From Our Archives: American Imperialism Series—Originally posted Jul 9, 2011
Reading Lenin in Modern Rome

Lenin, master revolutionary strategist.

(ROME) Real leftists like to cite Lenin. To quote Marx is to delve into the theory of Socialism/Communism. But Lenin is another cup of tea. You get into Lenin and you’re in revolution. When you read Lenin’s The State and Revolution, which contains the core of Leninist thought, you are no longer in the world of socio-economic theory. This powerful text offers insights into Leninist policies and elaborated Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism, above all the class conflict, the crushing of the bourgeois state and the establishment and role of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Reading Lenin today is to enter the realm of the overthrow of Capitalism and the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Fantasy? Not many years ago such words seemed like maniacal ravings. But that was before the shit hit the fan in the bourgeois capitalist world, right smack in its heart on Wall Street. The images of capitalism digging its own grave seemed to many the theoretical wishful thinking of a handful of radical eccentrics. But today? Lenin’s writings now read like contemporary political thought. The younger Trotsky noted in his autobiography, My Life, that “Lenin, although he was firmly entrenched in the present, was always trying to pierce the veil of the future.” That quality underlines the difference between Lenin and many of his contemporaries and marks him as the true revolutionary.

His second outstanding quality was his tenacity about his main idea: his companion and wife Nadezhda Krupskaya said he was a “bulldog”—his was the death-grip. For he was a man of a single idea, to which he dedicated his life. Revolution was an idea. But an idea, in the words of Mussolini, “which possesses bayonets.” Bertram Wolfe in his monumental Three Who Made A Revolution, notes that Lenin added to that the word organization. And that was his genius. The ironclad organization of specialists in revolution.

The contemporary crisis of capitalism underlines the extraordinary vision of Marx of 150 years ago and of Lenin a century ago. In this sense Marxism-Leninism is NOT outdated and anachronistic. Their words are right on target, current, modern, contemporary, far from quaint social philosophies of the distant past. A return to Lenin, an adventure if you want, is a worthwhile exercise for us all.

As described by Lenin, Socialism/Communism is natural and just. In essence it is a dramatic redistribution of wealth and control over who does the distributing. That simplicity cannot be disturbing except to the rich who exploit the poor. In his last articles in 1922 Lenin defined “Socialism” (I use here Socialism and Communism interchangeably, as was originally proper!) in these broad terms: “An order of civilized co-operators in which the means of production are socially owned.” His use of the word Socialism thus cuts a wide swath through the world of the Left.

I want to sketch out some of the principles of Lenin the revolutionary, originally taken from his own writings. For this I have referred to several books: Three Who Made A Revolution by Bertram Wolfe, Lenin’s articles in Essential Works of Socialism edited by Irving Howe, My Life by Leon Trotsky, Marxism On Government by Vladimir Lenin, Lenin, A Biography, by David Shub, a member of Lenin’s Social Democratic Party who participated in the Russian Revolution of 1905-6 and frequented Lenin and other revolutionary leaders.

STRATEGY FOR GAINING POWER

I repeat, these lines about “reading Lenin” are not about ancient history. For purposes of this article one should keep in mind the explosive obvious: the causes of today’s crisis in the world of finance derives not only from exploitation of the rapidly growing proletariat (now inclusive of a great part of the impoverished middle class), but also from the elitist aloofness and egoism of the crème de la crème of the globalized bourgeoisie.

Therefore, far-sighted as ever, Lenin: “The proletariat may continue to pledge allegiance to the old ruling class which had no qualms in exploiting them in myriad ways. But the proletariat,  having assembled sufficiently powerful political and military ‘striking forces’, must overthrow the bourgeoisie and deprive it of the power of the state, so as to wield this instrument for its own class purposes….” (Lenin, Collected works, Vol. XVI p.148.

This, Lenin said, is to be achieved by “smashing to atoms” the old state and creating a new apparatus adapted to the struggle of the proletariat. Though universal suffrage and the ballot reveal the conditions of the various classes, the solution of the social problems is to be achieved by the class struggle in all forms, even in civil war, but above all not by the vote. (How obvious today when elections are sold and bought like merchandise!) The revolutionary participates in parliamentary activity in order to educate the masses but the parliamentary struggle is by no means decisive. Practical Lenin believed that participation in bourgeois parliaments makes it easier to show to the backward masses the reasons why such parliaments must be eliminated. The heart of Leninist thought was that the working class must instead use and exploit the institutions of the bourgeois state against it, for its destruction.

