Michelle Obama ADMITS: Affirmative Action Screwed Me Up

Did you know that Michelle Obama is a racist?  By the standards of today, if you do not support affirmative action, the use of government to discriminate against people of certain races, you are a racist.  Yet in 1985 her senior college thesis was about the detriments of affirmative action.  She wrote, Although Michelle drew no such conclusion, the thesis is a stunning indictment of affirmative action.  Those who benefited from it, Michelle most notably, may never recover from its sting. “

What is that sting?  Get into a college that has affirmative action and black students, no matter how qualified, become suspect that the only reason they are on campus is the color of their skin.  It is demeaning.  It is the type of program the Plantation owners would use on the slaves—some worked in the fields others in the Big House.  In this case government tells young people that qualifications come from the color of your skin not the work that you do.

“Her thesis reads like a cry for help.  “I have found that at Princeton no matter how matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me,” she writes, “I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as I really don’t belong.”

She didn’t.  Michelle should never have been admitted to Princeton.  Thanks to the “numerous opportunities” presented by affirmative action, however, Princeton is where she found herself.  “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes biographer Christopher Andersen, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”  Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.”

Michelle Obama understands she is a VICTIM of affirmative action.  Will support Prop. 15 to let her children and grandchildren becomes victims of this racism—which she noted 35 years ago!

Photo courtesy WisPolitics.com, flickr

How Affirmative Action Screwed Up Michelle Obama

By Jack Cashill, American Thinker,  7/14/20 

In 1985, Michelle Obama presented her senior thesis in the sociology department of Princeton University.  Although Michelle drew no such conclusion, the thesis is a stunning indictment of affirmative action.  Those who benefited from it, Michelle most notably, may never recover from its sting.

Her thesis reads like a cry for help.  “I have found that at Princeton no matter how matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me,” she writes, “I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as I really don’t belong.”

She didn’t.  Michelle should never have been admitted to Princeton.  Thanks to the “numerous opportunities” presented by affirmative action, however, Princeton is where she found herself.  “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes biographer Christopher Andersen, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”  Sympathetic biographer Liza Mundy writes, “Michelle frequently deplores the modern reliance on test scores, describing herself as a person who did not test well.”

She did not write well, either.  She even typed badly.  Mundy charitably describes the thesis as “dense and turgid.”  The less charitable Christopher Hitchens observed, “To describe [the thesis] as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb.  This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.” 

Hitchens exaggerates only a little.  The following summary statement by Michelle captures her unfamiliarity with many of the rules of grammar and most of logic:

The study inquires about the respondents’ motivations to benefit him/herself, and the following social groups: the family, the Black community, the White community, God and church, The U.S. society, the non-White races of the world, and the human species as a whole.

The design of the thesis is a disaster, but the idea behind it is not a bad one.  Michelle wanted to gauge the attitudes of black Princeton alumni on a range of variables.  She sent her survey to 400 alumni; 89 responded, 60 percent of whom were male, 80 percent of whom were between the ages of 25 and 34.

The survey is a stark exercise in black and white.  Michelle never uses the phrase “African-American.”  It had apparently not yet entered the lexicon.  Nor does she retreat to phrases like “people of color” or “minority groups.”  In her world, there are only black people and white people.

White people intimidate her, as they appear to do to many of the alumni.  Although most of the survey results are either impossible to decipher or irrelevant, one set of data is worth attention.  The alumni were asked whether they felt comfortable around whites.

On the question of social comfort, 17 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 6 percent while at Princeton, and 2 percent post-Princeton.

On the question of intellectual comfort, 24 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 8 percent while at Princeton, and 8 percent post-Princeton.  As Michelle notes, black students were forced “to compete intellectually with whites.”  For those like herself who didn’t test well, the competition had to deliver a body blow to the old self-esteem.

“Blacks may be more comfortable with Whites,” Michelle hypothesizes, “as a result of a greater amount of exposure to whites in an academic setting while at Princeton.”  This was standard academic cant then.  It still is today.  In fact, the exact opposite happened.  On the question of general comfort, 13 percent of the respondents claimed to have been comfortable with whites before Princeton, 4 percent while at Princeton, and only 1 percent post-Princeton.  Michelle had stumbled upon a seriously inconvenient truth.

