Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sotomayor, Ricci and the Preferential Treatment Myth
One of the most pervasive questions swirling around the probable confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court has been, "did she receive preferential treatment because she was a Latina from the Bronx?" Commentators, particularly from the far right, have spent air and ink to argue that Sotomayor was only admitted to Ivy League schools, received top grades, swiftly advanced in her career, and was selected to be the next Supreme Court justice-exclusively because she is Latina.
Many of these same commentators have pivoted from these unfounded conclusions to attack Sotomayor for showing bias against average, hard-working, White men, by repeatedly discussing her limited, noncontroversial role in the New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano. Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have brought up the Ricci case everyday this week during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, and called on Mr. Ricci to testify yesterday against Judge Sotomayor. Their argument seems to be: Sotomayor has been a beneficiary of unfair preference over White men like Mr. Ricci, and she will continue to prefer people like her (i.e. people of color) over Whites from her seat on the Supreme Court.
Frank Ricci could say nothing about Judge Sotomayor's fitness for the Supreme Court. The case was not even about preferential treatment, but instead challenged our reliance on testing regimes. What Mr. Ricci's testimony did do is voice the unspoken fear behind the discussions of preferential treatment: White men are wronged when people of color and women are "favored."
The political motivation behind the claims of preferential treatment and the spotlight on Frank Ricci has ignited a new round of discussions about the dreaded alliteration: affirmative action. And so while the allegations made to diminish the accomplishments of Judge Sotomayor are outrageous, they cannot simply be tossed away as far right rhetoric. There is a critique of affirmative action shared by many in the mainstream, namely that all preferences do is diminish the real achievements of people of color and women and engender resentment in working class White communities whose opportunities are being stolen. The mainstream fear is that any "unequal" treatment will harm rather than help the march toward equality.
This mainstream critique of affirmative action has something in common with the egregious proclamations that have been made about Sotomayor. They both rely on the same falsehood: that there is an even playing field across racial, economic, and gender lines.
It is this myth of the even playing field that allows the notions of "preference" and "unfairness" to exist in the first place. As soon as you acknowledge that the playing field may be uneven, the concepts of preference and fairness become much more complicated: If I have a head start in a footrace, can I reasonably complain that my opponent is given a boost along the way? And if my head start is long and the boost is short, does it really make sense for me to call it "preferential treatment?" The reality is that the playing field of American society is not even. The appeal of the ideal, however, is strong, and the pride associated with it deep. It is a vision so fundamental to American identity that it is the second line of the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal. It is a beautiful ideal, and some have shown its promise, notably our current president, the current first Black Attorney General Eric Holder, and the first female Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
But these examples are, at best, positive indicators that we may one day all be equal. What they do not represent is that structural exclusion is a thing of the past.
Take, for example, our public education system. Every kid in America gets a fighting chance to succeed through hard work. But how does this play out when our schools are not even playing fields? The still segregated and poor urban and rural schools that most students of color attend do a worse job of educating those students than the more integrated and wealthy suburban schools. And so, in 2006, 51 percent of Black students graduated from high school nationwide, as compared to 76 percent of White students. In that same year, a Black student was more than three times more likely than a White student to be suspended, despite research showing that Black students are no more likely to misbehave. Add to all this that Black and Latino students are far more likely to attend schools armed with metal detectors and police, and you see how drastic the differences really are.
These statistics are a few among many that lay bare the extreme racial injustices that persist in our society (others: the infant mortality rate for Black families is twice that for White families; one in fifteen Black males over 18 are in prison, compared to one in 106 White males in the same age group). The strong temptation when those with privilege are presented with statistics like these is to protest-it is not our fault, we did not create these inequities. But these inequalities exist and persist because of our actions and inactions. There is no credible movement, for example, to revamp the criminal justice system, despite statistical evidence of gross racial disparities.
Once we debunk the myth of an even playing field, the concepts of preference and unfairness crumble. This is when we can see clearly and talk honestly about the reality of our society. Every human-made structure (schools, courts, the market, etc.) in our society systematically "prefers" those with power and privilege, who presently are White men. And so, our society is systematically "unfair" to people of color and women.
