Skip to comments.Henry Louis Gates: End Affirmative Action For Affluent African-Americans
Posted on 10/22/2013 6:24:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
For all his accomplishments, Henry Louis Gates might be doomed to being best remembered as the man whose arrest led to the "Beer Summit." But the Harvard prof had something surprising to say on today's Morning Joe: Gates questioned the need for affirmative action for affluent African-Americans, saying instead such programs should seek to help poor people, regardless of race.
Gates made the personal political, citing the case of his own two daughters, whom Gates described as having a "privileged" life." Do they really need to benefit from affirmative action?", asked Gates rhetorically.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Pleasant surprise ping to Today show list.
I think its because the Michigan case awaiting a ruling is going to go our way and Gates is looking at getting ahead of it.
Mr. Gates, There won’t be any ‘affluent African-Americans’ when Obozo gets done...........or of any other heritage for that matter.................
Maybe he noticed who it was that bothered to give him a hand walking down the steps. It wasn’t the affirmative-action hire president, but the poor working class white guy who had to get hired on his own merits.
SOMEbody has fled the plantation.
Should Obama’s daughters be admitted to Harvard just because they’re black?
He’s right. Interestingly, the furthest left member of my department (a self-identified feminist, Obama supporter whose main professional activities all involve affirmative action) feels the same way. I deal with her on some admission issues, and she’d rather take white first-generation college students from Appalachia than black or Hispanic kids from affluent suburbs.
There’s actually a point to “affirmative action” based on actual disadvantaged circumstances: a kid who falls a little short of an admissions cut who grew up poor without much intellectual stimulation in their home or neighborhood will likely blossom at university and genuinely rise socially and economically above their beginnings as a result of the favor shown them. This is a net gain both for society — which now has one more better educated person than filtering by demonstrated ability only would have given — and the student.
On the other hand, a black or Hispanic kid who went to elite private schools or public schools of similar quality (yes, they exist in all-upper-middle-class-or-wealthy suburbs of some major cities), who needs a leg up to get into a university because he didn’t make the usual cut, with high probability is a slacker and won’t make the grade and will flunk out or pick the most contentless major available to struggle through, and would have been better off going to a lesser college. The net result is bad both for society in terms of wasted resources and for the “beneficiaries” of such a program.
No, they should be admitted because they are the daughters of the elite ruling class, ie, the “neonobility”.
Gates thinks for himself which is a rare quality these days among academics.
Oh,and BTW "Skip",it was *you*...not the Cambridge Police Dept...that acted stupidly.Always remember that.The white cops didn't act stupidly nor did the black ones.
Interesting how that might affect US Government 8(a) contractors. The owners are definitely affluent.
I agree wit you. However, there appear to unintended consequences to pure meritocracies that we haven’t given much thought to.
All but idiots will agree there is some inherited element to intelligence. Make it 10% if you like, the number doesn’t really matter in the long run.
In a purely meritocratic society the most intelligent and competent will be sorted out from the rest of us into the most prestigious schools and jobs. They will associate mainly with each other and will therefore tend to marry and reproduce together. Their children will not only be more likely more intelligent due to genetics, but will grow up in a meritocratic home and associate with other meritocrats.
Give this a few generations, and we’re likely to have something very similar to the old aristocratic system, albeit one that may still be open to entry from below by the occasional meritocratic person born to the proles.
And it will be an aristocracy based on indisputable fact. The leaders ARE superior.
Not IMO an entirely comfortable prospect.
Yes. You nailed it.
>> Gates thinks for himself ...
Like when he pimped himself out to Obama in the “Beer Summit”? Sorry, not impressed.
Man’s got a point. For once.
I’m sure Obastard would say Gates is “acting stupidly.”
Well, this is an improvement over race discrimination, but I don’t think it’s more moral to disadvantage (or favor) a rich kid simply because they have money.
Government currently discriminates against white owned businesses. Minority-owned businesses, for example, get a leg up on government contracts. If we follow the professor’s advice, the government would hire companies that are struggling financially over ones that are prosperous.
The poor are not more (or less) noble than the rich. Robbing the rich to give to the poor is not more noble than oppressing the poor. Equal treatment under the law is a very worthy ideal enshrined in the US Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.