I visited a conservative message board last night. An author for a major newspaper had posted an article (in 2001) stating that a number of conservative writers (Abigail Thernstrom, Dinesh D'Souza, Dr. John Lott, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, authors of the "Bell Curve" and others) had insulted blacks in their writings. He posed a question I find interesting: How far can a right wing, conservative writer go before black conservatives are insulted? He listed some of the racist things these writers have written, and the response from the forum was nonchalant.

Instead of researching the books and articles to determine whether the author was objective and truthful in his assertions, they attacked him. Without citing any research, without any concern that these conservative writers, members of their party, may have a low opinion of blacks (regardless of their political affiliation), they defended them as "good people." Not one person on that forum took a step back and examined the allegations objectively. It is a case of blind loyalty.

I am a firm believer that no matter who the individuals are, if there are allegations of deception, wrongdoing or racism, I am going to investigate and form my own conclusion. Therefore, I did.

As for Dr. John Lott, numerous scientists have discredited his research on guns and crime. He wrote an article in Police Executive Research Forum (May 1998) suggesting there is a correlation between violent crime and the hiring of women and minority police officers. In December 1987, he wrote in the Journal of Political Economy that the wealthy should be able to buy justice. He asserts that allowing citizens carry concealed will reduce violent crime (I do not think his definition of citizen includes minorities or women. That leaves white males as the only armed citizens -- black codes and Jim Crow all over). Abigail Thernstrom cited Dr. Lott in her report that there were no voting irregularities in Florida's 2000 presidential election. That sums up Mrs. Thernstrom view on blacks in general. From reading her views on race ad social issues, she seems to share many of Dr. Lott's views.

Dinesh D'Souza seems to believe that there are acceptable levels of racism and discrimination. He has coined the term "rational discrimination." The assertion is that it is okay to discriminate against certain populations, primarily the black population. He also asserts that blacks owe their success to affirmative action and their race (skin color). But I guess if you are a black conservative, who is against affirmative action, he is not talking about you.

Finally, it is reported by academics that Herrnstein (deceased) and Murray are not experts on genetic IQ and its relation to race, poverty, and social class. In fact, in 36-years as an academic, Herrnstein never published on the topic of genetics and IQ and its relation to race, poverty, and social class, in a scientific, peer reviewed journal. If it is in keeping with the scientific method, it would have been published a peer review journal, so that it could have been analyzed by other academics. The majority of the public will not see the flaws in the methodology or the lack of appropriate variables. Maybe that is why he did not publish in a peer review journal. Likewise, Murray did not publish works on genetics and IQ in a peer review journal either. In fact, Murray's background is in Political Science and Herrnstein researched focused on the decision-making in pigeons and rats, not genetics and IQ. It seem as though their motivation to write the book was political. Simply, they wanted to end welfare. But they could not be honest about their motivation. Instead, they used an antiquated theory: inferiority. But they did not include black conservatives.

I think some black conservatives want some much to be accepted by their white peers that they are willing to ignore the racist and bigotry within their party.
There is racism within the Democratic Party as well (blacks and whites alike). Let me be clear, I do not believe that all blacks should belong to one party. I believe that our personal experiences growing up in a certain environment, social status, educational attainment and so forth shape our ideologies. My hope is that we blacks (African Americans) do not succumb to the cultism of either party. When I realize my party is not concerned about my communities needs, I am insulted. I do not toe the line, just because I belong to a party. That is why I am becoming an independent. Do not be a blind loyalist.

I believe affirmative action discriminates against whites. Nevertheless, I do not feel abolishing it is the answer. Instead, revamping AA to include persons of all races and ethnicities seem reasonable. This will not solve all problems, but it does address the most divisive issue: reverse discrimination. Making AA more inclusive negates the arguments that minorities receive preferential treatment over whites (even though it is not true) and that employers and institutions of higher education fill quotas. (See William Julius Wilson "Bridge Over The Racial Divide.")