As for Judge Sotomayor: What does it mean to say that she received "preferential treatment?" Would anyone dispute that she would have had more material advantages in a working class, White suburb? Was she "preferred" over a White student when she got into Princeton? What about all the legacy students who were preferred to non-legacy students at Yale? Was she "preferred" when she was nominated to the Supreme Court? There are currently seven White men on the court-were they not "preferred" all their lives because of their identities?
It is hard to acknowledge that the privilege undergirding the power structure in our society may not be entirely justified, or worse, that it may be based on an unjust set of rules. It is far easier to frame attacks on the status quo distribution of privilege as unfair and preferential. To accept the shallow colorblind fairness argument makes it far too easy to ignore the deeper injustice that we see every day in our society. Ignoring that injustice is not only, itself, unjust, it also delays us from fixing real, systemic problems that affect us all.- Posted in
25 Comments so far
Show All"The case was not even about preferential treatment, but instead challenged our reliance on testing regimes."
This author should be ashamed to present this absurdly farcial argument. The Supreme Court is wrong and Sotomayor is right? A child could see what this was about. And it wasn't "testing"
Of course Sotomayor recieved preferential treatment, it was needed in her time,,,,of course she is gaining a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a Latina woman. Whats wrong with that? Only a liar or a fool would deny it.
The point is that between her and a white male, a black woman, etc.....why not her? Time for a Latina on the court.
Affirmative action now is racism, pure and simple, but the fruits of affirmative action when it was needed must be recognized now.
Sioux Rose
HENRY 8: She is BOTH a Latina AND qualified. The categories are NOT mutually exclusive. And as the article pointed out, the presumed "majority" is that of the white male and his PRIVILEGED perspective. It's about f--king time there was more than that one on the ticket given the dire direction this nation (on every qualifiable basis for analysis) is headed!
As a regular reader of many far-right publications, both in print and on-line, I have not seen a single serious person claim that Sotomayor is a candidate for the Supreme Court because of racial preferences. Indeed, these folks bend over backward to applaud her "inspiring life story", just before cutting her apart on her purported liberal comments and beliefs. I'm not sure where your strawman comes from, but some supporting quotes or illustrations might support what appears to be a specious allegation.
Here are 2 examples:
1) Pat Buchanan wrote that Judge Sotomayor “got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review -- all because she was a Hispanic woman.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32264
2) Rush Limbaugh said “she’s an affirmative action case extraordinaire.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/27/limbaugh-slams-sotomayor-reverse-racist-2/
You should also watch the 7 minute video (link provided at the end of the article) for more examples of allegations that she was "preferred" because of her race and gender.
Sioux Rose
WAVES: Thanks for the data. By Rush's criteria, Yale and Harvard should be FULL of unqualified minorities!
I suppose I should have highlighted the word SERIOUS commentators... Rush is by his own admission an entertainer, and preaches largely to his own choir. Pat Buchanan stopped being serious sometime around the late 90's. He has a small following of social Luddites that makes most conservatives wince.
Sotomayor admits, does she not, that she benefited from preferences? Even though, that does not mean that she is unqualified, nor indeed does it protect her from having to defend her personal history and qualifications for a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court.
The fundamental fallacy of critics of "affirmative action" is that only performance in high school must determine who will be accepted into the prestigious universities and then on to the prestigious positions and jobs in society, except of course for the jocks that win games for the good ole alma mater/pater.
My "filter" is a very different one. I demand an evaluation of the performance in society of all high school graduates after they finished college/university. What did become of them? What did they contribute to society?
As an example let us take a look at the crop of business graduates of, say, the past 20 years. Among them we find the numerous whiz kids that have almost driven our economy over the cliff into the abyss. See what I mean? Most of these are white males some of whom are now the economic disaster kids of President Obama's cabinet. Possibly our economy would not have tanked as badly as it has if there had been many more black and Hispanic students in our "prestigious" business schools.
Patric Buchanan, the violent and almost indecent opponent of affirmative action, does not get this. I suspect that he has clover leafs in his head.
Sioux Rose
CROWS NEST: Excellent! Thank you for thinking outside of the box!
I forgot to mention that several of these white economic whiz kids are now either in jail or almost in jail for numerous economic/financial crimes committed!
Look, Sotomayor is a member of the elite in good standing. She overcame a lot of hardships to get there but she now lives a life of privilege. So the elite is slowly diversifying.
