A major case before the United States Supreme Court concerns the issue of Affirmative Action. The court's ruling will govern how or whether universities may consider an applicant's race and is likely to affect how the government treats race in other areas. The purpose of affirmative action in the United States was to create government programs to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women. There is no question that past societal discrimination occured in the United States and perhaps the only appropriate remedy at the time was affirmative action. However, I believe this policy has outlived its purpose. Anywhere you look in the United States, minorities are well represented. Besides, there is a limit to punishing people for the sins of their forefathers. It is unfair to award preference based on race when all other qualifications are equal. This not only undermines the means to determining the best candidates but also serves to de-legitimize the accomplishments of someone who was given preference based on race. Those opposed to affirmative action look to section one of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I believe the minorties of this country have been given enough time to allow for the "cream to rise to the top" and now must take their equal position along side of the majority. The time is long overdue to stop rewarding underachieving individuals because of their race and start rewarding overachieving individuals because of their accomplishments. To do otherwise, would mean denying the very principles set forth in the fourteenth amendment.

OK, so there's been 40 years of half-hearted AA to address the previous centuries of discrimination.... seems a bit unbalanced, but, assuming that's a fair trade, what about addressing present-day inequalities?

The anti-AA argument is premised on two basic ideas, both of which are debatable. The first is that society is basically not racist or sexist anymore. The second is that laws to address social issues are unconstitutional.

The former, frankly, is dismissable. Racism and sexism continue, and this is proven over and over not only through research projects conducted at universities, but it's a simple fact of life understood by minorities and women.

The latter is more of a philosophical argument. The question is whether the civil rights decisions of the 1950s and 1960s were an effort to eliminate a 150+ year America tradition of legislated racism and discrimination by creating new anti-racism laws, or by eliminating such laws.

I personally tend to think that society has a kind of inertia, and a society headed in a direction tends to continue to move in that direction. America has behind it, around 150 years of legislated racism, and an even longer tradition of racist violence. Unchecked, the country would continue forward with racism. The Civil Rights movement was a small nudge against this traditional trajectory. The anti colonial and anti imperialist movements earlier in the century were also small nudges against it.

Attacks on social projects like AA, while perhaps with the best intentions, are more likely serve to return us to a trajectory of racism than not.

...is that in some cases lesser-qualified individuals are selected over more-qualified individuals simply because of their minority status.

And that, too, is discrimination.

This article probably won't convince the die-hard racists of this board (i.e., daveman and B.A.). But for those who can think critically, this arctile is an excellent analysis of the flawed anti- AA debate.

December 05, 2002

Selling Sloppy Statistics

By Tim Wise

So the Supreme Court has announced it will hear the long-simmering affirmative action case from the University of Michigan law school, in which white plaintiffs sued, claiming to have been denied admission even though they had grades and test scores that were comparable to those of students of color who were admitted.

The case in question--which the Circuit Court decided in favor of the law school and their affirmative action program--will now fall into the lap of a high court that has been increasingly hostile to such policies and tends to consider race-conscious affirmative action efforts little more than illegitimate “racial preferences.”

But in truth, the plaintiff’s claims of reverse discrimination (pieced together by the right-wing Center for Individual Rights) are so flimsy they would be almost laughable were they not so dangerous. Understanding how the right manipulates data to make their case is important for those who hope to stanch the movement to roll back key civil rights gains. Indeed, the data is not only flawed but also dangerous, for its acceptance as legitimate social science--as will be seen below--could set a precedent for essentially blocking the admission of blacks, Latinos and American Indians to selective schools of higher education.

By utilizing questionable statistical techniques, the plaintiffs claim that black, Latino and American Indian applicants to the U of M law school received preference over whites because they were often accepted with GPA’s and LSAT scores that for whites were met with rejection.

According to the plaintiffs, the odds of one of these “underrepresented minority” students (URM’s) being admitted were often hundreds of times better than the odds of a white applicant with similar scores and grades. Although the plaintiffs have never presented evidence that the URM’s admitted were unqualified--indeed they conceded that all had been fully qualified--they insist that when URM’s and whites had equal qualifications, minority students were more likely to be accepted, thereby indicating preference.

To make their case at trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys presented grid displays that broke down those who applied and were admitted to the law school by “qualification cells,” separating students into groups by GPA and LSAT (i.e., 3.5-3.75 GPA and 156-158 on the LSAT, on a 120-180 scale).

Within each cell, statistician Kinley Larntz calculated the odds of admission for each student, concluding that URM’s in many cells had greater chances of admission than whites with the same grades and test scores. He then calculated the odds ratios for each cell, so that if URM’s in a cell had a 50% chance of admission and whites had a 25% chance, the odds ratio would be 2:1. The larger the odds ratio, the greater the degree of presumed preference.

