we shouldn’t be in the business of helping rich and educated people of a specific race, even if most of their racial peers are poor and uneducated.  We should be in the business of providing aid and support to all poor and uneducated people, regardless of our arbitrary categorization of their “race”.

    Simply put, the answer to racism is to eliminate racism, not to reverse its direction.

  5. How do you explain the distinct color factor of poverty then?

    Additionally, I agree that college-level heavy affirmative-action programs seem to be a little too late. However, does this mean that we are allowed to address these problems earlier? I think it is convenient that everything be need-based. It’s a view that seems bred out of white privilege. I have no clue what your race is, but white privilege is based on the idea that you can be seen just as an individual. Minorities are not allowed that privilege. They are often taken as a token or have to speak for an entire group. So they are still treated this way, yet you want to ignore that it even exists. Ignoring it, as you suggest, will not make it go away.

    Please read “Racism Without Racists” by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.

  6. jess on 4/12/2006 at 1:38 pm said:

    Jere, I see your point and do agree with you to an extent but how are these programs to ensure that need-based aid is distributed fairly and based solely on financial eligibility? The laws may be colour-blind but unfortunately there are many people who are not.

  7. I suppose it doesn’t matter how one explains the distinct color factor when deciding what remedy to use to fix the problem.

    For example, let’s say we have 100 people, 80 green, 20 blue. 25 of those people are disadvantaged, out of which 15 are blue. For the moment, let us assume the disparity is because of a history of blue oppression.

    If we try to correct the imbalance by targeting blue people, we will give aid to 5 blue people who don’t need it, and fail to aid 10 green people who do need it. This imbalance in effective use of aid only gets worse as blue people are no longer disadvantaged.

    However, if we try to correct the imbalance by targeting just the disadvantaged people, we are always focusing on the right people. If blue oppression in general gets worse, and all 20 blue people become disadvantaged, all 20 blue people will get help. If blue oppression in general gets better, and no blue people are disadvantaged, our program will still work for the green people in need.

    Now, let’s say that the imbalance is not due to institutional racism against blue people – assert that the correlation is not an indication of causality. At this point, targeting blue people for special privilege over green people to combat this imbalance is even less justifiable.

    I think it is fairly straightforward to assert that aid should be given to those in need. Our scholarships should be given to both those who are in the most financial need, as well as those who are in the most educational need. Those people who don’t get high SAT scores, and haven’t done well in school, exhibit distinct needs that should be met in a race-blind manner.

    I think perhaps the challenge you both really wish to confront is the lack of needs based aid for those who have educational deficits, in addition to needs based aid for those who have financial deficits. I assert that both problems should be addressed in a needs-based manner.

  8. But who is to determine this need? Is it the fact that your family has never had the privilege of attending or being able to afford a university? Or is it the mere fact that you don’t have money to afford it at this time? Or could it be that no one in your family has been allowed to achieve a high-rank in society due to the minimum wage jobs they have been condemned to? Should be those that have failed to meet the educational standards because of laziness or those who have prevailed in the face of hardships? Which is more deserving? And to whom should the scholarships go.

    I hope you understand my point in that it is not that simple. Just as it is not that simple to target race as the sole basis of providing scholarships or grant money. I agree that there are some people who are not receiving aid that should and there are others who are receiving aid who shouldn’t be. My point is that taking a color-blind stance (not necessarily a strictly race-based stance) ignores systemic issues that exist…some scholars even dare call it an epidemic.

    Nevertheless, those scholarships are intended to benefit the minority-students who not only most deserve it based on merit but also most deserve it based on needs. However, as you pointed out, we see a high number of minority students whose families are not in what you call a need that are receiving scholarships and fellowships despite the original intentions. So then, what is to stop whites from taking the same advantage of a flawed system? And as I alluded to before, there’s no preventing a flawed system.

    The difference between whites with money and minorities with money is that whites still benefit from white privilege, a concept you have yet to address despite my mentioning of it. Again, ignoring the racial face of poverty only seeks to hide the fact that it exists. By ignoring it, we are saying that it’s not a problem. I, for one, see the imbalance as a problem, regardless of causality.

    Similarly, what about gender-based scholarships and programs? The article mentions them, but you only mentioned race-based scholarships. Should the gender-based scholarships and fellowships be ended as well? If so, then what should be done to alleviate the low representation women see at the highest levels of power, stature, and money?

  9. But who is to determine this need?

    I’m sure you and I could do a better job of determining need than using an arbitrary category of race.

    Is it the fact that your family has never had the privilege of attending or being able to afford a university? Or is it the mere fact that you don’t have money to afford it at this time? Or could it be that no one in your family has been allowed to achieve a high-rank in society due to the minimum wage jobs they have been condemned to?