The authors state:
"And so, our society is systematically "unfair" to people of color and women."
In that case, how can Obama's meteoric rise be accounted for?
The authors see the world through racial blinders. They want to see disadvantage as being based primarily on race, but this is patently false. Class is the leading determiner of oppression. Racism exists but classism is now the most prevalent and oppressive "ism." Yet in our society classism is barely acknowledged.
The author's talk about bad schools for black kids. What about poor white kids in South Boston or Applachia? A rich or middle class black kid is going to get a better education than a poor white kid.
The liberal elites in this country want to keep the working class divided. Affirmative action, and propaganda like this article, go along way towards that goal.
In their article, "Sotomayor, Ricci and the Preferential Treatment Myth," Sinha and Farbman not only seem to mischaracterize the opposition's viewpoint but also delve into a diatribe on the racial ills that plague American society. The authors contend that the Republican establishment wishes to deny Sotomayor her seat on the Supreme Court because they fear for the plight of the white man, as supposedly evidenced by their desire to discuss the case of Ricci v. DeStefano.
The issue here is not so much that Sotomayor is against Ricci or for affirmative action policies; the fear from the right-wing is more that Sotomayor, as she did in Ricci, will judge in a way influenced more by personal bias and belief than by the letter of the law. Judges were meant to judge, not legislate, and it is precisely this fear that drives the obsession with the opposition on the Frank Ricci case. Whether one feels that Sotomayor's ruling is based on bias rather than reason is a matter of personal opinion, but in any case, it is the belief of Republican senators that she ruled and will rule more with the former than the latter.
Yet, let's move on to what seems to be the crux of the article: the preferential treatment myth. Sinha and Farbman articulate quite eloquently the problems of race that currently beleaguer the country. However for the most part, these arguments represent little more than red herrings. The issue in Ricci v DeStefano (and for that matter many affirmative action cases) is not whether one ethnic group has a more difficult time in society or not; rather, the discussion surrounding the cases is predicated on whether there is a 'compelling interest' for a school, organization, etc. to make decisions based on race. The Supreme Court was faced with this very question in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003 when discussing the University of Michigan's Law school admissions policies and why it was faced again with the same question in 2009 with Ricci. Neither of the times was the issue whether blacks and Hispanics are at an inherent disadvantage, but rather whether in a specific case there was a ethically justifiable and more importantly legal basis for the actions taken by an organization against a specific individual or group.
Furthermore with respect to the Ricci case, let us not forget that Benjamin Vargas, a self-identifying Hispanic American, was ALSO discriminated against. If Sinha and Farbman are indeed correct with their notion that blacks and Hispanics are societally discriminated against, what would they say to Lieutenant Vargas? It does not seem to be enough that he is part of a systemically disadvantaged minority, but apparently if you're not the right kind of minority one won't be helped by this supposed systemic correction. The preferential treament myth seems to be a reality for Lieutenant Vargas because he is most definitely not benefiting. It seems the lines of affirmative action cases, which upon first glance may put the privileged white man against the disadvantaged minority, get blurred for both sides when one actually begins to critically analyze and scrutinize the minutia.
To bring the discussion back to Sotomayor, however, the idea that she may have received preferential treatment is irrelevant at this point. If Congress wants to have a true discussion on her merit, they should focus more on the intelligence with which she judged her previous cases, which they are precisely doing with cases like Ricci v. Destefano. While Sinha and Farbman do make a strong counterpoint to the Sotomayor opposition with their dicussion of legacy students getting preference to non-legacy students, in the end all this talk about her 'preferential treatment' (from both sides) moves the discussion back more steps than it brings it forward. By falling prey to the monsters of demagoguery, Sinha and Farbman fall the same way as the right-wing supporters they criticize.
Sioux Rose
KS: Your post seems to reflect the thought process of a mind trained in the legal field. I am not equipped to argue your points in that league; however, you sure do grant short shrift to the true lesson reflected in this article: that the playing field is so far from level, that the very concept of who and what is privileged is open to question.
