I just read this comic, Candorville -- which is one that I read most days (I read comics when I'm bored at work) -- in which the author makes the claim through one of the characters that affirmative action "ensur[es] qualified blacks and latinos from bad schools have access to college." That is one of the most bigoted and stupid statements I've ever heard. First of all, I cannot say whether or not this author's views accurately reflect those of all pro-affirmative action parties. Also, I realize that many of the rational left do not advocate affirmative action and realize that it is not a solution at all. Thank you for not drinking the party kool-aid, so to speak.
This author's statement is one of the most racist, bigoted, and ignorant remarks I have ever seen in print other than satire. The obvious question then is, why blacks and latinos? What about the Asians or white kids who live in poor conditions and go to bad schools? Do blacks and latinos have a monopoly on poverty in the United States? I'm not even sure they have a majority. But regardless, there are plenty of poor people in bad schools who are not black or Latino. So do they not matter any more? How racist. Or perhaps its the 'qualified' part that singles out blacks and latinos. Perhaps he feels that other poor kids must not be qualified for college. Again, how racist. And this brings up perhaps the most relevant point: What makes someone 'qualified' for college? Obviously not education, because he's talking about kids from 'bad schools' -- presumably schools that don't educate properly. Not standardized testing either, because we wouldn't "need" affirmative action if the SAT/ACT scores were leveling the playing field. So what, then, other than race, makes one kid more qualified than another to go to school if not education or skill as measured by standard tests? And how in the heck does affirmative action support that, since it only looks at race? And of course, that's the ridiculousness of it all. Affirmative action does not solve any problems except making rich white people not feel bad and appeasing powerful pro-minority groups like the ACLU.
The poverty cycle is a real problem. Its true that poor kids that go to bad schools never have the same opportunity as richer kids because they are denied the education that others can get because of things that are out of their control. The problem is no longer a racial problem, though. Affirmative action was meant to stop schools from only taking white students. That's not a serious problem most places anymore, and even if it is affirmative action still doesn't help the poor kids, it just helps the well-off minorities secure positions at prestigious schools -- the schools are all going to fill their quotas with minorities who went to good schools, not those who went to bad schools. So this thought that affirmative action is helping break the poverty cycle is simply ignorant. Unless you take the stance that all blacks and latinos are poor and go to bad schools (which is also ignorant), you can't seriously believe that universities are choosing the kids from bad schools and helping them escape poverty. As far as I can tell there are three real solutions to this dilemma, and affirmative action is not one of them:
1. Improve public education so that there are no 'bad' schools
2. Increase access to state universities so that any student who attended public school in the state can attend. This necessitates that 1 be applied to said universities for it to mean anything.
3. Require universities to fill quotas from socioeconomic classes rather than races. Its like affirmative action except it looks at wealth rather than race. I don't think this will ever fly.
I hope Darrin Bell reads this post, and maybe he can even enlighten me as to how his reasoning makes any sense at all. But I doubt he will, given his past comics that dismiss bloggers as ignorant hacks that don't deserve to be taken seriously. Mr Bell, if you do read this post I want to thank you for your comic strip, I enjoy reading it. However, I think that your opinion about affirmative action is short sighted and ignores the reality of the situation. In lieu of any response from him, since I am doubting that it will really come, I'm interested in hearing anyone's ideas about the poverty problem and any rational ways to fight or solve it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Nice post. A couple of comments.
1) No matter what J. Morgan says- there will always be bad or at least "worse" schools, relatively speaking
2) Fixing these schools requires a lot more than just throwing money at them, which is the general government solution. I'll catalogue a couple of problems.
A) No one wants to teach in inner city schools for obvious reasons. Those reasons won't change unless inner city parenting changes- the government is largely powerless to do anything there.
B) No merit pay for teachers. Teachers by contract all get paid the same regardless of talent, drive, or success. Restructuring the union contract to allow merit pay would allow those teachers who teach their proverbial balls off to be rewarded.
I would also go as far to say that some locations of the country will be more intelligent on average (an obvious macro example be the northeast vs. the southeast) but I'll refrain to keep J. Morgan and I from taking this post on a tangent.
1) Fair enough.
2) "Fixing these schools requires a lot more than just throwing money at them, which is the general government solution."
That's pretty much just a conservative cliche and has nothing to do with any real solutions for schools. Can you give me an example of any politician saying that his plan is simply to throw money at schools and walk away? Both conservatives and liberals have approaches they think are innovative, and there is no such thing as a "general government solution." Your salient point is A--teacher quality in urban schools is terrible, and everyone understands why. It's a cycle, as you pointed out--good teachers leave for more money, which leads to a deterioration in quality, which leads to more teachers leaving.
There are some issues that simply DO require money, and have nothing to do with parenting, school choice, or teacher quality. Every school needs functioning restrooms, functioning air conditioning and heat, and other essentials like those. If children are (as I believe) a community's responsibility, then it's the community's responsibility to ensure that all children have the essentials. There will always be better and worse schools, absolutely. But it's absolutely unacceptable for urban schools to lack functioning restrooms. If that happens, you fix it by whatever means necessary--bonds, raising taxes, whatever. That's basic decency.
B) is true, but has little to do with solving the problems of inner city schools. Don't get me wrong--merit pay is a fantastic idea and I'm 100% in favor of it. I think both that teachers are drastically underpaid AND that teachers' unions aren't doing much to solve that problem. I just think you're confusing two issues--general education reform (about which you and I would probably largely agree), and inner-city school problems, which require a comprehensive solution that DOES, like most things, require money.
i think your argument is disingenous, buddy, and i think you know that.
Another blog falls prey to the blog spammers....::sigh::
And some anonymous guy who says "disingenous," but can't say why.
I think the argument from the original post was quite "genous", though perhaps you're referring to someone else?
1.) Affirmative action is disingeuous.
2.) Chuck: John Kerry.com outlines the education plan as, and I'm quoting directly here, "throw money and walk away", prefferably to a botox clinic.
I agree with your discussion of the school system though. It's a very difficult and complicated problem. I'm very upset about the way certain communities are caught in the cycles of poverty and ignorance, I'm tempted to go teach in an inner city school to do something about it, I just saw Antwone Fischer last night, and I think Affirmative Action does very little to really help poor black and latino kids.
In conclusion, if you can't get a real job and become a cartoonist, please avoid the urge to spout opinions on controversial topics you can't understand. Yes, I know that's very elitist.
Standingoutinthecold:
I agree with you on this, although I am probably a bit less outraged about it all. I would recommend William Julius Wilson’s The Declining Significance of Race if you are interested in a really good, academic articulation of this whole line of argument. I would say, though, that, while Affirmative Action has been a disaster - largely because it is based a completely wrong set of principles -race is not an insignificant consideration with regard to poverty. It is no accident that racial minorities, particular African Americans, are disproportionately represented among the lowest socioeconomic groups. I grant that it is a separate issue from this, but it is still one that needs to be addressed. Affirmative Action, then, needs to be replaced by comprehensive social and cultural change for the most disadvantaged Americans – we all agree with that – but that doesn’t mean that we should then ignore the racial aspect of poverty. We need to do both and never confuse them.
jackscolon:
1) To borrow from Elizabeth Bowen, that is a stupid person’s idea of a clever observation... Grass is green friend, what’s your point?
2) Listen, let’s try to emphasize content a bit more and aphorisms a bit less, okay?
3) What do you mean by ‘intelligent?’
"i think your argument is disingenous, buddy, and i think you know that."
That's freaking hilarious. Do you think that was my brother (he usually comments as brianspilner, which is Paul Walker's character's name in the Fast and the Furious), spam, or a real anonymous person? And to whom was he responding when he said "your"? Ha.
jackscolon, you should check out Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities," or any book by him--he makes the same argument in all of them. It's short and to the point.
redhurt: how tempted?
As for #1 in my original comment, I was trying to make the point that some schools are always going to be "left behind" without ending up in the argument of "rightist social darwinism against leftist egilitarianism." For example, I went to a small school without any kind of advanced program for students who learn at a faster pace- putting me at a disadvantage in the college admissions progress against students coming from a school heavy with AP classes or some sort of International Baccalaureate program, agreed?
As far as money throwing is concerned, there are a lot of other issues where schools could be improved without a budget difference. In the goal of being less aphoristic.. I'll name a few.
Standards- I got through a required government class in high school without even learning what the federalist papers are, reading a single DeTocqueville quote, or discussing the electoral college. Instead, we had extra credit assignments like telling a current event in class and did projects like putting Harry S. Truman on trial for using the atomic bomb. Consequently, my classmates remained ignorant while feeling good about themselves. Also, how did my first roommate at Methodist college get to college without knowing the difference between the word "cot" and "caught" in a paper?
Eliminating busy work- Do you remember learning anything while completing a word search or making a collage?
Regarding inner city schools, I didn't think I had to go that in depth. I thought it was safe to assume that everyone can see the reasons why they would have a hard time attracting good teachers- regardless of pay (ex. no parent support, dangerous, have to live at least by the city, etc...)
In terms of getting more money- consider this. While talking to a teacher who also happens to be the dad of one of my friends, he informed me that because it is so unpopular to "institutionalize" retarded kids, one school district in Michigan's upper peninsual (we're talking 35,000 people in their county) is forced on spending over $100,000 a year providing for one, just ONE, child so handicapped that he is for the most part incapable of learning. They have to provide a full-time aid, a special ed teacher, special busing, etc.. I'd like to hear somebody try and defend that...
As for intelligence, spend any amount of time in the south and you'll realize that people are if not less intelligent- much, much less educated. No one reads books, no one can conjugate a verb, and no one can realize that Nascar is just stupid. Larry the Cable guy isn't an exaggeration.
Chuck: somewhat.
jackscolon, you sort of...sidestepped my argument and came up with other valid critiques I didn't address. I wrote:
It's absolutely unacceptable for urban schools to lack functioning restrooms. If that happens, you fix it by whatever means necessary--bonds, raising taxes, whatever. That's basic decency.
redhurt: that's about my level, too.
Agreed.
Post a Comment