I've been following the Elizabeth Warren story fairly closely for someone who has no vote in Massachusetts. I'm fascinated by the affirmative action side of this silliness. I think that most people would assume that Elizabeth Warren, whether she believed it or not, put down that she was a Native American for affirmative action purposes. It got her a position at Harvard Law. I'm not challenging her abilities, but the plain fact is that there are hundreds of people who are qualified to teach at Harvard Law, so why did they pick her? She is the only professor at Harvard not to graduate from a top ten law school. Her degree from Rutgers is the second lowest ranked school of all the Ivy League professors. She had no spectacular accomplishments before being picked for Harvard Law, and they started touting their "diversity". Doesn't take rocket science to figure out what got her there.
Now, regardless of what you think of Elizabeth Warren, this shows the silliness of affirmative action. She is a middle-class woman from Oklahoma, who never suffered any discrimination from her "diversity". Why should she be in the affirmative action group at all, regardless of her family background? A girl whose parents came from the Cambodian boat people, who emigrated without a dime and no English, who works incredibly hard and does well in school, gets no preference because she is not "diverse". What?
The rationale for affirmative action has always been that people who have been unfairly discriminated against in the past should have an advantage now. Well, how many generations does that carry through? Are we down to the "drop of blood" rule? If my parents were discriminated against, and overcame it, does my son deserve an advantage? How about my grandson? If your parents made it to a comfortable middle class life, how do you deserve an advantage, regardless of the color of your skin?
Now, regardless of what you think of Elizabeth Warren, this shows the silliness of affirmative action. She is a middle-class woman from Oklahoma, who never suffered any discrimination from her "diversity". Why should she be in the affirmative action group at all, regardless of her family background? A girl whose parents came from the Cambodian boat people, who emigrated without a dime and no English, who works incredibly hard and does well in school, gets no preference because she is not "diverse". What?
The rationale for affirmative action has always been that people who have been unfairly discriminated against in the past should have an advantage now. Well, how many generations does that carry through? Are we down to the "drop of blood" rule? If my parents were discriminated against, and overcame it, does my son deserve an advantage? How about my grandson? If your parents made it to a comfortable middle class life, how do you deserve an advantage, regardless of the color of your skin?
No comments:
Post a Comment