Without the guidance of the socialist vanguard the labour movement would “become petty and inevitably bourgeois.” He foresaw the future of the US working class and the great part of the labour movement in Europe today. The vanguard would consist of persons who devote the whole of their lives to the revolution, that is, the professional revolutionaries, who would teach, indoctrinate and guide. Simple trade unionism, Lenin writes in What Is To Be Done means the ideological subordination of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Working class consciousness cannot be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse. To bring political knowledge to the workers, the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the population.”

Lenin dismisses charges that Communists have no ethics of their own. This, he says, is just “throwing dust in the eyes of workers.” But he rejects the ethics of the bourgeois who liken their ethics to God’s commandments. The bourgeoisie uses the name of God in order to continue exploiting the workers of the world, today as yesterday. Hand on the Bible, crosses in the classroom, God bless America and all the rest! Lenin repudiates all ethics that are fraud and deception to clog the minds of workers in the interests of capitalists. Socialist morality instead derives directly from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY

“Capitalism cannot be defeated … without the ruthless suppression of the resistance of the exploiters … who will try to overthrow the hateful (for them!) rule of the poor. A great revolution is inconceivable without civil war, which … implies a state of extreme indefiniteness…. (Lenin, Selected Works, Russian Edition, Vol. 2, pp.277-8)

Lenin was convinced that only the proletariat led by the socialist vanguard could liberate mankind from the sham, lies and hypocrisy of capitalism, which is (and has always been) a democracy for the rich, a “democracy for the few.” Only the proletariat can make the benefits of democracy available to the workers, benefits which today in 2009 are ever more inequitably distributed, the rich richer, the poor, poorer, a concentrated wealth of grotesque salaries, bonuses and stock options for the rich, the poverty of unemployment and hard bread for the poor.

Lenin’s “proletarian democracy”, that is, what today is called popular or socialist democracy, aimed in the opposite direction. Only the hangers-on, like Lenin’s “flunkies” of the bourgeoisie, or academics blinded to real life by bourgeois propaganda and benefits, fail to see the difference. Capitalists speak hypocritically of democracy while constantly creating obstacles to its realization and reinforcing their own dominant position by distorting the legality of their state. Therefore the urgent necessity of preparing the masses, in 1920 Russia, as well as the USA and Europe in the year 2009.

The USA and Europe have forgotten their revolutionary heritage: the very birth of the United States of America and in Europe the great English and French revolutions. Since it is difficult to even imagine a revolutionary class in the USA, the work of the individual revolutionary today must be one of education and indoctrination. Yet, as Lenin and Marx prophesied, capitalism is digging its own grave as seen everyday in the chaos of its monetary system.

As Henry Ford said, “It is well that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Peter Chamberlain writes in his fine essay, Sermon From The Corporate Church, “Faith in the infallibility of capitalism and the belief that it is the answer to mankind’s problems permeate American culture” to the extent that the suggestion to a true believer that capitalism is a doomed religion or intrinsically harmful to mankind is unnerving.…”

Chamberlain goes on to say that the masters of deception have interwoven faith in capital with patriotic belief, while depicting doubters as “Communist.” Those who resist the plan for a global empire built on the graves of billions of “useless eaters” are considered enemies of mankind, communists, terrorists, or common criminals. Even though resistance to a plan of mass genocide is an act of self-defense, those who dare to do so are marked as extremists and terrorists, targeted for death or incarceration in the war on terror. Real patriots should instead seethe with anger since America itself is the final target marked for destruction in the envisioned New [Imperial] Order.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

The limits on civil liberties seen in Soviet Russia during periods of enormous social stress, much of it induced from abroad, such as the Nazi invasion in WW2, have been the chief factors in capitalism’s condemnation of and attacks on Communism in general, while, as seen today, capitalism has resorted to the same tactics it has criticized in the name of salvation of a declining system. America’s antagonism toward Socialist Russia of early last century continue down to today.

