During Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s “The Cycle,” co-host Touré made the argument that without affirmative action in colleges, “the entire leadership of America would become entirely white.”

This, he explained, is barely a “whitewashing of what we already have” in America today.

“The Cycle” hosted Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., the authors of “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.” {snip}

“You suggest that it’s better for these black and brown students to go to second tier schools rather than to go to Harvard or Yale, the first tier schools. The entire Supreme Court comes from Harvard or Yale. Almost all presidents, Harvard or Yale—all the top of corporate America,” Touré said.

“So, if we follow your prescription then the entire leadership of America would become entirely white, which is just a barely whitewashing of what we already have,” he added.

Sander, a UCLA law professor, said the problem with Touré’s argument is “the fallacy of whether leaders come from top schools because they went to the top schools or because the top schools were good at admitting the strongest people.”

{snip}

He added that “Mismatch” doesn’t advocate for eliminating “racial preferences” but rather to “curtail them in a couple of ways” and provide transparency about the issue.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Triarius

    White? I cringe at the thought of American leadership being all white again. All they did was created the greatest country since Rome out of nothing.

    I love asking libs what benefits does actually putting less qualified people of a different color in place have. Never got a response yet except “they bring different ideas to the table”. An obvious follow-up will make them freak out as I laugh.

    I’m not an Occutard, but I do agree with the elitist thing. Once an aristocracy is formed (we are almost there now) elites will fall out of touch with the masses moreso than now.

    A great example against the elitist argument is Alexander Hamilton. A poor boy whose community had a fundraisor to send him to school. The greatest immigrant the US ever had. Too bad he couldn’t have been president.

    • jedsrael

      100% White Only Leadership gave us Fair Housing destruction of White property rights, Integration destruction of White schools, Civil Rights destruction of White opportunites, and Diversity destruction of White futures.

      With Unearned Black Leadership, the problem just compounds upon itself and gets worse faster.

      The problem is Any Color Leadership by those who hate us. Until we cast off that yoke, we shouldn’t complain.

      • Triarius

        And 100% black leadership gives us what is left of Rhodesia. It’s true what you say, but when whites elect whites that have their interests at heart, and not some delusional altuists or closet marxists, the end result will be positive, ideally.

        You cannot elect majority nonwhites in a white country and have good results, again Rhodesia and South Africa now. You can also throw in cities and states like California and Detroit.

        But yes, anyone that hates us regardless of color is bad. My point was there is only one color tha likes us.

      • Bobby

        OH  OH………. you nailed this one in a way that SHOULD, it SHOULD, cause whites to think………….but it most likely won’t, so deeply have their brain circuits been rearranged to benefit those that rearranged them.(they wouldn’t get this either)

    • The__Bobster

      I would regard him as a settler or a colonist, not an immigrant. He came over before the country was established.

      As far as being great, I’m glad he didn’t become President. He would’ve centralized power in Washington far sooner than it was.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

      Then there’s the Bill Clinton thing:

      Embarrassed when a extra-marital affair from his past became public, Hamilton resigned from office in 1795 and returned to the practice of law in New York.

      • Triarius

        The immigrant reference was meant to be more tongue in cheeck, I guess that does not transfer well by typing.

        Yes Hamilton was a federalist and a bit of an aristrocrat, but his views were based off of a time and country that would alien to him today. He still did a lot of good, imo.

        As for affairs, I don’t care about people’s personal lives unless they break the law. That goes the same for politicians. Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean you don’t know which bill to veto. Of course I do not condone such behavior.

        • Luke

           I, for one, have had my gut full of hearing this line of rancid baloney that what people do in their personal lives should not be scrutinized and carefully considered when trying to assess what sort of behavior we, as American citizens, might expect to see out of them  – should they somehow wind up being elected (or appointed) to hold public office or a position of power and authority over the citizens of this nation.

          Jorge Wmd Boosch devoted countless hours, far in excess of what any mentally healthy and normal kid might do, amusing himself by sticking firecrackers up the hind parts of frogs and then lighting the fuse and then laughing hysterically when frog body parts went flying to Kingdom Come.