But such an analysis is flawed. First, the data used to calculate admissions odds ratios was limited. Whenever URM’s and whites in a given cell were treated the same--either all accepted or all rejected--Larntz simply threw out their data and refused to consider it.

In other words, by only examining cells where there was a differential outcome, Larntz automatically inflated the size of that difference. Overall, 40% of minority students who applied to the law school were in cells that exhibited no racial differences in admission odds ratios, meaning that claims of massive preference for URM’s depend on ignoring 40% of all applicants of color to the law school.

Secondly, differential odds ratios for white and minority acceptance could just as easily result from a system involving zero preference for URM’s, as from a system with large preference, largely due to the small sample sizes of applicants of color.

For example, in 1996, among the most qualified applicants (students with a 3.75 GPA or better and a 170 or higher on the LSAT), only one black with these numbers applied to the U of M. This applicant was accepted. 151 whites applied with these numbers and 143 were accepted. While most everyone at this level was admitted, since there was only one black who applied and got in, the “odds ratio” in favor of blacks at that level appears infinite--a guarantee for blacks and a less than certain probability for whites. But surely one cannot infer from one accepted black out of one black applicant at that level that there is some pattern of preference operating.

As proof that one could produce odds ratios favoring blacks even in the absence of racial preference for any individual URM, consider the implications of a study by the Mellon Foundation and the Urban Institute, which found that blacks tend to have faced greater educational obstacles than whites with comparable scores on standardized tests. When compared to whites with scores comparable to their own, blacks in a particular range are far more likely to have come from low-income families and families with less educational background.

These black students are also more likely to have attended resource-poor inner city schools where course offerings are more limited than in the mostly suburban schools attended by whites. Thus, black students can be said to have overcome more and even be more “qualified” than whites who score in the same range or even a bit higher on standardized tests.

As such, it becomes easy to see how differential admissions odds ratios could obtain even without “racial preferences.” Simply put, if whites tend to be better off and face fewer obstacles to their educational success than blacks, and if blacks tend to be worse off and face more obstacles, then any black applicant to a college, law school or graduate school will likely have a greater claim for their merit at a given test score level than a white who scored the same.

To visualize the point, imagine a four-leg relay race. If whites tend to start out two laps ahead of blacks and the runners finish the race tied, is it fair to say they were equally good as runners; or would we instead say that the black runner was superior, having made up so much ground?

Since even the plaintiffs have agreed there is nothing wrong with considering the obstacles faced by applicants, including the effects of racism, it is quite possible that admissions officers could look at applicant files, see whites and blacks with comparable scores, and then on an individual basis make the determination that the black applicants were more qualified, having overcome obstacles faced by far fewer whites. But if individual analyses were completed with such a result, they would produce the same odds ratios as discovered by Larntz. In other words, differential odds ratios themselves prove nothing.

Indeed, the implications of accepting differential odds ratios as evidence of “reverse discrimination” are chilling, and would require the rejection of almost all applicants of color to selective schools, simply because there are so few URM applicants.

For example, imagine an applicant pool at a hypothetical school where there is only one URM applicant for each “qualification cell,” perhaps because the school is in a very white location and doesn’t typically attract minority applicants. Under an odds ratio analysis that assumed URM’s couldn’t have more favorable odds of admission without this proving reverse discrimination, most URM’s no matter how competent would have to be rejected simply because to accept one-out-of-one would represent “infinite odds” and require the acceptance of every white in the same cell, merely to keep the odds ratios the same.

So although we could expect the whites and students of color at the lowest level of scores to all be rejected and those at the top to all be accepted, in the middle such a situation would create chaos. If one black student applied with scores and grades that were good but not a sure thing for admission, and 200 whites applied with those same numbers, the school would have to accept every white in that cell if they accepted the one black, or else face a lawsuit for reverse discrimination on the basis of an unacceptably pro-black admissions odds ratio.

Beyond mere hypotheticals, there is real evidence of how reliance on odds ratios would work in practice. In 1996, there were only two black students in the country who received LSAT’s over 170 and had GPA’s of 3.75 or better. If one of these applied to a given law school, that person would have to be rejected under an odds ratio analysis unless the law school was ready to accept every white applicant with that same score and GPA, irrespective of other aspects of their application file.

Now imagine that the same year, 100 whites with those numbers applied to the same school, and 80 of them were admitted, or 90, or 95; and imagine that both of the blacks with those grades and scores applied. Since admitting both of the blacks would yield odds ratios unacceptably in favor of blacks, the school would have to reject one of the clearly qualified blacks with those numbers (thereby producing a large odds ratio in favor of whites) just to avoid being sued for reverse discrimination!

