The Case Against Affirmative Action
Although clearly an analysis piece, there are copious references we can dig into if there is some disagreement on interpretation.
Acousticate/Opu, I welcome your comments.
The Case Against Affirmative Action
Although clearly an analysis piece, there are copious references we can dig into if there is some disagreement on interpretation.
Acousticate/Opu, I welcome your comments.
Well, first I’ve got some things to do. Then I’ll be back to start the discussion. Sorry, duty calls!
We had such an interesting exchange on hawaiiankingdom.info, I wanted to repeat it here and flesh it out:
Opu: The idea of being entitled to anything is frustrating and such a colonial way of thinking.
Jere: So the idea of being entitled to a racially segregated school because of your race is a colonial way of thinking?
Opu: It’s a privilege. You think all children are entitled to it.
Jere: But apparently although it isn’t okay for someone to think all children are entitled so a given privilege, it is okay for someone to think that children of a specific race are entitled to a privilege above others.
Now, perhaps you meant to argue that a privilege reserved for a specific race is not an entitlement, but I think that’s just semantics – it sounds like you’re arguing that certain races are allowed to feel entitled to certain privileges, and other races who feel entitled to share in those privileges are somehow morally deficient in some way.
Perhaps you could clarify?
I’m not the one complaining about treatment…I believe that was you, Jere. Okay so Punahou hands out some scholarships, but how many? Care to venture a guess at how many children who are smart enough to attend Punahou but are not afforded the privilege? And what about ‘Iolani? Also, what about expensive higher education institutions that do not provide financial aid? Why are you so focused on race-based programs? It seems that there are people of higher classes that have the unequal upperhand here. You’re fighting against classes that have far less money and power than you think. Why focus on the unequal distribution of power between classes instead of race? I guarantee that abolishing race-based programs will not get any significant increase of money to those you say severely need it because of that unequal distribution of money and power. I’m not saying we should…merely, I am offering you an alternative struggle that you seem to ignore.
I don’t think I need to venture a guess at the number that can afford Punahou. I am sure that my family could not afford that seeing as we received a need-based scholarship. So you can be sure that KS funded at least three people who would not have been able to afford Punahou.
Opu | Homepage | 04.20.06 – 8:21 pm | #
Btw, that’s what I responded to you. You may think it’s semantics, but I don’t. Feeling you have a right to something is far different than being honored with a privilege. This is why they call it white privilege and not white entitlement. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Whites all over the nation and not just in Hawaii are allowed many benefits and this includes white privilege. The best public schools are far more accessible to whites than to any minority. So what are you doing to stop that privilege? Additionally, those of higher classes, especially the people in the top 1% of our country that own more wealth than all the other classes combined are privileged to any school of choice. They are privy to much much more. Yet you are not so insistent on taking down race-based programs instead of redistributing the wealth and power that is held in the top 1% of the nation. How is that right? You seem so hung up on battling Hawaiian privileges and you seem to forget about the nation of other problems that I would argue are far more serious.
Whites all over the nation and not just in Hawaii are allowed many benefits and this includes white privilege.
Care to explain what you mean by this?
Additionally, those of higher classes, especially the people in the top 1% of our country that own more wealth than all the other classes combined are privileged to any school of choice.
See, here you’ve established my point – the real disparitiy comes from class differences, not race differences. We should be working together to provide more scholarships to those people in financial need, rather than people of specific races.
You seem so fixated on preserving race-based programs that you’ve given up on any effort to improve needs-based programs.
If you want to redistribute wealth, let’s do it based on who has the wealth, not just based on someone’s race.
So you can be sure that KS funded at least three people who would not have been able to afford Punahou.
Then why should race have been a factor, if you would have qualified purely on need? This is what I don’t understand about the defense of race-based programs – the people that we REALLY want to help exhibit need. There are people of the privileged race that do not exhibit need. Given the limited resources we have, why not focus on giving the help to only those who need it? Why does race have to be a factor at all?
