My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Thursday, June 29, 2006

The cruelty of affirmative action in the US.....

Affirmative action actually hurts the people it is supposed to help.
What if proponents of affirmative action are wrong? That is, what if racial-preference policies don't increase the numbers of minorities who graduate from colleges, law schools, etc, but rather, do just the opposite? Moreover, what if the harm done to minority academic and employment prospects is compounded by the fact that the policies are blatantly unlawful?

What if affirmative action is a giant, devastating sham?

Startling testimony at a recent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hearing from Dr. Richard Sander, Professor of Law at UCLA, showed that racial preferences at American law schools are just such a sham. Professor Sander's two most recent analyses reveal extraordinary disparities between black law students and their white comparatives: The grade-point averages of approximately 50 percent of black law students cluster in the bottom ten percent of the class. Blacks are 2½ times more likely than whites not to graduate. Blacks are four times more likely to fail the bar exam on the first try and six times more likely never to pass the exam despite multiple attempts.

Perhaps the most astonishing statistic is that only about a third of blacks entering law school this fall will graduate and pass the bar exam on the first try. Bleak are the prospects for many black law students.

Professor Sander testified that the primary cause for the black law-school disaster is racial preferences. His systemic analyses describe in unapologetic detail how affirmative action creates a mismatch effect, i.e., black students enroll at schools at which they’re ill-equipped to compete.


Blogger USMale said...

Well, then, the exam must be changed! After all, it's the White Man's Law to begin with, culturally alien to these members of the African Diaspora....

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been following your blog for a while. I'm conservative and gay but don't vote conservative due to their policies regarding homosexuals. I am at odds understanding why you associate yourself with a political party which seems hell bent on attacking people like yourself and myself. I don't mean to attack you on this matter, just curious as to what you see in the CPC that I don't.


12:00 PM  
Anonymous Sean P., Vancouver-Quadra said...

The Liberal Party cares no more or no-less than the Conservatives do about homosexual rights, in particular the matter of gay marriage.

The Paul Martin government allowed a so-called free vote in the Commons for this subject, but his cabinet was ordered to vote for it....Also, many Liberal back benchers voted against it; the only party that is solidly behind gay marriage is the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.

BTW, the Conservatives are not opposed to gay rights, including gay marriage. What is wrong with allowing a free vote in the Commons to ask whether or not the question of gay marriage should be reopened or not? Why does someone have to be in favour of gay marriage in order to be pro-gay overall? Why can't someone be in favour of the traditional stance of marriage, being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and not be labeled homophobic? Why must a gay male, such as myself, be in favour of a subject that is divisive? Gay marriage should not be lumped together with the overall concept of gay rights and privileges. You can be in favour of gay rights without being pro-gay marriage.

7:26 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Anonymous: I support the Conservative Party because I am conservative and I agree with them on most issues. I don't believe that Stephen Harper is homophobic at all -in fact he voted against the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman at Reform Conventions. He basically thinks this is not an issue for government. At the last Conservative Policy Conference 25% of the delegates voted to support gay marriage - which I believe is huge progress for a conservative party.

That being said, I think the Conservatives are wrong to bring up gay marriage again.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anne (happier in Ontario) said...

As a supporter of gay marriage I am also a supporter of the CPC but I am also a hetro chick so does my opinion matter?

I don't see it going away now that it is here, seems to be more of an optics thing.

My personal opinion is that government should get out of marriage altogether and leave it to the private sector. Call it whatever you want. BTW, couples are considered "married" if they live together after an established amount of time, does this apply to gay and lesbians too? It should. As long as everyone has the same rights and obligations applied to them I don't see a problem.

Finally, wasn't there a proposal at some point of something like what Britain has? Is that a bad thing? Doesn't Elton call himself married anyways which he is?

I really am interested on opinions here. A close friend is gay BUT he is anti-marriage for anyone, doesn't believe in the whole institution so he is not much help, just makes fun of me being married! ;-)

10:54 PM  
Anonymous Sean P. Vancouver-Quadra said...

AS a gale male CPC supporter, I am very pesimistic about the whole idea of gay marriage.

...The only winners will be lawyers. Why? With gay marriage, there will be gay divorce and gay pre-nuptual agreements, etc.

I find nothing wrong with defining gay marriage as civil unions, but the same as marriage, such as in Britain. But, here in Canada, we have to be different....

Personally, I find nothing wrong with the Marriage provisions that the Federal government presently has, where marriage is defined as two persons to the exclusion of all others.....And it also exempts any religious denomination/institution from being forced to "perform" a gay marriage.

12:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply GayandRight. I assumed that everyone in the Conservative Party weren't all straight but how do you deal with the rhetoric about gays found easily at the blogging tories, do you not feel a little used just to make the party look progressive? I have been to posts at the blogging tories that would make at a cat puke due to the inflammatory language used against homosexuals in general without reference to marriage. Just curious how you deal with those issues. I hope you don't mind me prying. I have been in a desert wandering since the former PC party got absorbed into the the Conservative Party of Canada.

10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Anne,
I am opposed to all marriages as well, and gay. It is so easy to get a divorce, why bother? I do believe though that if you choose to do so, everyone including gays should be allowed. A society has to be inclusive and treat everyone the same since eveyone is subject to same taxation laws. If you wanna create a second class citizen then let them live tax free or on reduced taxes. There has to be some benefit to living here and helping make this country better for everyone like veryone else is doing. It is just a word. If I can get over stright conservatives calling me a faggot, fudge packer, and the like I am sure you straights can get over calling us married.

10:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home