When it comes to education, liberals continue to be invested in affirmative action *UPDATED*

When I was a very little girl, back in the hard drinking 1960s, an expression I frequently heard was that someone or something needed a bit of “the hair of the dog that bit you.”  I used to think that actually meant people would consume dog hair to cure their ills.  It was only later that I learned that one of the best — and, of course, worst — remedies for a hangover is more alcohol.  Even as it cures the original hangover, it sets the drinker up for the next hangover.  It appears to be a cure, but is merely part of the problem.

I think that exactly the same can be said of affirmative action.  Ostensibly meant to provide minorities (read:  African Americans) with a necessary leg up in a fundamentally discriminatory culture, it actually creates a situation in which blacks never have to achieve, and therefore never do achieve.

The problem extends beyond the education world, which sees colleges and universities happy to play this nasty little game to assuage their collective white, liberal consciences.  For many years, it has been creating actual unemployment in the real world, where businesses that are tied to the bottom line cannot afford to play the same affirmative action game that colleges play so effortlessly.  Business, after all, don’t get the government help (read:  taxpayer money) that flows to our institutions of higher education.

I mention this now because of two articles that appeared with two days of each other in two bastions of liberal thinking, the Washington Post and the New York TimesThe WaPo reports on a study showing that minorities continue to fall behind when it comes to American higher education.  First, the problem:

A new report, billed as one of the most comprehensive studies to date of how low-income and minority students fare in college, shows a wide gap in graduation rates at public four-year colleges nationwide and “alarming” disparities in success at community colleges.

The analysis, released Thursday, found that about 45 percent of low-income and underrepresented minority students entering as freshmen in 1999 had received bachelor’s degrees six years later at the colleges studied, compared with 57 percent of other students.

Fewer than one-third of all freshmen entering two-year institutions nationwide attained completion — either through a certificate, an associate’s degree or transfer to a four-year college — within four years, according to the research. The success rate was lower, 24 percent, for underrepresented minorities, identified as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans; it was higher, 38 percent, for other students.

Only 7 percent of minority students who entered community colleges received bachelor’s degrees within 10 years.

If it were up to me, the solution would be to demand that minorities who enter American educational institutions have met the same standards as whites and Asians in those same institutions.  Only a head-in-the-clouds academic (read:  liberal) would think that it is reasonable or fair to tell African Americans that they don’t need to do well in order to enter colleges and universities, only to be surprised that, while actually attending those institutions, these conned minority students continue to do badly.  And only a head-in-the-clouds liberal would think that these same students would be able to, or even want to, stick it out at some fou-fou university, when they are pathetically scraping along at the bottom of the class.  In the real world, people have to hunger to achieve, they have to work hard, and then they get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  Liberals deny that to blacks, and then they’re surprised when these same blacks neither want to nor are able to perform.

Sadly, the government and our educational institutions are run by these head-in-the-cloud liberal academics, so they’re determining the solutions — and, naturally, the solutions they endorse are the hair of the same dog that has been biting African-American students for the past 30 plus years:  more affirmative action, which is a disincentive to learning and achieving.  The WaPo article, admittedly, is rather coy about the affirmative action solution, but it’s implied between the lines:

The Access to Success Initiative, announced in 2007, predates President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative announced this year, which calls for the United States to regain the global lead in college degrees by 2020. Any progress charted by the 24 college and university systems, which include the University System of Maryland and state university systems in California and New York, will dovetail “very neatly” with the president’s goal, said Haycock, whose organization advocates for disadvantaged students.


One bright spot in the research was the Pell Grant, the federal program to help low-income students through college. The study found that Pell recipients at community colleges completed their studies at a rate of 32 percent, the same as other students. Pell students who transferred to four-year colleges also graduated at the same rate, 60 percent, as other students.

A bill pending in Congress would strengthen the Pell program by raising the maximum grant and tying the program to inflation for the first time.

You got that, right?  The solution is to throw more money at institutions that take minorities, not to demand that minorities compete going into the schools, so that they can stick around, and then compete when they come out again.

We Americans have seen for thirty years that more money enriches the politicos and the administration and the unions, without making much difference in the student outcomes.  I figured that out back in the late 1980s, when I learned that the Sausalito school district, which is just north of San Francisco, was both the best funded and the worst performing district in California.  I don’t know if either of those facts still holds true for Sausalito in 2009, but it was an object lesson to me at that time that there comes a point where a system is so dysfunctional that money becomes irrelevant.