    It should be based on personal need, so I would disagree with a criteria that judges you by your parents’ past privilege status.

    Should be those that have failed to meet the educational standards because of laziness or those who have prevailed in the face of hardships? Which is more deserving? And to whom should the scholarships go.

    Interesting question – how do we judge whether or not academic failure is due to personal choice (laziness), or societal oppression? Frankly, I would design needs-based programs that did not distinguish between the two – that is to say, there should be educational and scholarship programs targeting those who are functionally illiterate.

    My point is that taking a color-blind stance (not necessarily a strictly race-based stance) ignores systemic issues that exist…some scholars even dare call it an epidemic.

    You’re completely wrong. A color-blind, needs-aware stance addresses systemic issues in the only ethical way possible.

    By ignoring it, we are saying that it’s not a problem. I, for one, see the imbalance as a problem, regardless of causality.

    Again, you’re assuming that by using needs-aware criteria we are somehow ignoring a problem – nothing could be farther from the truth. Using needs-aware criteria is asserting that there is a problem, and no matter what the causality, it must be addressed effectively.

    Should the gender-based scholarships and fellowships be ended as well? If so, then what should be done to alleviate the low representation women see at the highest levels of power, stature, and money?

    Yes, gender based scholarships should be ended. I believe in equality, and because of that, I believe that women do not have additional deficiencies that must be addressed with special programs.

    Furthermore, I question the goal of gender equity at the highest levels of “power, stature, and money”. I would rather see gender equity at the highest levels of happiness, and the lowest levels of stress. Power, stature, and money are overrated.

  10. It should be based on personal need, so I would disagree with a criteria that judges you by your parents’ past privilege status.

    But who is to decide what personal need is? Some would argue that the fact that because a person’s parents have not gone to college decreases the likelihood of you finishing college. Other would say it is based on a person’s parents’ income. Still others would say it was the lack of educational foundation suffered from impoverished schools. So again I say, where do you create the criteria…because there of course has to be something…if not it would be just as arbitrary as basing it solely on race.

    Interesting question – how do we judge whether or not academic failure is due to personal choice (laziness), or societal oppression? Frankly, I would design needs-based programs that did not distinguish between the two – that is to say, there should be educational and scholarship programs targeting those who are functionally illiterate.

    You illustrated my point exactly. You are saying that anyone who displays any type of need as long as it’s not based on race or a parent’s previous performance or privilege can be subject to being the focus of a scholarship. That seems just as arbitrary as basing it on race does. Couldn’t this all be fixed by a better supported and better funded school system?

    You’re completely wrong. A color-blind, needs-aware stance addresses systemic issues in the only ethical way possible.

    Once again do you not agree that it is a problem that minorities are overrepresented in poverty, health problems, and educational inequities? How is a strictly needs-based stance addressing what some scholars call structural violence? Is it not a problem when our society sees all but one race being more likely to be a victim of certain system problems. How is a needs-aware stance the only ethical way possible? Are there no other ways? And if so, why not? What about the idea of social darwinism? Some may say that is ethical. What makes your ethical judgment superior?

    Again, you’re assuming that by using needs-aware criteria we are somehow ignoring a problem – nothing could be farther from the truth. Using needs-aware criteria is asserting that there is a problem, and no matter what the causality, it must be addressed effectively.

    I am not saying a needs-aware criteria is ignoring the problem…I’m saying that a color-blind criteria is ignoring the problem. They are two different things. I strongly believe that there is a problem when, again, all but one race seems more likely to suffer from these social issues. I never said that a needs-aware criteria was completely out of line. What I was commenting on was a color-blind needs-aware criteria that ignores any discrimination that seems to take place on the basis of race. As Jess said earlier, the laws can be color-blind but it does not mean their enactments are. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stopped the “separate, but equal” segregation. However, it did not stop all of the discriminatory housing practices that occurred. I hope you understand my point that our society is not color-blind and that we can’t just ignore that fact until it goes away, because it won’t.

    Yes, gender based scholarships should be ended. I believe in equality, and because of that, I believe that women do not have additional deficiencies that must be addressed with special programs.

    It is certainly not a matter of deficiencies, I assure you of that. We see this in the growing number of female undergraduates. However, what are you to make of the fact that women are not represented in the highest levels of corporations or government? Do you just attribute that to women not wanting to work harder? If you do, I think you are severely misinformed. How do you explain the lack of presence women have in those powerful roles? And, I ask you that question regardless of your opinion of the criteria for equity.