          Fast forward a few decades or so, and we see this same psychopath – as a sitting governor of Texas – breaking all previous records executing prisoners on death row – a feat that, by itself and without any additional scrutiny, is not necessary a bad thing, since ridding the world of vermin can be considered a positive deed. But, when this same guy gets on TV and does an interview that is broadcast to millions of viewers and he crudely lapses into a falsetto imitation of Karla Faye Tucker’s voice and mocks her as he recounts how she called him in his official  capacity as governor and was pleading for him to grant her clemency – this is a clear indication that this guy had a serious and very dangerous tendency for sadistic cruelty and that he obviously derived some sort of twisted, perhaps even sexual, pleasure out of killing people. 

          Add to that disgraceful interview the fact that this same psychopath granted one and only one declaration of clemency during his time as governor that spared the administration of the death penalty to a convicted killer – and that killer’s name was none other than the infamous and mentally insane serial killer Henry Lee Lucas – who, incredibly, once told a reporter that he had had sex with his female victims both when they were alive and after he had killed them, and that he preferred the ‘quality’ of sex with them when they were dead.  Jorge Wmd Boosch evidently admired Lucas due to the fact that he had managed to kill over 600 victims during his serial killing career – is how I read those particular tea leaves.     American voters had literally mountains of evidence available to them that, had they studied these facts, would have warned them that this fellow was not suited to the job they later hired him to fill.

          Fast forward once more, and we see this very same individual – now in the White House – while on TV, making indignant speeches where he was accusing Saddam Hussein of ‘operating barbaric and sadistic torture chambers’ and insinuating that this was sufficient reason for us to attack Iraq and unseat mean old Saddam, but at the very same time these speeches were being made, Boosch himself was authorizing the use of ‘equally barbaric and sadistic torture’ in clear violation of both International Law and the Geneva Conventi0ns.   In fact, this man’s arrogance, brazen hypocrisy, sadism and psychopathic pathologies were so profoundly ingrained that once he left office, his lack of remorse or shame for having broken the laws which prohibit torture of prisoners – that he even wrote a book about his years in office and boasted about how he authorized these despicable acts of uncivilized barbarism.   These are textbook indications of psychopathy, people.  

          So, Triarius – the pattern of behavior shown by a potential politician or political leader throughout their entire lives, including their personal behavior – is critical to a citizen’s ability to predict what sort of behavior they can expect out of that politician or political leader once they are placed in a position of responsibility and influence within our government.

          The vast majority of highly trained psychologists will attest to the fact that excessive and repetitive acts of cruelty towards animals during childhood is a very strong and telling indicator of a high potential for cruel, sadistic and  psychopathic behavior during adulthood.  

          I’m personally convinced that the hidden forces who saw to it that this guy was installed into office knew full well that he fit this profile and that’s what they needed in order to push this psychopathic, war mongering, criminally insane,  blood-thirsty neo-con agenda into high gear.  

          • Carney3

            You acuse others of insanity yet are blissfully aware of the frothing madness of your own post.

            At worst, Bush had a bit of a bullying jock in him.  Not atypical of frat boys, Texans, oilmen, and fighter pilots.  But overall, fundamentally a decent man, probably TOO decent, like his father.
            Accusing him of “war mongering” is just silly.  

            No president could have failed to respond to 9/11 with war.  

            As for Iraq, if any thing US policy had been pathologically PASSIVE, as Saddam had gone for 12 long unanswered years of rubbing our faces in his open, brazen, trumpeting casus belli – his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, his firing on coalition aircraft on UN-authorized anti-genocide patrol, his attempt to assassinate Bush Sr., his openly harboring Abu Nidal (the most notorious American-killing terrorist pre Bin Laden), his open bounties to the families of suicide bombers, etc.  12 long years of diplomacy, sanctions, even limited air strikes, and Saddam insisted on openly flouting the peace agreement he had begged for and agreed to after his 1990 war of aggression had collapsed.   And now the sanctions were crumbling as the Russians, Chinese, and the bought-off French wept crocodile tears over supposed civilian deaths caused by the lack of dual use materials.  Finally, 9/11 made it even more obvious to even the terminally suicidally stupid that it was no longer acceptable to let ACTUAL psychopathic, war mongering, criminally insate, bloodthirsty men plot mass murder of us from safe havens overseas.