As long as public schools have no accountability to anybody (a situation that would change dramatically if we switched to a voucher system), and as long as the educational and political classes are committed to affirmative action, nothing is going to change at the college and university level.  Just as the drunk needs more alcohol to provide the appearance of a temporary cure for a deeper problem, so too do our educational institutions and our poor, deluded African American population demand more money as the solution to a problem that has little to do with money, and everything to do with the subtle racism of low expectations.

Things are different in the business world, and will continue to be so until Barack Obama has successfully “bailed out” the entire capital system, turning the U.S. into a giant, politically correct, bankrupt morass.  In the interim, as the New York Times reports, businesses don’t want blacks, even educated ones.  The Times report, of course, implies racism, with evil white capitalists anxious to depress “uppity blacks.”

Johnny R. Williams, 30, would appear to be an unlikely person to have to fret about the impact of race on his job search, with companies like JPMorgan Chase and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago on his résumé.

But after graduating from business school last year and not having much success garnering interviews, he decided to retool his résumé, scrubbing it of any details that might tip off his skin color. His membership, for instance, in the African-American business students association? Deleted.


That race remains a serious obstacle in the job market for African-Americans, even those with degrees from respected colleges, may seem to some people a jarring contrast to decades of progress by blacks, culminating in President Obama’s election.

But there is ample evidence that racial inequities remain when it comes to employment. Black joblessness has long far outstripped that of whites. And strikingly, the disparity for the first 10 months of this year, as the recession has dragged on, has been even more pronounced for those with college degrees, compared with those without. Education, it seems, does not level the playing field — in fact, it appears to have made it more uneven.


The discrimination is rarely overt, according to interviews with more than two dozen college-educated black job seekers around the country, many of them out of work for months. Instead, those interviewed told subtler stories, referring to surprised looks and offhand comments, interviews that fell apart almost as soon as they began, and the sudden loss of interest from companies after meetings.

As for me, I reject the Times’ implication that white owned American businesses are trying to sneak Jim Crow in through the back door.  Instead, the problem young, educated blacks have in the employment market arises because businesses have figured out that, because blacks aren’t required to have many skills going into universities, they’re equally unlikely to have when they emerge clutching a degree with the politically correct, affirmative action stamp of approval appended to the bottom.  In other words, affirmative action has so badly corrupted the “brand name” of the college educated black person, even a person who is intelligent and skilled is tainted by that corruption.

When history books are written, affirmative action is going to be recognized for what it is:  a terrible scourge, destroying the upwardly mobile black middle class.  As I said in my post accusing Obama of being the quintessential example of affirmative action, in that he is all college papers and no substance, affirmative action tells blacks that they don’t have to work to succeed.  That’s a powerful and corrupting message.  Even the best and brightest will economize their mental energies and do the bare minimum necessary to get into and get out of colleges and universities.  But as the system passes through more and more blacks who are either unable to achieve from the get-go, or unwilling to achieve because they’ve been assured of a free pass regardless, the black brand is going to be associated, as it was in the Jim Crow era, with people who are unintelligent, ineffective and lazy.  That this is not true for many graduates, or for many who don’t go to school, is irrelevant.  It is enough that the visible blacks have been corrupted by the system for all of them to bear that stigma.

Once again, liberalism, while parading as the blacks’ true friend, is proving itself to be their mortal enemy, destroying them by denying them the incentive and opportunity to be all that they can be.

UPDATE:  This seemed the perfect place to add a video of Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, because he is the wonderful, marvelous antithesis of our affirmative action president:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    A few years ago one of my closest friends, who although she is very liberal is not very combative, and therefore asks questions out of genuine curiosity, asked me why I had left the Democratic Party.

    I gave her the usual litany, the stuff about the party’s love affair with dismembering fetuses, the wimpiness of Democratic men when it comes to defending America, the extolling of sodomy, the support of a dysfunctional public education system, and so on. But what  snapped her to attention was my statement, “The racism of the Democratic Party and its hatred toward blacks was the most powerful push away from it for me.”

    She couldn’t understand how a party that had stolen trillions from U.S. citizens to turn black Americans into serfs was somehow immoral for doing so. I recited the weary list of indictments against the fruits of white Democrat racism—the 35 percent abortion rate among blacks, the 70 percent rate of bastardy, the consistently abysmal literacy and graduation rates, and the appalling, never-ending epidemic of black-on-black crimes and savagery. Worst of all, I told her, was the suspicion that affirmative action called down on almost all black college graduates and degreed people.

