affirmative action

A racially motivated prank against white male students is ignored. Conservative professors are vilified. White male students are labeled oppressors, perpetrators of rape, or willing bystanders.

That’s part of a shocking list of examples of extreme leftist bias at Amherst College detailed recently by a student in an opinion column published in the school’s student newspaper.

“Though it may not be the worst amongst its peers, Amherst College is notorious for putting the liberal in liberal arts education,” junior Katrin Marquez, a Cuban-American studying political science at the small, liberal arts college in Massachusetts, wrote in her Amherst Student campus newspaper op-ed.

“From anonymous attacks on The Student website after Andrew Kaake’s pro-life article last year, to gleeful comments concerning the retirement of conservative professors and distinguished scholars Hadley Arkes and Walter Nicholson, to private ridicules of the Amherst College Republicans regardless of their impressive work in the last few months, hostility against conservative ideals is rampant on our campus,” Marquez wrote in the piece, published last month.

Marquez’s column was titled “Social Justice,” and its main thrust was to argue against talk on campus of hiring someone with a social justice background to head up the school’s Multicultural Resource Center. She argued that would only make the divisive atmosphere on campus worse.

“Already the campus promotes liberal ideas in the way in presents certain issues to its students, but to continue this pattern with the one person whose primary purpose is to promote inclusivity on campus is going much too far,” Marquez wrote. “This move will serve as the College’s way of saying that conservative values and ideologies are not really welcome here, that notions of inclusivity go only as far as race, ethnicity and socio-economic status will allow.”

In her piece, she also cited several recent examples of how white male students are targeted and vilified.

For one:

Everyone at Amherst has been excluded at some point or another, even those within groups that are generally thought of as privileged. This past weekend, a presumably racially-motivated prank occurred on campus. At approximately four in the morning on Saturday, a student discovered that piles of white powder were left in front of the doors of the white male students living in the second floor of Moore dormitory. Because the resident counselor responded quickly to the incident, the police wrote a report and the powder was cleaned up before many knew anything had happened. That was it. No campus-wide email. No discussion. Having spoken to a student that actually witnessed this event, I know they were deeply troubled, but no one else seemed to care. Last semester, there was a huge backlash when the n-word was found written in snow, and rightfully so. Why is it, however, that attacks against students that are generally labeled as privileged do not garner such attention?

She also noted:

Last semester, as one of the discussion leaders for the Day of Dialogue, I saw how calls to dismantle privilege put certain peoples on the defensive. The group I co-led was composed primarily of white, affluent male athletes and it was easy to see that they felt attacked by Professor Cobham-Sander’s presentation on privilege; even the white male facilities staff member in our group seemed uncomfortable. At first all discussion was stifled because these men felt labeled as oppressors, as perpetrators of rape or willing bystanders. As soon as the conversation moved away from the accusatory tone of privilege, these students opened up and had insightful recommendations for needed changes. As a community, we need to make sure that our campus promotes inclusive dialogue, not the blaming and awkward floor-staring that results from the politically-motivated perspective of social justice.

To back up her point that a diversity of ideologies is not welcome at Amherst, Marquez also wrote about reactions to a piece she penned in which she criticized affirmative action:

When I wrote an article last semester criticizing affirmative action, I received emails from students and professors alike that felt as I did, but could not articulate those feelings because they feared being publically attacked as people who could not understand the struggles of minority students. One alum wrote a caustic blog post about me in which he argued my ideas were wrong simply because I looked too white to actually understand what it means to be a person of color in America; he had never seen me in person or spoken with me. When it comes to issues of diversity and inclusivity at Amherst, we need to move beyond what we know will only perpetuate the divisions on campus. We need to do this because it matters, because it is of dire importance that we create one community, not many disparate ones.

Click here to read Marquez’s entire piece.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 0 comments }

Roger Clegg writes at NRO about a revealing email exchange he had with a reader whose college-bound son apparently had the wrong skin color:

My son and his very good female friend have attended the same small Christian elementary school & high school. Their academic qualifications are nearly identical — top 2 students in their classes, same level of leadership & extracurricular activities, both with SAT scores 2100 or above, straight A honors students, he is president of the NHS Chapter, she of the Student Council.

They live in the same town, have gone to the same schools with the same teachers, same friends, same books, same classes, etc. etc. They were in theater together at school, in band together, on the same track & soccer teams. They are both middle class. They applied to many of the same colleges & were interviewed by the same alumni for Harvard & Princeton. My son’s friend’s father is African American. She was accepted at every elite school that she applied to — Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Georgetown & other Tier 1 schools. My son was not accepted at any of the elite schools that he applied to, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pomona, Middlebury, Williams, Amherst and Bowdoin…

There’s much more to this story. Read the full article here.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Twitter: @CollegeFix

 

{ 0 comments }

Left-leaning Ivy League universities are proud of their commitment to “diversity.” But when they say “diversity” they are usually only thinking about skin color.

