Is Cenk a Liar?

Is Cenk a Liar, or is he just a wolf in sheeps clothing?

In the recent YouTube Clip discussing Affirmative Action cenk says "I agreed with it in the first place"  See 2:17ish in this video http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=3qYc8G5DDv4&feature =channel_page

 

But what DID Cenk think of it in the first place?  We all know that he was a conservative back in the day, and he did a little writing, so with the google its not that hard to bring up Cenk's feelings on Affirmative Action from back in the day.  

 

What if in order to clear this whole problem up, we didn't even consider a person's race when evaluating their qualifications? What if we assumed everyone was equal? What if we just accepted the best students independent of their ethnicity?

I think it just might work. Sure the present policy for admissions, in accordance with the McGill report written in 1967, states that only one-quarter of the students are supposed to be accepted purely on the basis of their academic strength. But just maybe we can now begin to imagine a school where the best students come to learn and be judged on their merits rather than their physical characteristics.

 

To read the whole vicious editorial, "Where are the White Christians" click the link.  http://media.www.dailypenns ylvanian.com/media/storage/ paper882/news/1991/10/18/Ar chive/Column.Where.Are.The. White.Christians-2184271.sh tml

 So Cenk must answer to his audience, why did you lie?  And are you Really a wolf in sheeps clothing.  Did Conservative Cenk figure out that he needs to dress like a progressive and slowly put out his conservatism to a leeeeeebrul audience, and that will get him more converts to his conservative ideology?

< Health Care, Please Read, Humor Me. | No, really? >
 Display:
Here's that link, properly formatted for clicking:

http://media.www.dailypenns ylvanian.com/media/storage/ paper882/news/1991/10/18/Ar chive/Column.Where.Are.The. White.Christians-2184271.sh tml

(Links can be made using the little button icons at the bottom of the message composition window.)

In the article from the 10/18/1991 edition of the Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania, a "Cenk Uygur" is quoted who was then "a senior Management major from East Brunswick, New Jersey."

This Cenk Uygur proposes that a person's race should not be considered when evaluating their qualifications for admission to the university.  Instead, the university should accept only "the best students independent of their ethnicity."

This rather ignorant Cenk Uyger -- who was, apparently, very young at the time -- ignores the effects of poverty and the unjust distribution of resources to public schools, making it more difficult for impoverished students, who usually are members of minority races, to gain admission to higher education.  Instead, he appears to want to ignore all of society's inequities and simply admit the most qualified, usually white, applicants.

Perhaps today's Cenk Uyger simply forgot that he once held that opinion.  To be honest, I have forgotten exactly how sexist my opinions once were, and I have prided myself on having liberated attitudes for a long time.  But I'm sure I could find an old ex-girlfriend or two who would be happy to lodge her complaints.

Cenk might be looking at his past from the same mistaken-but-not-deliberate ly-dishonest perspective.

HMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmMMMMMM?

Actually, I'm willing to believe that, since Cenk has never seemed reluctant to observe, usually with great accuracy, when he is the "bad guy" on an issue.  But if he's lying then I say we burn down the house!

by EveningStarNM on 07/06/2009 12:29:28 AM EST

I will repeat my point from another thread that another problem with Cenk's position, whatever it is, is that it only talks about affirmative action in school admissions.  There is a world outside of this limited perspective.  For example, in fire departments across the country there is a legacy of not hiring minorities.  This legacy has not been wiped out. It has nothing to do with the coincidence that minorities tend to grow up lacking in advantages that maybe some white people have.  The reason minorities don't get hired in fair proportions to these jobs is skin color racism pure and simple.  Affirmative action seeks to address this lingering injustice in society, and it's still necessary.

David

by yturks on 07/06/2009 01:14:20 AM EST

But you say that we must have race-based affirmative action programs in order to counter them.  For many years, I agreed.  Some kind of remedial action certainly is necessary to correct the historical and current bias in our society that keeps minorities from even getting to the starting line, much less from having a fair chance to win the race.

Then I got around to reading the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is a very important provision which eliminates the recognition of class or special status in the application of laws.  Race-based affirmative action programs discriminate on the basis of race, an inherent individual characteristic about which a person can do nothing, to create an unequal application of the law.  Perhaps it is for a noble goal, but how can we discriminate on the basis of race when doing so got us in this mess to begin with?  And isn't it hypocritical to do so?

Clearly, race-based affirmative action laws deprive some individuals of their liberties for the benefit of others purely on the basis of race.  The 14th Amendment correctly forbids that.

Race is not the problem.  People's attitudes are the problem.  I think that we should attack the problem head on.

Republican Presidents have, for many years, sought to put on the Supreme Court judges whose views are on the far right of their party.  Those judges have been able to slow our march away from discrimination because our laws have had lots of holes in them.  But they have always voted to bar discrimination on the basis of race, and that is always the correct decision because it is the end that we wish to reach.