Here is a somewhat different example. When I took 8th grade French, in one quarter there were 3 tests given. As it turned out my next door neighbor and I had the EXACT same score on all three tests. The professor gave me an 88 and he gave her a 93. She was a quiet, obedient girl who offered nothing to the class. I was one who tended to challenge things and sometimes break up the monotony with a good joke that made the class laugh. He believed he had the right to give her a higher score because she accorded with his concept of "the good student." He eventually changed my grade to a 91.
My point is that NO system of measurement is really exact. Human prejudice comes into all of it. This nation owes a huge debt to Blacks, Native Americans, its underclasses of all backgrounds, AND women.
You argue the letter of the law to (if I interpreted your post correctly) essentially support the status quo, a status quo that in the NAME of law has cast countless injuries on many, and continues to do so.
While I'd like to hear her positions on things like regulating Wall St, Internet access, holding the Bush Junta accountable, as a woman, it's natural that in an allegedly representative society, I'd like to see MORE women in positions of influence. Unfortunately a lot of minorities who climb the ladder of success end up being loyal to the old boys' club. Condi, Colin, Obama, and Judge Thomas are a few examples. It will take time and consciousness-raising to alter that scenario.
I'd like to respond just in general to your post.
"the playing field is so far from level, that the very concept of who and what is privileged is open to question."
Although I think we've started to (and I was the first to so it's no blame to you) detract a bit from the Sotomayor issue, this is a very interesting issue that I do not mind responding to. What you say is very obviously true: different people from different walks of life are bound to have disparate playing fields (at least in the society we live in today--we haven't yet reached that Lockean ideal admittedly).
"My point is that NO system of measurement is really exact. Human prejudice comes into all of it. This nation owes a huge debt to Blacks, Native Americans, its underclasses of all backgrounds, AND women"
Well sure, prejudices cannot be quantified exactly (although UMich's law school rating scale subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court may have you believe otherwise...). I don't think for the most part that critics of affirmative action will argue that as a nation we have not done tremendous damage to groups such as African Americans or Native Americans. It's pretty clear in the history books. The problem, rather, is a philosophical one that pits the collective good from the individual. At what point do we say to the individual white man that he must sacrifice something in an attempt to reverse wrongs done to Blacks or Native Americans in the past? It's that intangible, unseeable, cosmic justice that as a society we strive to attain, and yet, in doing so I think sometimes we sacrifice the tenable more tangible justice right in front of us. What difference is there between sacrificing the individual white or Asian man for the greater good than say profiling Arabs at airports for the common good? In both cases, we are sacrificing an individual for a collective.
That said, I think the post below about affirmative action policies ignoring the obvious class component is really more on point than anything I've said or can say.
"You argue the letter of the law to (if I interpreted your post correctly) essentially support the status quo, a status quo that in the NAME of law has cast countless injuries on many, and continues to do so."
My point simply was that I think the concern over Sotomayor's ruling in the Ricci case was that she was legislating from the bench and not purely judging in the strict constructionist sort of way. Whether one believes in strict constructionism or judicial activism is again personal opinion, but i was merely pointing out what i thought the concern was.
"Unfortunately a lot of minorities who climb the ladder of success end up being loyal to the old boys' club. Condi, Colin, Obama, and Judge Thomas are a few examples. It will take time and consciousness-raising to alter that scenario."
I guess I don't quite understand why you say they "end up being loyal to the old boys' club." Just as a side note, I just think it's interesting that for the conservatives who are people of color and beat the system (of which we said the playing field is uneven) to make it to a well-respected position, they're deemed sellouts and Uncle Toms. I am particularly reminded of Harry Belafonte calling Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell "house slaves."
Yet when a liberal person of color makes it high up, they are so much more well-respected by the elites i.e. Sotomayor, Obama...(not to say that you've done this since you did put Obama in your list)
Lastly, (and this is completely irrelevant to our current discussion) but why are the very liberals who claim that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark means nothing the same ones who went out with their pitchforks after Trent Lott? And for that matter, why are the conservatives who supported Lott the very same ones who denounce Sotomayor's quotation? Maybe Martin Gross was right: we live in a world in which politics has replaced philosophy. The above just seems to prove it.