Even the strongest evidence of URM racial preference at U of M indicates the problem with utilizing odds ratio analyses. Larntz notes, for example, that among applicants in 1999 with a 3.5-3.7 GPA and LSAT’s of 156-158, six of seven URM’s were admitted, while only one of seventy-three whites at that level were accepted. This yields an odds ratio of 432:1 in favor of URM’s at that level: a seemingly huge racial preference. But there are two problems.

First, with only seven black, Latino or Indian applicants to the U of M School of Law in that particular “qualification cell,” it is entirely possible that the admissions officers who decided to accept six of those seven merely examined the files and found that those six had overcome extraordinary obstacles (including racism and perhaps economic hardship), unlike the white applicants. Thus, the ratio itself, absent other evidence about the particular decision-making of admissions officers, cannot prove a preference for URM’s, as the pool is simply too small.

Secondly, to balance the odds ratios for this cell would have been impossible. If seven of eighty applicants with that combination of test scores and grades was worthy of acceptance--essentially what the University said that year--this yields an acceptance probability at that level of 8.75%. Applying that probability to each group yields six whites out of 73 who should be accepted and 0.6 URM’s out of seven who should be. In other words, because of the small pool of URM’s in that group, it wouldn’t be possible to admit even one, let alone one black, one Latino and one American Indian, without giving a much higher probability of admission to URM’s as a group.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say the school rounded up the six-tenths of a person to one full person and admitted one URM with these numbers. Thus, instead of 6 URM’s and 1 white admitted (the actual numbers for 1999), we would get the opposite: 6 whites and 1 URM. The problem is, even with that “correction,” the probability of acceptance for URM’s would be 14.3%, while for whites it would be 8.2%, meaning there would still be an unacceptable odds ratio favoring people of color simply as a function of sample size. So even under a “race-blind” process that sought to avoid different probabilities for different groups, it would be impossible to eliminate favorable odds ratios for people of color, without basically rejecting the vast majority of URM applicants outright.

The fact is, the current attack on affirmative action is based on a lie; the lie of reverse discrimination. The statistics used by groups like the CIR and their clients in court to demonstrate supposed “racial preference” for people of color are bogus and prove nothing, except the old adage that you can make numbers say just about whatever you wish. It is incumbent upon those of us who support affirmative action to confront these lies and flawed data head-first; to demonstrate conclusively on which side of the bread one continues to find the butter in this society (hint: it ain’t the rye side), and to show beyond any doubt that the right-wing crusade against racial equity is supported by smoke and mirrors, not hard facts.

The facts are plain. There is no racial preference for minority students at the University of Michigan Law School. In 1997, for example (one of the years covered by the lawsuit), 34% of black applicants were admitted to the Law School while 39% of white applicants were admitted. More recently, in 2000, 36% of black applicants were admitted, while 41% of white applicants were. If that’s reverse discrimination, I’m having a hard time making out the victims.

Tim Wise is an antiracist writer, lecturer and activist. He can be reached at (and footnotes can be obtained from), timjwise@msn.com

This article probably won't convince the die-hard racists of this board (i.e., daveman and B.A.). But for those who can think critically, this arctile is an excellent analysis of the flawed anti- AA debate.

December 05, 2002

Selling Sloppy Statistics

By Tim Wise

So the Supreme Court has announced it will hear the long-simmering affirmative action case from the University of Michigan law school, in which white plaintiffs sued, claiming to have been denied admission even though they had grades and test scores that were comparable to those of students of color who were admitted.

The case in question--which the Circuit Court decided in favor of the law school and their affirmative action program--will now fall into the lap of a high court that has been increasingly hostile to such policies and tends to consider race-conscious affirmative action efforts little more than illegitimate “racial preferences.”

But in truth, the plaintiff’s claims of reverse discrimination (pieced together by the right-wing Center for Individual Rights) are so flimsy they would be almost laughable were they not so dangerous. Understanding how the right manipulates data to make their case is important for those who hope to stanch the movement to roll back key civil rights gains. Indeed, the data is not only flawed but also dangerous, for its acceptance as legitimate social science--as will be seen below--could set a precedent for essentially blocking the admission of blacks, Latinos and American Indians to selective schools of higher education.

By utilizing questionable statistical techniques, the plaintiffs claim that black, Latino and American Indian applicants to the U of M law school received preference over whites because they were often accepted with GPA’s and LSAT scores that for whites were met with rejection.

According to the plaintiffs, the odds of one of these “underrepresented minority” students (URM’s) being admitted were often hundreds of times better than the odds of a white applicant with similar scores and grades. Although the plaintiffs have never presented evidence that the URM’s admitted were unqualified--indeed they conceded that all had been fully qualified--they insist that when URM’s and whites had equal qualifications, minority students were more likely to be accepted, thereby indicating preference.

To make their case at trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys presented grid displays that broke down those who applied and were admitted to the law school by “qualification cells,” separating students into groups by GPA and LSAT (i.e., 3.5-3.75 GPA and 156-158 on the LSAT, on a 120-180 scale).

Within each cell, statistician Kinley Larntz calculated the odds of admission for each student, concluding that URM’s in many cells had greater chances of admission than whites with the same grades and test scores. He then calculated the odds ratios for each cell, so that if URM’s in a cell had a 50% chance of admission and whites had a 25% chance, the odds ratio would be 2:1. The larger the odds ratio, the greater the degree of presumed preference.

But such an analysis is flawed. First, the data used to calculate admissions odds ratios was limited. Whenever URM’s and whites in a given cell were treated the same--either all accepted or all rejected--Larntz simply threw out their data and refused to consider it.

In other words, by only examining cells where there was a differential outcome, Larntz automatically inflated the size of that difference. Overall, 40% of minority students who applied to the law school were in cells that exhibited no racial differences in admission odds ratios, meaning that claims of massive preference for URM’s depend on ignoring 40% of all applicants of color to the law school.

Secondly, differential odds ratios for white and minority acceptance could just as easily result from a system involving zero preference for URM’s, as from a system with large preference, largely due to the small sample sizes of applicants of color.

For example, in 1996, among the most qualified applicants (students with a 3.75 GPA or better and a 170 or higher on the LSAT), only one black with these numbers applied to the U of M. This applicant was accepted. 151 whites applied with these numbers and 143 were accepted. While most everyone at this level was admitted, since there was only one black who applied and got in, the “odds ratio” in favor of blacks at that level appears infinite--a guarantee for blacks and a less than certain probability for whites. But surely one cannot infer from one accepted black out of one black applicant at that level that there is some pattern of preference operating.

As proof that one could produce odds ratios favoring blacks even in the absence of racial preference for any individual URM, consider the implications of a study by the Mellon Foundation and the Urban Institute, which found that blacks tend to have faced greater educational obstacles than whites with comparable scores on standardized tests. When compared to whites with scores comparable to their own, blacks in a particular range are far more likely to have come from low-income families and families with less educational background.

These black students are also more likely to have attended resource-poor inner city schools where course offerings are more limited than in the mostly suburban schools attended by whites. Thus, black students can be said to have overcome more and even be more “qualified” than whites who score in the same range or even a bit higher on standardized tests.

As such, it becomes easy to see how differential admissions odds ratios could obtain even without “racial preferences.” Simply put, if whites tend to be better off and face fewer obstacles to their educational success than blacks, and if blacks tend to be worse off and face more obstacles, then any black applicant to a college, law school or graduate school will likely have a greater claim for their merit at a given test score level than a white who scored the same.

To visualize the point, imagine a four-leg relay race. If whites tend to start out two laps ahead of blacks and the runners finish the race tied, is it fair to say they were equally good as runners; or would we instead say that the black runner was superior, having made up so much ground?

Since even the plaintiffs have agreed there is nothing wrong with considering the obstacles faced by applicants, including the effects of racism, it is quite possible that admissions officers could look at applicant files, see whites and blacks with comparable scores, and then on an individual basis make the determination that the black applicants were more qualified, having overcome obstacles faced by far fewer whites. But if individual analyses were completed with such a result, they would produce the same odds ratios as discovered by Larntz. In other words, differential odds ratios themselves prove nothing.

Indeed, the implications of accepting differential odds ratios as evidence of “reverse discrimination” are chilling, and would require the rejection of almost all applicants of color to selective schools, simply because there are so few URM applicants.

For example, imagine an applicant pool at a hypothetical school where there is only one URM applicant for each “qualification cell,” perhaps because the school is in a very white location and doesn’t typically attract minority applicants. Under an odds ratio analysis that assumed URM’s couldn’t have more favorable odds of admission without this proving reverse discrimination, most URM’s no matter how competent would have to be rejected simply because to accept one-out-of-one would represent “infinite odds” and require the acceptance of every white in the same cell, merely to keep the odds ratios the same.