Think about D'Souza's notion that it is acceptable (no, RATIONAL) to discriminate against certain groups. Who do you think that group is? Think back to why we needed AA initially. Without a mandate insuring equity, blacks specifically, will lose ground.

When there are so many racist views oozing from republicans, it is difficult to convince the majority of blacks that this party has their best interest. Black republicans should not simply toe the line, just because they do not want to be excommunicated by their white conservative peers. I think more blacks would respect the black conservatives, if they stood up to their white conservative racist.

In addition, get the facts straight; do not just repeat the political rhetoric. My God, there are still people saying there are WMD. Let it go.

I found it quite informative that you didn't provide one example, one specific quote, of white conservatives displaying racism towards black conservatives. You just mentioned the assertions of some writer who claimed this to be so. Yep, that's proof in the pudding, alright.

Your statements regarding Dr. John Lott are pure bullsh#t, son. His positions regarding guns and crime have certainly NOT been disproven by anyone other than the usual suspects (AKA gun control pussies). The research he did for his book "More Guns Less Crime" is notable in that try as they might, left-wing academia and their minions in the media failed to put a dent in the credibility of it.

Your post was quite lengthy and full of blather, a typical tactic for one who, when he can't dazzle us with brilliance will baffle us with bullsh#t.

Typical response. What I said in my post is that there are white conservatives who appear to have a low opinion of ALL blacks, not just black conservatives. I am glad you did not just take my word for it. Do the research and come to your own conclusion.

I am interested to know how far some white conservatives can go before black conservatives stand up and demand a retraction, an apology, anything. Based on your response, you appear willing to accept whatever your fellow white conservatives say, even if it is racist, simply ridiculous and without an ounce of truth.

Dinesh is a racist. His writings (dating back to his Dartmouth undergrad days) and speeches are proof. Open your eyes. In his book "Ending Racism," he argues in favor of discrimination, what he termed "rational discrimination." He has also stated, "Poverty...understood as the absence of food, clothing and shelter, is no longer a significant problem in America" (quoted in Alterman, 2001). D'Souza, according to Alterman (2001) implies that "even poor people have refrigerators these days and many of them are fat," as proof that poverty in America is not a problem. D'Souza has taken a page from his mentor, Ronald Reagan, who said, "Ketchup is a vegetable" (in response to the need to make schools lunches more nutritious for poor kids). Ignorance is a disease; it kills the brain and therefore one's ability to achieve cognitive complexity. In other words, common sense does not always make good sense. D'Souza believes it is rational for bankers, realtors, employers, school administrators and even taxi drivers to discriminate against blacks. Now, why do we need affirmative action? If people like D'Souza had their way, many of us would be back on the plantation. People like him do not care that you are a republican. All they see is your pigmentation, which is a sign of inferiority to them.

As for Dr. Lott, he also has a low opinion of blacks. In 1998, he wrote an article asserting that affirmative action in police hiring increases crime. His findings: "more black police officers are associated with more crime, not less" (quoted in Rauch, 2000). He argues that blacks who make lower scores do not make good cops. They cannot think on their feet, make poor decisions and are more likely to have their cases fall apart in court. Therefore, they are responsible for the increase in crime (especially in poor black communities). Do you agree with him? Before you answer, think about the history of racism and discrimination. Blacks could not hold certain jobs, because whites felt they were not smart enough. The Tuskegee Air Men proved them wrong. And while they may have had lower scores than white pilots, they were just as capable (and some would argue, even better). Simply, test scores do not adequately measure one's potential for future success or failure. Most often, tests measure past experiences and do not indicate that a person cannot learn. Dr. Lott is pushing more of the same racist rhetoric. He argues against racial diversity in the work place. He argues that society would rather have a high crime rate than an all white police force. It seems to me he would rather have an all white force. And yes, through peer review, many scientists have questioned the data and methodology used in his book "More Guns, Less Crime." There appear to be problems.

