Texas Civil Rights Review

Category: Uncategorized

  • Readers Reply: Texas Primaries

    I read your fine article with interest. As an older Texan I want to add my two cents. A lot

    of Bush’s Texan support is from the “Willful Ignerts”. They are the middle and lower class whites

    who consistently vote against their economic interests and take personally any perceived mistreating of

    the well-to-do.

    Their world-view is concretist, and while it could be shattered by

    trauma, it will never be changed by argument. It would be a fool’s errand to even attempt it. There

    is, however, one political possibility with these people-neutralize them by delegitimizing their Prince

    in their eyes. Keep them out of the polling booths by showing Bush to be a Trickster and a Fraud. The

    UnChristian Bush. The UnTexan Bush.

    Sorry…just thinking out loud. Will keep working

    on it.

    Malcolm Evans
    Longview **********

    Greetings!

    ONE good question which no one seems to be seriously asking (those sterile sub-

    divisions you mention – based on MY limited exposure, they are EVERYWHERE in America …)

    Where ARE the people who will get INSIDE of this new “robotized” culture and will see

    it from the insider’s POV (the roots of this can be seen in the 1950s … the recent PBS documentary

    on the foundations of “Tupperware” are a real eye-opener … makes one wonder how many Americans

    literally cannot even remember their own childhoods ???)

    This culture [suburbs, two-car

    garage, etc.] was celebrated by Hollywood and TV as early as the 1950s … the new manifestations HAVE

    to be mostly updates of the originals … when I was a kind in Southern California [1959-1965] … the

    extreme right-wing was a foundational component of the region …

    … the Los Angeles

    Times, George Putnam, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade (covered “gavel to gavel” on local TV ….

    Ch11… for an ENTIRE week) in the sports arena [now old and gone?]which was the original home for the

    Lakers (Chick Hearn and the Lakers vs. Celtics playoffs – or was it the finals? with Bill Russell,

    Elgin Baylor, Jerry West et. al. James Ellroy captures a believable “flavor” of the LA-region BEFORE

    I arrived as a 7th-grader-to-be in 1959) …

    to an impressionable kid from the near-

    midwest, LA looked and smelled “different” in nearly every way … my 7th grade teacher used to

    lecture her junior-high class on the unworthy-ness of our generation and how we were typical of the

    post-war generation of young Americans who were insufficiently hardy enough to stand up to the

    Communist challenge … and of how WE would probably surrender to Communist agression without even a

    fight …

    [sound familiar to you ??? probably only if you’re old enough?]

    WHO is currently situated to actually STUDY the current manifestations of American

    residential sprawl (it may be be worse than ever ??? … culture, economics, politics, education) so

    that understanding is ACTUAL rather than hit and miss …? Who will even try ???

    My

    experience is that the sprawling suburban “middle-class” …
    (see the new April issue of Harper’s

    for a useful picture of Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri … to a stranger like me, it rings quite true as

    far as it goes)
    … has always been as stomping grounds of crackpot American politics … as an old

    college prof (San Jose State, 1970) used to suggest, American suburbia is founded on a transparent,

    ill-defined sense of “community” … large cohorts of people are thrown together by economics and

    real-estate developments (and most of the people IN these developments have NO idea of just who made

    all the deals and decisions which created their inherently alienated communities, hence, there NO

    genuine community.

    … in America, economic development is the ONLY mechanism which

    allows people to escape from the corruptions of well-established “communities” [increasingly insane

    real-estate values since Ronald Reagan] … maybe what is wrong with America is an astounding LACK of

    renewal in already-established communities – destruction (aided by corruption?) of selected parts those

    communites has been our primary method since the 1950s ….???

    And now, under GWB,

    several millions MORE Americans are getting screwed ??? With many more millions having little idea of

    how to fight-back [and not even imagining it to be possible] … and yet, GWB has many tens of millions

    of “supporters” who subscribe to the prevailing very foolish fantasies …?

    I’ve

    probably said enough for now ….???

    Sincerely,

    R. K. LeBeck,

    Jr.
    SEQUIM, WA 98382

    [Editor’s Note: In reply, I reminded the writer about

    Carter’s “malaise” speech and how it turned out to be political poison. Here’s the response:]

    PS: Absolutely yes.

    …. there must be many thousands of other Americans

    who have also lived through the last 40+ years who have seen and heard their own versions of
    what I

    saw and heard – artifacts of everyday life familiar to many – all over our country

    …

    Yes, I do remember Jimmy Carter’s “malaise,” as well as the one year (?)

    experiment with extending daylight savings time, the challenge to turn
    down the nation’s

    thermostats, the late 1970s gas shortage (riding my bike to work was good for me!), and the surprising

    hatred (my naiveté?) of
    Carter as expressed by certain executives in the silicon valley company I

    then worked at – it was a very common feeling among business “types” back then … it was as if THEY

    had “never” [!!] before experienced disappointment in a sitting President (pretty damn silly of them,

    I remember thinking back
    then …. 1978/79?)

