|
It is an interesting article, but the above seems like an apologist piece in defence of minority-based racism.
"the hostility of one group stems not from any wrong done to it but from its wish to protect its ability to deprive citizens of their voting rights, to limit access to educational institutions, to prevent entry into the economy except at the lowest and most menial levels, and to force members of the stigmatized group to ride in the back of the bus."
I totally disagree. It may be the goal of some racist groups to go back to 1950, but I think the vast majority of people who encounter and are angered by "reverse-racism" (a ridiculous term) would prefer to see treatment based on merit more than melonin. I'm pretty sure Declyn doesn't want to condemn millions of people to a life of share-cropping and secondary citizenship because of his college's admission policies.
One could be here all day providing counter points to the points made, however intelligently written, in this article. His point about SAT scores and having access to vacations is pretty silly. I understand that racism still exists, but does anyone really think that providing racially-based incentives for anything improves race relations in this country? I think that these types of programs only foster more animosity and that apologists like the author excuse the inequities of these programs because they fit their social agenda or benefit them directly.
It seems like the a alternate title for this article could be "Why I can be racist and you can't".
CF
|