          • Iraq policy was wrong going back to the day when Bush 41 suddenly decided that Saddam Hussein was no longer a friend.  Yes, he was a secular dictator.  But just about all of his brutality was against the fundamentalist fanatics that are our bane.  After 9/11, we should have kissed and made up with him, then given him all the tools for him to overrun as much of the ME as he could.

            Bush 41 was worried that Saddam Hussein would have invaded and occupied Saudi Arabia.  A thought about not throwing me into a briar patch is running through my mind.  I’d much rather Saudi oil profits fund Saddam’s opulent lifestyle than Al Qaeda.

          • Carney3

            The problem is that Saddam was an unpredictable aggressor, multiple time WMD seeker, and a backer of terrorism himself. But you’re right that in the big picture and long run, the Saudis were the bigger problem. When assessing and acting on threats, however, sometimes you have to focus on the lesser but more urgent threat.

          • Michael C. Scott

            I not only think Luke is completely right here, but I wish I had written what he just posted.

            And no, Shrubya was never really a “fighter pilot”.  He was only barely proficient in the F-102 at a time when it was obsolete and when it was convenient for him to do this to avoid real service in Vietnam.  This jet could not operate the AIM-7 “Sparrow” or AIM-9 “Sidewinder”, only the AIM-4 “Falcon” missile, which was useless in fighter-versus fighter combat.  The F-102 could also use the “Genie” nuclear air-to-air missile, in which intercept course, weapons release and final detonation was controlled completely from the ground.

            In the F-102, Shrubya was no more a “fighter” pilot than your local bus driver.

             

          • Carney3

            My father was a career USMC officer, with contempt for draft dodgers. He always gave Bush an “out” based on his deep respect for pilots. He knew many top quality men who washed out of flight school in Pensacola – no disgrace at all. Being a pilot, ANY pilot, means you are top-notch. Being a pilot of combat aircraft (rather than reconaissance, transports, tankers etc) puts you a further cut above.

          • Carney3

            Forgot to also mention the danger in flying. Many deaths in flight school and routine operations. Also demands respect.

        • Michael C. Scott

          Cheating on one’s wife and humiliating her in such a personal manner is absolutely a litmus test of character.  If a fellow can’t be trusted by his wife, he obviously can’t be trusted by anyone else, at least with divorce so available.

    • Rebelcelt

      Hamilton was very much of an elitest. He felt only the wealthy should be allowed to vote.

  • Puggg

    We have Marc Lamont Hill in one article, and Toure in this one.  Between the two of them, they’re double-handedly justifying the existence of AmRen.


    “You suggest that it’s better for these black and brown students to
    go to second tier schools rather than to go to Harvard or Yale, the
    first tier schools. The entire Supreme Court comes from Harvard or Yale.
    Almost all presidents, Harvard or Yale—all the top of corporate
    America,” Touré said.

    “So, if we follow your prescription then the entire leadership of
    America would become entirely white, which is just a barely whitewashing
    of what we already have,” he added.

    The better idea would be to de-Ivyize the leadership of the country. 

  • MekongDelta69

    …the entire leadership of America would become entirely white.

    And the problem with this is…???

    Once again, “Toure Neblett” from MSNBC babbles and drools on TV. (I think his audience has reached almost 1,000 or so now.)

    • The__Bobster

      Yes, White leadership worked so poorly for us in the past. (cough!)

      Now we have to give minorities pretend degrees and hire them as furniture to decorate business offices.

      • Liberalssuck

         Yeah, that same “racist white leadership” that gave blacks affirmative action, welfare, let them marry white women, gave them special laws to protect them from “racist whites”, etc. 

  • jeandeux

    When will they explain why “blacks and browns” can’t get into these first tiered universities in the first place without afro-action?

  • People who go to Harvard and Yale need to be qualified to go there. Which means that they need to take the necessary college prep courses, get excellent grades and high test scores. I read where Harvard rejects over 90% of the applicants they get, there needs to be other factors than race that needs to be used. Factors could be extra curricular activities, participation in a specialized summer program for the sciences or the arts, or low income students that had to work to help their parents because of the economy. In the past, schools used such factors as coming from another part of the country, coming from a rural or an inner city area.

    • The__Bobster

      People who go to Harvard and Yale need to be qualified to go there. Which means that they need to take the necessary college prep courses, get excellent grades and high test scores.
      __________

      Those rules only apply to Whites and Asians. The SAT scores of the NAM’s they admit are far lower.

