Once again, we have the unseemly spectacle of Blacks who can't pass promotion exams wanting to blame the exams. In this case, it's Boston cops.
A while back it was firefighters in, well, pretty well every city in America.
Ya know, boys, I think the steam has run out of that particular victim train. Not every group is equally talented at everything. That's called "keepin' it real." People who are not drinking kool-aid know this as a matter of everyday observation. And of course when Blacks predominate in certain fields of endeavor, do we have Whites or Asians whining to the judge?
I recall a passage from one of (Black American) Thomas Sowell's books about culture, race and economy. One tribe in a newly independent African state, a tribe whose academic achievements were quite underwhelming compared to another, complained that the more accomplished tribe was getting most of the new civil service positions. Their argument: "Just because we are less qualified is no reason to refuse to hire us. We deserve jobs, too."
Is there a gap, lack, problem, lag, failure or pathology that does not get blamed on the R word? No one believes it anymore except some of you.
It makes you look undignified and embarrassing.
PS. The same kind of stuff here. If the admission rates should reflect demographics, then so should the graduation rates, right? So we'll have to make sure that the 27% of Blacks who (according to the Division of Equity and Inclusion) don't finish at Berkeley get to graduate. It's only fair, after all...So I suggest than any White or Asian student who supports affirmative action should be given the chance to transfer their diploma to a Black student who was so unfairly deprived of one.
1 comment:
Re 27% don't graduate from Berkeley: I remember a black conservative arguing years and years ago that no one should be affirmatively acted into a college that he can't reasonably expect to thrive in (not to mention minimally complete his degree). Additional "remedial" programmes, extra-tutoring etc for 'traditionally deprived communities' underline the recipients' less-than-capable capabilities for the institution.
The conservative's point was that attending an elite college isn't necessary for success, and that attending a college properly suited to one's abilities really does help one thrive and achieve (rather than considering oneself a mediocrity who can't stand on his own, think for himself, be independent, defy authority when need be, etc).
A black who thrives at a state college is prepared for leadership. A black who barely completes his degree at an Ivy League school doesn't have the opportunity to take leadership positions when at the Ivy League school, except as approved of by white liberal benefactors who control him.
But then I noticed that if elite colleges were forbidden to affirmatively act admissions of student who can't thrive (let alone not graduate), then the elite schools would have few traditionally deprived etc students and thus could not be the show-offy rectifiers of slavery and racism in the USA. That beau rôle would go to the middle-rank sort of school, where there are a lot of ordinary white Americans besides, including Christians, patriots, et al -- that is, the sort of whites who are obligated (by white privilege payback) to play the laid(ugly) rôle.
... Which proves Calvin correct against Thomists. Sinners cannot attain habits of virtue. I mean, you'd think that being an Ivy League (including Berkeley etc) educator or adminstrator would be enough of a perk for one's amour-propre. Sheer moderation or sôphrosunê would mean one wouldn't mind if second-rank schools were the institutions where the new post-segregation reality were work'd out, especially if affirmative action into a higher institution had harmful life outcomes for the ostensible beneficiaries. But Ivy League administrators and educators for the sake of their own prestige don't mind harming blacks et al.
Their condemnation is just. And Calvin is correct vs Thomist Aristotelians.
Post a Comment