SAnDra Day has given us a very sad day. As mentioned below, I’m now in San Francisco, with only limited access to a computer (at least one whose Internet connection works). I heard the news early this morning, but have not yet read the opinions. I’ve also refrained from reading any other commentary so far, in part out of involuntary necessity (see above) and in part to give myself time to think. Or maybe grieve.
I will of course have more to say about the Michigan cases in due, or overdue, course. For now, I’m primarily struck by how sad it is that SAnDra Day ends her career (it is almost over, isn’t it?) by blasting a hole in the dike that heretofore had dammed (damned?) the waters of racial discrimination. But it is far too late in the day to criticize her for writing political, unprincipled opinions.
It is not too late, however, to level that criticism against the Bush administration, and primarily against the president himself. The gutless, insipid Grutter brief he ordered Ted Olson to submit all but invited this result. Let’s hope the president is pleased by it, since a number of his formerly loyal supporters will not be.
In short, I think at least a short season of recriminations may well be in order, and I’m certainly not above throwing a few rhetorical bricks myself. But my initial thought is that it would be a mistake to stop there, i.e., to devote energies, as the anti-abortion movement did after losing Roe, to building a political movement devoted to having the decision reversed by Amendment or new justices overturning it. Far better, I suspect, would be, if you will pardon the expression, to “move on” by recognizing that “diversity” has now in effect been written into the Constitution as a super value that trumps the principle against racial and (we can only assume, religious) discrimination.
Thus it is not too soon to begin exploring ways to test and implement this new principle. Perhaps that would involve challenging current “diversity” admissions programs on the grounds that they are not really diverse. Surely the ranks of rejected applicants at many diversiphile academies contain armies of Arab, Sri Lankan, Hmong, Pentecostal, Hindu, and Muslim applicants whose race, ethnicity, or religion was not considered even though those groups are grievously underrepresented. And, as others have suggested, maybe it is time for political tests as well. How politically diverse are faculties and student bodies at elite schools these days?
Since it is now not discriminatory to take race (and presubably other such matters) into account, isn’t it discriminatory not to, at least at institutions who are on record (as virtually all are) worshiping at the altar of “diversity”?
UPDATE – I’ve just begun to dip in to the commentary, and I note that Brother Volokh (the senior) notes that “the Grutter v. Bollinger decision has held that the U.S. Constitution and federal law do not prohibit race preferences; but it certainly didn’t say that such preferences are required.”
I have no doubt that, at least for now, Eugene’s conclusion is correct. But now that the Supremes have sanctified the view that “diversity” is a compelling public interest, it’s hard to see what will prevent it from being required.
ANOTHER UPDATE – Take a look at Dahlia Lithwick’s evisceration of Grutter. (It’s her entry dated Monday, June 23, 3:23PM, though there may be more later.)
And she supports affirmative action!
Affirming the action
Rust at Conservatives Suck has some thoughts on the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action rulings, based on his days at a small
A horrible decision, I agree. Another political round of ‘kick the can.’ Let the next generation deal with it. The place to insure a (racially) diverse college campus is K12, but nobody wants to face the hard work that that would involve, preferring rather the Potemtin village that has been erected in its stead.
We have reached the nadir of modern American jurisprudence. SAnDra Day O’Connor–scraping the bottom for some time now–has begun to dig. Someone should check the graves of Jefferson and Madison, for beneath they are surely spinning like tops. Now that the pernicious principle of “diversity” has been formally enshrined, I will be eager to watch Pandora open her box wide.
Racial “diversity” should now be mandated for all college administrations and faculty, with the U of M the first to be “diversified”—how can one learn if the teachers are not “diverse?” (as an aside, how is it possible that Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were able to give birth to occidental philosophy while lacking “diversity?”).
More importantly though, legislatures and judiciaries must now be “diverse,” regardless of the will of the people (I presume this goes without saying). Are you aware that every single Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is white? This, obviously, will not stand, though who will be the first to sacrifice themselves on principle–I’ll just hold my breath and wait. Did you know that there is not a single American Indian or Hispanic on the United States Supreme Court? Are you aware that neither of these panels have an Asian-American? Oh, I forget, they don’t count. Sorry.