My imagination of race is as follows:
Race is a social construct. Racial characteristics and stereotypes are created, usually at the institutional level. This “knowldege” is socialized to everyone. This “knowledge” is then maintained and propogated by institutions, via policies, and individuals. The classifications of race can be challenged, but many times is not, thus returning us to the racial characteristics being created. However, if racial stereotypes are challenged there is a possibility that groups and institutions can change the racial characteristics and stereotypes. For example, the idea of Irish as blacks was changed after groups and institutions challenged this socialized “knowledge.” Additionally, the Black Panthers attempted to change the characteristics and stereotypes of African Americans as the worst race. They were obviously not nearly as successful as those institutions who changed the perception of Irish. Race is fluid and ever changing. Race continues this cycle over and over again.
My definition of racism is as follows:
Racism to me is social oppression based on race. It is not preference based on race, but rather the creation or perpetuation of an oppressive relationship. Social oppression involves a relationship in which one group benefits at the expensive of another. There is a dominant role and a dominated role. This may or may not be intentional. Now you know the foundation upon which I stand.
As for your friend’s piece, I’m not sure that I’d like to disuss it. I disagree with strong affirmative action. I have my own reasons, and really think it’s none of your business. However, I disagree about his opinions on weak affirmative action. Weak affirmative action, or as I have learned it, soft affirmative action, includes the promotion of opportunities for minorities which they are normally denied. There are a variety of reasons for being denied these opportunities, but that is not the point. The point is that soft affirmative action includes the advertising of a high-level employment opportunity in a spanish/hispanic newspaper. It also includes sending college recruitment officers to schools that are populated predominantly by minorities. These schools usually recieve little or no exposure to higher-ranked educational institutions. Soft affirmative action is subtle, and I think decently effective in opening the field further than it has been without offending anyone.
To say that soft affirmative action negatively effects whites is absurd. White americans receive the beneifts of white privilege regardless of their economic status (White Privilege is best described by Peggy McIntosh’s “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” seen here. The only person that soft affirmative action can negatively affect are the people who are losing money having to spend more money on advertising or an additional college recruiter. Still, since affirmative action is a voluntary policy, the people and companies who do not want to spend their time or money on a soft affirmative action program do not have to. I maintain: soft affirmative action does not negatively affect any of the people that the author notes.
Additionally, one must remember that the quotas mentioned in the piece are iillegal. If hard quotas are found to be in place, a person would rightfully have the option of taking legal recourse. However, less definite methods of affirmative action are not. This is the difference between Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. While this does not really affect my opinion on affirmative action, I felt that I had to clarify some mistakes and misconceptions noted in the piece your provided.
Racism to me is social oppression based on race. It is not preference based on race, but rather the creation or perpetuation of an oppressive relationship. Social oppression involves a relationship in which one group benefits at the expensive of another. There is a dominant role and a dominated role. This may or may not be intentional. Now you know the foundation upon which I stand.
So why isn’t it considered social oppression when one group benefits over the expense of another, as in the case of kanaka maoli over non-kanaka maoli and Kamehameha Schools? There is a dominant role, and a dominated role (you yourself described being suspected of not being “hawaiian”, and only at KS because your dad worked there, right?).
I can agree with your definition, but I’m confused as to how you apply it selectively.
The point is that soft affirmative action includes the advertising of a high-level employment opportunity in a spanish/hispanic newspaper. It also includes sending college recruitment officers to schools that are populated predominantly by minorities. These schools usually recieve little or no exposure to higher-ranked educational institutions. Soft affirmative action is subtle, and I think decently effective in opening the field further than it has been without offending anyone.
I thoroughly agree with your assertions here – disseminating information to a wider audience is not racism in my book. However, if during the admissions process, race becomes a factor, I think that is racism.
(White Privilege is best described by Peggy McIntosh’s “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsackâ€)
How white do you have to be to have “white privilege”?
Let me address some of her list point by point:
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
Does this mean that whites don’t have white privilege in Hawaii, where only 22% of the population is white?
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
What does this have to do with being white? Is this again, just a factor of majority status, not color, and therefore applicable only to the majority “color” or “race” in a given area?
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
What does color have to do with this? Is it being suggested that whiter people fare better at renting or purchasing housing in areas they can afford and wish to live in? Isn’t this an economic class issue, not a race issue?