Lenin: “We declare that we are fighting capitalism as such, the free, republican, democratic capitalism included, and we realize, of course, that in this light the banner of freedom will be waved defiantly at us. But our answer is … every freedom is a fraud if it contradicts the interests of the emancipation of labour from the oppression of capital.” (Collected Works, 1923 Edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 80-1, 203-4)

Though in Lenin’s late period around 1923 the military invasions to topple the new socialist regime in Russia had ended in defeat, the new Soviet Russia was isolated. Lenin noted, however, that the international bourgeoisie was not in a position to wage open war on the new revolutionary state because capitalism had to reckon with the opposition on the part of its own working classes. So the war between Socialism and capitalism continued in his time and continues down to our day.

PARTY UNIFICATION AND UNITY

Lenin’s book What Is To Be Done, a work of orthodox Marxism adapted to Russia’s backwardness and to its developing workers movement, contained Lenin’s ideas on party organization. What differentiated Lenin from other Social Democratic leaders was his meaning of party unification. He meant the uniting of all Marxist circles into a centrally controlled and homogeneous All-Russian Bolshevik Party, with a Marxist program as interpreted by himself. The center would safeguard the purity of doctrine and action of the party in “proletarian discipline.” Much of this work is an attack on the intelligentsia, which was, in his words, “careless and sluggish.” I remember when the Italian Communist Party (PCI), one-third of the Italian electorate and the biggest in the West, discussed for years the retention or abolition of the rule of “democratic centralism”, according to which once a decision was made, obedience to it was obligatory. That rule was the glue that held divergent elements together. The rule was abolished and soon after the PCI began its decline. 

WORLD REVOLUTION

Lenin’s name and the hammer and sickle continue to strike fear in the hearts of innumerable people, many of whom would gain from a revolution.

The Leninist idea of a chain reaction of anti-capitalist revolution stood behind leftwing terrorists in Europe of the 1970s and 80, Red Brigades in Italy and Rote Armée Fraktion in Germany. Lenin believed workers in the developed countries would eventually disrupt capitalist war policies. To some extent we saw a reflection of his prediction during the Vietnam War, although it was chiefly youth and not workers who helped end that capitalist war. Unfortunately, brainwashed workers have remained attached to their tiny piece of the capitalist pie … or they did until today’s crisis. Now, as millions of workers stand to lose their jobs in the USA alone, the working class is stirring, riots and revolts threaten, perhaps in the beginning in a war among the poor, whites against the rest, natives against immigrants, homeless against landlords, a war which must inevitably turn against the bourgeois masters of all. That uprising is widely considered a threat in the USA today.

Lenin wrote confidently “as long as capitalism and Socialism remain, we cannot live in peace. In the end one or the other will triumph. Either Socialism would triumph throughout the world or the most reactionary imperialism would win, the most savage imperialism which is out to throttle the small and feeble nationalities … all over the world.” That imperialist triumph came to be called globalization. Though the Soviet Union collapsed, capitalism’s victory has soured in the arrogance of power.

ON WAR, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND PEACE

Wars will always be imperialist if fought by capitalist-run nations. War ceases to be imperialist when capitalism is overthrown and the revolutionary proletariat stands at the helm of state. According to Lenin, to defend one’s own nation (a capitalist nation) is a betrayal of Socialism and internationalism. The German or Frenchman or American who defends his own capitalist nation puts his own bourgeoisie above the interests of his class and thus participates in imperialist war.  In Leninist thought even the most democratic bourgeois republic is an instrument for the suppression of the workers by capitalists.  Imperialist wars are by their nature reactionary and criminal, in order to strengthen capitalist rule, as in Iraq and Afghanistan today. On the other hand, war for the extending of Socialism is legitimate. 

Lenin gives another and unfamiliar twist to the nature of war: “The character of war (whether reactionary or revolutionary)… is determined by the class that is waging the war and the politics of which this war is the continuation.” In that sense, wars between imperialist powers of his time, “are to our advantage”, for example, the antagonism between Japan and America. Or between America and the rest of the capitalist world today. Anti-Americanism in Europe today confirms Lenin’s evaluation of the 1920s, nearly a century ago: “America is strong, everybody is in debt to her (or was until not long ago!) … she is more and more hated, she is robbing everybody …. America cannot come to terms with Europe—that is a fact proved by history.”

SIGNIFICANCE OF LENINIST VISION FOR US TODAY

Noting that the US Army 3rd Infantry’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returned from Iraq some months ago “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control”, Professor Michel Chossudovsky puts forward the hypothesis that “Civil unrest resulting from the financial meltdown (of capitalism) is a distinct possibility, given the broad impacts of financial collapse on lifelong savings, pension funds, homeownership, etc”. 

The Centre for Research on Globalization website posted an article written by Wayne Madsen who refers to a highly confidential official report circulating among senior members of the US Congress and their top advisors. The report, allegedly nicknamed as the “C and R document”, standing for “conflict” and “revolution.” The document reveals that severe financial chaos could spark a major war. Senior American statesmen recognize that financial volatility could fuel a wave of discontent, which could reach troubling proportions. America itself is not immune from “regime-threatening instability” as the Pentagon and the American intelligence community terms it. It is likely that American government officials have been preparing for the worst-case scenario.

Rome based GAITHER STEWART, novelist, essayist and journalist, serves as The Greanville Post and Cyrano’s Journal Online Senior Editor and European correspondent.  His latest book is The Trojan Spy (Callio). 

Wherein our senior contributing editor conjures up some explanations for the surprising Ohio outcome, “counterscript” to many seasoned observers…

By Steve Jonas  
Nov. 7, 2012

First, let me say, I was wrong in my prediction for the Presidential Election (1).  For the record, I said: “It is becoming increasingly apparent that Mitt Romney will win the Presidency. He appears to be ahead in the popular vote. Whether he will actually also finish ahead of the President in the electoral vote count seems to be becoming immaterial. First, there seems to be on the GOP side a campaign getting underway to challenge any Obama electoral vote victory (given that Romney indeed would have a substantial lead in the popular vote). It would bring pressure, both public and private, on the electors to not vote as they were chosen to do, but rather to “recognize the popular will” (as if Republicans do that in any other circumstance).”

Then I went on to say: “Second, there is increasing evidence that a massive vote-count cheating operation has already been organized in some of the key ‘battleground’ states (2-7) like Ohio, which Bush won in 2004 by cheating. (The Ohio Secretary of State, in charge of the ballot counting, just happened to be the Chair of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.) If this strategy were to be successful, and could withstand the challenges that the Obama Campaign might or might not mount against it, that would make the first plan superfluous.”

Let me modify that.  The President did win the popular vote, by about 1.6 million votes.  (The polls aren’t slanted to the GOP, are they?  Nah.  Couldn’t be.)  But on the second point, I think that there was evidence of an attempt being made to cheat in Ohio (as the GOP clearly did in 2004 and likely did in 2000 (2-7).  On Tuesday evening, sometime around 11PM EST, after all of the networks, including Fox, called Ohio for Obama, I just happened to switch to Fox. And there was “independent” “analyst,” a chubbier Karl Rove (the $240 million man) saying “hold on there. I’ve got the Ohio Secretary of State’s website up and he says that the vote difference is only 20-plus [yes, that was 20 votes, count ‘em] for Obama. And there is a huge number of Republican votes outstanding.” This of course is the Ohio Secretary of State who, following in Ken Blackwell’s footsteps (Blackwell being the man who supervised the 2004 voting while at the same time being the Ohio State Chair for Bush/Cheney), did his darnedest to suppress the minority vote in Ohio, an attempt that was openly hailed on racist grounds by at least one GOP county chair (8).

It happens that there was no such thing as the virtual tie that Rove had claimed to exist (except as it was apparently being presented on the website of the Ohio Secretary of State).  The other networks, and indeed Fox itself, had Obama ahead by about 20,000 votes at the time.  Nevertheless, Rove’s claim got Fox to pause, and so did CNN and MSNBC (I checked).  The latter two did not say why they were pulling back, at least a bit. However, shortly thereafter, Fox sent one of their anchors to their “decision desk,” the home of their numbers crunchers, when Rove was still holding onto his “Sec. of State says 20 votes” story.  They held firmly to their count that Obama was actually 20,000 votes ahead and to their projection that he would win Ohio.  Nevertheless, a scheduled Romney appearance, apparently planned for a concession speech, was delayed. Then by about 11:30 all the networks went back to their call of Ohio for Obama. And anyway, by that time Fox was then showing Obama with a 290 electoral vote total, so even without Ohio’s 20, he still had won.