But of course none of this has a thing to do with diversity. It is a political and cultural handshake between venal white leftists and racist black ones—and quite a simple one at that. We give you preferences, and you give us votes; easy. But there’s a more sinister underside, and one touched on by Roger Clegg yesterday in one of the most un-clairvoyant columns of all time. In it, he speculates on the results of a decision routing racist preferences—would that it were so! He cautions, in part:
“The reaction of the latter groups, in particular, isn’t going to be pretty. In fact, if the past is prologue, the rhetoric of the hard-charging race-demagogues to a loss in the UM cases could be out-and-out dangerous.
Don’t scoff. After all, it was only seven years ago that eight people gruesomely died in Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem after Al Sharpton demanded that the Jewish owner — a “white interloper,” Rev. Al called him — be forced out. God willing, nothing remotely like this will take place. And surely it helps that universities are currently on summer break. But no one should dismiss out-of-hand the real possibility of angry marches and demonstrations that have the potential of turning violent.”
Here is where the rubber truly meets the road. The red quartet (Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg) are not wholesale idiots, and are surely no more gulled by the “diversity” claptrap than any 12-year old who would also find it logically unimpressive. But there is a not-so-veiled threat here. Jackson/Sharpton/Farrakhan say give us preferences and we’ll give you votes. But don’t give us preferences and we’ll give you “no justice, no peace.” Do the LA riots ring a bell, Ms. O’Connor? This is a protection racket, and one that our craven elites are all too happy to perpetuate—for at least 25 years, that is.
I do think there’s a political solution to this: outlawing preferences as California has done. There is no way that a concept as incoherent as “diversity” can be mandated as you so cynically predict.
But cynicism is not an unusual reaction, John. I’m wallowing in it right now. Chin up. Not all is lost.
Constitutional Diversity
Well, I knew that when he weighed in, it would be good. John Rosenberg notes, surprisingly, that we may now have to simply accept that…
The solution to affirmative action: encourage students to NOT indicate their race on college applications. It insures they are picked for their qualifications and not their “diversity” quota. I think we will see more of “opt outs” on race designation, particularly as the current generation of youth, who live and interact in a diverse world, realize that affirmative action does not promote an equal opportunity society. Racism, in any form, only promotes ill will. It is far better for students to know they earned a place in higher education based on their merits, not their skin color.
Michigan Final Thoughts: Pt. II
There is one point that seems to have been relatively forgotten in all of the past days’ pontificating. John Rosenberg covers it nicely in his fine commentary on Grutter: It is not too late, however, to level that criticism against…
If your name and family info clearly demarcate you as a member of some race or ethnicity, and you choose not to check a box, are you automatically exempt from any kind of racial/ethnic weighting system?
I also have a slight (probably irrational) fear that refusing to check the box would imply to the admissions officers that you weren’t acting in good faith, and thus taint the rest of your application.
Well, O’Connor has a long, long history of idiosyncratic, irrational decisions, as discussed in the final chapter of this excellent book. I don’t see how this decision is a worse travesty than the Florida election decision [“Oh, Gore won. That’s terrible.”].
Having said that, O’Connor did put her finger on something that gets glossed over here. Most American black families are survivors of, first, slavery, and second, a century-long system that quashed their legal rights and economic development. Moreover, even after the formal repeal of this system, there’s substantial evidence to suggest that in many places it persisted, with continued negative political, social, and economic effect, driven by bigotry. “Colorblindness” seems to imply that formal race-neutrality from this point forward is a sufficient counterweight to this history, even, it might be added, where the outcome is somehow mysteriously still to the detriment of black Americans. (We went through that in the jury pool thread.)
Without saying so, which is too bad, but with her allusion to another “25 years”, O’Connor seems to me to be endorsing the Michigan program as a fixed-term compensatory scheme. Yeah, I know the Court had previously trashed such schemes, even, and this is a disgrace, in places where blacks have not and without compensation probably will never catch up.
