NAACP exhorts voters to oust Bush
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-12-2004 - 4:06pm |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/naacp.convention.ap/index.html
NAACP chairman Julian Bond urged members of the nation's oldest civil rights organization to increase voter turnout to oust President Bush, and condemned the administration's policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq.
"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."
Volunteers with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have been working on voter drives in black communities across the country, registering more than 100,000 so far in 11 key states, including Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and New Mexico, Bond said.
Bond, a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the 1960s civil rights movement and a Georgia legislator for 20 years, became chairman of the NAACP in 1998.
Leaders of the Baltimore-based group are upset that President Bush has no plans to attend the convention. Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention when he was a candidate but has declined invitations to speak in each year of his presidency, making him the first president since the 1930s to skip it, officials said.
Democratic challenger John Kerry has accepted an invitation to speak Thursday on the final day of the convention, the group said.
Bond said that 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation, and 40 years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, schools remain segregated based on income, and racism still exists in many forms.
Minority children still face inequality in school spending and are being disproportionately hurt by the accountability aims of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, he said.
"On our present course, we are formalizing two school systems: one filled with middle-class children, most of them white, and the other filled with low-income minorities," Bond said.


Pages
Also to Vader. I am not a advocate for AA and I can see that this is a passion with you two. I will concede the discussion to you.
Black America has as many chances as White America to get an education and to go to college. My white daughter has less of a chance of getting financial aid than some poorer black children. How's that for AA?
I was a single mother with no college degree and I never took government assistance. I did pretty well for myself with a lot of hard work and perseverence; not with gimmes and legacies.
We are all responsible for ourselves. And when people stop using crutches and start standing on their own two feet; then we'll all be on the same playing field.
Plessy v. Ferguson was one of the worse decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court. When the court reviewed that decision in Brown, the language of that decision indicated the the Supreme Court in 1951 didn't think that Plessy was now wrong for the time now, they indicated that Plessy was wrong from the beginning. But between Plessy and Brown was a time when African Americans were absolutely trapped. And Brown wasn't just a new ruling out of the blue. Brown was the end result of a series of wins, and anyone with any skill at observing the court could probably guess what they were going to do when the right case came along. And Brown didn't suddenly change America. Brown was in 1951. Brown II was in 1953. Little Rock, the forced desegration of the Little Rock, Arkansas school district, was 1957. And that was the grade and high schools. So if you assume that kids started school in a desegrated school in 1957, they didn't graduate until 1969. So the first real class of "equal" school children didn't really begin to compete for college slots until 1969. And then there were the legacies. Slots held open for children who's parents DID have the opportunity to go to the colleges and had the money to create the legacies.
But the ugly secret that no one is really talking about is this: Legacy students and AA students, today, are actually the bottom of the barrel students that colleges accept. If you're in the top, regardless of race, you get in. So the competition where AA or a legacy makes a difference is not for the cream of the crop, it is for marginal students competing for the BOTTOM rung of openings. In other words, when having to chose from the bottom of the heap, AA gives some MARGINAL students of race a preference over other MARGINAL students, just as legacies give some MARGINAL students a preference over other MARGINAL students. The cream is never denied and always floats to the top. Only the MARGINAL students need or use either legacies or AA.
So here's what the real argument boils down to in opposing AA. As between two marginal students, one white, one black, we prefer to give a preference to the black marginal student over the white marginal student, due to AA because, when we review the pile, we prefer to give a preference between a white marginal student and a black marginal student to the white student due to the legacy. And people who argue against AA want to say, "That isn't fair." Well, my question is, "Why not? Your parents or grandparents had the opportunity to get in to this school when a black student's parent or grandparent did not. Your parents didn't take advantage of the unequal playing field that existed prior to Brown to get into this school, when the Black student's parents or grandparents couldn't. Between you, a C+ marginal white student, and him, another C+ marginal black student, we prefer him."
So who is really hurt by the application of AA? The white, marginal student, who's parents and grandparents didn't have the foresight to get into the schools way back when, to pave the way for this, rather marginal student.
And my attitude about it? Tough. Go blame your parents for their lack of foresight.
Brown wasn't as successful as we would have hoped. People naturally segregate themselves. The economics of the situation and the mindset of poor people are the biggest problem in their situation.
"But the ugly secret that no one is really talking about is this: Legacy students and AA students, today, are actually the bottom of the barrel students that colleges accept"
Basically true allowing for the always present exceptions.
However, it is important to remember that in order to be accepted as a "legacy" case your parents must have influence in the school. Most students and their parents don't have that kind of influence.
The legacy cases are mostly involved with the very wealthy (~1% of the population).
AA is involved with all blacks (~12% of the population).
Which leaves non black children of non wealthy parents fighting to get into college without the advantages of this combined 13%.
You can not have race be a factor in anything and expect a color blind society. Giving someone a helping hand based on race only makes the problem worse.
"So who is really hurt by the application of AA? The white, marginal student, who's parents and grandparents didn't have the foresight to get into the schools way back when, to pave the way for this, rather marginal student."
Not true. If John and Frank are both equal in grades, finances, etc and apply to a college and John gets accepted because he is black that is racism. John may like it because he got accepted it but it doesn't change the fact that you chose someone based on skin color.
What are the ramifications of AA?
A black is successful, some people think, yea well he only made it because of AA. Regardless of whether or not AA played a role at all. AA cheapens his accomplishments. He may then dislike the white guy next to him because the white guy looks down on his accomplishments strictly because he is black.
The white student realizes he was passed over because he wasn't black and resents the black student because he was accepted.
Wow seems like it works wonders for removing racism in our country.
You want to help alleviate the problem? Remove race and gender from every application.
"And my attitude about it? Tough. Go blame your parents for their lack of foresight."
You could say that to every black kid growing up in poor neighborhoods too.
The point is, nobody seems upset over affirmative action for the wealthy and privileged.
Elaine
I think the original argument here over affirmative action was that is was a seriously flawed system that created racial inquality and perpetuates racial tensions while it hides behind the lie of evening out the playing field. I think the problem of wealthy vs. poor is a valid one, but unfortunately that is not a judicially mandated law, but the way things are: the haves always have major advantages over the have nots. If a parent put the effort and hard work into making sure that their children had a better life, then why shouldn't that child benefit from this? As stated in an earlier post, the 1% of legacies seems to me just fine because that parent often contributed thousands of dollars to the specific school in scholarships or building donations to help better that school.
I have no problem with helping people out who are poor in general, but when you start handing things out or not handing things out simply because of skin color the concept is as racially flawed as the views of the KKK in my book. If we want to teach our kids that we are all created equal, we may want to practice what we preach. Create a system where children of all races and background can achieve a college education if they make the effort involved in getting there. This system will create respect among the races and do a lot to foster confidence in a generation of children who have been riding the skirt tails of past wrongs and making excuses not to succeed. Create a truly equal playing field and maybe we all can actually get along.
Thanks, never thought about it this way.
Pages