In the New York Times, Claire Vaye Watkins argues that if elite schools really are committed to diversity, they must extend their recruitment efforts to the rural poor of middle America:

A study released last week by researchers at Harvard and Stanford quantified what everyone in my hometown already knew: even the most talented rural poor kids don’t go to the nation’s best colleges. The vast majority, the study found, do not even try…

If top colleges are looking for a more comprehensive tutorial in recruiting the talented rural poor, they might take a cue from one institution doing a truly stellar job: the military.

I never saw a college rep at Pahrump Valley High, but the military made sure that a stream of alumni flooded back to our school in their uniforms and fresh flattops, urging their old chums to enlist…

One thing Watkins doesn’t say, but which is actually essential to her argument, is this: A big reason Ivy League schools aren’t reaching out to rural America is that rural America is disproportionately Caucasian. Poor white kids have never been the kind of “diversity” elite liberal institutions in the U.S. were looking for. These institutions draw their white p0pulation primarily from the elite, wealthy, private school kids from Boston to New York to D.C., and on the west coast from Seattle to San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Another dirty little secret–even students who are members of ethnic minority groups are mostly from among the rich. They are largely drawn from among the wealthy and upper-middle class of their respective groups. Poor kids from the urban ghetto are not the ones getting in to Harvard in Yale. Whether black, white or whatever color, students who get into the Ivy League have one thing in common–they are mostly from backgrounds of tremendous economic privilege. Thus we see the hypocrisy of “diversity” as it is defined by the liberal academic elite today. (And that’s not even touching the subject of political diversity.)

The grand liberal social justice project of affirmative action has often benefited wealthy minorities while leaving the poor in the dust. Makes you wonder what kind of “social justice” they’re aiming for in the first place. It has little to do with helping the disadvantaged, that seems clear. On the contrary, it seems to have more to do with keeping up an outward appearance of racial equality, while ignoring the tremendous economic inequalities that exist between the average Ivy League student and the average non-Ivy League student.

“Diversity” in the Ivy League has never been about truly reaching out to the disadvantaged–it’s about keeping up appearances. The largely white, liberal, east coast urban elite keep passing along the power, prestige and influence of elite education to their own children, while they keep the poorer, more conservative, more religious, rural poor and lower-middle class far from the corridors of power and influence their institutions represent.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

Follow Nathan on Twitter @NathanHarden

(Image by NationalGuard/Flickr)

{ 2 comments }

Hell must have frozen over in the People’s Republic of Boulder.

Steven Hayward was recently announced as the Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, well-known among locals and others across the nation as a bastion of leftist thought.

In an interview with The College Fix, Hayward said he’s ready to enter the fray.

“I want to fill in the missing gap at the university, the missing conservative gap,” Hayward said. “Liberal professors teach conservative thought well, but I have a better understanding of conservative thought.”

Hayward said he hopes his selection will make a positive impact at the university in a number of ways, from leveling out academic disparity on campus to helping students get a broader academic experience.

Hayward noted that there are very few conservatives in academia, such as in the humanities departments in Yale and Berkeley. Likewise, CU Boulder lacks conservative scholars as well, he said.

“There are not many conservatives with academic credentials,” Hayward said. “Conservatives drop out of higher education.”

His addition should be a welcome change at a campus that values free speech and a well-rounded education, he said, adding he is eager to connect with and teach CU students this fall.

“Good classroom teaching is an art,” Hayward said.

CU Boulder President Bruce Benson, in an interview with The College Fix, voiced his excitement for the Conservative Thought program taking shape at last.

“I am passionate about this,” the president said. “I believe in a diversity of thought and good, honest political discussion.”

President Benson added that both liberal-minded faculty members and well–known conservatives in Colorado came together to set up the program. The Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy is a three-year pilot program supported by private funds. More than 20 donors have raised $1 million to support the program, according to campus officials.

“Faculty came together for this,” President Benson said.

Hayward is tentatively scheduled to teach four undergraduate courses, three in political science — Constitutional Law 1 and 2 plus a course in American Political Thought — and one in environmental studies, Free-Market Environmentalism.

Some students said they are thrilled with the new professor’s pending arrival.

Junior Zoe Bernstein, 21, said she is excited about the prospect of having a Conservative Thought program at CU, even if she is nearing the end of her academic career there.

“It is necessary in a few ways,” Bernstein told The Fix. “CU Boulder has a liberal reputation, and professors are not openly conservative.”

Bernstein added that she saw Hayward’s lecture before he was selected and felt he was the right candidate for the job.

“I heard his lecture on conservative environmentalism, and he was shattering stereotypes about conservatives,” she said. “He challenged preconceived notions people might have had.”

Hayward said there are significant issues with the environment that conservatives should pay attention too, but it’s not global warming.

“Climate change is not a significant issue,” Hayward said. “Biodiversity and extinction is more important. Yet it’s been ignored by the media and the political class for some time.”