Dr. Lott also wrote an article suggesting teachers be allowed to carry guns in school. And in May 1987 (Journal of Political Economy), suggested that the wealthy be allowed to buy their way out of jail. It is alleged that he fabricated book reviews (posing a former student), in order to sell his book and that he used the same name fabricated identity to attack his critics. Can you defend this man? Do not take my word, please. Do your own research. If I am wrong, call me on it. Do not let your response be emotionally driven.

I have made my position on affirmative action clear. It needs reforming to be more inclusive (include people of all races and ethnicities). It should not be abolished, however. People like D'Souza, Lott, Thernstrom and others would ensure that we revert to Jim Crow laws. There is a reason why we needed Affirmative action, initially. Based on what I have read, we still need it.

Some many blacks have fallen for political rhetoric that affirmative action produces unqualified individuals that school and employers have to lower standards. Not true. When Dr. King said he was against quotas, he was saying do not give me a handout, give me an opportunity, an opportunity to show what I can do. The Doctors who wrote the "The Pact" benefited from affirmative action. They took the same tests throughout the programs (undergrad and medical school) as white students; they had to complete the same residency as white students; they had to pass the same state boards as the white students. Would you view them as less qualified than the white students? If so, why? Affirmative action helped them get through the door. They had to do the work in order to stay there.

So many successful black people have benefited from integration and affirmative action (Clearance Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Page, John McWhorter). Yet, they are embarrassed to admit it, or they say it is no longer needed (after they have benefited). If you were to take the simplest view and look at these individuals' ages, you would conclude that it is impossible for them not to have benefited from affirmative action and integration. They fear being perceived by their white peers as someone who benefited from something so many whites loathe. They do no want their intelligence called into question..

It sounds like your the one who is being emotionally driven. Your comment that D'Souza having his way would result in a return to the plantation is interesting. The "plantation" accusation is currently being used by black conservatives protesting against the Democrats' assumption that blacks must naturally side with the Left. So who's really the massuh?

As for John Lott, please give me the name of a "peer" who has found fault with his methodology and results, and I will almost certainly give you the name of an ideologue who was philosophically opposed to him even before his study came out. I would advise that you use caution with your sources. By "Alterman" I have to assume you mean Eric Alterman. Hmmmmm, a left-wing hack constantly critical of Bush and conservatives in general. Tip: Just because he writes for Newsweek doesn't make him an unimpeachable source.

Lott's comments on affirmative action are not as far out as you would have us believe. Getting a job based on your ethnicity rather than qualifications inevitably leads to lower standards and performance. The pendulum has merely swung from one extreme (white dominance) to another (affirmative action). In jobs that require and authorize the use of firearms, this leads to the prospect of terrifying consequences. But hey, I suppose we should all joyfully submit to the possibility of catching a bullet from some substandard flunky just because that flunky is a member of some supposedly oppressed minority group and to deny them their "right" to that job is surely racist.

Lee, I'm sure you have many good things to say about Jesse Jackson and his ilk.

I do not agree with Jesse Jackson. In fact, most black politicians (in particular) seem to have their own agenda. They only get involved when there is personal gain, either monetary or political. Furthermore, the Democratic Party is ineffective. They have no commitment, no position. I tend to agree with republicans: the Democratic Party has no backbone. You see, I call it like it. I do not toe the line. I try to be objective.

If white America would level the playing ground and hire minorities on based on merits, I would be in favor of ending affirmative action. As it is, racism and discrimination are very much alive. I am a criminologist, and I certainly would not advocate hiring unqualified officers who would shoot innocent citizens. The problem with this assertion is that I have not come across any reliable data that suggest Dr. Lott's thesis is correct.

In addition, there is an abundance of data indicating that tests scores are not a good indicator of how well one will perform in school or in the work place. Many institutions created tests as a method of excluding undesirables (minorities in particular). Many graduate programs no longer require one to take the GRE. The reason is that those who do well on the exam do not necessarily do well in the program, and those who do not do well on the exam may do well in the program. In the end, the test is inconsistent.

Affirmative action MUST be reformed and soon.