So what might have happened in that half hour or so that the projection of Ohio for Obama had been at least partially called back (reminding one of similar episodes in the 2000 and 2004 elections)?  My guess is that someone may have tried to get the cheat machine going in Ohio and couldn’t. We will never know if such an episode actually happened.  However, it happens that one well-informed colleague of mine had told me several days before the election that the left-wing web organization Anonymous had gotten into the Ohio vote-counting computers, was prepared to hack any changed results, and had made their intention known privately.  An attempt to implement the scheme may have been tried anyway, and then it was found not to be successful. Your guess is as good as mine. We’ll never know.

But Rove had seemed so confident when he called a halt to calling the election for Obama.  Maybe it was Obama’s getting to 270 without Ohio (and as we now know Virginia went for Obama [!] so even if Ohio had been cheated over to Romney it wouldn’t have made any difference anyway) that caused the operation to be halted, if indeed there had been one.  If this hypothetical is correct, someone then made the call to Romney, said “sorry Mitt, we couldn’t do it even though Tagg is a part-owner of the machines,” the concession speech was made, and it was all over.

My friend who told me about the Anonymous counter-hacking operation penned this post-script:

“Romney’s refusal to concede [at first] raised the specter of Bush’s refusal in 2000 – and we well know the machinations that motivated that one. Clearly, you read [the situation] correctly – they were in the throes of orchestrating a hacked election in OH for the second time – the first being 2004. With Romney’s son and 45 former employees (former in name only) holding the titles to a massive bloc of voting machines in OH – they must have considered the capability and viability of rigging this one, too.  Romney’s very hesitant and even reticent concession must now be explained and totally in original context – the calling of the state of OH that precipitated the calling of the US presidential election for his opponent – while he and his surrogates held the keys and the codes to a vast array of electronic voting machines in the crucial state of OH.”

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if anyone raises questions about the incident and, if a response is made, what the answer might be.

STEVE JONAS, MD, author of more than 30 books and hundreds of essays on political and cultural topics, is a senior contributing editor to The Greanville Post, Buzzflash and other leading progressive venues. His sleeper futuristic classic, The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022, is slated for republication by Punto Press in the Spring of 2013. 

2. Bello, G., Fitrakis, B., and Wasserman, H., “Does the Romney Family Now Own Your e-Vote?” Friday, 19 October 2012 The Free Press, http://truth-out.org/news/item/12204-does-the-romney-family-now-own-your-e-vote.

3. Campbell, D.G. and James, C., “NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections,”
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html

4. Charnin, R., “Updated Daily: Presidential True Vote/Election Fraud Forecast Model,
Oct. 31, 2012, http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/

5. itobin53, “Romney family buys voting machines through Bain Capital investment,” Oct 19, 2012, Select Media, http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment.

6. Daily Kos, “Anonymous gives warning to Karl Rove,” Oct. 28, 2012, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/28/1151819/-Anonymous-gives-warning-to-Karl-Rove.

7.  Chin, L., “Has the Election already been Stolen for Romney/Ryan?” Global Research, October 30, 2012,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/has-the-election-already-been-stolen-for-romneyryan/5310166.

8.   Shen, A., “Ohio GOP Election Board Member: Our Voting Process Shouldn’t Accommodate Black Voters,” Think Progress.org, Election 2012, Aug 19, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/19/711551/gop-election-board-member-admits-he-canceled-weekend-voting-in-ohio-to-suppress-the-black-vote/?mobile=nc

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

//

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

//

The University of Texas at Austin campus, like all other universities, is barred from using point-based racial quotas, that is, percentage figures for acceptance of students of any race. In order to diversify campuses, it, along with the other Texas universities, has employed the use of other methods, methods declared constitutional through past Supreme Court cases. One method the Texas schools use to promote on-campus diversity is the 10% law. The 10% law guarantees the top 10% of graduates from any Texas high school automatic entrance upon application, race regardless. In this way, students from underprivileged schools have access at the same rates as those from high tax base high schools. The 10% law makes no mention, and takes no account of race specifically. Students admitted under the 10% law make up the majority of the University of Texas Austin’s student population; the percentage was 81% in the year Abigail Fisher applied (LDF). The remaining slots are then opened for applicants who didn’t make the 10% cut and those applicants are considered through a Holistic Review Process. It is the Holistic Review Process that is under fire in the current Supreme Court case.

