Now any sane person in the world doesn't care what Al Sharpton thinks. Unfortunately this is politics, so sanity is irrelevant. It seems that Sharpton would be more comfortable with an affirmative-action-type process to select the lieutenant governor or some other important position on Cuomo's ticket. But, if history is any teacher, the same type of process is what has led us to our current, and woefully pathetic, governor.
And I'll now take this time to go on a mini rant about affirmative action in general. It's wrong, and not because it's "reverse racism" or whatever your grandparents want to call it. It's insulting to the minorities who supposedly benefit from it. If I'm up for some type of admission to a school/position for a job I want to be considered on my merits and accomplishments, not the amount of melanin in my skin. A friend of mine met with pre-law counselors at a very prestigious university and was told, in sum and substance, that to get into an Ivy League law school she would have to score in the 170s on the LSAT, but because she was considered an URM (under-represented minority) she could aim for the mid-160s and be fine. She was, essentially, told that the bar was much lower for her because she was a minority. Is that what affirmative action is supposed to do, assume that minorities are dumber and, thus, relax certain standards for them? That's an insult.
Affirmative action is supposed to offer equal opportunity. But by creating two different sets of criteria for people based on race, we are artificially influencing outcomes. If you view racism and prejudice in society (which, for the record, is pervasive) as a tree, affirmative action only aims to cut off the limbs of the tree. Then people sit around and wonder why the roots and trunk are still thriving. You want to get rid of the whole tree? Fund inner-city schools at the same level as suburban ones. Reform prison policies to put an end to the revolving door issue. Find a solution to de facto housing and schooling segregation. While it may be easier (and more politically beneficial) to slap a band aid on the gushing wound and pat yourself on the back, if you want real solutions you have to tackle the real problems.
So where does Al Sharpton fit into all of this? That's the problem: he doesn't. His relevance is tapped out, seeing as he spent the overwhelming majority of it during the Tawana Brawley debacle. Sharpton is the perfect ingredient if your recipe calls for inflaming racial tensions and polarizing sides in a situation. Does he inject himself into environments where an injustice has seemingly occurred? Sure. Does his presence prove beneficial? Highly debatable.
I asked the question back at the beginning of 2009 with the rise of Senator Gillibrand as to why every New York Democrat has to meet with Sharpton. Is Sharpton the only political gate into the black community? Or is he more like a Boss Tweed of the black vote and if you want that demographic, you have to sit down to some soul food with the Reverend? I have to believe that there's another way to connect with the black community as a politician in New York.
So Sharpton doesn't like Cuomo's lily white ticket? And Cuomo has to call and explain himself? If Sharpton doesn't like it, he has two options: 1) he can vote for someone else if he feels his interests won't be properly represented in Albany or 2) he can either run himself or support another candidate to run for the office. It seems that Sharpton wants Cuomo in the governor's mansion next year, but on Sharpton's terms.
Photo - Al Sharpton and Caroline Kennedy at Sylvia's, when Kennedy seemed poised to take Madame Secretary Clinton's senate seat (Syracuse)
If mid 160s is about 93-94 %ile & 170s is 99%ile: is there really much of a difference between the 2? Thus, a member of an underrepresenated group gets preference. We are not talking about the differecne between 99%ile & 25%ile here; just between mid & high 90s %ile. Not really a meaningful difference.
ReplyDeleteAffirmative action is to provide oppurtunities to underrepresented groups; the law schools are just admitting there is no meaningful statistical difference in the quality of law student/lawyers between 170s & mid-160s.
Do you think there is a statistically meaningful difference in the quality of lawyer who will emerge from a law school between those admitted with 99%ile and 93%ile?
If yes, please explain why (or show studies evidencing same). IIRC the SATs openly acknowledge thay are not the best baromter of future performance.
If no, then the affirmative action shouldn't bother you.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI've taken the LSAT, and while you may think that a 6 percentile difference is negligible, in reality it is not. The difference between 170+ and mid-160s is huge to anyone who has taken the test.
Is the LSAT a good indicator to what makes a good lawyer? Probably not, but it is what determines which school you go to, which has a huge impact on what kinds of jobs you can get after school.
Affirmative action is to provide oppurtunities to underrepresented groups
Re-read my post and my analogy about the tree of racism. This is a temporary solution to what has presented itself as a permanent problem. Lowering the bar for URMs, in addition to being insulting to members of those groups, influences outcomes, not opportunities.
the law schools are just admitting there is no meaningful statistical difference in the quality of law student/lawyers between 170s & mid-160s.
No, they're not. They're saying that, to them, the color of one's skin or their ethnicity is a little more important to them than a few points on the LSAT. It has nothing to do with how they feel about the statistics behind the test, otherwise they would stop looking at scores above 165 for everyone.
Barring your snarly recycled criticisms of Al Sharpton (however meritorious they may be); you fail to address a key piece of the affirmative action debate and it is that there is/has been explicit and defacto systemic affirmative action for whites (partciularly for white males) in the US since the founding of the country. The system of privilege that is still according to white-identity group people is well documented and evident not only in the educational system, but in other arenas of society. Your argument would be bolstered and legitimate were you to at the same time disavow the current system of white supremacy and the benefits it confers to whites and those who uphold it. Even more so if you would make a commitment to its eradication. Otherwise you are a writing from the hypocritical perspective.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse the typos within the former post:
ReplyDeleteBarring your snarky, recycled criticisms of Al Sharpton (however meritorious they may be); you fail to address a key piece of the affirmative action debate and it is that there is/has been explicit and defacto systemic affirmative action for whites (partciularly for white males) in the US since the founding of the country. The system of privilege that is still accorded to white-identity group people is well documented and evident not only in the educational system, but in other arenas of society. Your argument would be bolstered and legitimate were you to, at the same time, disavow the current system of white supremacy and the benefits it confers to whites and those who uphold it. Even more so - if you would make a commitment to its eradication. Otherwise you are a writing from a hypocritical perspective.
jetrocket:
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate your recognition of the de facto affirmative action for whites in this country, and I agree that that had been (and often continues to be) the case. However, to say that affirmative action for minorities is a solution to this problem is absurd. A small band-aid, maybe, but as a solution it simply is not sustainable.
The problem with affirmative action is two-fold: 1) it insults minorities by setting the bar lower for them, assuming that they're dumber/less qualified than everyone else vying for admission in a school or for a position at a job; and 2) it allows politicians and others to say that they're doing something for minorities and then not work for real, long-term change.
Additionally, to say that I am writing from the hypocritical perspective is ridiculous. Re-read the post and point out where I embrace a system that favors whites over URMs. I call for real, systemic change in the post. If you feel, based solely on my criticism of affirmative action, that I support the status quo then it is not I who needs to re-evaluate my premises.
And, for the record, the "snarky" criticisms of Al Sharpton are quite meritorious.