So although we could expect the whites and students of color at the lowest level of scores to all be rejected and those at the top to all be accepted, in the middle such a situation would create chaos. If one black student applied with scores and grades that were good but not a sure thing for admission, and 200 whites applied with those same numbers, the school would have to accept every white in that cell if they accepted the one black, or else face a lawsuit for reverse discrimination on the basis of an unacceptably pro-black admissions odds ratio.

Beyond mere hypotheticals, there is real evidence of how reliance on odds ratios would work in practice. In 1996, there were only two black students in the country who received LSAT’s over 170 and had GPA’s of 3.75 or better. If one of these applied to a given law school, that person would have to be rejected under an odds ratio analysis unless the law school was ready to accept every white applicant with that same score and GPA, irrespective of other aspects of their application file.

Now imagine that the same year, 100 whites with those numbers applied to the same school, and 80 of them were admitted, or 90, or 95; and imagine that both of the blacks with those grades and scores applied. Since admitting both of the blacks would yield odds ratios unacceptably in favor of blacks, the school would have to reject one of the clearly qualified blacks with those numbers (thereby producing a large odds ratio in favor of whites) just to avoid being sued for reverse discrimination!

Even the strongest evidence of URM racial preference at U of M indicates the problem with utilizing odds ratio analyses. Larntz notes, for example, that among applicants in 1999 with a 3.5-3.7 GPA and LSAT’s of 156-158, six of seven URM’s were admitted, while only one of seventy-three whites at that level were accepted. This yields an odds ratio of 432:1 in favor of URM’s at that level: a seemingly huge racial preference. But there are two problems.

First, with only seven black, Latino or Indian applicants to the U of M School of Law in that particular “qualification cell,” it is entirely possible that the admissions officers who decided to accept six of those seven merely examined the files and found that those six had overcome extraordinary obstacles (including racism and perhaps economic hardship), unlike the white applicants. Thus, the ratio itself, absent other evidence about the particular decision-making of admissions officers, cannot prove a preference for URM’s, as the pool is simply too small.

Secondly, to balance the odds ratios for this cell would have been impossible. If seven of eighty applicants with that combination of test scores and grades was worthy of acceptance--essentially what the University said that year--this yields an acceptance probability at that level of 8.75%. Applying that probability to each group yields six whites out of 73 who should be accepted and 0.6 URM’s out of seven who should be. In other words, because of the small pool of URM’s in that group, it wouldn’t be possible to admit even one, let alone one black, one Latino and one American Indian, without giving a much higher probability of admission to URM’s as a group.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say the school rounded up the six-tenths of a person to one full person and admitted one URM with these numbers. Thus, instead of 6 URM’s and 1 white admitted (the actual numbers for 1999), we would get the opposite: 6 whites and 1 URM. The problem is, even with that “correction,” the probability of acceptance for URM’s would be 14.3%, while for whites it would be 8.2%, meaning there would still be an unacceptable odds ratio favoring people of color simply as a function of sample size. So even under a “race-blind” process that sought to avoid different probabilities for different groups, it would be impossible to eliminate favorable odds ratios for people of color, without basically rejecting the vast majority of URM applicants outright.

The fact is, the current attack on affirmative action is based on a lie; the lie of reverse discrimination. The statistics used by groups like the CIR and their clients in court to demonstrate supposed “racial preference” for people of color are bogus and prove nothing, except the old adage that you can make numbers say just about whatever you wish. It is incumbent upon those of us who support affirmative action to confront these lies and flawed data head-first; to demonstrate conclusively on which side of the bread one continues to find the butter in this society (hint: it ain’t the rye side), and to show beyond any doubt that the right-wing crusade against racial equity is supported by smoke and mirrors, not hard facts.

The facts are plain. There is no racial preference for minority students at the University of Michigan Law School. In 1997, for example (one of the years covered by the lawsuit), 34% of black applicants were admitted to the Law School while 39% of white applicants were admitted. More recently, in 2000, 36% of black applicants were admitted, while 41% of white applicants were. If that’s reverse discrimination, I’m having a hard time making out the victims.

Tim Wise is an antiracist writer, lecturer and activist. He can be reached at (and footnotes can be obtained from), timjwise@msn.com

You lost any chance you ever had of me reading your post when you called me a racist.

Now, if you think you have a reason for that opinion, please C&P any comment of mine that led you to that conclusion.

Uh, if there is no racial preference at the University of Michigan's Law school then why don't we agree upon colorblind admissions?

This means that race is not to be considered in the admission process.

I am glad we are in agreement.

Are you coming to the next KKK rally? Strom and I will be there!

Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott are not now, nor ever were, members of the Klu Klux Klan.

However, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, W. Va) has been.

And are you going to register your opinion on the Michigan cases, or are you just here to spew ignorant accusations of racism?