    This unsettled her a bit, but she was able to rationalize what I had said by returning to her old meme about me, namely that I’m a bit of an entertaining crank, intelligent but given over to strange surmises about the world.

    I hate what Democratic white Americans have done to blacks. If black America ever comes to its senses, the Democratic Party is going to have hell to pay. But I’m a realist—black America has been so demoralized, bamboozled and dumbed down that the chances of that happening are pretty slim. The Helen Losses of the world have thoroughly colonized them.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I am reminded of John Ringo’s Centurions.

  • gpc31

    Book and Charles: Bravo, bravi, whatever!  Veni vidi vici:  you came, you saw, you kicked a$$

    Three four five quick comments:
    1) Regarding the utter futility of throwing money at the problem, see John Derbyshire’s entertaining rants on the Kansas City high school system.
    2) Hiring is an inexact science at best.  It works well at the aggregate level, in terms of matching professional ability with job function, but for any given individual, there’s a large element of chance.  (N.B.  And it only works well on the aggregate level because of churn:  job mobility and the right to hire and fire at will, not Chicago style patronage.) You could almost say that for a pool of qualified applicants, it’s like a lottery.  Like everyone else, I have been a finalist for jobs and missed out.  In one case a company interviewed me, then rewrote the job position word for word from my resume (I mean, as in verbatim), and I still didn’t get the job, not even a call back!  Last week a friend of mine failed to get a job for which she had past experience  and was perfectly suited — but, perhaps the prospective employer had doubts about her, a mom, returning to the workforce.  Too bad, but at least we didn’t have to worry about racial prejudice.
    3) The insidious thing about affirmative action is the paranoia that it breeds among blacks.  They are told that if they punch their ticket with certain credentials, then they are entitled to the job of their choice.  If denied, as happens during the normal state of affairs (see above), they immediately suspect racism.  Why not?  It’s a very human reaction to the incentives placed before them.  Racism seems to be everywhere and nowhere, creepily powerful.  Indeed, it bcomes a demonic force, the animism of the welfare state.  Very, very bad for mental hygiene and spiritual health.
    4) Speaking of incentives, it’s worth pondering an illustrative historical anecdote from Tyler Cowen’s book on Microeconomics.   “A typical example from the book is the British captains who once they were paid for arrivals in Australia from Liverpool, landed 98% of the convicts safely whereas before they were paid by number of passengers embarking from Liverpool, and the survival rate was only 60%”  [link via Victor Niederhoffer].  I had to reread the example twice to get the full import.
    5) Lastly, I would encourage everyone to read Albert Hirschman’s wonderful little book: “The Rhetoric of Reaction:  Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy” in which a highly intelligent liberal explores and elegantly attempts to refute conservative thematic tropes, but instead manages to reinforce their validity (at least to my mind). 

  • Deana

    Charles – I love reading your posts!
    As for Lt. Col. West, he intrigues me.  I like what he has to say and am reassured immensely by his military experience and expertise.
    Perhaps it is a sign of the times but I find myself feeling reluctant to support any politician with my whole heart.  We’ve been disappointed so often by people who seem like the real deal (in politics and other arenas).  But I try not to be cynical.  It’s just hard these days.

  • suek

    >>I try not to be cynical>>
    The problem is that even if the person _is_ the real deal, all of us are subject to temptation, and some of us yield.  Look at Tiger.  I don’t think he’s a bad person – just one who was tempted by wealth, fame and availability of females with no apparent cost.  He couldn’t say no to himself…and that’s what religion is all about – control of self and one’s temptations to do whatever one wants when that possibility is offered.  I don’t know about Tiger – I’ve heard he’s Buddist – and I don’t know anything about his personal standards, but it appears that if his standards permit infidelity, his wife doesn’t share those same values!  One should always marry someone with the same value system!  Of course, maybe he did – and just blew it.
    Politicians are subject to slightly different temptations than the rest of us, but the critical issue isn’t _what_ the temptations are, it’s the character and ability of the person to resist those temptations.  In other words, self-discipline.
    In my youth, I learned all the definitions of the Church about things like Original Sin, sin generally, and other tenets of the Church.  In my present stage of seniority (senioritis?) I’ve come to a slightly different understanding.  I don’t view Original Sin as a “stain on the soul inherited from Adam and Eve because of their sin”,  but rather that Paradise was a condition in which the human had perfect control over his/her desires and never sinned by violating the standards set out as right behavior due to loss of self-control, and the condition of Original Sin was a statement that we _don’t_ have that perfect self control, and our efforts need to  be constantly directed toward the perfection of always doing what we know is right – even if it doesn’t always comport with what we _want_.  We sin when we violate the standards we know to be right. (and for those of you who are not  Catholic, it doesn’t matter what the standards are – it matters that you _know_ what is right but do what you want when it conflicts with what you know is right)
    To me, Leftists don’t have standards, so they can’t violate them.  They use the standards of the Right to condemn those who fail, because the Right _does_ have standards, knowing that the Right can’t get them the same way – they just “so what” it away.
    So…don’t be cynical.  Just recognize that it’s hard to maintain ethical standards in the face of temptations, and that in politics more than almost anywhere, there are people who make it their goal in life to find the temptation that a politician can’t resist – make them an offer they can’t refuse.  Whether they know it or not, those who enter politics have entered the battlefield of moral/ethical war, and some of them _will_ fall.
    So pick your best warriors, and pray for them – they’ll need it!  We elect them to be thrown into a den of thieves!


