They start by arguing that the MCRI would "end affirmative action" (cue scary music). As I have argued--in the Gazette, no less--the term "affirmative action" is so vague as to be practically meaningless.
Then there's this gem.
In many ways, it's an economic imperative. If our public schools, colleges, universities and governments don't reflect the growing diversity of the communities they serve, we will not be as effective competing globally.Don't you love argument by assertion? The editors make no attempt to justify this whopper.
As it happens, Thomas Sowell shreds this absurdity in his latest column.
Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen--written in blood--from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.All sorts of countries have done just fine economically without being the slightest bit diverse. Examples include Japan, Hong Kong, and most European countries before recently. Economic success is a product of economic freedom and cultural values such as valuing education and motivation to succeed. If race is an irrelevant construction, how can it matter in economic success? And what, pray tell, does local diversity have to do with global competition?
Ward Connerly makes an excellent point that the (voluntary) segregation of Michigan would seem to indicate that "affirmative action" isn't exactly working as planned. But the Gazette, providing an excellent example of the definition of insanity, argues that what's needed is more of the same. They say that things would be even worse without it. Really? How much more segregated could Michigan get?
Of course, the Gazette never even attempts to show that "affirmative action" actually achieves the intended results. It would seem that they only care about feeling morally superior, not about the actual effects of their chosen policies.
2 comments:
It's funny really. When I was a kid in elementary school I was taught that race doesn't matter. I had Dr. King's idea of judging people based on their character driven into my brain. Then as I got older schools started saying "Wait! The color of your skin DOES matter!" by giving minorities benefits simply because they're minorities (and don't give me the socio-economic angle. There are poor and rich people of all races). The people who are working the hardest against Dr. King's dream are the people who are fighting so hard against the MCRI. The fact of the matter is if the MCRI came up back in the 60's, it would be considered progressive. In the beginning of the 21st century, it's considered to be a step back. I just want a liberal to explain to me how we can become a color blind society when schools are picking people based on race. Or do liberals not want a color blind society?
Admitting minorities into higher education doesn't solve the problem of ghettos and urban poverty that, statistically-speaking, plague minorities the most. The reason for this is due to brain drain. How many of those educated minorities are going to go back to the poor communities they grew up in after they get out of school? You have to raise up the education at the base level, and the way to do that is by improving the K-12 schools. The best way to improve urban, and any for that matter, schools is through vouchers.
Post a Comment