| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Politically Correct Language Distorts How We Understand Race, Diversity | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 16 2013, 10:46 PM (148 Views) | |
| Berton | Mar 16 2013, 10:46 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Politically Correct Language Distorts How We Understand Race, Diversity By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON Sometime in the new millennium, "global warming" evolved into "climate change." Amid growing controversies over the planet's past temperatures, Al Gore and other activists understood that human-induced "climate change" could better explain almost any weather extremity — droughts or floods, too much heat or cold, hurricanes and tornadoes. Similar verbal gymnastics have gradually turned "affirmative action" into "diversity" — a word ambiguous enough to avoid the innate contradictions of a liberal society affirming illiberal racial preferencing. In an increasingly multiracial society, it has grown hard to determine the racial ancestry of millions of minorities. Is someone who is ostensibly one-half Native American or African-American classified as a minority eligible for special consideration in hiring or college admission, while someone one-quarter or one-eighth is not? How exactly does affirmative action adjudicate our precise ethnic identities these days? These are not illiberal questions, given Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's past claims of being Native American to find advantage in her academic career. Aside from the increasing difficulty of determining the ancestry of multiracial, multiethnic and intermarried Americans, what exactly is the justification for affirmative action's ethnic preferences in hiring or admission — historical grievance, current underrepresentation due to discrimination, or both? Turned Away Are the children of President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder more in need of help than the offspring of first-generation immigrants from the Punjab or Cambodia? If nonwhite ancestry no longer offers an accurate assessment of ongoing discrimination, is affirmative action justified by a legacy of historical bias or contemporary ethnic underrepresentation? Does a recent arrival from Oaxaca who fled the racism and poverty of Mexico warrant special compensation upon arrival in the United States? And if so, when? A day, a month, a year or a decade after crossing the border? How about a Chilean, Korean or Iraqi immigrant? Should particular coveted employment match the nation's racial composition — jobs on the faculty, but not jobs in the NBA or in the Postal Service? How do we fairly allocate compensation for past collective sins against a bygone generation? Slavery, Jim Crow, internment of Japanese-Americans, racially exclusionary immigration laws and the denial of U.S. admission to Jews fleeing the Holocaust: All were reprehensible; but it is difficult to know the degree to which these injustices still distort the career paths of individual Americans, or who still alive is to blame. In 2009, the University of California system changed its admissions policy allegedly to curtail admission to Asian-Americans. Such anti-affirmative action arose not because UC was a racist institution, but because as an applicant group, Asian-Americans were outperforming most other ethnic groups, in numbers disproportionate to the general population. In other words, in the manner that the Ivy League turned away qualified Jews in the 1920s and '30s, so some university administrators apparently thought that engineering a campus "to look like America" was more important than simply admitting those with the strongest academic achievement. Affirmative action-fossilized for a half-century-also made few allowances for class. Asian-Americans, for example, have higher per-capita incomes than Americans as a whole. Were affluent minority individuals eligible for affirmative action? Unbalanced Faculties Will the children of multimillionaire Tiger Woods-or of Jay-Z and Beyonce-qualify for special consideration on the theory that statistical underrepresentation in some fields or racial pedigrees will make their lives more challenging than the lives of poor white children in rural Pennsylvania or first-generation Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich.? If ossified racial preferences don't work in 21st century multiracial America, then the generalized idea of "diversity" — just picking and choosing people without any rationale other than ensuring lots of different races and ethnic groups — offers a better defense of extending preferences in lieu of strictly meritocratic criteria. Yet diversity no more alleviates the problem of bias than does climate change end controversy over global warming. We really do not mean "diversity" in the widest sense of the word. No Ivy League law school is worried that its faculty profile is disproportionately 90% liberal, or lacks fundamentalist Christians commensurate with their numbers in the general population. The idea of diversity, racial and otherwise, is deeply embedded in politics. President George H.W. Bush was not especially lauded for appointing the first African-American Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, apparently because Thomas was considered conservative. Yet liberal Attorney General Eric Holder was seen by the media as a genuinely diverse appointment in a way that a conservative predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, was not. Like Prohibition, affirmative action and then diversity were originally noble efforts that were doomed — largely by their own illiberal contradictions of using present and future racial discrimination to atone for past racial discrimination. It is well past time to move on and to see people as just people. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/031513-648232-political-correctness-has-turned-affirmative-action-into-diversity.htm#ixzz2NiL1VI6H |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 16 2013, 10:48 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
Oh brother, Mr Copy & paste is spamming the forum again. Don't you have any Opinions of your own? I know you were born being spoon fed, but most of us grow out of it. Investors.com is not mothers tit. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 16 2013, 10:50 PM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
Oh I forgot powerline blog is not the other tit either. |
|
|
| Berton | Mar 16 2013, 10:59 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps you should read and comment on the information before making a fool of yourself. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 16 2013, 11:56 PM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps we should have affirmative action for ignorant right wing rednecks? Would that make you happy Bertie? Edited by tomdrobin, Mar 17 2013, 11:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pat | Mar 17 2013, 01:05 AM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Victor always has a unique take on matters. I have to correct him on the Thomas appointment. Marshall was the first black member of the supreme court. Many felt that the appointment of Thomas was a means of replacing the black Marshall when he left. To the meat of the article, very valid points have been raised and one ignored. Black have been awarded racial preferences because there was systemic segregation and they had been deemed an inferior race by many if not most Americans. Which as we know is nonsense. I think it was the right decision then, but not now. Again as our borders are opened to races and nationalities from around the world, today's generations are accepting of and quite frankly, pay little attention to the color of skin or body shapes. Kids will slap a kid of Oriental traits after poking a black kid in the butt. and the same in reverse. they are raised together, marry and the 'mutt' identity of America continues down the road. As it should. In most cases we are the harbor of last refuge for tortured and people subjected to racial and ethnic or religious cleansing. For Christ's sake, there is nowhere else to escape to unless you can pole jump to Mars. Obama would do all of us a favor and end all programs that favor blacks. it's not fair to little Jane who is black and embarrased that she has this reminded by a teacher or form. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Mar 17 2013, 11:58 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure about that? Individuals, of course not. Averages, perhaps in academic ability. Otherwise you have to accept the low achievement is caused by poverty and discrimination. Which would be justification for continuing preferences. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



3:06 AM Jul 12