    **********

    In Michigan

    the issue is jobs not terror. Forget Texas. Bible thumpers will never switch and vote for the Dems

    even though the Republicans are shafting them economically behind their backs.

    As for

    states like Texas: The people must not have suffered hard enough under Bush and the Repubs. If they

    are in their 50s and 60s, they will find out soon enough. Another Bush term will see the end of the

    safety nets that were there for my parents when they retired.

    Baby Boomers are either

    fools or rich to stick with the Repubs. I pray daily (yes, Dems pray) that we can turn out the vote to

    get rid of the most dangerous administration in my lifetime. I still say if the US media was not the

    lapdogs of Bush and company, the American people would wake up and see them for what they are. LIARS

    Catherine Brabant
    Lincoln Park,

    Michigan

    **********

    good one on counterpunch on the oscars, white bread

    and mayonaisse. Of course, black folk in this country, even those who call themselves African, still

    consider themselves American first and foremost, no matter how bad they may be treated. And their

    leadership wether it be political or cultural has long lost their base in the black institutions that

    integration was meant to destroy.

    Once upon a time black folk controlled what how their

    children were educated, the stores they shopped in, the very institutions that were critical to their

    lives. Today, what do black folk control outside of their churches?

    Wouldnt you agree

    integration was the most effective tool to destroy black institutions? As for the oscars, what has

    really changed?

    Thomas C. Mountain

  • New York Times: It Ain't Over Yet

    Texas A&M Ban on ‘Legacies’

    Fuels Debate on Admissions
    By GREG

    WINTER
    New York Times
    Published: January 13, 2004

    Last week, Texas A&M

    abolished its preferential admission policy for legacies, the relatives of alumni, calling it an

    “obvious inconsistency” in a system that is supposedly based on merit alone. Yet the move has hardly

    ended the furor swirling around the university’s admissions policies.
    Local politicians had

    been outraged that the university continued to give special treatment to legacies, the vast majority of

    whom are white, while refusing to give the same consideration to minority

    applicants.

    But ending preferences for legacies was not their goal. In fact, the same

    politicians said yesterday that scrapping the policy was a poor substitute for reinstating affirmative

    action as a way to achieve diversity on campus.

    “This discussion is far from over,”

    said State Representative Garnet Coleman, Democrat of Houston. “They act like they’ve done something

    for students of color by eliminating the legacy program. They have not. The new policy takes away the

    advantage of some students, but it does not remedy the obstacles faced by students of color and

    women.”

    Texas A&M’s decision underscores the volatile relationship between affirmative

    action and legacy preferences. While one has been the center of intense legal struggles, the other has

    often been cited as no less discriminatory but scarcely challenged in courts.

    Other

    public universities, like the University of Georgia, have eliminated their legacy programs in recent

    years, in part to ensure that if affirmative action is not being applied, then neither are other

    nonacademic criteria.

    Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has made the issue part of

    his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, saying legacy programs give an “unfair

    advantage” to those who do not need it.

    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of

    Massachusetts, has also introduced legislation to require universities to put out detailed statistics

    on the race and income of the students who benefit from the practice.

    Even ardent

    opponents of affirmative action often condemn legacy programs, arguing that they perpetuate the same

    kind of advantages as considerations of race.

    Edward Blum, a senior fellow at the Center

    for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action, described the legacy programs as “bad

    educational policy,” saying, “It smacks of elitism.”

    Robert M. Gates, the president

    of Texas A&M, acted last week after local lawmakers, members of Congress and community groups held news

    conferences across the state to denounce the university’s preferential treatment of

    legacies.

    The outcry came because the university decided last month against using

    affirmative action in admissions. That left it in the unusual position of rejecting race as a factor

    while still allowing family ties to influence the admissions process.

    “To be so adamant

    about race not being a factor and then to have such a large legacy program is hypocrisy,” said State

    Senator Rodney Ellis, Democrat of Houston. “It’s just so blatantly inconsistent that it defies common

    sense.”

    At highly selective universities, several nonacademic factors are usually

    considered simultaneously, including race, geography, legacy and sometimes even how generous a family

    may later be to the university.

    At Texas A&M, most students are accepted on the strength

    of their academics, Dr. Gates said. He also said that while some alumni were frustrated by the

    elimination of the legacy program, most understood the reasons for doing away with

    it.

    In each of the last two years, more than 300 white students were ultimately admitted

    to the university because their family members had gone there, The Houston Chronicle reported this

    month. That is nearly as many as the total number of black students admitted to the university in those

    years.

    Because of a 1996 appeals court ruling known as Hopwood, universities in Texas

    were barred from considering race in admissions until a Supreme Court ruling in June allowed the

    practice. Since then, several of Texas A&M’s competitors have begun to look at race once

    again.

    But Dr. Gates contends that his recent revamping of the university’s admissions

    policies were intended to increase diversity on campus. More students will be evaluated on the basis of

    their hardships, experiences and leadership potential than before, he said, and outreach in

    predominantly minority areas will be particularly

    aggressive.