Croson, IIRC, was an example of this. No one in their right mind can believe that Richmond, Virginia gave a fair shake in public contracting until very recently, leaving white-owned firms with more experience, more capital, more equipment, and more connections than black-owned firms. And now that this advantage is entrenched, sure, let’s have a race-neutral bidding competition. Whom are we kidding here? Certain forms of libertarianism seem to believe that greater fairness is the outcome of formally neutral processes regardless of the system’s initial conditions. Bad physics, bad politics.
The “diversity” excuse arose after the Court’s manifestly ahistorical, amnesia-driven (well, probably voluntary amnesia) decisions against compensatory programs. My guess is that O’Connor (who has always been sympathetic to AA programs that benefit women) silently changed her mind on the reasons that these programs can be justified. And indeed I think I’m with her: it’s time for some real, honest, temporary compensatory programs unhindered by the bigots who choked off a lot of potential progress in the 1960s and ’70s. After that, I’m convinced “diversity” can take care of itself. (And if not, lack of diversity would arise from social pathologies best addressed by other programs.)
Now, this doesn’t mean that I endorse AA programs in a blanket way. Many of them failed, yet liberals did not end them because they felt the programs were symbols of commitment to redress of wrongs. And liberals generally pretended that these programs were cost-free, and that wasn’t true either. Moreover, I think that race-neutral programs are often better both practically and morally. I quite agree that it’s better to give medical school admissions points to doctors who promise (with a financial commitment) to work in the ghetto, rather than points to any applicant of whatever background who is the same color as most of the inhabitants of the ghetto. (A similar deal should obtain for all medically needy areas, which also includes largely white swaths of rural America.) And so on.
But let’s not pretend any more that our system started out from equality and has been distored by malicious elites, OK? Unless you mean the Southern aristocractic elite.
“But now that the Supremes have sanctified the view that “diversity” is a compelling public interest, it’s hard to see what will prevent it from being required.”
We’ve discussed this issue before, at a time we both thought it academic. “Compelling government interest” only means something is so important that the government would be crazy not to do something about it, and therefore, the Constitution must be interpreted so as to allow the challenged act. It does not mean that the Constitution itself “compels” anything.
I think Jack Balkin hit this one on the nose when he observed that the real meaning of O’Connor’s opinion is more along the lines of “affirmative action is no longer subject to strict scrutiny, but we’re still going to call it strict scrutiny anyway.”
AA as “compensatory” logically implies that it should be limited to native-born blacks. “Diversity”, on the other hand, throws it open to Hispanics, gays/lesbians, immigrants, etc. As the number of potential AA beneficiaries increases, political support among whites, at least, will probably decline.
For some regular contributors here, America is eternally sealed in amber in the 60s—and I’m talking the 1860s. Somehow, someway, layer upon layer of immoral preferences and transfer payments are to mystically absolve our nation of its sins committed by generations now largely deceased. The penalties are borne by the innocent while the benefits accrue to the undeserving. Unless someone can identify precisely who it is my two year-old son has “oppressed.” Or for that matter, who his father has. Or for that matter, who his father or his father has.
It’s also telling that some are deeply concerned about the “initial conditions” required for true equity. Interestingly, they are sanguine about the patently unfair initial conditions being created every single day through ongoing preferences—presumably, some people’s initial conditions are more pressing than others. The initial conditions of poor Appalachian whites are little helped by preferences for upper-class blacks.
There are also those who pine for more “compensatory” programs. As if 40 years of preferences, set-asides, de facto and de jure quotas, and all the stigma and strife inherent thereto were simply a jar of grape jelly! How much more compensation would you suggest? And to whom from whom? Cambodian immigrants to Dominican or vice versa? Or just white(y) to everyone?
