Reply to James Webb

Senator James Webb finally comes out and says what I believe is the implicit neo-colonial alliance of the moment. “Many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.” He is calling for the ending of programs except for Blacks with the reasoning about an 1866 law that cited Blacks only and with an argument about “the injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government.”

I consider this a coded reaction to my lynching.

How often we hear from the white majority inclined to Anglo-Saxon virtues not to wait for the government. Good deeds come from the private sector, the Liberals say.

The CIC scholarship I won and which Webb is targeting had its funds from the private sector. There were two major sources, and it’s a testament to the inefficacy of the private sector press that it has yet to examine who was on the boards of those sources of private funding.

True, a public sector university, the University of Michigan offered me the scholarship. (I did not know about it to apply for it; yet, that did not stop its being ended.) When it argued with the state legislature at the time, the University of Michigan said it was mostly private because it obtained tuition money and other funds that outweighed the state’s subsidies. At MIM, we do not believe that the University of Michigan and similar places should try to escape their public obligations.

The CIC also included the University of Chicago in the program and the University of Chicago had a better case for being private, as did Northwestern University, another member. Even in their cases, MIM would say they get some federal assistance and that courts often choose the wrong way in that matter in determining university status, but it appears Webb did not consider that sort of implication in his argument.

Another favorite argument we hear in the United $tates is that affirmative action is wrong because scholarship and job questions should be decided on merit. The CIC scholarship attempted to have it both ways by being disproportionately for Blacks by merit, yet allowing a handful of Asians by merit. The whole scholarship was supposed to be by merit. The ratio of Blacks to others–one might guess the private sector had the say, and in the end, the private sector ended it for Asian-Amerikans first with words about priorities.

I only raised this issue because of diplomacy that has arisen in the last few years. (Readers can find out about that situation by reading more articles on this web page and another one, http://mimdown.wordpress.com .) I did not start a campaign for this scholarship at the time. When I learned of the cancellation of the minority funding for Asian-Amerikans I said I did not necessarily oppose it and I left the University of Michigan with a question whether it was going to be a “world class university” as it did in fact claim to be. In such a case, we cannot be surprised to see the University become 50% Asian as universities compete to pull in international students.

James Webb concocts a very particular argument to oppose what I am saying and justify what happened. In the real world of universities, “merit,” “the private sector” and “world class university” propaganda are the norm, not the 1866 law Webb referred to. That’s not to say I would oppose setting up a federal university. It would be a good place to put all the spooks running around campuses today.

Note:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: