Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

Of course, you didn't, because then you might actually have to answer for the destructive nature of Breitbart's participation in our national political discourse. And as we know, that part of your political perspective, expressed so often on this site, is not something you can defend ... at least judging from the fact that you ignore it whenever called out, or start whining about how you're being abused.

[smc]

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.

[Enoch Root]

Occupy Oakland:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01...veloping-story

[GRH]

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

These are complex questions that would be better answered in a conversation than in the context of postings here, primarily because a conversation affords a greater likelihood of avoiding the tendency to polemicize. But I will make an effort.

First, I think it?s important to be very clear about what is meant by ?affirmative action,? because those who oppose it have succeeded in branding it with a very negative term -- ?reverse discrimination? -- that is, in my view, patently false.

In essence, affirmative action is the umbrella term for initiatives and public policies that have been established to aid in eliminating past and present discrimination based on (primarily) race, (often) gender, and (less common) religion and national origin. Executive Orders and later interpretations by the courts of federal affirmative action policies have made abundantly clear that anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid educational or job qualifications. That is why the ?unwarranted preferences? argument is invalid, in my view. Currently, there are nearly 100,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, and less than 2 percent are about ?reverse discrimination,? so I think that puts the ?RD? argument to rest.

(By the way, in Canada, job-related affirmative action goes by the name ?employment equity.? It?s about fairness.)

Affirmative action exists because despite Constitutional guarantees of equality, discrimination -- especially on the basis of race and gender -- has become an entrenched part of American society. This means that, for example, a young black woman is likely to go to an inferior school compared to her white counterpart, because discrimination (writ large, in employment of her parents, and so on) relegates her to a neighborhood with fewer resources, and thus to a poorer school, and thus to less educational opportunity, and on it goes. These things accumulate to hold her back from achievement, not because of some inherent inferiority but because the things typically used to measure success are biased against those with her set of experiences (consider, for example, the SAT tests). Thus, to level the playing field, a university might give her a chance to win admission over someone who ?had it easier.?

Note that this is a very simplistic example.

At its core, and this is something few want to admit, affirmative action is about taking on the white male power structure directly. So, while liberal supporters of affirmative action may balk at saying what I am about to say, I have no problem doing so: when a young black woman is given a slot in a college class despite lower grades, lower test scores, and less compelling resume experiences (e.g., being a ?Big Sister? versus that trip to Honduras to rebuild houses after a natural disaster) than the white male she (indirectly) displaced, society is paying back her race and gender for hundreds of years of discrimination. And society OWES THAT DEBT, until the discrimination at the institutional level is eradicated.

I?m not big on quoting U.S. presidents, but two of them actually make this case very eloquently. In 1961, President Kennedy signed an executive order mandating that beneficiaries of federal monies ?take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.? In essence, he was saying that we as a nation were not only going to talk about racial equality, and desegration, but walk the walk.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act expanded affirmative action, and President Johnson said this:

?You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ?now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.? You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ?you are free to compete with all the others,? and still justly believe you have been completely fair ... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity?not just legal equity but human ability?not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Now, to your specific questions, GRH, which are as much about the purpose of diversity as they are about affirmative action.

You are correct about the racial composition of the population my neighbor New England state, Maine. Should the University of Maine reflect that composition exactly. I think not. The reason is that the objective of affirmative action is not only to level the playing field, but also introduce diversity to the institution. Students benefit from living and learning in a diverse environment. Businesses DEMAND this from graduates -- which is why so many leading corporations filed amicus briefs when the University of Michigan?s affirmative actions were challenged in court a couple of years back.

I would not be so bold as to pretend I know what the numbers ought to be. I believe that if people are of good will, genuinely committed to fairness and diversity, things will work out as they ought to be. There is some point of critical mass, but it is different in every context.

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

I could, of course, say much more. I hope this starts a worthwhile discourse.

[transjen]

The GOP are screaming cut spending do away with medicare
And yet thanks to goverment cadliac heathplans that all the sen and house plus unsurpeme court presidents and vice presidents enjoy at tax players exprnse
The American people [tax payers] just got a good today as we had to pay for Dick Cheneys heart transplant
A few hundred k to keep that MF alive
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.