Sociology Prof Dismayed That Latino Students She Interviewed Are For Self-Reliance And Meritocracy -- Not Affirmative Action
Toni Airaksinen writes at Campus Reform that the prof, Maria Isabel Ayala, interviewed 50 students at Midwestern University (with a grant of $25K), and was disturbed that they attributed their success to hard work and self-reliance rather than affirmative action:
For example, when asked to describe her success in college, a dark-skinned Latina named Carla responded that "everyone is equal and we all have the same experiences...I have [worked hard] and I deserve it."Sebastian, a student who is described as a "medium-skinned" Latino, also reflected on his academic achievements and failures, telling Ayala that "I guess all the mistakes have been just me...I am self-reliant."
A student named Eduardo, meanwhile, reportedly said "I am disadvantaged, and I am very aware of that but that is not a bad thing, I just have to work harder."
My mother told me that some people didn't like Jews so I needed to work harder than other people to make up for it.
No whining over discrimination. Just matter-of-fact, "Here's what you need to do."
This led me to focus on the working hard part of that rather than the "How rotten that some people hate Jews."
Which one do you think leads to greater productivity and achievement?
From Toni Airaksinen:
Better than the usual SJW narrative, but not good enough. Why not just accept the fact that some people don't like you for the sole reason that you're Hispanic? And the flipside of this is that some will overcompensate and coddle you precisely because they believe, like you do, that you're disadvantaged.
And still others, probably the rarest of all, will judge you solely on your merits, with your ethnicity not influencing their perspective in any way?
Also, I would point out that affirmative action places a stigma on its beneficiaries, whether it's justified or not. Clarence Thomas (whom I don't like in the least) is the beneficiary of affirmative action. Now, how many anti-SJWs will see this and think, "He wouldn't have gotten into Yale but for the 230 points they added to his SAT scores."
Never mind that this adjusted scoring came long after Thomas was accepted into Yale. As it happens, the only affirmative action that Thomas received was financial. His grades and LSAT scores were good enough for Yale. In fact, he argued, even at the time, that score requirements should not be lowered for black people, that there were plenty of black people with scores good enough as they were; Yale simply had to go out and find them.
But because "affirmative action" has evolved into greater and more blatant discrimination, everyone who benefits from it in any way is automatically dismissed.
Patrick at July 8, 2018 5:32 AM
"Clarence Thomas (whom I don't like in the least) is the beneficiary of affirmative action."
If only he was a "wise Latina"...
Radwaste at July 8, 2018 9:21 AM
Radwaste: If only he was a "wise Latina"...
No, no. It's "wise Latina woman." Evidently, redundant expressions like "Latina woman" is a sign of wisdom.
Patrick at July 8, 2018 11:32 AM
Well, did they benefit from it? If they did sounds like thtey still feel their work got them there. Good for them.
Doesn't everyone but Asians benefit from it?
NicoleK at July 8, 2018 12:35 PM
I was thinking about Admiral Hyman Rickover. He entered the Naval Academy at a time when Jews were rare there, and not very popular in the Navy as a whole. He was the target of some cruel practical jokes--for example, his page of the Academy annual was perforated for easy removal. His first and only command assignment was of a decrepit minesweeper. Yet he rose to lead the Navy's nuclear program and to four-star rank.
If he had allowed himself to be influenced by people like this professor, then IMO he would have probably ended his career as a resentful and bitter failure.
I have a hard time to giving people like her credit even for good intentions.
David Foster at July 8, 2018 3:39 PM
After I nearly flunked out of college (I was having too much fun) I had to face my own lack of effort and discipline because 1) victimhood wasn't a thing and 2) I couldn't claim any victim status even if it were. I feel fortunate in that.
Thomas Sowell and others have documented that you are not really doing minorities a favor with affirmative action for college since they are more likely to flunk out than if they went to a more appropriate college. Hell I didn't even try for Yale and I'm white. But since the purpose of diversity quotas is to make the admin look good, not to help the minorities, the large numbers flunking out are covered up. Hint to minorities: you are being played.
cc at July 8, 2018 5:24 PM
To take that further: The purpose of diversity quotas is to make sure that the establishment colleges have representatives from each politically-powerful grievance group so they can't be accused of favoring the establishment group - hence there's very little public concern over the diversity of Howard or Gallaudet.
The individual who is bumped because a different group needs representation is of no consequence. What matters is groups, not individuals. It's collectivism over individualism.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2018 7:14 PM
Here's my interpretation:
A liberal professor got government money to conduct "research" to support her own liberal beliefs that affirmative action is a good thing; but, finding that the data didn't meet her beliefs she had to twist it around to show that the Hispanic students themselves are "Uncle Toms" supporting the "white privilege power structure".
Well, I guess on the good side she didn't fake the data to meet her beliefs - which means she most not have been in academia too long or else she would have learned to do that.
charles at July 8, 2018 7:53 PM
"...a dark-skinned Latina named Carla..."
"...Sebastian, a student who is described as a "medium-skinned" Latino,..."
Note the racial sub-sub-classification taking place here. (I assume that this is Airaksinen quoting or paraphrasing Professor Ayala.) Dividing people into tribes, and then setting the tribes against each other, is a classic totalitarian tool. But as the tribes grow, you have to keep re-dividing them, to ensure that no tribe becomes powerful enough to be a threat to the authority.
Another quote from elsewhere in the article: "'Color-blind racism is hegemonic,' the academic asserts. 'It comes as no surprise that Latina(o) college students rely on it to rationalize their college attainment.'"
This is "you didn't build that" writ large. Make it clear to the rubes that they are dependent upon Dear Leader for their very existence. Professor Ayala's article is a clear shot across the bow: Hispanics, don't stray off the reservation.
Think about what this reveals about leftism in general.
Cousin Dave at July 9, 2018 6:50 AM
Cousin Dave notes the description of how dark the students were. This harkens to the strict hierarchy of race employed in parts of South America for centuries, brought to the US in the name of justice but in fact enforcing these old divisions. A light skinned hispanic doesn't have the cred of a darker one in the oppression olympics.
By the way: "'Color-blind racism is hegemonic,'" makes no sense to me, and I can read pretty well.
cc at July 9, 2018 12:34 PM
It is the crazy claim that people who aren't racist are actually the most racist of all CC. No it doesn't make sense. But buzz words and slogans don't have to.
The rough theory start with everyone is racist no matter what. So only by being aware of your racism and properly managing it can you minimize your racism. Of course this requires a lot of other people to get paid to measure and tell you just how racist you are. Whatever.
Ben at July 10, 2018 11:11 AM
Leave a comment