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
Again, does this mean that in areas where whites are not the majority, there is no white privilege?
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
Does this mean that white privilege doesn’t apply to whites who dress “gangsta”, or look like they are poor?
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
Does this mean that white privilege doesn’t exist if you only watch UPN?
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
Aren’t whites taught about Martin Luther King? Malcolm X? Caeser Chavez?
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
What is “race”? Does that mean that Swedes who don’t see curricular materials about Swedish people don’t have white privilege? Or any other “white” person that self-identifies with a specific “race” other than “caucasian”?
Another thing, given your assertion that “white privilege” is the scourge we wish to address, according to your beliefs, shouldn’t you be advocating for skin color tests rather than self-identification of “race”? How white can your skin be, while still qualifying for an African-American scholarship? How white can your skin be, and still qualify for kanaka maoli privilege?
If we did find that skin color was the root of all oppression, what do you think about cosmetic surgery to make everyone the same color? Would that end “white privilege”?
I’m still confused as to what “white privilege” is, even after reading that article you referenced. I guess my questions revolve around the following:
*How white do you have to be? (CMYK color reference would be great)
*Do all whites experience white privilege? If not, who do we exclude?
*Is white privilege always experienced in every situation? If not, what situations does it not apply in?
*Is white privilege reversed in societies dominated by darker skinned people?
*Is it possible for there to be “black privilege” one day, or in a different context? How would that happen?
Additionally, one must remember that the quotas mentioned in the piece are iillegal. If hard quotas are found to be in place, a person would rightfully have the option of taking legal recourse.
Does this mean you accept the legal recourse taken against Kamehameha Schools, who have a hard quota of 100% part-kanaka maoli (violated only twice in the past 40 years)?
So why isn’t it considered social oppression when one group benefits over the expense of another, as in the case of kanaka maoli over non-kanaka maoli and Kamehameha Schools? There is a dominant role, and a dominated role (you yourself described being suspected of not being “hawaiianâ€, and only at KS because your dad worked there, right?).
I can agree with your definition, but I’m confused as to how you apply it selectively.
You and I see the idea of racism differently. I see it as a method of social oppression, and you see it as a method of preferential treatment. I think you are misguided in your perception because I do not think KS functions at the expense of other groups. I do not think KS bars anyone from getting an excellent education. People have other choices like Punahou, ‘Iolani and the number of other high-quality educational institutions on O’ahu. On the other hand, Hawaiians do not receive the same benefits. They consistently have higher drop-out rates. They also are half as likely to obtain advanced degrees than whites. I see little of the benefits you say Hawaiians receive. You are taking KS out of its social and historic contexts and then judging it. I don’t believe it is right to do so.
I see it as a method of social oppression, and you see it as a method of preferential treatment.
I’m sorry, but I see preferential treatment as social oppression of others. When it was suspected that you were not “hawaiian”, you were oppressed. This oppression derived from the preferential treatment policy that KS admissions uses.
I do not think KS bars anyone from getting an excellent education. People have other choices like Punahou, ‘Iolani and the number of other high-quality educational institutions on O’ahu.
Isn’t that the “separate but equal” argument? If Punahou limited enrollment to only part-white people, could they make the same argument, that Iolani still existed for non-whites? If Iolani limited enrollment to only part-japanese people, could they make the same argument, that other schools existed for other races?
At what point does it stop? And why does it stop at the point you define?
Obviously we are talking about the nation as a whole. I assumed as much since you talk about the nation as a whole so often and your pride of being American. You must of course take into consideration exactly where you live if you are white. As far as Peggy McIntosh’s piece, I think you are completely missing the point. Obviously it is not about color, it is about the social dominance relationship. I think you missed the point of McIntosh’s assertions. You were too busy questioning it to even take it in. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. However, the privileges she outlines are general privileges that may or may not be acted upon by certain individuals. If I ran a store, I would not target people based on race, but that type of minority-targeting continues to proliferate. Additionally, if you CHOOSE to surround yourself with minority-centered media, you will not see the same privileges. However, if you look at the majority of mainstream media you will see a much higher incidence of white Americans. For example NBC rarely features shows that are focused on minorities – tokenism does not count. Fox actually came underfire for its lack of minority representation and has since worked toward more fair and accurate representation. Again, instead of fighting every word I say, try and take it in for a second, pretend it’s true, and see what you learn from it.