Professor Hayward expressed that during his time at CU he would like to develop relationships with his students on an informal basis, as well as work on several publications, including new books and articles.

“This is a new challenge, and I am looking forward to enjoying the experience,” he said.

Hayward, currently a professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., often hosts lectures across the country. He holds a Ph.D. in American Studies from Claremont Graduate School and has been the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he was principal author and project director of the think tank’s “Energy and Environment Outlook.”

Hayward’s essays have been published in The Washington Post, National Review, The Weekly Standard and several other publications. He has also published numerous books, including “Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World” and “A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: FDR to Obama.”

Fix contributor Aslinn Scott is a student at CU Boulder.

CLICK HERE to LIKE The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: U.S. Army/Flickr

 

{ 2 comments }

A decision by the Supreme Court on whether race can be used as a preferential factor in college admissions decisions is imminent.

As that verdict nears, we’d like to offer an oldie but goodie on what the ideals behind affirmative action policies in America has wrought.

The short answer: President Barack Obama.

The following column is reprinted in its entirety with permission by author Matt Patterson. It was originally published in August 2011 by the American Thinker, and we’re bringing back by popular demand. Enjoy:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor.  It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin.  Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action.  Not in the legal sense, of course.  But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back.  Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.  Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.  Yes, racist.  Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.  And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.  What could this breed if not the sort of empty  narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.  Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed.  The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.  Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character?  Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.  Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.  It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.  But really, what were we to expect?  The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.  When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while.

And really, isn’t that all that matters these days?

Update: Author’s Note:

A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action.  Three reasons:

1)  As reported by The New York Sun: “A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors…”  In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law.  Why?

2)  Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man.  As the Baltimore Sun reported, in: “‘Obama’s book ‘Dreams from My Father,’….the president recalled a time in his life…when he started to drift away from the path of success. ‘I had learned not to care,’ Obama wrote. ‘… Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.’ But his mother confronted him about his behavior. ‘Don’t you think you’re being a little casual about your future?” she asked him, according to the book. ‘… One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven’t even started on your college applications.’”

3)  Most damning to me is the president’s unwillingness to make his transcripts public.  If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance?  To me it all adds up to affirmative action.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 2 comments }

A Supreme Court decision on whether universities can use race as an admissions factor is expected by June, however the court of public opinion has already weighed in on the matter – and Americans of all stripes stand largely against affirmative action, according to a variety of recent polls.

In those surveys, at least half if not more of those polled voiced opposition to race-based preferences.

Take a Rasmussen national telephone survey, which found only 24 percent of likely voters were in favor of using race as a factor in college admissions, while 55 percent stood opposed, and the rest were undecided. That survey was conducted 11 months ago.

More recently, a survey released in October found that 57 percent of Americans ages 18 to 25 – so-called young millennials – are opposed to racial preferences in college admissions or hiring decisions. In other words, nearly six out of every 10 opposed the practice.

“Although most younger millennials are firmly opposed to affirmative action programs in college admissions, relatively few report that they were hurt in the college admissions process because of their race or gender,” states a report on the results of the survey, conducted by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs at Georgetown University and the Public Religion Research Institute.

Results also indicated 47 percent of those in that age group “oppose programs that make special efforts to help blacks and other minorities to get ahead because of past discrimination.”

What’s more, the survey found “support for affirmative action programs diminishes considerably when younger millennials are asked specifically about affirmative action for college admission.”

The same month that survey was released, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Fisher v. the University of Texas, which deals with race-conscious college admissions in America’s public universities.

Most of academia has expressed support for the University of Texas, which aims to continue its practice of using race as a preferential factor in admissions decisions. Administrators and faculty at elite schools have also chimed in, defending the notion of “diversity” in the classroom. All members of the Ivy League, the nation’s top liberal arts colleges, and other big-name schools, have filed amicus briefs on University of Texas’ behalf.

Yet the higher education community’s overwhelming support for racial preferences is not mirrored by the general public.

This month, the American Enterprise Institute released a political report that compiled public opinion on a variety of issues, including affirmative action. In its publication, the organization cited data from a 2010 survey by the National Opinion Research Center which found that a vast majority of Americans – 81 percent – oppose affirmative action policies that favor African Americans.

What’s more, only between 44 and 62 percent of blacks polled voiced support for various minority preferences, the poll found. AEI’s public opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman notes, in an interview with The College Fix, that results on such a sensitive topic are always swayed by how pollsters’ frame the question.

Nevertheless, she points to perhaps the most consistent of all affirmative action data available, an annual survey by the UCLA-based Higher Education Research Institute. The poll has found that, since 1995 and every year since, roughly 50 percent of college freshmen believe race-based university admissions preferences should be abolished.

“You could balance a glass of water on that line it’s so flat,” Bowman says.

Fix contributor Danielle Charette is a student at Swarthmore College.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Donkey Hotey/Flickr

 

{ 7 comments }