We hate niggers just as much as you do. That's why we don't want 'em at the University of Michigan.

Funny how some minority groups, like Asians, for instance, never clamor for AA. And funny how AA does not apply to them anyway. I guess all minorities are not created equal.

In fresca's case, I guess all people are not created with a brain.

Thanks for the answer, 'Trent'.

Spew away little boy.

Funny how some minority groups, like Asians, for instance, never clamor for AA. And funny how AA does not apply to them anyway. I guess all minorities are not created equal.

In fresca's case, I guess all people are not created with a brain.

What AA in essance says is that minorities can't make it without some form of assistance. Minorities should consider that to be an insult.

The most qualified should be accepted regardless of sex or race. If I'm on the operating table getting ready to go under the knife, I don't care what race or sex the doctor is, I just want the best qualified.

These racist anti- AA arguments are old, boring and need to be put to bed (i.e. fresca, Simple and mino). Again, for those still able to think, the below article is an excellent of treatment on white psychology.

of May 19 2001

Breaking the Cycle of White Dependence: A Call for Majority Self-Sufficiency

By Tim Wise

I think it’s called ‘projection.’ When someone subconsciously realizes that a particular trait applies to them, and then attempts to locate that trait in others, so as to alleviate the stigma or self-doubt engendered by the trait in question.

It’s a well-understood concept of modern psychology, and explains much: like why men who are struggling with their own sexuality are often the most outwardly homophobic. Or the way whites during slavery typified black men as rapists, even though the primary rapists were the white slaveowners themselves, taking liberties with their female property, or white men generally, raping their wives with impunity.

I got to thinking about projection recently, after receiving many an angry e-mail from folks who had read one or another of my previous commentaries, and felt the need to inform me that people of color are "looking for a handout," and are "dependent" on government, and of course, whites.

Such claims are making the rounds these days, especially as debate heats up about such issues as reparations for enslavement, or affirmative action. And this critique is a prime example of projection, for in truth, no people have been as dependent on others throughout history as white folks.

We depended on laws to defend slavery and segregation so as to elevate us, politically, socially and economically. We depended on the Naturalization Act of 1790, to make all European immigrants eligible for nearly automatic citizenship, with rights above all persons of color. We depended on land giveaways like the Homestead Act, and housing subsidies that were essentially white-only for many years, like FHA and VA loans. Even the GI Bill was largely for whites only, and all of these government-sponsored efforts were instrumental in creating the white middle class. But it goes deeper than that.

>From the earliest days, "whites" were dependent on the land and natural resources of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Since Europe offered no substantial natural riches from its soil, European economic advance and expansion was entirely reliant on the taking of other people’s land by force, trickery or coercion. That, my friends, is dependence.

Then these same Europeans relied on slave labor to build a new nation and to create wealth for whites; wealth that was instrumental to financing the American Revolution, as well as allowing the textile and tobacco industries to emerge as international powerhouses. From 1790 to 1860 alone, whites and the overall economy reaped the benefits of as much as billion in unpaid black labor. That, my friends, is dependence.

Though apologists for black oppression enjoy pointing out that Africans often sold other Africans into slavery, this too indicates just how dependent whites have been on black people: having to pay and bribe Africans to catch their own and deliver them to us so as to fatten the profits of European elites. We couldn’t even do that by ourselves.

Then whites were dependent on Native peoples to teach us farming skills, as our complete ineptitude in this realm left the earliest colonists starving to death and turning to cannibalism when the winters came in order to survive.

We were dependent on Mexicans to teach us how to extract gold from riverbeds and quartz--critical to the growth of the national economy in the mid to late 1800’s--and had we not taken over half their nation in an unprovoked war, the emerging Pacific ports so vital to the modern U.S. economy would not have been ours, but Mexico’ s. That, my friends, is dependence. Then we were dependent on their labor in the mid 20th century under the bracero program, through which over five million Mexicans were brought into the country for cheap agricultural work, and then sent back across the border.

And we were dependent on Asian labor to build the railroads that made transcontinental travel and commerce possible. 90% of the labor used to build the Central Pacific Railroad in the 1860’s were Chinese, imported for the purpose, and exploited because the railroad bosses felt they could better control them than white workers.

In fact, all throughout U.S. labor history, whites have depended on the subordination of workers of color; by the marking of black and brown peoples as the bottom rung on the ladder--a rung below which they would not be allowed to fall. By virtue of this racialized class system whites could receive the "psychological wage" of whiteness, even if their real wages left them destitute. That too is dependence, and a kind that has marked even the poorest whites.