  • Jan. 2004 Site Announcement Archive

    Jan. 2004

    On De-Segregation and Civil

    Rights at A&M

    Welcome. This site has a working thesis:

    the Texas A&M University Board of Regents, as party to an on-going de-segregation plan, should respect

    its own civil rights responsibilities and restore affirmative action in admissions to the Texas A&M

    campus.
    With respect to this thesis, it is widely doubted that Texas A&M has any civil rights

    responsibilties when it comes to affirmative action in the admissions process. But if this is true for

    Texas A&M, while it is party to a de-segregation plan, then what role does affirmative action play?

    David Skrentny’s work shows that affirmative action was devised by civil rights

    enforcement agencies who otherwise would have been left with only the tool of case complaints–a

    procedure that will leave with you a higher stack of complaints each day. Without a tool for adjusting

    “institutional” behavior, civil rights cannot be adequately enforced. Without affirmative action,

    then, how else are civil rights to be em nforced?

    Everyone forgets that Texas

    A&M was the first campus in Texas to adopt affirmative action as a show of “good faith” that was

    supposed to signify a commitment to self-responsibility for de-segregation. As a result, Texas was

    allowed to negotiate its own de-segregation plan.

    If, 22 years later, the state

    higher education system is still not de-segregated, then what does the unilateral revocation of

    affirmative action signify?

    The suspension of numerical goals cannot signify that

    Texas A&M needs to abolish affirmative action in order to free the admissions process to consider each

    applicant “for who they are rather than what they are,” because if it were necessary to abolish

    affirmative action in order to achieve “individual consideration,” then affirmative action would not

    have survived its fierce and persistent cons :So what is Texas A&M saying about any of its students

    who have been admitted under affirmative action? That they were never invited as individuals, but only

    as “whats”?

    In short, the decision by Texas A&M violates its own “good faith” sign

    of self-responsibility, ignores constitutional law, and demeans the very process of affirmative action

    as a responsible civil rights policy wherever de-segregation persists.

    With miraculous

    pitching, the abolition of numerical goals was spun as a “diversity initiative.” But how can this

    be?

    If what Texas A&M did last year is not illegal, it should be. It presents an

    intolerable civil rights environment when state agencies (in Texas or any other state), while operating

    under a de-segregation plan, can allow site administrators to suspend their commitments to numerical

    goals.

    True, no one expects excellence in civil rights from Texas A&M. But these low

    expectations of the College Station campus in Texas may fool us into agreeing to something more than

    letting A&M be A&M. Without numerical goals, how are the civil rights of de-segregation to be

    pursued?

    If desegregation requires no numerical goals, then what does?

    Greg Moses
    Site Editor
    gmosesx@prodigy.net

    Below

    are the latest clips and comments. See the “Stories Archive”; “Sections”; “Topics”; “Web

    Links”; and “Forums” for more news, background, and opinion. Please add your comments to articles.

    And please register in order to add your own

    contributions.

  • USA Today: Gates is Honestly Confused?

    In one paragraph, Columbia professor Samuel G. Freedman congratulates Gates for bringing

    “intellectual honesty” to the admissions debate. In another paragraph, Freedman says that although

    Gates asks the right questions, he gives the wrong answers. See the paragraphs below. Is Gates

    honestly confused? [Quote:] Gates of Texas A&M asked the right questions, even if he gave the wrong

    answers. He recognized that the college admissions system is profoundly flawed. He erred in continuing

    to trust standardized tests and thinking that, without racial or legacy considerations, the playing

    field would be level.

    It never can be perfectly level, and we should operate on that

    assumption. If we give up the notion that merit can be measured by a test, and if we acknowledge that

    many variables contribute to an applicant’s prospects and to his or her ultimate value to a college,

    we can bring integrity and sanity back to the admissions process.

    Diversity should be a

    plus; so should legacy, high grades and many other factors. Once we unshackle ourselves from this

    belief in statistical objectivity – once we plainly say that admissions decisions are an art, not a

    science – we can lay to rest the merit-vs.-race argument and save millions of high school kids and

    their parents from the collective nervous breakdown that applying to college has

    become.

    I know this new way can work, because I have experienced it. As a faculty member

    at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, I have operated in just such an

    unapologetically subjective system for a dozen years. Our program consciously has refused to require

    standardized tests because of our conviction that they largely tell us who had enough money to pay for

    Princeton Review or Kaplan courses.[end quote, USA Tdoay, Jan.

    22]

  • Texas Aggie: High Schools not Equal

    [Quote about Princeton Study] What the survey suffers from is the same problem that the top

    10 percent law does: It treats all high schools the same. The automatic admissions program means that a

    student with a 4.0 grade point average who does not place in the top 20 percent of his class at a

    competitive school must fight for admissions while the valedictorian at a mediocre high school with a

    3.5 grade point average is automatically admitted to the school of his choice. [endquote from Texas A&M

    Battalion, “Unruly Behavior,” Matt Maddox Jan. 29,

    2004.]