Sioux Rose
KSK: You are asking (perhaps rhetorical) questions that remain ever under debate. I think the difference between your analysis and mine is that you want clear-cut firm definitions that fit in every case and category. My parameters are more flowing. You know, like the difference between a Judge who has learned some wisdom on the bench being free to make a determination rather than his/her being hampered by the "Sentencing Guidelines." These rigid approaches do to the legal field what the ridiculous standardized tests are doing to education. I could go further and speak of the manner by which biotech companies now force a lining up of genes. These are a few examples of extreme authoritarian behaviors which are all the rage in USA, today. They do not work to acommodate life and its myriad conditions, but rather impose a strict "one size fits all" determination on each and all.
It is my sense that you want the parameters of your world to be tighter than I do, for I recognize there is a place for mercy and temperance IN justice. Rules have often served the darkest of masters. Let us not forget the RULE was once slavery in this "land of the free," and the RULE was once women were cast apart from voting (along with property ownership), and the RULE was once that Jews were cast into ovens in Nazi Germany, and that the Natives of our lands were forced onto reservations, etc. I am NOT so fond of rules, my friend, particularly when they so often serve Mars, the god of war, aggression, and YOY in all things. To the extent human law would model itself after Divine* justice, I would have more respect for so-called law and order. (* By Divine the LAST thing I mean is a patriarchal perception of "God's" law!)
By the way, our dialog here on C.D reminds me of a radio show I did years ago with a marine biologist. His whole take was science, and my whole take was mysticism and it must have been quite a "gas" for listeners, as never the ideological twain did meet!
Affirmative action can mean a qualified white or male applicant can be passed over for a less-qualified non-white or female.
You can make the argument that on a national or historical level, this is not racism because it's attempted to correct a long-standing imbalance. (I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the argument)
But on an individual level, it's blatantly racist.
"If I have a head start in a footrace, can I reasonably complain that my opponent is given a boost along the way?"
Yes, if you're actually interested in a race that is truely fair and don't believe that the two wrongs make it right, which they seldom, if ever, do. The proper response to inequities is to address those inequities, not create more of them. The latter course is too often influenced more by "pay back" and revenge than by any true desire for achieving real fairness in the competition as the end result.
"And so, our society is systematically "unfair" to people of color and women."
It's unfair to workers and poor people too. Conservative white guys with money have been telling my white guy ass that I must not be very smart or hard working, and that I could better my life if I really wanted to.
They tell my sister, also white and on public assistance, to just get over her epilepsy, diabetes, and depression/anxiety to "just get a job."
When my dad was laid off from his job in 1982, he was told to just go find another. When he found one, and found that it paid a bit less than his previous one, he was told to be thankful that he had a job.
I don't doubt that racial inequities exist, but ignoring class assumes that all the poor white people in the Appalachias have no one to blame but themselves and can find no common ground or solidarity with non-whites since they're coming to take something from them.
Ignore race AND class and how they intertwine at your own peril. The elites have never, ever been on my side either, and that includes the old white guys in the Supreme Court.
Oh, as far as Affirmative Action goes, would it continue to be an issue if we made employment at a living, comfortable salary a RIGHT along with universal single-payer education?
Why should anyone (well, most people, people who aren't going to be in high-power positions) in any nation have to compete with anyone else for a job?
Hell, you have 100 prospective firefighters. Instead of making them take a test, why not just hire all of them? Taking a standardized test doesn't mean you can save someone's life. My mother and father each took tests to be police officers about 20-25 years ago. My father who's a streetwise, weightlifting tough guy who once trained to be a boxer (and taught me how to fight), failed. My mother, who has never been athletic and grew up in a relatively sheltered suburb, passed with flying colors. My father was never good in school, dropped out, and was drafted into Vietnam shortly afterwards. My mother was an excellent student in high school and attended college. On the other hand, my father spent his childhood having to defend himself in a rough 'n' tumble neighborhood full of gangs. My mom amused my father once on one of their first dates when she left her purse in her car. My father warned her that someone might break into her car to get her purse. "But why would they take it? It's not theirs," she replied.
Thank God neither of them became cops. I would have hated worrying about them night and day and possibly having people resent me because I had a cop as a parent. But if I had to choose, I'd make my dad a cop as opposed to my mom. Gender nor testing has a thing to do with it.