The plantation owners in the South were surely dependent on blacks, and for more than field labor. We relied on black women to suckle and care for our children. We relied on blacks to build the levees that kept rivers like the Mississippi from our doorstep. We relied on black girls to fan our sleeping white ladies so as to ensure their comfort. We relied on blacks to do everything from cooking, to cleaning, to making our beds, to polishing our shoes, to chopping the wood to heat our homes, to nursing us back to health when we fell ill. We prided ourselves on being (or aspiring to be) men and women of leisure, while black and brown folks did all the work. That, and a lot more, is dependence; and yet we still insist they are the lazy ones.

And northern industrial capitalism relied on black labor too, especially to break the labor militance of white ethnics by playing off one group of workers against the other. That also, is dependence.

During the civil war, the armies of the Confederacy relied on blacks to cook for the troops and to make the implements of war they would use in battle; and likewise, the Union relied on black soldiers--around 200,000 of them--to ultimately win the war. That too, is most assuredly dependence.

And white dependence on people of color continues to this day. Each year, African Americans spend over 0 billion with white-owned companies: money that goes mostly into the pockets of the white owners, white employees, white stockholders, and white communities in which they live. And yet we say black people need us? We think they are the dependent ones, relying as we assume they do on the paltry scraps of an eviscerated welfare state? Now let’s just cut the crap. Who would be hurt more: black folks if all welfare programs were shut down tomorrow, or white folks, if blacks decided they were through transferring half-a-trillion dollars each year to white people and were going to keep their money in their own communities?

Or what about the ongoing dependence of white businesses on the exploitation of black labor? Each year, according to estimates from the Urban Institute, over 0 billion in wages are lost to African Americans thanks to discrimination in the labor market. That’s money that doesn’t end up in the hands of the folks who earned it, but rather remains in the bank accounts of owners. That my friends, is dependence.

Our dependence on people of color even extends to our need to have them as spokespeople for our ideologies and agendas: thus, the proliferation of high-profile conservatives of color who bash their own people for us, so we don’t have to do it alone. Ken Hamblin, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Linda Chavez: all of them, walking, talking, lawn jockeys, shining their lights for white supremacy. And oh yes, our need for them is most certainly a form of dependence.

Then, we rely on still more people of color to help further the agenda of white dominance: namely Asians, whom we proclaim to be "model minorities." "See how hard the Asians work,’ whites love to say, ‘why can’t blacks be more like them?" Of course, we fail to mention the staggering poverty among Southeast Asians; or the fact that the most successful Asian sub-groups came to this country with both business experience and usually college educations; or the fact that despite hard work, Asian Pacific Islanders still earn between 11-26% less than their white counterparts, even when their qualifications are equal. Never mind all that: the model minority myth has a power all its own, and is one more way in which whites have become dependent on those who are not.

Indeed, I am beginning to think that whites are so dependent on people of color that we wouldn’t know what to do without them. Oh sure, some neo-Nazis say they would love to try, but in reality I doubt they could make it. If there were no black and brown folks around then whites would have no one to blame but themselves for the crime that occurred; no one to blame but themselves when they didn’t get the job they wanted; no one to blame but themselves when their lives turned out to be less than they expected. In short, we need people of color--especially in a subordinate role--as a way to build ourselves up, and provide a sense of self-worth we otherwise lack.

To be sure, our very existence as white people is dependent on a negative: to be white has meaning only in terms of what it doesn’t mean. To be white only has meaning in so far as it means not to be black or brown. Whiteness has no intrinsic meaning culturally: can anyone even articulate what "white culture" means? Not our various European cultures mind you--which do have meaning but have been largely lost to us in the mad dash to accept whiteness and the perks that come with it--but white culture itself.

In workshops I have asked white folks and people of color what they like about being black, white, or whatever they in fact may be. For African-Americans the answers always have to do with the pride they feel, coming from families who have struggled against the odds, fought injustice, persevered, and maintained dignity in the face of great obstacles. In other words, to be black has internal meaning, derived from the positive actions and experiences of black people themselves. Variations on the same theme tend to be expressed by Latinos, Asians and Indigenous peoples as well.

But for whites, if they come up with anything at all, it is typically something about how nice it is not to have to worry about being racially profiled by police, or how nice it is not to be presumed less competent by employers, or discriminated against when applying for a loan, or looking for a home. In other words, for whites, our self-definition is wrapped up entirely in terms of what and who we aren’t. What it means to be white is merely to not be "the other." And for that to have any meaning whatsoever there first must be an "other" against which to contrast oneself.

And that is the most significant dependence of all.

Tim Wise is a Nashville-based antiracist writer, lecturer and activist. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com> tjwise@mindspring.com

I'm much too simpleminded to understand your post. I'm a conservative.

