MotherTucker is at it again. Merry Christmas, everyone.
A few nights ago Tucker Carlson had Asian American and Harvard alum Jay Chen on his show to discuss affirmative action. The catalyst for the debate was a Princeton study which claimed that when compared to Blacks and Latinos, Asian and White applicants must score considerably higher on their SATs in order to gain admission into Harvard. In essence, Carlson asserted that affirmative action has made it harder for qualified and deserving Asians and Whites to get into the Ivy League institution.
“But if racial discrimination is wrong, and I believe it is, then it’s just wrong. There’s a moral element here.”
In Carlson’s attempt to solidify affirmative action as a racist, Liberal machination, he let those words proudly slip out of his mouth and into the ears of his listeners. From Tucker’s perspective, Harvard has made acceptance easier for Blacks and Latinos and in doing so, has marginalized qualified Whites and Asians. He labeled this racist. And you know what? He’s right. Choosing who gains admission into a university based on skin color is racist. But, to criticize affirmative action as being discriminative and therefore question its existence completely ignores the rationale behind it. Let’s look at some facts about the Harvard population pool and learn why Tucker Carlson is way off the mark here.
First things first, Tucker has inexplicably only addressed one half of this conversation: race. What is missing from this discussion is socioeconomics. How a mainstream commentator such as Tucker fails to mention this is not only confounding but, inexcusable. According to Harvard’s very own newspaper the majority of first-generation college students at the university were non-white (date from the 2015 graduation class). Only 20% of these first-generation, minority students have a family income over $80,000. Compare that to a whopping 80% of legacies who have a family income over $80,000. What is even more shocking is that 93% of Harvard legacies are white! So, what is the synopsis in layman’s terms?
The Crimson admits a little more than 5% of their applicants every year. Yet, they admit around 30% of their legacies. Legacies are 93% white. Are you seeing the math here? Not only is the legacy population overwhelmingly White, they are overwhelmingly more financially stable than their counterparts. It appears as though Harvard has a way of admitting Whites despite affirmative action and quotas. When Jay Chen mentioned this Carlson, he merely responded by saying Chen’s statement was a “non sequitur.”
If you are a legacy applicant at Harvard, the odds are you are White and come from a financially well-to-do family. The numbers back that up. Your chance at getting into Harvard is also 25 percentage points higher than someone who is not a legacy. The connections between Harvard’s acceptance criteria to race and socioeconomic class are not only evident but, sickening. What’s more sickening is that Carlson purposely precluded Chen from making this argument. Carlson asked Chen: “Is it racial discrimination to not let somebody into college based on his race?” Chen responded by firstly agreeing then mentioning legacies. Sensing that Chen could use the legacy argument to gain the upper hand, Carlson acutely cut him off once again using his new favorite phrase, “non sequitur.” He also added that Chen was dodging the question, despite Chen agreeing with Carlson only moments ago.
So what are we seeing here on Fox News? Earlier this week, Bill O’Reilly claimed Democrats were attempting to devalue the vote of the White Establishment by opposing the Electoral College. Not only did O’Reilly acknowledge that America has a White Establishment, he supported its continued political dominance by attempting to expose this Liberal assault. This was followed by Carlson attacking affirmative action because it excluded too many Whites from Harvard. When Chen brought up the fact that affirmative action exists to even out a playing field in which White students begin with a head start, Carlson actually laughed. If you have made it this far into this article (read: rant) then do yourself a favor and watch this video. Go to the 10:00 mark and witness Tucker casually laughing off the idea of White privilege.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Fox News has officially adopted the nationalist movement and all of its bigoted accoutrements as their new political platform. Get ready, it will be a long and bumpy ride until 2020.
To be clear, I do not think that affirmative action is a perfect system; a notion that Chen asserted himself during his debate. As Tucker stated, the system makes innocent teenagers pay for the sins of their parents; sins which manifested in setbacks and roadblocks known as Jim Crow and slavery. How Tucker can laugh off the idea of white privilege while acknowledging the effects of Jim Crow is a discussion for another date and time. However, I agree with the man. It is not fair for White children with higher SAT scores to be denied acceptance in Harvard while less qualified non-Whites are admitted.
But Whites in America are hardly in a place to complain about fairness. Whites didn’t suffer through slavery and sharecropping. Whites don’t break out in a cold sweat when a police officer pulls us over. Whites don’t get shot for wearing a hoodie. Whites didn’t risk their life for their country only to return home and be told they still can’t vote. Whites didn’t inspire Billie Holiday to sing “Strange Fruit.” And you can be damn sure that Whites weren’t the motivation behind COINTELPRO.
So if Winton Prepschool IV has to cry because he now has to go to Swarthmore, his back up school, then I am okay with it. After all, education is the only surefire connection to upwards social mobility. Come on fellows Whites, we can suck this up and allow for an entire race to gain equal footing for once. Let’s try and get Tucker Carlson on board…FOLLOW THE OPEN FIELD