Every job I've ever had I learned on the job. That's how people really learn their job. I remember working in a pharmacy and having to train people that had certificates or degrees in pharmacy because all they knew was theory, and I had no degree or certificate.
If after a period of time, they turn out to not be cut out for firefighting, give them another job. Give everyone a job. We can do it.
thegreatrockyhill, "Give everyone a job. We can do it."
Who? Who decides what job everyone gets? Does the worker get a choice? How are qualifications measured? Not everyone is to be trusted as a cop, or as an accountant, or as a shipping clerk. Some really great computer technicians can't start their own lawnmower. Suppose one of the firefighters in your example gets another killed in a fire?
Sure, there is work for everyone who wants it. We even import folks from other countries to do work that "Americans are unwilling to do". Who creates specific demand for the work capacity of the people assigned to all these jobs? If we hire 100 firefighters in a town that only needs 75, do we start extra fires to keep them busy? Why not let demand for work pull interested and skilled people into jobs they like?
What do you propose as a "living, comfortable salary"? I know some folks that use the word "comfortable" to indicate that they never have to worry about money again. Surely, this isn't what you mean. Your rhetoric seems to indicate some sort of guaranteed wage for everyone. Doesn't this tend to remove incentives for performance, extra effort, and self-improvement?
I see Affirmative Action as a necessary evil in this country. Because some people will not do the 'right thing' and stop discriminating by themselves. They have to have it forced down their throats daily in the form of laws or they simply won't accept it. In having been raised in the era in the 50's when the US was segregated I well remember the plight of blacks and minorities. I believe if Affirmative Action were not there the same people would go right back to discriminating over night. That's why Affirmative Action is a necessary evil in this country. There is that racist element in our country that no amount of laws are ever going to change. I worked for some 25 years after my children were raised. There wasn't as much of a problem with minorities getting jobs as there were friends of the boss or someone who worked in the office. I don't know how many jobs I lost due to someone in the office having a buddy who wanted the job and they were hired instead. It happens to most working people 'it isn't what you know it's WHO you know'. It's a sad fact of life a working person can do literally nothing about. So whether these angry white men like Pat Buchanan know it or not. It's happening as we speak and there is nothing the person can do about it. Because it isn't against the law to hire a good friend who isn't qualified.
"Who? Who decides what job everyone gets?"
You could create a board where people are assigned to certain jobs if they need one, want one, and maybe don't know what they want to do.
"Does the worker get a choice?"
If it's not something they want to do, they can decline.
"How are qualifications measured? Not everyone is to be trusted as a cop, or as an accountant, or as a shipping clerk."
You can make them take a personality test. They do that for cops and they should still do it. What havoc could a rogue shipping clerk or accountant wreak anyway?
"Some really great computer technicians can't start their own lawnmower. Suppose one of the firefighters in your example gets another killed in a fire?"
You wouldn't be putting these firefighters in harm's way immediately. You train them. I'm just talking about standardized testing. Just because you can pass a test doesn't mean you can save a life.
"Who creates specific demand for the work capacity of the people assigned to all these jobs? If we hire 100 firefighters in a town that only needs 75, do we start extra fires to keep them busy?"
What you could do when you have overflow or whatever is decrease the hours they work. With more workers to go around, people can work less hours and we can still pay them a living salary.
"Why not let demand for work pull interested and skilled people into jobs they like?"
We can do that also. I'm talking about people who are unemployed, need a job, and don't know what they want to do.
"What do you propose as a "living, comfortable salary"? I know some folks that use the word "comfortable" to indicate that they never have to worry about money again. Surely, this isn't what you mean. Your rhetoric seems to indicate some sort of guaranteed wage for everyone."
Yes, I believe in a guaranteed wage for all workers. To keep up with what CEO's make in comparison to the average worker, my wage would be $22 an hour. I think that would be "comfortable" for most people.
Plus, with universal single-payer education, people could go to school to learn whatever field or trade they want.
"Doesn't this tend to remove incentives for performance, extra effort, and self-improvement?"
I think that if we switched to a socialist model as opposed to a capitalist one, people would be motivated, but their motivation would be collective responsibility instead of individual gain.
