kentucky.com
Opinion op-ed
September 6, 2010
women aided by needed remedies; economy is root of fears
By Tammy Horn
At issue Aug. 8 commentary by Los Angeles Times writer Gregory Rodriquez, "End affirmative action to calm white anxiety"
The column by Gregory Rodriquez, in which he calls for President Barack Obama to repeal affirmative action policies, is shortsighted.
The writer thinks in order to avoid a "destructive white backlash in the face of a rapidly diversifying society," we should undo all the hard work that has gone into creating a more equitable society. Not once does he mention the benefits of affirmative action policies for women.
Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/09/06/1422557/affirmative-action-broader-than.html#ixzz0yrBaJ2jA
Showing posts with label Gregory Rodriguez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gregory Rodriguez. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Politics of Scapegoating Latinos and Other Racialized Minorities
Dissident Voice
by Ron Schmidt / August 5th, 2010
The pundits’ mantra for the 2010 mid-term elections is that American voters are angry as hell and they’re intent on taking out their anger on those in power — and for most writers this means the Democrats who control the White House and Congress. Since they are perceived as a core part of the Democratic Party’s coalition, this party-in-power-about-to-take-its-lumps presumably includes the country’s racialized minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos.
Catching this current, Gregory Rodriguez in his August 2, 2010 Los Angeles Times column predicts that “white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade.” He, therefore, advises President Obama to seize his “Nixon moment” and offer up Affirmative Action to slake the dragon’s thirst for blood. Rodriguez thinks that this sacrifice is necessary “to avoid a destructive white backlash.”
On the same day, the lead front-page Los Angeles Times article described the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as a rush by business (led by the Chamber of Commerce) and conservative political activists (led by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads) to mount the most expensive mid-term campaign in U.S. history to return power to those who will do their bidding more consistently and faithfully. Also on the same day, Paul Krugman’s New York Times column decried the trending of the country’s top leaders toward “normalizing” double-digit unemployment rates as a “structural” necessity of the new U.S. economy.
Are these three stories related? I think so.
Full Commentary: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/08/the-politics-of-scapegoating-latinos-and-other-racialized-minorities/
by Ron Schmidt / August 5th, 2010
The pundits’ mantra for the 2010 mid-term elections is that American voters are angry as hell and they’re intent on taking out their anger on those in power — and for most writers this means the Democrats who control the White House and Congress. Since they are perceived as a core part of the Democratic Party’s coalition, this party-in-power-about-to-take-its-lumps presumably includes the country’s racialized minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos.
Catching this current, Gregory Rodriguez in his August 2, 2010 Los Angeles Times column predicts that “white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade.” He, therefore, advises President Obama to seize his “Nixon moment” and offer up Affirmative Action to slake the dragon’s thirst for blood. Rodriguez thinks that this sacrifice is necessary “to avoid a destructive white backlash.”
On the same day, the lead front-page Los Angeles Times article described the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as a rush by business (led by the Chamber of Commerce) and conservative political activists (led by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads) to mount the most expensive mid-term campaign in U.S. history to return power to those who will do their bidding more consistently and faithfully. Also on the same day, Paul Krugman’s New York Times column decried the trending of the country’s top leaders toward “normalizing” double-digit unemployment rates as a “structural” necessity of the new U.S. economy.
Are these three stories related? I think so.
Full Commentary: http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/08/the-politics-of-scapegoating-latinos-and-other-racialized-minorities/
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Affirmative action's time is up
Los Angeles Times
By Gregory Rodriguez
August 2, 2010
The biggest blow to affirmative action in its nearly 50 years of existence was the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. Not because Obama is against the policy (he is, as on so many issues, nuanced in his support, i.e. he believes it should exist but not extend to his children) but because his election was widely perceived as being reflective of a profound shift in the country's racial balance.I believe that white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade. The combination of changing demographics and symbolic political victories on the part of nonwhites will inspire in whites a greater racial consciousness, a growing sense of beleagurement and louder calls to end affirmative action or to be included in it.I am so convinced of this that I think to avoid a destructive white backlash in the face of a rapidly diversifying society, the president should call for an end to affirmative action. In a "Nixon goes to China" sort of way, Obama — by virtue of his racial background, party affiliation and political temperament — is better poised to pull off such a difficult task more gracefully than any other politician.
Full Editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-whiteanxiety-20100802,0,5979967.column
By Gregory Rodriguez
August 2, 2010
The biggest blow to affirmative action in its nearly 50 years of existence was the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. Not because Obama is against the policy (he is, as on so many issues, nuanced in his support, i.e. he believes it should exist but not extend to his children) but because his election was widely perceived as being reflective of a profound shift in the country's racial balance.I believe that white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade. The combination of changing demographics and symbolic political victories on the part of nonwhites will inspire in whites a greater racial consciousness, a growing sense of beleagurement and louder calls to end affirmative action or to be included in it.I am so convinced of this that I think to avoid a destructive white backlash in the face of a rapidly diversifying society, the president should call for an end to affirmative action. In a "Nixon goes to China" sort of way, Obama — by virtue of his racial background, party affiliation and political temperament — is better poised to pull off such a difficult task more gracefully than any other politician.
Full Editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-whiteanxiety-20100802,0,5979967.column
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)