Stuart, the following people would be the same age today if they were all alive:
1. Martin Luther King, Jr.
2. Anne Frank of the diary
3. my mother
[my mother, I am pleased to say, is still alive]
So the next time someone says something-or-another about the Holocaust (say, criticizing yesterday’s decision overturning California’s insurance regulations as the pertained to Holocaust victims), I’m waiting for your comment that they are frozen in the 1940s. Indeed, if it weren’t for all those people frozen in the 1940s, the (quite recent) California law in question wouldn’t exist.
While I appreciate your concern for Appalachian whites and Dominican immigrants, and while in many cases I support class-based rather than race-based AA, your attitude comes across as denial.
Comedian Chris Rock:
Andrew: Your mother (an intelligent woman if her son is any indication) was born in fine company. However, my previous points remain assiduously untouched.
Let me remind you that our topic is racial preferences in America–a country which has been quite accomodating to Jews, and the only true friend that Israel has in modernity. Let me also remind you that Jews also are discriminated against at the U. of M, a practice which you obviously condone. Though to address your point, I would not support preferences for 18 year-old Jews supported by the tragedy of their progenitors. Would you like to now address grievances from the Mongol invasion? My ancestors have many, I’m certain.
As for the California law you cite, I know absolutely nothing of it (there is a vast country outside California and New York, I’m happy to say), though will be amenable to comment, and draw the necessary distictions, if you’d care to share the particulars.
As for my alleged denial, you’ll have to be more specific. I don’t deny that slavery occurred or that Jim Crow was a reality. I also don’t deny that these two events ceased 138 and 49 years ago, respectively. I don’t deny that many whites don’t like blacks. I also don’t deny that a greater proportion of blacks don’t like whites. I don’t deny that blacks are born out-of-wedlock at an 80% clip and I don’t deny that black on white violent crime occurs at a factor of 10 to its opposite. I don’t deny that corporate America is wildly promiscuous in its racial preferences, and I don’t deny that blacks are the beneficiaries of this.
As for Chris Rock, he is not my philosophical exemplar, though whatever turns your crank is fine with me. However, his comment is unmitigated BS. Countless legions of whites would trade places with any number of black celebrities–have you ever seen youths in a mall, or MTV perchance? Personally, I’m fairly contented with my station, though let me take my friends and family, and I’ll be black Chris Rock in an instant–though I’d prefer Michael Jordan. Really, Andrew, you can’t be serious here.
Finally, yes I actually do have some concern for poor Appalachian whites–I was one.
Andrew Lazarus,
Whom are we kidding here? Certain forms of libertarianism seem to believe that greater fairness is the outcome of formally neutral processes regardless of the system’s initial conditions. Bad physics, bad politics.
It is certainly unfortunate if a person is born into a poor family, but it isn’t unfair. I have no control over my ancestory and neither do blacks. What people who have been long dead did to eachother may impact the present, but the effects aren’t necessarily unfair.
Let’s use some analogies to drive this home. Let’s say that I was born with an IQ of 75. I’m not bright, and so I have a serious disadvantage. Does it follow, then, that I now deserve extra social benefits to compensate for my stupidity? Do I deserve preference?
Or let’s say I was born in Bangledesh, a hideously poor nation. Do I deserve a certain percentage of American GDP because Americans are fortunate enough to be born in a wealthy nation? Is is unfair for me if America doesn’t subsidize me?
Or let’s put it this way. Let’s say I’m white, and my parents were horrible drug users. They raised me badly and I grew up poor. Do I now deserve extra social benefits? Is it unfair that other people don’t give up their job slots, or their money, to me?
There is a gulf of difference between the unfortunate and the unfair. Unfair is done to you by somebody; it implies that justice has been negated. Unfortunate is about bad circumstance.
A question for all of you. It’s 1965 and Jim Crow has just been dismantled. (Pick another year if useful.) Are there any appropriate race-conscious measures you would support? I think the answer to this question is ‘No’, and that’s why I find all of this ‘neutrality’ verbiage unpleasant. Sure, my family didn’t benefit much from Jim Crow, and people who immigrated recently didn’t benefit at all, but it seems like a very convenient way of washing our hands of an appalling miscarriage of justice. Are all those young Germans who feel some sense of responsibility for the Holocaust deluded? Is it necessary for the Swiss Government to compensate Jews, or just to say, “From now on, we will have religion-neutral procedures.” And yet, their crimes, as I pointed out in my example, are even further in the past than oppression of blacks. And much more recent than Genghis Khan, although as an Appalachian, Stuart, wouldn’t Hengist and Horsa be more apt?