    Charles Martel
    A gift of rant with the ability to reason – a pair that beats a three of a kind.
    I’ll never play poker with you.

  • Pingback: » Links to Visit – 12/04/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…()

  • Gringo

    The analysis, released Thursday, found that about 45 percent of low-income and underrepresented minority students entering as freshmen in 1999 had received bachelor’s degrees six years later at the colleges studied, compared with 57 percent of other students.
    I would like to have this broken down for SAT scores, such as comparing blacks who scored 500 on the math section of the SAT compared with whites who scored the same. I suspect that when that is done, most of the difference would disappear. Ditto for community college students.(I suspect that there are a fair number of community college students who can’t even handle fractions, something which I learned in – 5th -6th grade? Not suspect, KNOW.)
    Part of the problem with black academic achievement is that many blacks don’t realize how much effort it takes to succeed in academic subjects, as many of their parents come from less than pristine educational backgrounds. So, there is no one at home telling them  in no uncertain terms they have to do X, Y, Z. They try a little, and when they don’t succeed, figure they don’t have what it takes, when all they needed to do was work their posteriors off. I read one account of difference in achievement in freshmen calculus courses at Berkeley. One difference was that Asian students formed study groups, while blacks studied alone. Amount of time studying? It goes without saying.
    At the same time, the realization that it takes a lot more work to succeed than one initially thought also comes to students from better off backgrounds. My parents had graduate degrees. Both taught at one time or another. I did well at a highly-rated high school. It took me some years to realize that while I could coast in high school, I had to work my posterior off in college to succeed.
    There is one way in which affirmative action works against businesses hiring blacks. Businesses are full aware that if they attempt to fire a minority for incompetence, or what have you, they are running the risk of   being accused of racism and being subjected to a lawsuit or government sanctions. Not hiring blacks prevents that problem.
    At  the same time, there is racism. I taught one year at a middle school where the colleague who was most helpful to me was a retired Air Force officer. He did a very good job teaching math  at a very difficult school. He was also black. He informed me that he had mailed in an application for a position at a certain institution in the area. When he showed up for the interview, he was informed the position had already been filled.  He later applied for another position at the same institution  and  got an interview. When he showed up for the interview, he was told  again  this job had  been filled. When it happens twice, he suspected something. (I was well acquainted with that particular institution.) He did not strike me as one who played the race card. For example he was vehement about the incompetence of our principal, who also happened to be black.  When he suspected racism was behind the positions being filled, I believed him.

  • suek

    >>Part of the problem with black academic achievement is that many blacks don’t realize how much effort it takes to succeed in academic subjects.
    … It took me some years to realize that while I could coast in high school, I had to work my posterior off in college to succeed. >>
    I wonder if this isn’t part of the problem as well.  Sadly, blacks who do well in high school seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  I wonder if they get a lot of praise and accolades and tend to overestimate their abilities so that college comes as a rude shock – for which they are not prepared.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Interesting point about recognizing the need to work.  I attended a rigorous high school, and worked hard to do fairly well.  When I got to Berkeley, it was a cake walk.  I did almost no work at all and graduated magna cum laude, and with a little gold key to wear on a watch fob.  (It’s always tweaked me to realize that, if I had actually worked even a little hard, I could have graduated summa cum laude.)  At that point in my academic career, I thought I walked on water.  Boy, was it a shock to get to law school and realize that you actually had to study and work hard to get good grades.  My first semester, my grades were abysmal, because I relied on my Berkeley study habits.  After that, I got my act together, worked hard, and did well.