    Furthermore, of course you want to see it at the highest level of happiness and lowest level of stress. Power, stature, and money are overrated but they are the things that make the decisions and can determine the way in which one can attain happiness and avoid stress. Again, you are convenient in your decision to decide the criteria of equity. A woman can be happy as a homemaker if she is told that is all she is destined to be. Many women where happy in their ignorance before the social revolutions of the 60s. Does that mean they should never have been able to gain the advances that they did during the second wave of feminism?

  11. Some would argue that the fact that because a person’s parents have not gone to college decreases the likelihood of you finishing college.

    But why not measure directly, instead of indirectly? Help those who are in danger of not finishing college (as evidenced by poor grades, challenging finances, etc).

    Other would say it is based on a person’s parents’ income. Still others would say it was the lack of educational foundation suffered from impoverished schools.

    Again, you seem to want to measure hypothetical sources of problems, instead of just measuring those who are experiencing the actual disadvantage. Why help someone who is succeeding in spite of low income parents, or impoverished schools?

    So again I say, where do you create the criteria…because there of course has to be something…if not it would be just as arbitrary as basing it solely on race.

    You create the criteria based on what you wish to remedy. If you’re trying to remedy financial disparities, you address demonstrated financial need – you provide scholarships for those who cannot afford to attend school. If you’re trying to remedy educational disparities, you address demonstrated academic need – you provide programs and services for those people who are illiterate, or have dropped out of high school.

    Once again do you not agree that it is a problem that minorities are overrepresented in poverty, health problems, and educational inequities?

    Even if I agree that that is a problem, can’t you agree that the only self-adjusting solution to that problem is race-blind, needs-based programs?

    How is a strictly needs-based stance addressing what some scholars call structural violence?

    Because no matter how you got cut, the remedy is a bandage for the cut, not for the reason why you got cut. Would you limit medical treatment to only those who were shot on purpose, rather than shot by accident?

    How is a needs-aware stance the only ethical way possible? Are there no other ways? And if so, why not?

    Racism is unethical. I hope we have established that. Addressing problems by targeting specific races is racism. Addressing problems by random chance is not ethical either. The only ethical solution is to match a need with help.

    What about the idea of social darwinism? Some may say that is ethical. What makes your ethical judgment superior?

    I would assert that my ethical judgement is consistent, and that those who decry past racism as the source of our problems are being hypocritical when they break from their ethical judgement, and advocate for race-based programs.

    I’m saying that a color-blind criteria is ignoring the problem. They are two different things.

    I advocate for them in tandem – race-blind, needs-based. Perhaps we agree then?

    I hope you understand my point that our society is not color-blind and that we can’t just ignore that fact until it goes away, because it won’t.

    I hope you understand my point that regardless of whether or not society acts in a color-blind manner, a race-blind, needs-based approach will always provide the most effective solution to addressing disparities, regardless of their source.

    It is certainly not a matter of deficiencies, I assure you of that. We see this in the growing number of female undergraduates.

    An excellent point. Given the higher success rate for women in education, and the clear disadvantage men have, shouldn’t we be targeting help to males?

    However, what are you to make of the fact that women are not represented in the highest levels of corporations or government? Do you just attribute that to women not wanting to work harder?

    No, I attribute it mostly to the choices made by women to bear children. The sacrifices required for such endeavor by the female human are significantly greater than those required by men. However, I don’t judge a person by how high in a corporation or government they rise – I think that is a poor goal for any human being, male or female.

    Power, stature, and money are overrated but they are the things that make the decisions and can determine the way in which one can attain happiness and avoid stress.

    No, they aren’t. Happiness and lack of stress are personal choices unencumbered by material possessions or power. Of course, I’m mostly a buddhist…others may have alternative social theories of happiness.

    A woman can be happy as a homemaker if she is told that is all she is destined to be.

    She can also be happy as a homemaker if she decides between the options of power, fame, money, and family with open eyes. Certainly you don’t assert that happy housewives are only that way because they were indoctrinated into it?

    Many women where happy in their ignorance before the social revolutions of the 60s. Does that mean they should never have been able to gain the advances that they did during the second wave of feminism?

    What advance are you talking about? You mean the corporate boondoggle that doubled the workforce, and created 2-working parent families as a way to depress wages?

    Many women, and many men are happy to eschew the reins of power for the comforts and joys of home and family.

  12. But why not measure directly, instead of indirectly? Help those who are in danger of not finishing college (as evidenced by poor grades, challenging finances, etc).

    I think you have missed my point. My point was that there is no clear way to view need. You yourself recognized two factors and an et cetera. You say it is very clear yet you name two more factors making it pretty unclear what need is. And you conveniently leave out some factors that many scholars say actually represent need.