Still, they have ruled, for instance, that a person who has been discriminated against because of their race must show that the discrimination was intended and not merely incidental in order to receive relief.  And the fault for that lies not with the Court but with Congress.  Congress must write better laws to prevent racial discrimination.

To qualify for a job as a firefighter, a person must possess and be able to demonstrate certain skills.  The recent case that came before the court said that the test of those skills had an unintended racial bias.  The fact of that racial bias was proven in the lower court, which found ample precedent to find for the minority applicants.  The Supreme Court, on the other hand, was able to reverse years of practice and change our national policy because Congress had not given good enough instructions about what to do.  The Court's whim this year is that a victim must show intent, not merely a result.

It is not necessary to discriminate on the basis of race to correct this problem.  It is necessary only to make it easier for victims of racial discrimination to have their claims heard and for courts to act against such discrimination regardless of the cause.  No quotas are necessary, although statistical evidence must be admissible to show a pattern of discrimination.

For instance, if 10% of a towns population is purple, but only 2% of its garbage collectors are purple, we cannot infer racism from that alone.  But if 10% of the applicants for the job have, over time, been purple but only 2% get hired, then the court can treat that as probable cause for a trial.  If it's found that purple people generally live in neighborhoods which provide inadequate education to children which prevent them from qualifiying for the job, the remedial measures can be instituted.  Or if the person who ultimately makes the decision to hire an applicant is frequently heard to disparage purple people down at the local tavern, then that should be evidence of an inherent bias, and the court can order appropriate changes.

And if there's a question on the qualifying test that says, "Are you purple?", and a "Yes" answer is treated as a disqualifier, then the test must be thrown out.  I'm willing to bet that in all cases where tests have been shown to have a racial bias, the tests were "testing" conditions that had nothing to do with performance on the job.  Irrelevancies can be weeded out of the qualification process without giving preference to one race over another.

Fixing the problems that permit racial discrimination is the only way we can successfully beat it.  But we cannot defeat racism by becoming racists ourselves.  The race-based affirmative action approach of instituting racial discrimination in order to address the problem of racial discrimination only exacerbates the problem.

by EveningStarNM on 07/06/2009 02:08:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm moving this to it's own article.

by EveningStarNM on 07/06/2009 02:53:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Where da white wimmen at?

by jarett on 07/06/2009 12:50:03 PM EST

It's very obvious that Cenk has big problems with affirmative action, though sometimes I wonder if he really understands how affirmative action works in public college admissions.  I won't go into Cenk's Daily Penn column (nice find) because private college admissions is whole different animal and if we want to even have that conversation, let's start with legacy admissions.  My main problem with Cenk's perspective is that it almost seems like he views affirmative action as out-dated quotas.  

Affirmative action is only one part of a comprehensive admission process.  I'm somewhat entertained by Cenk's deep concern about the poor white man struggling to survive and how he's left out in the process.  If we look at that UC System here in California, you will know that one of the important parts of the application is your personal statement/essay where the white man can describe his personal struggles and obstacles that he has been able to overcome.

But going back to the impact affirmative action has had on California with the passage of Prop. 209 that banned affirmative action in public schools, employment and contracting, you will see that minorities have been hit hard.  In looking at UC Berkeley's Student Body based on 2006 ACS estimates and Berkeley's 2008 admissions:

African Americans - 4% undergraduate, 3% graduate (represent 6.2% of California)
Latinos -12% undergraduate, 6% graduate (35.95% of California)
Asian Americans - 42% undergraduate, 17% graduate (12.3% of California)
Caucasians - 31% undergraduate, 42% graduate (59.8% of California)

So are you really comfortable with these numbers Cenk in a public university system that is suppose to be for the people or our State?  I'm actually very surprised that you seem to advocate a needs basis affirmative action policy versus a race basis policy, because in my mind the results wouldn't bet that different.  Maybe I'm wrong here (I'd have to look at the stats), but it seems like most people living in poverty California tend to be Black or Latino.  Either way, something needs to be done and I'd be willing to compromise with a "needs base" program and see where that takes us.  More importantly, if we're going to be living in a color-blind society, it's time start put money in the public education system especially in inner cities to make things a little balanced.  Oh wait - our State's a bust so scratch that idea.  

by rev24 on 07/06/2009 01:58:04 PM EST

There's a significant difference: one doesn't violate the 14th Amendment.  Of course, I'm not sure how relevant that is anymore, with Presidents who think they can violate the 4th, 5th, or 8th Amendments any time they want, or ignore laws that they sign just by writing a signing statement saying they're going to ignore them.  The Constitution may have little significance in a very short time, as we become more and more dependent on no more than the good will of the man in the Oval Office.

by EveningStarNM on 07/06/2009 08:18:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: