Geitner Simmons, who has often linked to posts on this site, demonstrates his fairness and balance by presenting two counterpoints to what often appears here.
He quotes Kevin Drum of CalPundit criticizing Bill Bennett, and by implication those of us who agree with him, emphasizing
the mote of one white woman who can’t get into her top choice of university while utterly ignoring the beam of racism that destroys millions of black lives to this day. Of course affirmative action is unfair to some whites. But given the continuing existence of racism in America, the lack of affirmative action is unfair to blacks. So which unfairness do you pick?
The University of Michigan affirmative action case to which he refers is actually two cases with two white women, Barbara Grutter who was rejected from law school and Jennifer Gratz who was rejected as a freshman, but one, two, six, 437 … it doesn’t really affect Drum’s point. His is a common argument, and it deserves a reply.
First, I am not convinced that present, ongoing racism “destroys millions of black lives to this day.” But even if I’m wrong about that, it doesn’t follow that providing the racially-based privilege of lower admission standards to a relatively small number of black applicants to a few selective universities is an acceptable or even relevant “remedy,” especially since many of the beneficiaries do not come from families destroyed by racism, or anything else. Indeed, many are not even Americans, since universities generally allow foreign black students to benefit from the same lower standards that apply to domestic minorities.
At least Drum recognizes that “[o]f course affirmative action is unfair to some whites” (and presumably Asians and other unpreferred minorities in this country, such as Arabs or Pakistanis). I wonder, though, exactly why he thinks it’s unfair. Does it violate any rights, or does it merely cause inconvenience and disappointment? If it violates a right — say, to be free from racial discrimination — is Drum also willing to set aside other rights — such as freedom from unreasonable searches, or to freedom of speech — to accomplish other worthy goals?
Simmons also quotes an email from Gary Farber of Amygdata making a similar point, which is that I am guilty of what he calls the “False Mirror Fallacy.”
Certainly the debate about the pros versus cons of using consideration of
There is surely discrimination against blacks in the US today. But how much does it actually affect their chances in life? That is an empirical question. So what does the social science evidence say? After controlling for test scores, most of the earnings difference between black and white men disappears (and all of it for women). Blacks are also more likely to complete high school (see this, this and this.) In a sane world, the left would take a look at this sort of evidence and conclude that the most important priority in race relations would be to close the gap in academic achievement. Instead, the left dissipates its energy and moral authority on things like affirmative action in college admissions, which can benefit only a tiny fraction of black students.
The question of whether Affirmative Action is desirable or permissible must at least take into account the various settings in which it may be implemented. In many of the most important circumstances in which Affirmative Action is considered, it is simply wrongheaded to the point of perversity to act as though individual “rights” to an opportunity are otherwise unadulterated.
For example, in private college admissions, weight is given to many factors having little to do with academic performance. Legacies get preference; athletes get preference; applicants from, say, North Dakota get preference in the Ivy League.
Why is it a peculiar outrage that preference should be given to African Americans?
Even in public colleges, factors other than academic performance figure into admission. Legacies may or may not get preference, but athletes certainly often do. Is there general concern that academically inferior athletes will enter the marketplace in higher positions than they are qualified for, and wreak the consequences of their incompetence on the general population? Is there anxiety that athletes will suffer the rest of their lives under the stigma of having been selected for admission despite having lower credentials than the rest of the student population? Why is it that the terrible consequences of preferences, so eloquently articulated by the right, seem to do no one harm outside the realm of race?
The selective indignation directed toward Affirmative Action and its repurcusions tells much about the real motives of many who so loudly decry it.
frankly0 – I find it sadly revealing that you put “rights” in quotation marks in discussing this issue. If rights (no quotation marks) weren’t implicated, there would be no real debate.
No one says anyone has a right to attend a selective college, nor does anyone deny that colleges may — indeed, must — discriminate on a large number of grounds. What many of us do say, however, is that every person has right not to be discriminated against on racial grounds. Thus, while there is no right to attend a selective school, there is a right not be exclused because of race. Similarly, the fact that colleges may appropriately discriminate for many reasons does not mean they can discriminate for any reason whatsoever. Public instiutions should not be allowed to exclude or include for reasons of race or religion.