    Again, you seem to want to measure hypothetical sources of problems, instead of just measuring those who are experiencing the actual disadvantage. Why help someone who is succeeding in spite of low income parents, or impoverished schools?

    These are not hypothetical sources of problems. These are very real and identifiable sources. I urge you to do more research to see these effects. Additionally, I resent your willingness to give a fellowship to someone with poor grades instead of a person who is succeeding despite low income and impoverished schools. A person who is succeeding will eventually hit a glass ceiling because of money. I know you like to think that money and power do not matter as long as you are happy. But they are real indicators of future progress. A person who does well in school despite financial and educational barriers will go to college and without aid continue hit the glass ceiling when he leaves school and has to pay all of his loans back. How is this kind of student less worthy than those who do not work as hard? Again, this comes down to your pervasive criteria of need.

    You create the criteria based on what you wish to remedy. If you’re trying to remedy financial disparities, you address demonstrated financial need – you provide scholarships for those who cannot afford to attend school. If you’re trying to remedy educational disparities, you address demonstrated academic need – you provide programs and services for those people who are illiterate, or have dropped out of high school.

    Here again, I must urge that you see how arbitrary your criteria really is. You say that if you want to address financial disparities you must take such an approach. Well this is where I continue by saying what if I want to address the race disparities of higher education and higher incomes? You still refuse to acknowledge whether or not you think it’s a problem. I believe it is a problem just as worrisome as financial disparities. Why are you more right than me?

    Even if I agree that that is a problem, can’t you agree that the only self-adjusting solution to that problem is race-blind, needs-based programs?

    Obviously I can’t agree or I wouldn’t still be here.

    Because no matter how you got cut, the remedy is a bandage for the cut, not for the reason why you got cut. Would you limit medical treatment to only those who were shot on purpose, rather than shot by accident?

    Actually this is a horrible metaphor. If someone gets hurt, often times doctors will conduct background questions and send them to different doctors accordingly…some that are more or less expensive. Additionally, after assessing the damage and asking some questions regarding the nature of the accident, people can and are bumped up on the list in first-come, first-serve clinics. Are you saying this isn’t right? Because after all, sometimes the only way to tell how the severity of a problem is to find out how and why someone was hurt.

    Racism is unethical. I hope we have established that. Addressing problems by targeting specific races is racism. Addressing problems by random chance is not ethical either. The only ethical solution is to match a need with help.

    How are you so sure of this? You have yet to give me real logical reasons about why your ethical opinion is superior to mine.

    I would assert that my ethical judgement is consistent, and that those who decry past racism as the source of our problems are being hypocritical when they break from their ethical judgement, and advocate for race-based programs.

    Actually I think you have missed some key factors in your analysis. Those who fought to end legal racism in the 50s and 60s and those who still deem it a source of problems work to end an inequality that occurred in society, but more importantly, in the law. These people, including myself, now see that this inequality has moved to become more pervasive, yet we are still fighting to end racism. Race-based programs allow an effective way to address institutional racism. Not every race is on an equal playing field and many of these programs work to alleviate the race problem. Still we are fighting again to abolish racism, but since simply making laws color-blind serves to maintain or even exacerbate racism, there has to be something else done. I hope you see that it is not at all hypocrtical. In fact, it is probably more consistent than your ethical judgment.

    I advocate for them in tandem – race-blind, needs-based. Perhaps we agree then?

    Again, obviously we don’t agree. I said that I agreed with needs-based but not color-blind. I don’t think I need to repeat this point.

    An excellent point. Given the higher success rate for women in education, and the clear disadvantage men have, shouldn’t we be targeting help to males?

    How is it a clear disadvantage when men who don’t go to college can still make as much or more money than women do? I don’t see that as being very clear. Though, I can understand targeting more men in college recruiting campaigns to make up for the deficiency. But I just wanted to point out that it’s not that clear of a disadvantage.

    No, I attribute it mostly to the choices made by women to bear children. The sacrifices required for such endeavor by the female human are significantly greater than those required by men. However, I don’t judge a person by how high in a corporation or government they rise – I think that is a poor goal for any human being, male or female.

    First off, you are severely misinformed, and I urge you again to read “Mommy Myth” by Susan Douglas. More women are NOT choosing to bear children and be stay-at-home moms. More importantly though, it’s not the matter of judging someone by thwere they are on the corporate and governmental ladder. It’s a matter of having access to those kinds of opportunities. There are very real glass ceilings for the majority of women who would like to achieve such high standards. And by your criteria, they would not be happy because they can’t move up despite their hard work. So, how do you address this problem now?