Are people not productive and motivated in socialist countries? Are people motivated in capitalist societies? We're as capitalist as they come. How many people do you knnow that skate by on the backs of others? Half the people I work with are lazy and unmotivated. Capitalism certainly isn't making them want to work harder because while it may provide incentives, those incentives are hard to reach for most people not born into circles of privilege.
Many people say they want to be doctors, including poor and working people. But how many people from poor or modest backgrounds actually become doctors? The high cost of tuition builds a high wall in front of that dream.
Besides, I'm not suggesting that we pay everyone the same amount of money. Doctors would still make more than someone who sweeps floors, it's just that the housekeeper would have more of an opportunity to better him or herself without having to take out crippling loans or masochistically try to work their way through medical school. And at the very least, even if that housekeeper wants to spend the rest of her days in that line of work, she can and live a decent life regardless.
Hell, ya think the kids working at your favorite fast food joint might be a little more "motivated" if they made a lot more money putting your sandwiches together? Food service can be dangerous work. Menial labor can be back-breaking and soul-crushing. But it doesn't have to be. A living wage would make it easier to bear. A universal right to work would increase the pool of workers, spreading out that work so that it's not so soul-crushing and back-breaking. Universal single-payer education (my term for it anyways) would give people a chance to better themselves by at least dismantling the financial barriers that keep people from getting or finishing a secondary education.
Ok, I give up. Even the communists haven't gone this far. Good luck with your dream.
"A Black student was more than three times more likely than a White student to be suspended, despite research showing that Black students are no more likely to misbehave."
I would think one reason for this particular inequality is that a white student is more likely to have parents that can petition and argue face to face with the school administration of their child's behalf.
I don't believe that black children are anymore of trouble makers in school than white. I and some friends-white, black, and hispanic-were threatened with suspension as a high school freshman for downloading songs during computer class. One of us accidentally brought a virus onto the system. Our parents came in and argued against suspensions with the administration. Only because our parents did this were we able to get off with a couple Saturday detentions.
If i had come from a single parent household were my mother had to work 2 jobs to support us and she was unable to take an afternoon off i would have been suspended.
Nearly all societal problems are economic based.
As far as the drop out rate goes, i again think the fact that a majority of black children live in single parent households there is a lack of supervision.
If my parents weren't around to make me go to school or do my homework every morning and night i know there would have been mornings when i skipped school and nights when i didn't open by books.
Studies have shown that world-wide single-parenthood outweighs all other factors combined in explaining academic performance, school behavior, and adult success and criminal activity. All the other factors include race, income, economic status, neighborhood, and nationality/cultural differences.
You're on the right track, but societal problems are not economic-based, the economics follows the family structure issues. Families of any wealth and culture with Mom and Dad stable and at home raise children who are more successful at school and as adults. I believe that the mechanics of consistant supervision and stable role-modeling by both parents carry the day.
In my work with elementary students of all income levels, multiple races, and various native languages and cultures I have seen this to be true over and over again.
Hector
"her limited, noncontroversial role in the New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano." This is a patently absurd statement. Her role was not "limited". She was one of three votes on a three judge panel affirming the judgment of the Ct. District Court, and one of 7 votes (out of 13) on the full Circuit Court against granting rehearing en banc. So her role, as an matter of arithmetic, cannot be called "limited". Was it "controversial"? Of course it was "controversial" -- it created a "controversy". Ricci petitioned for cert., and cert. was granted (what is it, c. 1% of cert. petitions are granted?). So there was a "controversy". The 2d Circuit order was reversed by the Supreme Court on a split vote -- 5 - 4. So none of this says who had the law -- or the factual record -- "right" (maybe the Ct. District Court judge, Sotomayor, her two fellow 2d Circuit panel members, and her 6 fellow 2d Circuit judges who voted not to grant rehearing en banc were "right". But it is simply impossible to make a coherent case that Sotomayor had either a "limited" or a "noncontroversial role in . . . Ricci v. DeStefano."
It is equally impossible to make a coherent case that what Ricci v. DeStefano was "about" was that "it challenged our reliance on testing regimes." It did no such thing. To know what a case is "about" one reads the pleadings. If either author of this article read the pleadings, or the evidentiary record, or the many opinions issued in Ricci, they've kept any thing they learned to themselves. Should Ricci have prevailed? That's another issue. Do the authors of this article present an accurate account of the case. No.