Bannister's Opinion in the Echo!
Bannister wrote an Opinion piece which will be featured in the next week's edition of the Olivet Echo. Here it is!
FIGHT RACISM; BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
by Jeremiah Bannister
Affirmative action has been around for some time and there‘s been no lack of brilliant men and women arguing both for and against it. So while I do not think that this piece will “put an end to the debate” it’s my hope to point out what I believe to be a few of the subtle contradictions advanced by those defending affirmative action at the recent forum.
Brandon Jessup, president of the NAACP Youth and College Division, tried making it clear that he opposed quotas. He also made frequent use of the phrase, “under-representation.” Under-representation, as defined by affirmative action advocates, occurs when the percentage of minorities on any given campus or job site doesn’t reflect the number or percentage of minorities in the surrounding area, State, or nation. The goal, according to Jessup, is “accurate representation.”
So how is accurate representation determined? Let’s say that 30% of an area happens to be black. The goal then is to have that percentage reflected racially in schools and jobs. The closer we get to 30% the closer we are to accurate representation.
The problem is that people often forget that percentages reflect, and are translated into, numbers of people. The percentage becomes the number of people which must be hired or enrolled in order to reach accurate representation. This is functionally no different from a quota. We do not need to be told the exact number of minorities or women to hire or admit into the school because the percentage required for accurate representation does that for us. It looks like a quota and it sounds like a quota because it is a quota!
Another problem arose when Mr. Jessup insisted that affirmative action is not discriminatory. “Racial profiling is discrimination,” he said, “Affirmative action is not discrimination.” How is it anything but discrimination? One group is given different treatment and held to a different standard than those of another. To top it all off, it is based on race and gender! This is, by definition, discriminatory. Actually, it is racial profiling! To say otherwise is like trying to split the hairs of a bald man!
Subtle contradictions such as these, and there were others that I have not mentioned which were far more blatant, undermined his arguments favoring affirmative action. In any case, it appears that signs once reading “Blacks in back” are now reading “Whites need not apply.”
Contact us at bannisterandsutherby@yahoo.com
FIGHT RACISM; BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
by Jeremiah Bannister
Affirmative action has been around for some time and there‘s been no lack of brilliant men and women arguing both for and against it. So while I do not think that this piece will “put an end to the debate” it’s my hope to point out what I believe to be a few of the subtle contradictions advanced by those defending affirmative action at the recent forum.
Brandon Jessup, president of the NAACP Youth and College Division, tried making it clear that he opposed quotas. He also made frequent use of the phrase, “under-representation.” Under-representation, as defined by affirmative action advocates, occurs when the percentage of minorities on any given campus or job site doesn’t reflect the number or percentage of minorities in the surrounding area, State, or nation. The goal, according to Jessup, is “accurate representation.”
So how is accurate representation determined? Let’s say that 30% of an area happens to be black. The goal then is to have that percentage reflected racially in schools and jobs. The closer we get to 30% the closer we are to accurate representation.
The problem is that people often forget that percentages reflect, and are translated into, numbers of people. The percentage becomes the number of people which must be hired or enrolled in order to reach accurate representation. This is functionally no different from a quota. We do not need to be told the exact number of minorities or women to hire or admit into the school because the percentage required for accurate representation does that for us. It looks like a quota and it sounds like a quota because it is a quota!
Another problem arose when Mr. Jessup insisted that affirmative action is not discriminatory. “Racial profiling is discrimination,” he said, “Affirmative action is not discrimination.” How is it anything but discrimination? One group is given different treatment and held to a different standard than those of another. To top it all off, it is based on race and gender! This is, by definition, discriminatory. Actually, it is racial profiling! To say otherwise is like trying to split the hairs of a bald man!
Subtle contradictions such as these, and there were others that I have not mentioned which were far more blatant, undermined his arguments favoring affirmative action. In any case, it appears that signs once reading “Blacks in back” are now reading “Whites need not apply.”
Contact us at bannisterandsutherby@yahoo.com
posted by Paleocrat at Tuesday, September 19, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home