    No, they aren’t. Happiness and lack of stress are personal choices unencumbered by material possessions or power. Of course, I’m mostly a buddhist…others may have alternative social theories of happiness.

    Okay fine, but many women are not happy because they are stuck below a glass ceiling in their jobs. Should they just grin and bear it and be happy? Even if they are happy and can accept this inequality, does it still make it right that they must face the glass ceiling and lower wages?

    She can also be happy as a homemaker if she decides between the options of power, fame, money, and family with open eyes. Certainly you don’t assert that happy housewives are only that way because they were indoctrinated into it?

    No I certainly don’t. I was merely saying that a person can be blissful in ignorance. I used the homemaker as the example because that was the case a half a century ago. More importantly, why does she have to decide between power, fame, money, or family? Men don’t seem to have to make the same decisions. They can make the money and come home and be a happy family man. Why can’t women have the same choice? One reason is because as I said before, there are very real obstacles facing women who want to achieve higher levels of power and money. If that’s what makes them happy, who are you to stop them?

    What advance are you talking about? You mean the corporate boondoggle that doubled the workforce, and created 2-working parent families as a way to depress wages?

    Many women, and many men are happy to eschew the reins of power for the comforts and joys of home and family.

    The 2-working parent families did not depress wages, the world-wide recession depressed wages. Remember the oil problems in the 70s? The only thing a 2-working parent family did was give women the option of helping to support their family. Furthermore, are you really saying that the advances in closing the pay gap for women and opening up more arenas for women to work was wrong? I hope you do not truly believe it. If you are of such ethical standards as you say you are, you would see the hypocrisy you now proliferate. That wage gap was real then and is real now. So because of this “boondoggle” does that mean should have continued to be paid less than men for the same job? That seems completely hypocritical.

    Also, as I said before it’s not the position that is the problem. It’s the choice of being a homemaker or being the president. Women are consistently not given the choice to stay at home or go to work. This is as pervasive as the race problems we face in this society. Women are pushed to stay at home and men are allowed a choice (actually often pushed to stay at work). How is that fair? Women choose to stay at home because they are not able to advance in companies or governments or they are underpaid in comparison to their male co-workers. That doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me.

    As a side note, I again urge you to read Bonilla-Silva’s “Racism Without Racists”

  13. I think you have missed my point. My point was that there is no clear way to view need.

    If there is no clear way for us to view need, then using race-based measures guarantees institutional inequality – after all, we’ll never know when we’re done correcting any imbalances if we cannot agree on a view.

    Personally, I think you’re mistaken, and that we can come to agreement on measures of need.

    And you conveniently leave out some factors that many scholars say actually represent need.

    For example?

    These are not hypothetical sources of problems. These are very real and identifiable sources. I urge you to do more research to see these effects.

    I’m sorry, but until you can show me proof of causality, rather than just correlation, you are dealing with the hypothetical. The difficulty, I think you will find, is with your particular choice of mechanism for causality – if you believe that certain races are just inferior, you’e rediscovered the discredited field of eugenics. If you believe that it is because of specific identified racism, you’ll find that such racism does not exist equally in all areas (since racism requires racists), and targeting race, regardless of background or experience, will not accurately target the issue.

    Additionally, I resent your willingness to give a fellowship to someone with poor grades instead of a person who is succeeding despite low income and impoverished schools.

    Perhaps you misunderstood my example – someone who’s parents historically had low income, and who went to impoverished schools, but who now is in a financial situation that can clearly afford college (let’s say, the parents increased their income significantly), and is in an academic situation that can clearly qualify for college (let’s say, the student scored 1600 on the SATs and has no educational deficiencies), should not benefit from additional aid. That’s like giving a tax deduction for a millionaire because his parents were poor, and his schools were substandard during his childhood – he’s made it past his obstacles, why should you continue to help him?

    I know you like to think that money and power do not matter as long as you are happy. But they are real indicators of future progress.

    They are materialistic indicators of future progress, and I challenge their morality.

    Well this is where I continue by saying what if I want to address the race disparities of higher education and higher incomes?

    Then you address the needs of those who struggle financially and struggle educationally – do it by need instead of by race, and no matter what particular racism exists in a given decade, such help wil disproportionately help that group. It continually adjusts itself to give need to exactly the people who need it.

    Why are you more right than me?

    Because I’m more consistent. You see racism as a source of evil, but are willing to use it as a tool to forward specific racial privileges.

    Because after all, sometimes the only way to tell how the severity of a problem is to find out how and why someone was hurt.

    I think you’re misunderstanding the process of giving a diagnosis. Whether or not you got cut because you were slicing a banana, or if you were in a knife fight, will not affect the choice of treatment if the wounds are of the same severity – and that severity can only be accurately measured by observation of the actual wound, not by asking the patient if they were attacked by a left-handed person or a right-handed one.