  • gpc31

    Gringo:  you make several excellent points, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with most of them!  

    There is discrimination, and it is unjust.  There is racism, and it is wrong.  However, racism is a weak signal in a noisy world, amplified by the hyper-sensitive antennae of our psyches:  I mean the fundamental attribution error of human nature.  (When, I win, it is due to my character; when I lose, it is due to overwhelming circumstances beyond my control.  Conversely, when you win, it’s good luck; but when you lose, it’s obviously due to a character flaw.) 

    The person being discriminated against can never, or only rarely, be certain of the motivation or cause.  For example, was the discrimination due to racial animus or perverse policy incentives?  (Such as your example of businesses refusing to hire for fear of being sued later).   And from one perspective, does it matter?  A qualified person is out of a job.

    How do you help the truly disadvantaged? 

    Hair of the dog doesn’t work.

    Going cold turkey?  Can you imagine the upheaval and transitory injustice for all those subsidized classes?  Farmers, CPAs, affirmative action babies?  Maybe society would adjust with less trauma than feared :  welfare reform turned out pretty well despite some dire predictions.

  • Mike Devx

    Articles such as these by the NY Times and the Post, for me, suffer because they drop in a smattering of statistics and numbers to try to lend gravity to the articles, but they never support those numbers.  You’re left wondering: Is there any truth to them, or are the numbers chosen out of bias?  Chosen out of bias!  THAT never happens!  :-)   Just ask Phil Jones, he of the Global Warming “politicized scientist” crowd, who might also be prosecuted criminally for deletion of emails in violation of the Freedom Of Information Act.
    The NY Times article mentions that they chose 24 black interviewees for this story.  How were they selected?  No one outside of the NY Times knows.  Did they even try to interview successful applicants?   Who knows?  What’s the basis for any of the percentages quoted?  Who knows?
    (And that’s the real shame about Phil Jones and the whole sorry crowd of “scientists” behind global warming who have deliberately skewed their data for either political purpose or to keep the money flowing, or to keep their positions by denying peer review to their critics.  All of science takes a hit when the frauds do their fraudulent work.  Trust drops a notch, each time, across all of science’s fields.)
    As Gringo said, racism exists.  I think racism exists everywhere across this world, but I also believe we’ve done one hell of a great job in this country de-institutionalizing it.  The racists are out there – of course! – but they’ve got no official support anywhere.  I submit that in most other countries, the situation is far worse.
    Similar to what happened to Gringo’s friend, this anecdote from the NY Times article is troublesome to me:

    Mr. Williams recently applied to a Dallas money management firm that had posted a position with top business schools. The hiring manager had seemed ecstatic to hear from him, telling him they had trouble getting people from prestigious business schools to move to the area. Mr. Williams had left New York and moved back in with his parents in Dallas to save money.
    But when Mr. Williams later met two men from the firm for lunch, he said they appeared stunned when he strolled up to introduce himself.
    “Their eyes kind of hit the ceiling a bit,” he said. “It was kind of quiet for about 45 seconds.”
    The company’s interest in him quickly cooled, setting off the inevitable questions in his mind.
    But how can you evaluate this anecdote?  The man met two people from the company for the interview.  Their reactions certainly appear wrong.  Was it racism?  Quite possibly?  Did Mr. Williams stroll up casually, say, “How’s it hangin’, bros?”  and put them off immediately?  Probably not… but how can you tell for sure?  But because I believe there will always be racists, it’s entirely certain to me that some are denied oppportunity out of racism, and if these two fellows are racist, they certainly reported back to HR that Williams was entirely unacceptable; and of course at that point the company’s interest would “cool”.
    Then there’s this anecdote, also from the NY Times article:

    “You want to be a nonthreatening, professional black guy,” said Winston Bell, 40, of Cleveland, who has been looking for a job in business development.
    He drew an analogy to several prominent black sports broadcasters. “You don’t want to be Stephen A. Smith. You want to be Bryant Gumbel. You don’t even want to be Stuart Scott. You don’t want to be, ‘Booyah.’ ”
    Now, Mr. Bell certainly doesn’t know Stephen A. Smith.  He’s seen him on TV, as I have. That Stephen A. Smith – the TV image – is an in your face, raucous entertainment personality.   I can tell you, if I interviewed that Stephen A. Smith, I wouldn’t hire him.  And if someone line Stuart Scott, in an interview, gave me a couple of high-energy “Booyahs!”, I wouldn’t hire him either.  In both cases the personas are inappropriate for a corporate interview, and that kind of behavior during an interview is a sign of something very wrong.  Heck, even if you’ve been hired, and you’re out after work for drinks, you have to evaluate the co-workers you’re with before you let loose with a bunch of high-fives and Booyah! Bouyah!s.  It might perfectly fit in; it might be completely the wrong thing to do.