Michelle was not among the one percent.  As a senior at Princeton, for instance, she imagines herself going forward “on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”  In a sense, she never let herself.

Having learned little from her Princeton experience, Michelle applied to Harvard Law and was admitted for the same reason her husband would later be — not the content of her character, but the color of her skin.  The obvious gap between her writing and that of her highly talented colleagues marked her as an affirmative action admission, and the profs finessed her through. 

One almost feels sorry for her.  She had to have been as anxious as Bart Simpson at Genius School, but Bart at least knew he was in over his head, and he understood why: he had cheated on his I.Q. test.  “It doesn’t take a Bart Simpson to figure out that something’s wrong,” he tells the principal and demands out.

If there is a “white privilege,” Bart nailed it: when “something’s wrong,” he has to look within.  He can’t blame the white man for his problems.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. Mark Mathews says

    No unlike a broken clock, the former First Lady shows herself to be correct at least twice a day.

  2. G M German says

    Surely I’m not the only one who can remember the MSM falling all over itself to praise MO’s alleged “wisdom” when falling in love with her during Barry Hussein’s presidential campaign. And, surely I’m not the only one who recognized her, just like her husband, as an AA admittee from the get-go.

  3. William Hicks says

    I’m a victim that eventually overcame affirmative action. In order to overcome affirmative action I had to wait until every minority and women were promoted on either the color of skin and gender ONLY.

    I don’t blame those who took advantage of affirmative action, they were as much a victim as I was in that everyone knew they were not up to the jib, including themselves. BUT those leftist liberals that created affirmative action are criminally racists.

    • The Captive says

      I remember being called an Anglo in NM . There being “SPANISH” is what counts. Mexican is not as good.
      Then just like in Mexico it is how white you are -WHITE and Spanish. That just about says it.
      Now in CA – if you tan enough and look on the dark side they will ask are you from Mexico? They drop the Anglo and and talk about being white–cause being white is it.
      Well things have changed again. It is not if you can do the job but what are you first. I am glad if affirmative action is dropped because jobs went to Spanish speakers first , Then what happened to learning and speaking English FIRST? Well the Unions run the government schools and the corruption will stay and kids will be on the short end and get indoctrination and not EDUCATION . This is part of their plan toward GLOBALISM -It stinks and if you have the guts to get out and choose something that gives you a much better education then GET SOMETHING BETTER!

  4. Really??? says

    Hey Berry not so nice when it comes back and bites you where you sleep, is it?

    This was a major problem with the Johnson Administration. War on Poverty failed to the tune of Billions of 1965 tax dollars…. That is trillions in today’s spending.

    They let unqualified student in to make it “fair.” Instead of creating college prep classes to “boot strap” them and make the qualified.

    You see the results daily. The incompetence in government is where the also ran’s get jobs. The Democrats have failed for over 60 years. So why do you vote for them?

  5. Many years ago when Affirmative Action was first put into place, I was working in an office of an insurance company. I was a white female, as were all of the people in our office, except for the boss, who was male. Both myself and one other lady, were considered minorities, and fulfilled the racial requirements for the office. I was married to an Asian, and she was married to a Mexican, we qualified on “name only” not on actual race. That is how messed up the plan was from the beginning.

  6. On the ballot this coming November in California is an inititiative to reinstate affirmative action in the admission of students to the UC system. This initiative, Prop. 19, repeals Prop. 209 passed in the late 1990’s. Today, UC reported that 36% of of incoming freshmen in the UC system are Latinos, 35% Asians, 22% White, and 5% African American. One must assume that all these students are qualified and that affirmative action did not skew the statistical results. As a Latino, I am very proud of my two children who graduated from UC Berkeley. I hope these results convince the Latinos that they can compete without affirmative action.

    It has been my contention that supporting affirmative action is an admission of intellectual inferiority by the groups hoping to benefit from it. Supporters of Prop. 19 tell the world that they are just not smart enough to qualify for the UC system without a handicap. Groups wanting such preferences should do some deep soul searching and ask why their group does not meet the criteria of the UC system. Maybe there are solutions which will enable their members to compete on equal terms. Otherwise, the only conclusion is that they are not smart enough to compete. Do I believe this? No!

  7. Correction on Nazario’s statement:

    We need to vote no on Prop 16 to keep the constitution intact and protest equal right to all!

Speak Your Mind

*