As we all know, much of the controversy over racial preferences has swirled around the question of whether they are, or promote, quotas. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t understand why people who defend preferences object to quotas, but I’ll leave that question for another day.
Or maybe not. Bush has come under heavy fire for criticizing the Michigan policies — illegitimately, according to his critics — as quotas. “No they’re not!” say Michigan and its many defenders. But it would be nice to hear from LieberDaschKerryDeanEd.al. what they think quotas are, why they dislike them, examples of unacceptable quota programs, and what their underlying principles are that allow them to distinguish unacceptable uses of racial preference from acceptable uses.
So far virtually all the quota-talk has been criticism of Bush and the Republicans for false labeling, but, as I began to argue here, the Democrats rely on quota-talk at least as much as the Republicans, probably more, to try to make themselves look responsible on race. The post linked above discusses Lieberman and Kerry, but, looking gravely in the eye of the camera, they all oppose quotas, even die-hard defenders of racial preferences like Al Gore. In the 2000 election, when he was once called on (and, making my point, only once) to explain five votes he cast as a Congressman opposing the IRS’s revocation of tax exemptions from discriminatory private schools, Gore replied — you guessed it — that those votes were “anti-quota.” (I discussed that episode here.)
How about a little more symmetry in handing out red herring awards.
http://www.mdcbowen.org/booslam/2003/01/26.html#a192
speaking for myself, as one who defends racial preferences but opposes quotas, the reason has much to do with the logic of bakke.
bakke suggests that the effect of a quota is that it sets a fixed limit on the protected class, and creates a separate standard by which both classes are judged. from my perspective, this defeats the purpose of integration which is to put more people on equal footing and give all classes an opportunity to take part and take pride in the institution.
before integration, the standards of selective institutions were artificially high because they prejudged what constitutes proper preparation by eliminating from consideration those forced to attend inferior schools. all colleges were cherry picking. black colleges existed but they too chose from a mutually exclusive applicant pool.
this is precisely what a separate standard is. so until both black colleges and white colleges made changes to their admission and recruitment efforts, they effectively carried out separate and unequal tracks.
so if ‘lowering standards’ means doing what was done in texas, allowing entrance for the top 10% across all schools, then this is precisely appropriate. it is also race conscious and preferential because it recognizes the fact that the university was cherry picking.
it might be possible that a quota could be constructed to repair a separate standard. but integration requires an equal standard.
it is entirely reasonable for white candidates to a university in the highly segregated south to face a different set of criteria vis a vis affirmative action which is designed to overcome the historical denial of service, than they would face in other areas.
no doubt they would face different criteria in canada or as non-resident applicants to a state university. implied in the charter of a public university is serving its community, balance is called for.
this is my interpretation of the common sense behind balkin’s proposition of racial asymmetry.
—
all that aside, race is an overburdened proxy, and i believe it is entirely reasonable to look at geography and class to satisfy what i interpret as the shallow interpretation of most voters who support colorblind referenda like prop 209.