“AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” AND LAW SCHOOL
The essential first step to an understanding of Leftism is that Leftists do NOT care about the people they claim to care about. They care about their own personal glorification only. What they hunger after is an appearance of righteousness and wise nobility — and an appearance of righteousness is indeed beneficial to almost anybody. Righteousness is no substitute for being right, however — but Leftists don’t care about that. Just the appearance will do them fine..
“Affirmative action” (a nice name for racial discrimination) is a perfect example of that. If Leftists really cared about minorities, they would abandon “affirmative action” immediately. Conservative commenters have been making that point for many years so all I want to do here is report a small personal example of how “affirmative action” actually works:
When I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university over two decades ago, I had in my class an Aborigine (Australian black). Just to get as far as university was a major feat for an Aborigine but the Australian government has for many decades had schemes in place to facilitate black entry to higher education and the student I am referring to was the beneficiary of one of those schemes.
That he had got so far, however, meant that he could not be failed. Since he attended only a minority of the classes he was supposed to attend with me and showed little more than a sense of grievance in anything he said, I gave him a fail mark for the course. The School of Sociology, however, gave him a Credit mark for the year overall. His Sociology course was one that he had elected to take as one component towards a law degree but Sociology is in general vastly less demanding than Law so I shudder to think what his performance in his Law courses must have been.
He graduated, of course. And he was then immediately hired as a lawyer by a legal organization that represents blacks in court and elsewhere. They could hardly have done otherwise. Not to hire him would have been “racism”. So the upshot of “affirmative action” in this case was that blacks came to be represented in court by probably the most incompetent lawyer in the whole country! Was that good for blacks?
When anybody points out ways in which “affirmative action” is bad for blacks (See, for instance, the research on law school admissions by Richard Sander — here and here and here), however, Leftists respond not with concern about the problem but rather with rage and abuse towards the person revealing the problem — plus attempts to deny or cover up the problem. They HAVE to respond with rage and denial. To do otherwise would be an admission of getting it grossly wrong and that would not be good for the image of wise nobility that they project for themselves. It would certainly deprive them of one of their major claims to righteousness and that would never do. Too bad about the minorities whom their policies hurt. Judge Clarence Thomas has of course recently waxed eloquent about how “affirmative action” hurt him.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Email This
Posted by JonJayRay on November 22, 2007 8:10 am
Trackback URL:
Comments
5 Responses to ““AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” AND LAW SCHOOL”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I find it interesting that you referred to the aborigine in your example as an “Australian black”. In reality, an Aborigine is not “black” in the sense that individuals of African descent are referred to. While it is true that Aborigines have dark or “black” skin, a correct statement would be to call the person a native or indigenous Australian.
It might be suggested that this distinction is not important but you have used a clear misstatement to suggest the example illuminates a problem for which the example has no relevance. An Aborigine, even if raised in the primary anglo-European culture of Australia, is very likely to continue certain cultural artifacts which would color his thinking. Such artifacts might include the Aboriginal concepts of time and could this not have affected his participation in your class. Seriously, what cultural or experiential relevance can you find between an American Black growing up anywhere in the U.S. and an Aborigine?
So, your suggestion that he was an Australian Black thus making his life experiences (as outlined) similar to that of an American Black is unsupported by the example or by any evidence.
Finally, you assumed that he became “probably the most incompetent lawyer in the whole country!” Have you any proof? What factual evidence do you have to support this statement?
You castigate the left for not caring about the individuals, stating that “What they hunger after is an appearance of righteousness and wise nobility — and an appearance of righteousness is indeed beneficial to almost anybody. Righteousness is no substitute for being right, however — but Leftists don’t care about that. Just the appearance will do them fine.”
This article leaves you—and by extension conservatives in general—open for criticism by the “righteous Left”. They might suggest that the right does not care about the truth, only about justifying their lack of care and concern for the individuals and the right’s desire to keep them “down on the farm”.
I have always believed that “affirmative action” was inherently bad for African-Americans as it is for Ango-Americans (of which I am) for many reasons. But your factual error and your conjectures will allow the left to throw out all arguments against it, making it difficult for other to argue against it on the facts.
If we on the right have any hope of addressing society’s ills appropriate, we must state the truth, each and every time.
In your haste to condemn you have overlooked that it was the doings of whites in the matter
that was the subject of the post — not the race of the student
Sorry, but I did not overlook “the doings of whites in the matter”. I specifically addressed your misstatements and not those of an Aborigine nor an American Black.
I am surprised that you do not see that your factual error gives an opening to the left to condemn arguments against affirmative action. Further, your comments about your assumption what type of attorney the person your example is about, is not about “whites” or the Left but about how the policy of “Affirmative Action” may have created a situation through which an poorly trained Aboriginal attorney was allowed to practice.
Now as to your reply, please show me where in your example or your consideration of it, it is about “the doings of whites in the matter”? About the Left, sure but “whites”?
I ended my comment with “If we on the right have any hope of addressing society’s ills appropriate, we must state the truth, each and every time.” I should have added “And, when we conservatives misstate we should be honest enough to own our errors.
Finally, my comment was not written in “haste to condemn” rather I spent some time considering my response, my concerns and my words. I take truth, honesty and integrity.
My post was TOTALLY factual
You may dispute the inferences from the facts but you are in the “Bush lied, people died” camp
if you confuse facts and inferences
John Ray,
The first sentence of your post is ont a fact.
“The essential first step to an understanding of Leftism is that Leftists do NOT care about the people they claim to care about.”