    How are you so sure of this? You have yet to give me real logical reasons about why your ethical opinion is superior to mine.

    I have given you a clear logical reason – I am being ethically consistent, and you are being ethically hypocritical. If you don’t see hypocrisy as ethically inferior, I would love to hear your rationale for that.

    Race-based programs allow an effective way to address institutional racism. Not every race is on an equal playing field and many of these programs work to alleviate the race problem. Still we are fighting again to abolish racism, but since simply making laws color-blind serves to maintain or even exacerbate racism, there has to be something else done. I hope you see that it is not at all hypocrtical. In fact, it is probably more consistent than your ethical judgment.

    Race-based programs are not effective, period. They are blunt instruments that provide aid very ineffectively, including giving aid to those of a particular race who have not endured any hardship because of their race. Similarly, the entire idea of “multi-racial” people is a fly in the ointment, since if someone is 1/4 of a suppressed race, we don’t give them just 1/4 of the aid based on race. Just think of all the toenail hawaiians in Kamehameha schools, and their poor, impoverished high blood quantum peers in Nanakuli who haven’t been helped.

    Again, perhaps you don’t mean to be hypocritical, but you are. Perhaps your problem is that you focus on race, rather than color. The institutional racism you describe is based on the perception of others, but the race-based programs you support are based on self-perception. In this case, a dark skinned Malaysian will be treated with some discrimination, but a light-skinned african american who “passes” will not. Who deserves the aid? The one who was actually discriminated against, or the person of the proper “race” according to your judgement?

    I suppose if you could identify the mechanism of the institutional racism, i.e., is it based on skin color? Hair style? Last name? First name? Dress? Music tastes? Maybe then you could develop an experiment that would more clearly identify the root causes, and then you could address those causes. But merely asserting that without any way of measuring success, you are going to blindly give additional privilege to a specific race, is clearly hypocritical if you don’t believe in racism.

  14. And the gender-based programs? have you forgotten that discussion?

  15. Again, obviously we don’t agree. I said that I agreed with needs-based but not color-blind. I don’t think I need to repeat this point.

    Why not both? You can’t seem to identify a need that cannot be identified directly, rather than by proxy using the social construct of race.

    How is it a clear disadvantage when men who don’t go to college can still make as much or more money than women do?

    It is an educational disadvantage, that often times translates into an economic disadvantage. Obviously there will be exceptions to this, but the same can be said of any generalization – how can you say women are disadvantaged when they can still make as much or more money than men do? Clearly you aren’t asserting that a high-school dropout working at Taco Bell makes more money than a woman who finished her Bachelor’s degree?

    There are very real glass ceilings for the majority of women who would like to achieve such high standards. And by your criteria, they would not be happy because they can’t move up despite their hard work. So, how do you address this problem now?

    You’ve fallen into the trap of believing that climbing the corporate ladder is a path to happiness. Read this article:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-allen5mar05,1,5248974.story?track=rss

    Okay fine, but many women are not happy because they are stuck below a glass ceiling in their jobs. Should they just grin and bear it and be happy?

    If they are being held back because of discrimination by others, they should be very unhappy and fight for equality. If they are “stuck” because of other choices they’ve made (i.e., more family time, bearing children), they should decide what is going to make them happy, and be willing to sacrifice to get there.

    Men don’t seem to have to make the same decisions. They can make the money and come home and be a happy family man.

    I think it is terrible that men don’t have the same opportunities for home making that women do – men are required to work longer hours, spend less time with their families, and are socially discriminated against in matters of custody and child-rearing. Given the choice, I’d love to be a house-husband. I’m grateful for the paternal leave legislation that exists in California, and I support gender equity in the family courts.

    Of course, I understand that it is difficult for you to grasp the fact that men have limited choices, and social “ceilings” of their own they need to battle.

  16. And the gender-based programs? have you forgotten that discussion?

    No, I didn’t. Split my post because it was getting long. My apologies for any confusion.

  17. From the L.A. Times article:

    Until five years ago, social scientists assumed that the feminist revolution of the 1970s was so thorough and unstoppable that the percentage of mothers in the workforce would continue to rise inexorably until it reached close to 100. The phenomenon of the corporate lawyer who opts to bake cookies with her children and let her husband provide the financial security alarms feminists, but numbers from the Census Bureau suggest that her type is part of a continuing trend. The high-water mark also was 1998 for labor-force participation of mothers with children under 12 months who had both bachelor’s degrees (67%) and graduate or professional degrees (74%). By 2004, the percentages had fallen to 60% and 70%, respectively.