For example, in private college admissions, weight is given to many factors having little to do with academic performance. Legacies get preference; athletes get preference; applicants from, say, North Dakota get preference in the Ivy League.
Why is it a peculiar outrage that preference should be given to African Americans?
I have answered this question so many times that, with Joanne Jacobs‘ help, I have given it a name: Invidious Ubiquitous Non Sequitur. I have discussed it at varying lengths so many times that my response almost types itself now. For starters, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Unfortunately, none of your links seems to work, so I’ll just respond to the argument you make here.
You make the point that,
“Thus, while there is no right to attend a selective school, there is a right not be exclused because of race.”
Even you seem to recognize the legitimate distinction between the conditions of a minority such as blacks and that of whites. It would indeed be simply perverse not to acknowledge the asymmetry between the two cases.
Why then is it wrong to say that discrimination against blacks IS a violation of their rights, and “discrimination” against whites in Affirmative Action is NOT a violation of the “rights” of whites? (I use quotes precisely because I don’t believe that rights are truly being violated in these cases, or at the very least such rights do not carry anything like the great weight attached to the violation of the rights of blacks who are being discriminated against.) I simply ask the following question: even if you happen to believe that in both cases involve racial “discrimination”, do you honestly believe that each case is as serious a violation as the other? To put it another way, if Affirmative Action is wrong, is it as wrong as discrimination against blacks, even from the point of view of the “rights” involved?
Now, I’m afraid you’re going to choose to be consistent in your answer to this question, rather than be sensible. Yet most people, in their moral heart of hearts, will recognize the great disparity between these two kinds of “discrimination”, even purely with respect to the issue of rights — and yet your position must condemn both equally.
I would say that most people feel that discrimination against people on the account of race most basically derives from their perceived sense of unfairness when applied to oppressed minorities such as blacks — when instead it is applied to the powerful majority of whites, it is based primarily only on a weak analogy to the case of discrimination against those who are authentically oppressed. It is the very weakness of the analogy that inclines most people with a developed moral sense to experience far less, if any, indignation over “discrimination” against whites.
And as for your dismissal of the analogous case of legacies, I would simply ask whether you truly believe that an individual who comes from a family whose parents were not college educated is NOT being discriminated against in any way when a position that he or she might otherwise have been awarded is instead given to a far less qualified legacy (or perhaps the child of a very rich or famous person)?
I don’t think the discrimination in this case is generally as outrageous as discrimination against blacks, but I think it is quite a bit more so than “discrimination” against whites in Affirmative Action.
Your deep problem is that you seem to have no ability to make these distinctions, or to account for the difference in perceived unfairness of the various cases.
Your theory is basically inadequate.
frankly0 – No time to respond to your provocative comments right now. I will later today. Meanwhile, the links in my previous reply to your comment (which I screwed up before) are working now, so you may want to take a look at them. Later….
frankly0 says:
Why then is it wrong to say that discrimination against blacks IS a violation of their rights, and “discrimination” against whites in Affirmative Action is NOT a violation of the “rights” of whites? (I use quotes precisely because I don’t believe that rights are truly being violated in these cases, or at the very least such rights do not carry anything like the great weight attached to the violation of the rights of blacks who are being discriminated against)….
Simple. Every person has a right to be from racial discrimination. Thus there is no distinction, based on race or anything else, between rights being violated and “rights” being “truly” violated. Individuals have rights, not groups. Aside from my own preferences, however, American law is consistent in holding that the rights recognized by our civil rights laws inhere in individuals. Going back to the 19th Century no court has held that racial discrimination against whites is permissible. I think I quoted Justice Powell in Bakke on this point, but if not here it is, and if so here it is again:
… I simply ask the following question: even if you happen to believe that in both cases involve racial “discrimination”, do you honestly believe that each case is as serious a violation as the other? To put it another way, if Affirmative Action is wrong, is it as wrong as discrimination against blacks, even from the point of view of the “rights” involved?