That's the third time you posted the same article. That's just Tim Wise's quite flawed and racist opinion. Get beyond yourself.

If you hate blacks and Muslims, please visit our website!

www.kobehq.com

Uh, this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And that's saying something.

The question of the day pertains to the specific cases before the Supreme Court. Should the University of Michigan be permitted to give preferential treatment to members of races that they prefer, and deny such treatment to members of races that they do not prefer?

The Constitution specifically prohibits such behavior.

Now, if you care to debate the idiotic ramblings of the simpleton Tim (not too damn) Wise, then kindly pick some pithy paragraph from his diatribe and defend it. And then I'll rip it to shreds and make you feel the fool.

I agree with you, Simpleton Simon. Why should them niggers get to attend the University of Michigan? That's only for us whites.

"Breaking the Cycle of White Dependence: A Call for Majority Self-Sufficiency

by 1984IShere • Monday May 19, 2003 12:55 PM



These racist anti- AA arguments are old, boring and need to be put to bed (i.e. fresca, Simple and mino

"

A) I didn't even make an argument. I simply asked a question. A question which no one seems to want to answer.

B) If the question is answered it might shed some light on your notion that some groups ARE NOT dependant on the evil white man. Some groups get along just fine on their own.

Are you coming to the next KKK rally?

One wonders when you'll cease your ignorant postings, 'trent'.

You seem to be under the impression that unfounded accusations of racism and the use of others names for the purpose of calumny is somehow participation in debate. You are incorrect.

If you haven't a position on the argument go play somewhere else.

Like in traffic.

Back in the days when we lived way up in them hills of apalachia, 'bortion was illegal. I had a role wit' my brother and 'fore ya knew it, there was a bun in them dar oven. So I wen' looken' fer some he'p.

The only he'p I could fin' round dos parts waz dis car machanic. Well he done unplugged me, but not 'nough. What waz lef' became SBM (some brain missing).

I'm in this white room with white sheets. The sign above the gate is outlined in flowers and reads: "Casa de los locos de Bahia Sur de Los Angeles."

My mommy snuck in an Internet appliance. I clawed a hole out of the padded wall, found a phone line, and I'm in!

Kool!

Just kidding. I'm obsessed with Stephen. I see him wherever I go. I see him in my dreams. I see him from the corner of my eye, but when I look directly at him, he's gone! I hear is voice in my head. I once heard him on the CBC, I recorded it. I play it over and over. Before I do anything, I think, I wonder how Stephen will react to this. It has given me a center to my life. I have a reason to exist. That reason is to make sure that Stephen stays down. I don't want him to succeed. If Stephen does well, I feel like a loser. G-d told me to do this. I hear G-d speaking into my ears. He says, "Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen." Stop it! I can't take it anymore. I don't want to hear that voice. I need to stalk Stephen.

You girls take your little spat somewhere else. The rest of us don't care.

AA relects the basic flaw in racism. You can interview a person adn tell whether thay are disadvantaged or poor just like you can tell if they are qualified for a job (usually) the interview is a MUCH better judge of this than just looking at their skin colour or birth certificate.

Therefore it is irrational to give one person more rights than another based on his race whether it is white or black or somthing else.

Are you coming to the next KKK rally? It's going to be a cross-burniing at the University of Michigan. I'll bet you're excited!

AA is outdated. The most qualified should be admitted or be the hiree. If an employeer has a choice between hiring a black person or a white person, and the black person is more qualified, he'd have to be an absolute fool not to hire him. If he doesn't hire him, his competition will. And by continuing to act stupid, he'll put himself out of business.

In the same manner, those most qualified should be admitted into college. If the best applicants to U of Michigan turned out to be all black females, then that's the way the ball bounces. Diversity should never be an isuue, only "content of character".

We here at KOBE support you. You sound as though you hate niggers and Muslims as much as we do. Please consider joining our club.

www.kobehq.com

>You sound as though you hate niggers and Muslims as much as we do.

This makes no sense given that "aa" made the following comments:



>If an employeer has a choice between hiring a black person or a white person, and the black person is more qualified, he'd have to be an absolute fool not to hire him.

>If the best applicants to U of Michigan turned out to be all black females, then that's the way the ball bounces.

This loser changes posting handles more often than his underwear.

This loser never changes underwear.

"This loser never changes underwear."

Unsubstantiated allegation.

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

>Logical fallacy

by debate coach • Tuesday May 20, 2003 07:21 AM

"This loser never changes underwear."

Unsubstantiated allegation.

Changing The Subject

(but never his underwear)

I submitted the above post. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

www.kobehq.com