Interesting Take on Affirmative Action

The views articulated in this post on LaShawn Barber’s Corner have a radical air, and yet, closely examined, are actually very sensible, particularly to the conservative mindset, which values personal responsibility over entitlements.

I hate “affirmative action” because it’s immoral, unconstitutional, embarrassingly unfair, and undignified.

If blacks with comparable credentials are being passed over, blanket skin color preference policies are not the remedy. Courts are where such disputes should be heard. If blacks are passed over because they don’t have comparable scores, we need to address the problem at a much earlier stage. We all know how dumbed down government schools have become. Get the socialist bureaucrats out of the front offices and demand better for your kids. Fight for school choice, support rigorous standards, and advocate excellence, not mediocrity. And for the love of God, stop making excuses. Discipline your children to turn off that idiot box and study. Embrace and reward studious behavior and penalize laziness.

Despite government policies designed to force equal outcomes, thanks to human nature, it ain’t going to happen. We each have different or varying degrees of talent, drive, and motivation. This is where “diversity” bites liberals on the rear end. In a society as diverse as America, individuals will never have equal stuff. You won’t find equal outcomes within the same biological family, for crying out loud, so how can you expect to find it within a diverse country???

Equal opportunity is the best we humans can hope for and what the Constitution guarantees. That document does not have the power to ensure equal distribution of material wealth, nor should it. I’m glad to know that more people are publicly expressing their distain for skin color distinctions imposed by government.

These are, nevertheless, extremely controversial views in the current social climate in the United States. I feel that Great Britain has dealt with these issues much better, although the history there lacks the blight of African slavery.

Something in this post, however, also touches on the media bias issue that is being explored around here lately. LaShawn Barber was interviewed by the Baltimore Sun regarding actor Morgan Freeman’s comments on Black History Month:

Addendum: Yesterday a Baltimore Sun reporter interviewed me for a story about actor Morgan Freeman’s remarks. (See my post). Based on the story’s title, Some blacks take Freeman to task over CBS interview, the slant was already set.

The reporter kept prompting me to criticize Morgan and agree that Black History Month (BHM) is still needed, asking “But do you think we’re there yet?” I didn’t think “there,” wherever that is, was the point. BHM is ridiculous, but instead of being that blunt, I gave what I considered to be thoughtful responses to her questions.

As you can see, my quotes never made it into the article. The only interviewees with quotes included were those critical of Morgan and supportive of BHM. Zero “I agree with Morgan and BHM really is ridiculous” quotes in this biased story. Fortunately I’m not naive enough to believe the reporter set out to write a balanced news story in the first place.

This seems a textbook example of what Stuart has been discussing: the facts are slanted deliberately to give the reading audience what the reporter, based on a political agenda, wants to achieve. LaShawn Barber has a high-traffic and influential blog voice and yet Barber was not quoted in the article because the reporter did not get the preferred political perspective; and yet Barber was interviewed. The choice of facts that made it into the story says everything about the reporter, and less about the subject being reported. And the problem is that the wider readership of this article likely doesn’t think about these issues.



  1. Political, or just wanting to stir the pot to sell papers? (Perhaps because an editor told the reporter that <>this<> was the angle the paper wanted the story to take.)


  2. I can see why you think there might be a distinction there. It is certainly the view that <>The Fountainhead<> takes of these things. But on a deeper level of analysis, those two things start to blend. Whether it’s the politics of the reporter or her editor, it remains the politics of the Paper, and that is what is the subject of these debates–how the outlets themselves are fundamentally biased. Naturally, however, the organizations are merely the sum of their parts.


  3. Right, but there’s bias to get across some agenda– like X is good, or X is bad– and then there’s bias where you slant an article to make it as interesting (controversial?) as possible, so as to generate sales.I would wager that a lot of the right-wing talk goons are actually nice people who, while believing some of what they spew, go over the top to generate ratings. See O’Rielly, Bill and Christmas for an example.


Comments are closed.