    So yes, more women are choosing to bear children and be stay-at-home moms.

  18. there are very real obstacles facing women who want to achieve higher levels of power and money. If that’s what makes them happy, who are you to stop them?

    One more point on this little assertion you make here – happiness is a personal responsibilty, and the only person who can stop you from achieving that is yourself.

    It is not anyone’s responsibility to make sure that a women who chooses to derive happiness from power and money gets the power and money she desires. Just as it is not anyone’s responsibilty to make sure that a man who chooses to derive happiness from murdering black people gets the object of his desire.

  19. More importantly, why does she have to decide between power, fame, money, or family? Men don’t seem to have to make the same decisions.

    Your perception of the decisions that men must make, and the choices that they are given, seem to be a bit skewed.

    I’ve made specific decisions in favor of family that have limited my power, fame and money. On top of that, many choices that women take for granted have not been available to me.

  20. Going point by point is not only getting tiresome, it’s getting frustrating since I feel like no matter what new argument I make, you keep addressing it with the same one instead of continuing on to different arguments and examples to further your analysis.

    First of all, do you even know the definition of racism? You seem to be doing all the research in the wrong places. You are not getting a well-rounded view. I’ve read the articles you suggest. However, I have also been educated in the other side of the argument in order to enhance my view. You have not even acknowledged any of the scholarship I have suggested to you. The articles you show me are from mainstream media outlets that do not provide any alternative view. Like I said, stop just believing what they tell you. You have to look at alternatives, which from what you say you haven’t, to get a bigger picture.

    Secondly, if you want to talk about hypocrisy, let’s talk. You continually imply that women can be happy if they just learn to be happy with themselves. This is an indvidual solution. You believe that an individual solution will solve the social issue. However, you say that a poor person has the right to an education. I say a woman has the right to achieve whatever she wants to, which includes achieving high levels of power and stature regardless of family. If that makes her happy, who are you to tell her that she should be more simple in her pursuit of happiness. And if you believe women should be less materialistic, then what about poor people? Trends show that more and more people are liking the simple country life. It makes them happy. So why can’t those poor people just be happy with what they have. After all, true happiness isn’t materialistic nor does it cost money. So what’s holding them back? Obviously this would warrant neither a needs-based or a race-based scholarship program. So your original framework and criteria are not very suitable according to your assertions.

    Thirdly, these educational issues you talk about are always discussed without a social context. You have made no mention or rebuttal to my comment on white privilege. Just fixing educational issues will not fix the whole racist system. Unfortunately, these things are all interrelated, you can’t just go from one to another fixing things. It has never worked that way. After you fix the educational system, how do you fix the discrimination in work? Or the overrepresentation of minorities in the prison system? Everything is interrelated.

    Fourthly, you like to preach about knowing Kamehameha Schools but obviously you know nothing. There are pre-schools looking to benefit all-children, even non-Hawaiians, run by KS. They are fixing the problem at its source. Do you even know how many children from Nanakuli go to Kamehameha at the high school level? Additionally, students who speak proper english and are fairer-skinned Hawaiians still suffer the same problems that other Hawaiians do. Remember that white privilege that I mentioned before? Obviously even fair Hawaiians don’t have that.

    Fifthly, I just want to address the article. The article said any 60% of housewives were happy. What about the other 40%…is it just an individual choice not to be happy or could it be one of those crazy ideas that I had? Moreover, it has never been about happiness, it’s been about choice. If a person is happy being homeless then he has the right. But when it becomes impossible for a person to choose anything other than homelessness, then we have a problem. I have never said that men never make tough decisions, it wasn’t an attack on you. I am merely talking about choices. I urge you to look into more of the scholarship about this so that you can see that it is not happiness that is lacking, it’s choice.

    Lastly, the information I provide is on the basis of years of research and scholarly work. I have been educated in a variety of places, by a variety of people, and from a variety of schools of thought. As a discussion, I feel that I don’t need to cite everything I say, just as you don’t. However, if that will appease you, I will put together a reading list of resources that I have used to provide these analyses. One suggestion is to start at Eitzen’s and Baca Zinn’s “Social Problems” textbook. It does not have all of the information, but it include the discussion of basic concepts that I have alluded to in my posts.

  21. Going point by point is not only getting tiresome, it’s getting frustrating since I feel like no matter what new argument I make, you keep addressing it with the same one instead of continuing on to different arguments and examples to further your analysis.

    I guess it’s like what they say about the fox and the hedgehog – the variety of your arguments does not in any way refute the one good argument I am making.

    First of all, do you even know the definition of racism?

    Perhaps it would be good if we could agree on that. Here’s the definition I’m using: judging people based on their race, and treating them differently because of their race. I welcome any definition you would like to assert.

    I say a woman has the right to achieve whatever she wants to, which includes achieving high levels of power and stature regardless of family.

    To assert that she has that right does not assure her of that success. People should have the opportunity to achieve what they would like to achieve, but there is no guarantee. And like it or not, choices need to be made between family and power and stature, for both men and women.

    After you fix the educational system, how do you fix the discrimination in work? Or the overrepresentation of minorities in the prison system? Everything is interrelated.

    You address things based on demonstrated need. The problem is that you see a big interrelated problem, and then choose a blunt instrument to fix it – having racially focused programs serve only to perpetuate the inequities in society – the grand paternal vision of white people giving black people a leg up because they are racially inferior is a poisonous concept, one that unfortunately you’ve been able to internalize and rationalize to yourself.

    If you want to fix discrimination in work, you implement merit based decision making. If you want to reduce prison populations, you work to reduce crime. You do not magically identify a needy race, and then focus your attention there.

    You are missing the forest for the trees.

    You have made no mention or rebuttal to my comment on white privilege.

    I’m sorry, but if you truly believe that “white privilege is based on the idea that you can be seen just as an individual”, then you’ve essentially asserted that we can never see people as individuals, and the only identity possible is the collective identity.

    Have you experienced white privilege?

    Additionally, students who speak proper english and are fairer-skinned Hawaiians still suffer the same problems that other Hawaiians do. Remember that white privilege that I mentioned before? Obviously even fair Hawaiians don’t have that.

    Tell me, by what mechanism do you think fair-skinned kanaka maoli, who pass as white, experience racism? Have you any data to support your theory that fair-skinned kanaka maoli suffer from the same problems that other darker-skinned kanaka maoli do? Any data at all that splits demographics by blood quantum, so we could identify correlations, if any? Or is this just a matter of faith for you?

    What about the other 40%…is it just an individual choice not to be happy or could it be one of those crazy ideas that I had?

    Some people choose not to be happy. By my social theory, it is because they are still too focused on the material world around them, and haven’t realized that they are the only ones in control of their emotions. But as I’ve said, non-buddhists might have different social theories.

    As a discussion, I feel that I don’t need to cite everything I say, just as you don’t.

    I think that without going to the source, or “nana i ke kumu”, it is hard to assert that your theories are correct. Your reading list is not nearly as important as the actual demographic data cited in those texts.

    Much of academia on this subject has been an echo chamber, with little real research or analysis beyond the anecdotal – your arguments seem to be typical of a school of thought that has not gathered evidence to make their theories credible.

    If we are to better understand the issue, we need to go from the realm of guessing into the realm of knowing. And the only way to know is with real data, and repeatable experiments. Of course, the challenge you have is that race is not anything more than an abstract social construct, and you would be hard pressed to come up with a worthwhile definition of race to use for studies. Considering your idea of “white” privilege (versus let’s say Italian privilege or German privilege), it seems that skin color, rather than ancestry, is core to your idea of race.

    In any case, I would love to hear what your definition of racism is, and understand better how you would define race, and develop data and experiments we could use to test our competing theories.

  22. There are pre-schools looking to benefit all-children, even non-Hawaiians, run by KS.

    If it is pono for them to run pre-schools to benefit all the children of Hawaii, by what rationale do they limit Kamehameha Schools admissions to only those with specific racial background?

    I think that KSBE will eventually be ordered by the courts to end their racist practices, and they will become a wonderful resource for all the children of Hawaii. There is no doubt that they can and have done good things, only a question as to whether using race as a discriminator is ethical.

  23. I was arguing with Jere at his site actually. The krischel.org you sent me. It’s under the race-based scholarships and fellowships. Kind of got really bored by the whole thing so I think I’ll just let him think he won. He just got too redundant. Nothing new to challenge me really. And when I said that he just said it was because his argument is just that superior. After that, I couldn’t really say anything else without getting the same crap shouted back at me that I already heard. So I think I’ll just end there and let him think he won. We weren’t getting anywhere. I thought it’d be fun, instead it just got frustrating and then boring. Oh well!

    I suppose if you’ve developed a defense such that you can rationalize your own racism as a legitimate way to combat racism you abhor, nothing will be able to challenge you.

    If you ever decide you want to discuss the issue again, and clarify your definition of race, racism, and the demographic studies and statistics you use to support your stance, you’re more than welcome to bring up the issue again. Without addressing the core definitions I can easily see how you could frustrate yourself.

    And I don’t have to think I won – I know I did :).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Post Navigation