I think any violation of any rights is serious, but no, I don’t think affirmative action is “as wrong” as, say, segregation. Preferentialists have what I regard as good intentions, and intentions count. The fact that they mean well, however, does not mean that what they do is good, or legal. Manslaughter is not “as wrong” as murder (and largely because of a less heinous intent), but that doesn’t mean the state should allow it.
I would say that most people feel that discrimination against people on the account of race most basically derives from their perceived sense of unfairness when applied to oppressed minorities such as blacks — when instead it is applied to the powerful majority of whites, it is based primarily only on a weak analogy to the case of discrimination against those who are authentically oppressed. It is the very weakness of the analogy that inclines most people with a developed moral sense to experience far less, if any, indignation over “discrimination” against whites.
I’m not sure what most people feel. I am sure that implying that people who disagree with you have a less developed moral sense than you is not a very effective way to persuade them you’re right. In your example above, it is worth remembering that racial minorities are oppressed by means of racial discrimination. If racial discrimination weren’t wrong, there would be nothing wrong with holding their race against them. In any event, your majority-minority model doesn’t fit our society, and fits it less every day. If it’s o.k. for a government to discriminate against a majority group (because their “rights” aren’t “truly” being denied), would it be acceptable to give preferences to white contractors in cities with majority black populations and black-run governments? If fairness requires proportional representation, should black teachers and other civil servants in Los Angeles be fired to make way for more underrepresented Hispanics? Hispanics? What about Haitians or Salvadoreans discriminated against by Cubans in Miami? One you start pulling on the thread of individual rights, the whole social fabric starts unraveling.
And as for your dismissal of the analogous case of legacies, I would simply ask whether you truly believe that an individual who comes from a family whose parents were not college educated is NOT being discriminated against in any way when a position that he or she might otherwise have been awarded is instead given to a far less qualified legacy (or perhaps the child of a very rich or famous person)?
I do believe a more qualified applicant who is rejected in favor of a less qualified legacy is being discriminated against. What I don’t believe is that there is or should be any right to be free from this sort of discrimination. I refer you back to my now-working links in my previous reply, for here you are repeating the invidious ubiquitous non sequitur of implying that if an institution can discriminate for some reasons (legacies, athletic or musical talent, geographical distribution, academic interests) it can discriminate for any reason at all (race or religion come to mind). In my view universities have the right to compromise with a commitment to pure merit as much as they like, so long as they don’t trample on protected categories such as race or religion.
Your deep problem is that you seem to have no ability to make these distinctions, or to account for the difference in perceived unfairness of the various cases.
Although readers (if any) will be the judge of this, once again I suspect that you would have better luck with your arguments if you didn’t so readily accuse those who disagree with you of having inferior mental capabilities. Saying in effect “You’d agree with me if only your mind worked as well as mine does” is not a very effective debating technique.
I would say that most people feel that discrimination against people on the account of race most basically derives from their perceived sense of unfairness when applied to oppressed minorities such as blacks — when instead it is applied to the powerful majority of whites, it is based primarily only on a weak analogy to the case of discrimination against those who are authentically oppressed. It is the very weakness of the analogy that inclines most people with a developed moral sense to experience far less, if any, indignation over “discrimination” against whites.
I think the argument you make is that discrimination by the majority against the minority is different from discrimination against the majority in favor of the minority. Where that falls apart, at least in the area of college admissions, is Asians.
I am an Asian. My parents emigrated here as adults and spoke English with a heavy accent. I was openly mocked because of my race throughout my childhood (people slanting there eyes, making “kung fu” sounds, talking in an imitation of Chinese, etc.). This is probably the case for many Asians whose parents emigrated to the US. But, not only do Asians not receive any preferences in college admissions, Asians are discriminated against in that higher standards are placed on Asians than blacks or hispanics. IIRC, one study even showed that, if students were admitted to certain CA universities solely based on grades/test scores, Asians would make up the largest portion of the student body. But they don’t, whites do.
So why should certain minority racial groups receive preferences over other minority racial groups?