Time to Stump the Chimps: Here is todays question.....
OK droolers, here is today's question for the home schoolers and Tea-Droolers: Did any Republican, flabby, old white male benefit from racial or gender preference???
Or better yet: What do Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pundits William Bennett, Fred Barnes, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and a host of other men of their generation have in common?
They were all beneficiaries of racial and/or gender preference in their educational and/or professional backgrounds. They all got their start with a big white male thumb on the scale, stepping over the bodies of qualified women and minorities without so much as a thank you.
A quick look reveals all: Scalia and Buchanan, both Georgetown grads, attended Georgetown when it did not accept women, and in the case of Scalia, did not accept a single black student until 1950. One really has to wonder how many thousands of women and blacks were discriminated against so that these two vociferous critics of affirmative action could enjoy a spot at this elite university.
Maybe Pat Buchanan would've only qualified for a state school; maybe he wouldn't have ended up at the Nixon White House had he gone to Towson State College instead of Georgetown. We will never know. Would Scalia have gotten into Georgetown if he would've had to compete against qualified, brilliant women and blacks? And would Scalia have gotten into Harvard Law had he graduated from a lesser college? We will never know.
William Bennett (Williams College) and Fred Barnes (University of Virginia), both benefited from the gender discrimination of the mid sixties at their respective colleges, and frankly the racial quotas of the day. Neither of these schools became fully co-educational nor fully racially integrated until the seventies.
Imagine if these two vicious critics of preference had had to compete against fully qualified minorities and women. Perhaps we would not have to suffer watching these two princes of preference bloviate about affirmative action when their very careers were fueled by it when it had no name. One should question these men: Was it wrong to benefit from this discrimination? Are not their elite degrees are under a cloud? (This is a criticism used by these right-wing pundits when speaking about minority grads of elite colleges.)
As long as were throwing out "maybe's", Maybe if Obama were not African American he would not have been elected president. maybe if tobacco and cotton never existed in the Colonies, there would not have been slavery.
I think you are correct on both "maybe's". But then you need to build the "maybe time line". Had the cotton/tobacco thing not happened, then a whole bunch of other things wouldn't have happened either such that your first "maybe" wouldn't even exist. But "looking back" is a Dem trademark...e.g. Al Gore won that election darn it!!!
What that proves is that those people *may* have benefited. It, for example, is quite possible that Scalia, a truly disgusting human being who might not be smart, would have gotten in anyway, being that he always did well in school.
being that he always did well in school.
I think all were pretty smart. Completely cynical today, but smart. What they never had to worry about was having to compete with very intelligent and scholastically successful women or minorities. It was a mind exercise, because we will never know if they could compete with the intellect of a Hillary Rodham, or a Colin Powell.
The basis of a Scalia, or a O'Rielly, or a Limbaugh, or a Bennet argument about preferences is that when they were in school, of course the playing field was level, and they got there on merti only. The facts are clear. They never had to compete with women or minorities. And we will never know if they could compete.