As far as housing practices go, before the 1960s, there were red-lining practices that practically barred minorities from renting or owning a house. The problems continues today. You might remember a humorous but sad commercial in which a man mimicked stereotypical accents of various minorities and was denied even the ability to be told about vacant apartments. When he used a stereotypical white-American accent, he was offered an appointment time. Although red-lining and such institutional barriers do not exsist, it does not mean that the obstacles have disappeared too. Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not end all institutional racism. Housing discrimination is alive and well. There are organizations that attempt to curb the negative effects of such discrimination.
On the other hand, Hawaiians do not receive the same benefits. They consistently have higher drop-out rates.
Why not concentrate benefits on those who drop out of school?
If we looked at the data by economic class, wouldn’t we find that your drop out rate is far more dependent on that than race?
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/9/c017.html
Lest these correlations be misunderstood, it is also important to point out that, of the community-related factors, it is poverty that is the strongest predictor of dropping out. “When socioeconomic factors are controlled, the differences across racial, ethnic, geographic, and other demographic lines blur” (OERI Urban Superintendents Network 1987, p. 5).
Does this mean you accept the legal recourse taken against Kamehameha Schools, who have a hard quota of 100% part-kanaka maoli (violated only twice in the past 40 years)?
Actually, you’d be surprised how many non-Hawaiians have attended KS in the past 40 years. Obviously, they are not documented. But when you are part of the community, which sorry to say, you are not, you learn more than what is told to the public.
As far as housing practices go, before the 1960s, there were red-lining practices that practically barred minorities from renting or owning a house.
Did you realize that much of the problems in predominantly black Compton in Los Angeles started when racial covenants for housing were lifted, and the middle and upper class blacks left?
It is an interesting side effect, to think that some racial discrimination actually helped tie minority communities together – I personally think that such means don’t justify the ends, but I wonder, do you think we should segregate people by color?
You must of course take into consideration exactly where you live if you are white.
Then will you take that into account when remedying such “white privilege”? Will you allow whites who did not experience “white privilege” because of the location of residence to apply for minority scholarships and benefits?
I’m sorry, but I see preferential treatment as social oppression of others. When it was suspected that you were not “hawaiianâ€, you were oppressed. This oppression derived from the preferential treatment policy that KS admissions uses.
If by oppressed you mean that I was not allowed to gain from my educational experience at KS, then no, I was not oppressed. Anyone who was teased for not being Hawaiian enough was never denied the educational opportunities at KS. Social oppression is not an individual thing, it is a structural problem.
You might remember a humorous but sad commercial in which a man mimicked stereotypical accents of various minorities and was denied even the ability to be told about vacant apartments. When he used a stereotypical white-American accent, he was offered an appointment time.
This sounds like an awfully good way to monitor compliance with government regulations regarding race discrimination in housing. I wonder why they don’t do that more often?
In any case, I find it hard to assert that because there are lawbreakers out there regarding racial discrimination in housing, that we should practice racial discrimination in education…is that what you’re trying to do? Justify racial privilege (such as scholarships) by pointing out the lawbreaking of certain landlords?
Social oppression is not an individual thing, it is a structural problem.
Elaborate, please. How can you have structural social oppression if individuals are not oppressed?
In any case, the structural problem for KS is race-based admissions, which you are right, despite the fact that there is one John Doe fighting for his rights, the rights being oppressed are the rights of all non-kanaka maoli. He, as an individual, is only a symbol of the great mass of people being affected by the structural problem.
Actually, you’d be surprised how many non-Hawaiians have attended KS in the past 40 years. Obviously, they are not documented.
Really? Not just the summer school programs? (I went there in elementary school.) Is this just anecdotal, or do you know specific names?
But when you are part of the community, which sorry to say, you are not, you learn more than what is told to the public.
Is that correctly termed, “kanaka maoli privilege”? And how would we combat that insidious form of social oppression?
People will bond when they go through the same experiences. This is why various indigenous groups seek each other out for help and guidance because they take comfort in knowing another group has faced the same experiences. You seem to know little about the housing practices during that time. After WW2, blacks were barred from owning houses. If an African American became fortunate to own a house, his/her neighbors would be warned of the decrease in property value that might occur if an influx of blacks were to occur. These types of policies were taken by banks and real estate companies/agents. They were not necessarily government-issued policies, though the gov’t policies aided the agents and banks in defending their case. So when the whites were encouraged to sell at a low price before the blacks made the property values lower, they fled. When they fled for such low prices, communities were left abandoned and the property values plummeted. The blacks were left with little or no way to gain returns on their homes, while whites’ houses were appreciating value in other neighborhoods.
It is the same privilege you receive when you are part of a family. I have names, but I would never release them. As I said, it is part of being a family. It is my responsibility to my family.
How are non-Hawaiians oppressed? In what ways?
This is why various indigenous groups seek each other out for help and guidance because they take comfort in knowing another group has faced the same experiences.
But what about when those experiences are NOT the same? Such as the case between Native Americans and “Native Hawaiians”? Hawaii was never invaded. Hawaiian villages were never burned. Hawaiians were not moved to reservations and segregated from the general population, or denied citizenship.
You seem to know little about the housing practices during that time.
I’m not sure what you’re referencing here, but in terms of Compton and the Los Angeles area, there were race-based covenants built into certain areas, where it was considered a breach of contract to sell a house or to even rent a house to someone of a certain race. Assuming you weren’t aware of such policies that I have referenced-
http://www.translucency.com/frede/lagc.html
Los Angeles’s homeowners associations (HAs) began in 1916 with the Los Felix Improvement Association which created the concept of deed restrictions for new planned communities. Los Angeles pioneered deed restrictions and zoning for expensive single-family homes, with racial and social exclusion clauses and minimum costs and sizes for construction of new homes.13 The creation of HAs, which Mike Davis refers to as the White Wall, put 95 percent of the available housing out of the reach of Asian and African-Americans in the 1920s.14 Although the United States Supreme Court finally ruled against racist deed restrictions in 1948, the Gary case of 1919, established by the California Supreme Court, allowed the HAs to file suits against non-white homeowners, including film stars like Hattie MacDaniel. Should “trespassing” minority homeowners attempt to defend their homes, Ku Klux Klan-type vigilantism prevailed.15
But what about when those experiences are NOT the same? Such as the case between Native Americans and “Native Hawaiians”? Hawaii was never invaded. Hawaiian villages were never burned. Hawaiians were not moved to reservations and segregated from the general population, or denied citizenship.
Here is where I disagree with you. I know your position, and you can assume mine. It appears we will never agree on this.
How are non-Hawaiians oppressed? In what ways?
In the case of Kamehameha Schools, they have been effectively barred from attendance despite qualification for over 40 years. (The 2 exceptions I mentioned, and the others you alluded to being “undocumented” being few in number.)
In the case of OHA, non-kanaka maoli are deprived of their tax dollars spent on services to a single racial group.
In the case of DHHL, non-kanaka maoli are deprived of housing based on race.
In the case of the proposed Akaka bill, non-kanaka maoli are deprived of legal equality.
Note, this oppression extends across color-lines on both sides, with many part-kanaka maoli being whiter than the non-kanaka maoli filipinos, popolos, japanese, hispanics, etc, who are denied such equal opportunity and treatment.
Let me ask you this question – how are part-kanaka maoli who pass for white oppressed?
Here is where I disagree with you. I know your position, and you can assume mine. It appears we will never agree on this.
Can you defend your position at all? Or is this just a matter of faith on your part, which requires no evidence or rational thought?
Here is an article outlining the basics of the discriminatory housing practices after WW2 that I spoke about.
And here it is still going on in recent times.
You have yet to demonstrate those raw data you always ask for. Where do you see that Hawaiians have actually benefited at all from any policy or lack of it?