The Holistic Review Process considers the applicant’s academic history, G.P.A. and test scores, leadership abilities, extracurricular activities, socio-economic status, and many other factors, including race or ethnicity. While racial quotas are not legally allowed, the factoring in of race, in balance with other factors to promote campus diversity is. The review has no strict number points given to each factor; it is a loose system allowing for students of different interests, backgrounds and experiences to fill the remaining slots (LDF).

If we look at the racial diversity on the Texas campus prior to the implementation of the 10% and Holistic Review policies, we see that between 1997 and 2004, the Austin campus’s enrollment of African-American students was just 4.5%. According to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, 79% of undergrad classes had 1 or fewer African-American students (LDF). In contrast, the 2008 class, the one Fisher applied to attend, had a 5.4% African-American student base. 72% of African-Americans admitted to the university between 2005-2008 were admitted because they were in the top 10% of students in their high school class (LDF). This is an achievement that Abigail Fisher did not earn.

The University of Texas, like many Southern universities, does not possess a shining record when it comes to attracting people of color. In 2010, not exactly ancient history, the University responded to staff and student demands to rename Simkins Hall. William Simkins was a former law professor at the University, teaching from 1899 to 1929. He was also a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, whose chapter was responsible for the lynching of 25 former slaves post-emancipation (Guiner). The original naming of the hall for Simkins took place in 1954, the same year segregation was outlawed. Well after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the campus employed the use of specific testing procedures designed to prevent black students from attendance and barred them from athletic programs and extracurricular activities (Guiner). The atmosphere at the University throughout history has been hostile toward people of color. Still today, there are numerous monuments throughout the campus honoring confederate soldiers and segregationists.

Minority students have not received the warm campus welcome that Abigail Fisher’s parents enjoyed at the University.

Abigail Fisher had hoped, and what’s more, she had expected, to attend the University of Texas. Abigail’s legacy as the child of UT graduates gave her this expectation, and in many schools, that expectation is honored through what is known as legacy status. Legacy status gives special consideration to the children of alumni, and in some cases, the Grandchildren. Colleges created the legacy status consideration in response to a diversifying nation. It was, and continues to be, a measure used to ensure white racial privilege. Any amount of legacy an applicant holds increases the odds of admission to the colleges that consider it. In an elite school, a primary legacy (a situation in which the applicant’s parent obtained their undergrad degree through the institution) increases an applicant’s odds compared to a non-legacy applicant by as much as 45%. A secondary legacy (another relative such as a Grandparent, Aunt, or sibling obtained the same degree) gives a 13% advantage (Huffpost). Legacy status factors in for admission in ¾ of the special research universities and nearly all liberal arts schools (Kahlenberg). In the U.S., almost 90% of top colleges employ the use of Legacy preferences, and Legacy students make up 10-25% of the student population at these institutions (Bloom). At Princeton, 34-47% of legacy applicants have been admitted each year over the course of the past 17 years (Thean). Ms. Fisher had good grades, Achieved a pretty good score on the SAT, participated in extra-curricular activities, and she had a “hook” with her legacy status. Acceptance was in the bag, so she thought.

But the University of Texas doesn’t weigh legacy for enrollment as heavily as some schools do and if it had, the Supreme Court, you, and I, would never have heard the name Abigail Fisher. While whites claim reverse discrimination, argue for meritocracy and debate the legality of diversification methods, the legacy preference, which overwhelmingly benefits whites and has none of the justification that Affirmative Action has behind it, is not only accepted, but is warmly embraced. Ms. Fisher is not upset because she believes other applicants’ race gave them the upper hand. She is upset because for once, hers didn’t.

“At Texas A&M, 321 of the legacy admits in 2002 were white, while only three were black and 25 Hispanic. At Harvard, only 7.6 percent of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8 percent of all students. At the University of Virginia, 91 percent of early-decision legacy admits in 2002 were white, 1.6 percent black, and 0.5 percent Hispanic.” (Kahlenberg)
Abigail Fisher’s argument is that enrollment should be based on merit. But the argument falls flat when you consider that it was her lack of merit that prevented her entrance to her first choice college. You see, Ms. Fisher was a good student but not a top student, and not the kind of student the highly academic university seeks out. Her G.P.A. was 3.59 (out of 4.0), which put her within the top 12% of her high school class (Carter). Compared with students enrolled in the university, her G.P.A. fits somewhere in the bottom half (Cleveland). Her SAT score was 1180 (out of 1600), not high enough to make up for not falling in the top 10%, and rather low compared with the University average. In short, her academic achievements were not high enough to grant her automatic enrollment, and her G.P.A and SAT scores, personal achievements and legacy status weren’t enough to boost her up through her second chance at entrance, the Holistic Review (Cleveland). And let’s not forget: despite the lack of weight her legacy status held, Ms. Fisher’s chances were still positively affected by her parental alumni, through the soccer team membership and oboe lessons her family was able to provide her with; factors that did increase her chances of admission, but alas, not enough.