  • suek

    Mike, you bring up a great point – it isn’t necessarily the color of the person’s skin, it’s the cultural thing.  If it _is_ solely the person’s skin color, then yes – that’s flat out racism.  And stupid.  But going back to Helen’s frequent comments that the white man dominates the culture, and blacks can’t get ahead unless they assimilate into that culture, which apparently means losing their own, and therefore the white man has been suppressing the black man.  In a sense, she’s right.  She – and they – are also stupid.  For years and years we heard about “the ugly American” who went to foreign countries and insisted that things were terrible because they weren’t like they were in America, or that things had to be done like they were done in America.  We were told that we had to accept other cultures and be “sensitive”.  Ok…so blacks want success in this predominantly white culture – on their terms.  They have become “the ugly blacks” in a sense.  Their way doesn’t bring them success, but they can’t merge or assimilate in a way that _would_ bring them success, because that would be a yielding…a failure of their culture.
    The fact of the matter is that they have to choose.  They either assimilate or fail.  That’s what they can’t accept.  They want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to _force_  whites to accept _their_ culture, even when the practices of their culture are contrary to success.   Ain’t agonna work.
    And you know what?  it seems to me that before “The Great Society”, when there really _was_ strong racism, blacks were closer to whites in cultural work ethics than they are today after 50 years of “helping” them.  The welfare we’ve given them has destroyed their work ethic, and they don’t really want to get back in harness again – it’s “beneath” them to do real work.  Self indulgence – it’s a bad thing!
    I’d like to see all forms simply eliminate the “race” and “sex” boxes.  If they really need some kind of a count for some reason, fine.  Put the boxes on a tear off at the bottom of the form and then tear it off and drop it into their “count ’em” box – with nothing on the rest of the form.

  • Gringo

    Mike Devx :
    “You want to be a nonthreatening, professional black guy,” said Winston Bell, 40, of Cleveland, who has been looking for a job in business development. He drew an analogy to several prominent black sports broadcasters. “You don’t want to be Stephen A. Smith. You want to be  Bryant Gumbel. You don’t even want to be Stuart Scott. You don’t want to be, ‘Booyah.’
    If  a white guy’s demeanor in a job interview reminded the interviewer of   Stephen Smith instead of  Bryant Gumbel, the odds are that he wouldn’t get the job either.
    This also bring up the issue of cultural norms- how one feels one should behave- and cultural stereotypes- how one views members of certain groups.   The mainstream cultural norm in the US is closer to Bryant  Gumbel’s demeanor than it is to Stephen Smith’s. While most of us may appreciate Stephen Smith’s demeanor for a TV personality, we are less likely to appreciate it in our boss.  Whites are also more likely to label Stephen Smith’s demeanor as “typical black”  than they will so label Bryant  Gumbel’s.   I could write on and on about this, so will keep it short.
    It has been pointed out that some blacks have the idea that studying hard in school means that  one is selling out (recall “sellout” in Obama’s first book), that one is “acting white:”    that “acting black” means that one should not study hard.  This also a factor in the gap between black and white achievement. Certainly not all blacks have this point of view.  I can cite numerous examples  of those who do not. But it is there.
    ( from Dreams: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors.”)

  • gpc31

    Interestingly, Stephen Smith is a fan of Mark Levin.  He called into Levin’s radio show.  It’s a mutual admiration society.

  • suek

    I was reading this last night and thought it was more than interesting. It never occured to me to think of Tiger’s escapades as a black/white issue but only a moral one.   One reviewer revealed that had Obama married a white woman, she would not have voted for him – how’s that for racism.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Since black culture is turning into the same as slave owning culture, why should they support inter-racial marriages? It’s not like they’re increasing black babies by supporting the White Power and White Privilege of Planned Parenthood abortion. So they’re just ridiculous hypocrites, liars, and pathetic losers. In that order.