      • What is the point of admitting minorities if they do not have what it takes to succeed in a highly competitive environment? I wonder how many of those admitted as affirmative action cases, actually graduate from these top tier universitites?

  • Up to my neck in CA

    From Wikipedia
    Toure’s writting career: “Touré has written four books: The Portable Promised Land (2003), a collection of short stories, Soul City (2004), a magical realist novel about life in an African-American Utopia, and Never Drank the Kool-Aid (2006), a collection of his published writing between 1994 and 2005. In September 2011 Free Press published Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness?, a look at modern Black identity that includes a forward by Michael Eric Dyson and excerpts from over 100 interviews with notable people like Jesse Jackson.”

    That is all you need to now about him.

  • Oil Can Harry

    Eliminating affirmative action would mean that blacks and hispanics currently flunking out of top tier colleges would instead be graduating from second tier colleges. So it would actually help them as well as being good for whites.

    You can’t explain that to an airhead like Toure’ whose only skill is writing record reviews for Rolling Stone.

  • jedsrael

    During Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s “The Cycle,” co-host Touré made the argument that without affirmative action in colleges, “the entire leadership of America would become entirely white.”

    Well, if he wants to point out the incapacity for Diversity to lead without the prop of unearned black privilege AA, then Dear God in Heaven, please put him on TV again and again, Amen.

  • If in fact the statement made by Toure which is quoted in the headline were true, what a sad statement it wold make about the native abilities of non-Whites in this country. He is saying, in effect, “We must have affirmative action, because we’re not capable of making it against Whites on a level playing field.”

    • MAJ

      That’s exactly what he is saying except I think he’s too dense to realize it. It’s no different than blacks constantly whining for more free this and more free that only because the people who earned it or worked for it have something that blacks are simply unable to obtain except through handouts or fraud or outright theft. 

      Sadly, the real problem is that it doesn’t seem to matter to blacks how they get something (a job, a phone, a house…) just as long as they get it.

      Affirmative Action has starkly made the point that differences in racial intellectual ability (and behavioral characteristics) exist.   

      Literally EVERY black in an Ivy League school or medical school is there ONLY because of skin colour. And everyone (conservative and liberal alike) knows this.

      This destructive policy has doomed the nation.

  • Guest

    Without AA, Obama would never have gotten into Punahou High School, or Harvard law school, or a position at Chicago Law School.  His wife Michelle would never have gotten into Yale.  I read her thesis there.  It’s at the level of a good high school paper.

    Without getting into all those places and building networks there, he would never have been president.  He probably could have gotten into the House, but that’s not much of an accomplishment (cf, Cynthia McKinney with her room-temperature IQ).

  • lilo

    Don’t we wish.

  • Herman

    I have noticed blacks never, ever worried about the common good.

    All they worried about is what is best for them.

  • Herman

    And these are schools founded by white gentiles.

  • Herman

    If 1st tier universities take minorities better suited for 2nd tier schools:

    then

    The 2nd tier universities are forced to take minorities better suited for 3rd tier schools

    and so on.

  • 1proactive2

    If anyone could find one American city with black leadership that could be used as a “success”, where its black mayor could stand back and say, “Look what we have accomplished. See how safe and clean our city is under black leadership.”, then I would be satisfied that at least one group of blacks could lead anything.  Now find that one American community that is led by blacks that is safe, prosperous, and growing. 

    There isn’t a single one.

  • Bobby

    Has anyone ever noticed the hypocrisy in the fact, that where there are an overwhelming amount of polticians in some city, or state who are non-white, say in Los Angeles, California, Chicago,Illinois or Detroit, Michigan,etc. not one of the media pundits ever says, “if this keeps up, the whole leadership in this state, city,etc. is going to be non-white!!

  • Michael C. Scott

    I went to a third tier school, where I specialized in heavy drinking.  Later on, I was able to do laboratory work that nobody had ever seen before.  I got 79 US and foreign patents awarded in six years.

  • Michael C. Scott

    If the entire leadership of the US bacame white, we wouldn’t have anyone in congress who sits up nights worryting that the island of Guam will capsize.

  • Rebelcelt

    Well, it is proof that deep down liberals agree with us that they are different.