As for the invasion and illegal overthrow, I choose not to defend my position since that is not the topic of conversation. I am offended that after the conversation thus far, you think I would believe anything without evidence or rational thought.
You are the same one to talk about race being fluid. Part-hawaiians who may pass as white for some, may not pass as white for others. As I assume you know, since you obviously hover over my blog, I have been discriminated against for being both “too white” and “not white enough.” So again, it’s not as black and white as you believe.
And here it is still going on in recent times.
And the answer to housing discrimination is investigation, and legal prosecution.
The answer is not to provide discrimination in other spheres, such as education.
I never said it was. I was merely informing you since you seem to not be educated in that sector of the history and present of race relations in America.
For the record, that investigation was supposed to be happening in the 1960s yet housing discrimination has remained prominent today. It’s a widespread problem that has yet to be solved. So much for your faith in the government.
You have yet to demonstrate those raw data you always ask for. Where do you see that Hawaiians have actually benefited at all from any policy or lack of it?
Very good question. If kanaka maoli have not benefited, why should such programs continue? If spending money on OHA has not improved the lot of part-kanaka maoli, and since its inception demographic trends for part-kanaka maoli have worsened, would you agree we should end the system?
As for the invasion and illegal overthrow, I choose not to defend my position since that is not the topic of conversation.
Again, even taking your words and beliefs regarding the Hawaiian Revolution at face value, 162 U.S. peacekeepers, who never fired a shot, does not equate to U.S. troops killing Native Americans. If the only tenuous connection you assert exists between Native Americans and kanaka maoli is “invasion” and “illegal overthrow”, the two situations are clearly completely different.
So again, it’s not as black and white as you believe.
My point exactly. How can you advocate for race-based policies, when racial lines cannot be clearly or fairly defined? You claim an evil of “white privilege”, but apparently it is possible to pass for white, and experience such privilege, but still benefit from race-based policies for part-kanaka maoli.
How is that fair?
I was merely informing you since you seem to not be educated in that sector of the history and present of race relations in America.
If I left you with that impression, I apologize. I did not mean to confuse you. I am very aware of the history of housing discrimination in America, including the current government sanctioned institutionalized housing discrimination in Hawaii via DHHL.
For the record, that investigation was supposed to be happening in the 1960s yet housing discrimination has remained prominent today. It’s a widespread problem that has yet to be solved. So much for your faith in the government.
Well, the question is, if it has remained prominent, and the affirmative action policies over the past 30 years has not fixed it, why should we continue such ineffective action?
Again, I’m confused by what you’re trying to state here – I’m arguing that race-based privileges should not exist, and you seem to be arguing that because racial discrimination in housing exists, it justifies race-based privilege.
Is that really what you’re trying to say?
From the article you referenced, I agree with the recommendations:
Recommended agency enforcement actions.
1. Federal Fair Lending enforcement agencies should begin prompt investigations of the lenders responsible for the 61 worst case lending patterns identified by this report.
2. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department should review the lenders with the 61 worst case lending patterns for civil prosecution and issue a report that examines the causes of these lending Patterns and evaluates the adequacy of the investigations performed by the primary enforcement agencies.
It sounds like they have a clear idea of the remedy in this case, which is matter of enforcing laws regarding equal treatment. With remedies like this available, and hopefully underway, why should we support race-based programs in other areas? How are those race-based programs a remedy for such discrimination?
Teach for America has improved the education for a number of schools and even more children. Still minorities underscore despite its existence for 10 years. Does this mean that this organization should be deconstructed?
Still I wonder why you take such interest in Hawaii when similar, some might argue worse, treatment occurs elsewhere. Why do you focus so much on Hawaii? You live in California, why have you not similarly stepped up for the legal discrimination that affects homosexuals? You say you’re for the end of discrimination on all levels, yet you do not ever mention other groups besides non-Hawaiians in Hawaii being neglected and mistreated.
Teach for America has improved the education for a number of schools and even more children. Still minorities underscore despite its existence for 10 years. Does this mean that this organization should be deconstructed?
If Teach for America was only attempting to improve the education of minorities, and could not show measurable improvement, it should be deconstructed. However, it concentrates on low-income communities, not racial communities (which, as I mentioned, is the biggest factor in drop out statistics).
So the question is, what is their goal – to improve education outcomes for low-income areas. And according to their studies, they are succeeding:
The study finds that Teach For America corps members:
* Make 10% more progress in a year in math than is typically expected, while slightly exceeding the normal expectation for progress in reading.
* Attain greater gains in math and the same gains in reading compared to the other teachers in the study, even as compared only to certified teachers and to veteran teachers.
* Are working toward our mission in the highest-need classrooms in the country.
Therefore, this program should be expanded, and should serve all low-income areas.
They make the progress but the school systems in low-income areas on a whole still fare worse and have seen little improvement. Should they still be deconstructed?
Still I wonder why you take such interest in Hawaii when similar, some might argue worse, treatment occurs elsewhere. Why do you focus so much on Hawaii?
Hawaii is my homeland, it is where my heart and spirit is. Certainly there are many people who live outside of Hawaii (yourself included) who take a keen interest in its future.
You live in California, why have you not similarly stepped up for the legal discrimination that affects homosexuals? You say you’re for the end of discrimination on all levels, yet you do not ever mention other groups besides non-Hawaiians in Hawaii being neglected and mistreated.
I have stepped up for homosexual rights. I refuse to vote for Arnold again because of his veto of a gay marriage bill. I am a supporter of gay rights, read the Advocate on a regular basis, and my children are incredibly blessed to have two gay calabash uncles who are as much a part of my family as anyone is.
I am for the end of discrimination on all levels, and despite the fact that you’ve never heard me mention my support for homosexuals on hawaiiankingdom.info (and I have), I am very much a man of the convictions I state. There is no ulterior motive here. I am not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. Yes, I saw Brokeback Mountain. Yes I cried. Yes I’m straight. Yes I’ve been to gay film festivals. No, I’m not bi-curious.
I find it sad though, that you would criticize someone for fighting for equality because they weren’t fighting every battle in every place. I suppose I could ask you the same question, why aren’t you supportive of Japanese privileges in Hawaii? Or Portuguese Homelands? Or an Office of Filipino Affairs? Why do you promote privilege for kanaka maoli, but not for non-kanaka maoli?
They make the progress but the school systems in low-income areas on a whole still fare worse and have seen little improvement. Should they still be deconstructed?
If what they were doing didn’t work, yes. But clearly, it is working. And even more clearly, it is helping those in need, not just those of a specific race.
Teach for America has done exactly what I have asserted should be done – they have targeted people based on need, not on racial background.
If a program works, targets those in need, and does not discriminate based on race, why should it be deconstructed?
No, I found it intersting. You call for equal rights yet when anyone brings up the discrimination in other areas, you change the topic right back to Hawai’i.
I do not fight for Japanese privileges in Hawai’i because that has never been my goal. I have not come out saying that I am for all equal rights. Regardless of what my true position is, I have not spouted a utopian idea of ending all inequalities through Hawaiian programs. Instead I have consistently sought to better the culture and race I belong to because of historic and present inequities and injustices.
Those in need? Not once has Teach for America come close to Southern Illinois’ horrible schools. Who is in need? Are the schools who have tailored their curricula to benefit the standardized tests of No Child Left Behind in order to receive more funding and left important subjects like science and the social studies by the wayside more in need? Or are those who are keeping well-rounded curricula but failing due to other reasons in need? Not so black and white anymore now is it?
I have not come out saying that I am for all equal rights.
Then that explains it. You don’t really believe in equality. I accept your right to that position, regardless of how morally reprehensible I find it.
In the end, although you may not believe it, it will be much better for people like me to win out over people like you, because I guarantee you, there are those that feel the way you do about a different race, and given the chance they would marginalize you in the same way you would marginalize them.
Instead I have consistently sought to better the culture and race I belong to because of historic and present inequities and injustices.
Ah. Ethnocentrism.
Is there any way you could “better the culture and race” without resorting to racial discrimination?
And if you have the moral right to pursue the betterment of your race by discriminating against others, do you give others the right to do so as well?