In today’s Augusta Free Press, Chris Graham has an article about the Kilgore campaign race-baiting. I’ve written about Scott Howell’s work with Jerry Kilgore in crafting the message, and Lowell Feld pointed to Kilgore’s comments on affirmative action as being a clear-case of race-baiting.
The Kaine campaign held a conference call this morning on the topic. During it, Virginia State University professor Earl McClenney parsed Kilgore’s language slowly and deliberately, pointing out what Kilgore means when he refers to a “good student” from “Northern Virginia” (a white kid), and what Kilgore means when he blames their lack of admission on affirmative action (a black kid got admitted, instead). It’s pretty obvious, I suppose, but sometimes these things need to be spelled out.
If Mr. Kilgore believes that black students are being admitted at the expense of white students, he ought to simply say so, and we can all have an honest discussion about that. If that’s not what he means, I wish he’d clear it up by being a little more specific as to the groups and causes to which he’s referring.
I’ve been muddling over this August Free Press article the past two days and still wonder what Kilgore meant. Either it’s a parsed racial message or Kilgore is making a wildly wrong answer.
Virginia is one of the only states in the nation that guarantees universal access to its higher education system. That means that all legal resident of the state are assured acceptance at one of Virginia’s network of public universities, colleges and junior colleges. However, that doesn’t mean that parents who believe their child is a “good student” can count on getting a slot at a top tier school (like, say, UVA, W&M or VATech) if their child isn’t qualified (“good enough”) to attend.
So, does that constitute a backwards reference to equal opportunity? That’s a possibility. It also crosses my mind that it may also be an effort to create a mythos that Virginia’s educational system functions only as a benefit for the priviledged elite, to devalue the work Warner has done to benefit higher education systems. Of course, the message may be to create both a subliminal perception of both issues–racial unfairness and an unfair higher education system–even though neither, in fact, exists.
Still, when faced with such misleading claims, is it enough to show that the claims are incorrect? It’s not as if we gain anything from calling them liars (that just appears defensive and weak). It appears to me that we really have to expose the rationale behind all these manipulative statements, make their hidden agenda known and fight them on that…
I don’t normally post to say this but, hey: excellent comment. I wish I were smart like that. :)
The inference of racism seems contrived to me – other targets seem as likely if not more likely, and those are: the admittees from out-of-state, the state officials who impose the limits on class sizes (whoever they are), and the local schools – for their reputation or lack thereof with admissions officials.
Also, what is the reference for this guarantee of universal access to higher education?