I have no personal ill feelings toward Abigail Fisher. If I remove the factor of this court case (and its entitled viewpoint), she reminds me of my own daughter. She also maintains a very good, but not tip-top G.P.A., while balancing playing on the soccer team and in her high school’s jazz and pep bands. She works hard. Both girls possess a quiet, serious demeanor. Both are assertive about standing up for their beliefs, a trait I admire in young people and especially enjoy seeing in young women. My daughter is not all that unusual; in fact, her accomplishments are pretty typical of the kids in our neighborhood school. She understands the competition, and understands that she will have to go above and beyond to assure herself a place in regards to college admission, and life.

There is something missing in Ms. Fisher’s understanding of wrongdoing, of how she was damaged by the University’s policies. Although she has graduated from the University of Louisiana and is now, at age 22, working as a financial analyst, she believes that she lost the opportunity of contacts she might have had through the University of Texas. She believes that her inability to network with the proper people will have a financial impact on her life. She believes that the effects of the rejection will be ongoing and cumulative. -Sound familiar? But she is unable, like most whites, and like the conservative judges deciding the case, to see the connection.

It is my hope that when the time comes, my daughter will be accepted into a good college based on the merits she has earned and nothing more. It is also my hope that one day in the U.S. we won’t have to seek out diversity on college campuses, that the population of minority students on campus becomes a natural mirror to that of the off campus world. Until that day arrives, the programs that are currently in place ensure that we don’t slip back to the days when the only people with the right networking contacts are the people who look like Abigail Fisher. Days, which at the University of Texas, were not so long ago.

Works Cited

Affirmative Action for the Rich by Richard D. Kahlenberg. Print. The Century Foundation. Brookings Institute. Web, 19 October 2012.

US Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Affirmative Action Case“. World Socialist Website.

The International Committee of the Fourth International. 19 October 2012, Web. 20 October 2012.

Affirmative Action for Unqualified Whites“. Dagblog. 10 October 2012. Web, 18 October 2012.

UT History Matters in Affirmative Action Case, Your Take: A Texas School’s Racist Past Overshadows Fisher Case”. The Root. 8 October 2012. Web, 20 October 2012.

10 Myths about Legacy Preferences in College Admissions“. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 22 September 2010. Web, 20 October 2012.

Legacy Students up to 45% more likely to be Admitted to Elite Colleges“. Huffington Post. 1 January 2011. 25 June 2011. Web, 18 October 2012.

Fisher v. University of Texas: Description of the Admission Process at University of Texas at Austin“. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. N.D. Web, 21 October 2012.

The Trodden Path: Applying as a Legacy“. Princetonian. 12 May 2010.Web, 18 October 2012.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

//

ATHENS | Thu Sep 6, 2012 7:23am EDT

The brave Greeks show the way, once again.

(Reuters) – Greek police protesting against austerity cuts blocked the entrance to the riot police headquarters on Thursday, preventing buses carrying riot police from leaving for the site of major demonstrations this weekend.

Scuffles broke out as riot police tried to clear the entrance of several dozen police union members – many in uniform – chanting anti-austerity slogans and holding banners.  “They would not let riot police buses depart for Thessaloniki,” a police official said, referring to the northern city hosting a weekend trade fair where anti-austerity demonstrations are planned.

Some riot police appeared reluctant to tackle uniformed officers. “They make us fight against our own brothers,” said one riot policeman who declined to be named.

The government plans to slash police pay in a new round of spending cuts worth nearly 12 billion euros over the next two years. The savings plan is expected to provoke new street protests in the coming weeks by austerity-weary Greeks fed up with repeated wage and pension cuts.

Police, firefighters and coast guard officers plan to hold a separate protest later on Thursday in central Athens.

(Reporting by Yannis Behrakis and Tatiana Fragou, writing by Deepa Babington, editing by Tim Pearce)

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.