Opposition to individual race-conscious programs as ineffective or excessive I can follow, even endorse on a case-by-case basis. But this sort of bright-line rule seems, well, better suited for a math class than for history as it was lived.
Owen, the government didn’t have a pattern or practice of making your parents drug users. The government up until the 1960s (and in some ways later) actively worked, in some places, against the political and economic development of blacks, as a class. I think that makes the matter quite different.
You wish to argue that the history of African-Americans is unfortunate under this definition? Quite the contrary!
Andrew: I’ll address each of your points as they pertain to our discussion. Owen will, I’m certain, more intelligently stand in his own defense.
You continue to make a flawed assumption. And that is that societal, or possibly even individual, guilt can and should transfer from one generation to the next. Much like your apparent belief that victimhood does. It troubles you that an “appalling miscarriage of justice” has occurred. And in this I would agree. But you are dead wrong in asserting that any hands have been washed of it, quite the contrary. Decades of welfare, inner city works, and housing assistance are ongoing IN ADDITION to the pernicious racial preferences which you extol. This very moment in my city, an eight-figure high-school is being built for a section which is over 90% black. Whose taxes are funding this would you guess?
However, if you are truly honest about racial guilt, what then do you say about the ongoing pandemic of black violent crime? Do innocent blacks share some culpability for the Wichita Horror?–a case I’m certain you are familiar with. I say they do not, but why would you agree?
As for some stragglers—1)If young Germans feel they are personally responsible for the Holocaust, then yes they are quite deluded. But beyond that, why do you make light of the atrocities commited by the Mongols? It’s a stale item? Then give me the group grievance cut-off date: 50 years? 150? 1000? Let me know what you decide.
Finally, I’ll illustrate using your words with one substitution: “Opposition to Jim Crow programs as ineffective or excessive I can follow, even endorse on a case-by-case basis. But this sort of bright-line rule seems, well, better suited for a math class than for history as it was lived.”
Can you see where a bright line is VERY germane?
Michigan Case Links
Lots and lots of commentary about the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Michigan admissions law suits. I’m not going to
Andrew, I have to say I’m a bit distressed by the very poor opinion you have of some of us who argue with you. A few days ago you suggested that we all supported the Oklahoma grandfather clause. Now you say that we’d go back to 1965 and pretend that there was a level playing field as soon as the civil rights legislation passed.
We’re having a minor off-and-on scandal in our city now. Our city has a black mayor and a majority black city council and school board. That’s fine. The scandal is over the fact that city work that’s supposed to go out for bids is actually directed to local minority firms that several groups say are charging far more than they should. In fact, pressure was brought to bear on one of those firms to drop its price on work that was already contracted for – that’s how egregious the overpricing was. Yet the world will stop spinning on its axis if any white-owned businesses get this work. Yes, there have been lawsuits filed by the white-owned firms and by taxpayer advocates but somehow strings are pulled and nothing changes. Conclusion: It ain’t 1965 anymore.
If I imputed bad motives to you, Andrew, I’d say that you think we white people, right down to the little babies, (not to mention black taxpayers who are getting screwed?) deserve this somehow.
Laura, I am asking about 1965 because, as I understand Stuart, he would have opposed any race-based compensatory program even then. In other words,
is almost my understanding of his position. The only discrepancy is that I don’t think he believes that the playing field would be level, none of us are so foolish, but rather that he does not find the levelness of the playing field germane, once the game rules have been race-neutralized.
If this isn’t a fair restatement of Stuart’s position, as applied to your metaphor, I hope he will correct me.
I, myself, bring up this time travel experiment because to me it shows why Stuart’s bright line rule is unsatisfactory, nor do I find his conflating laws passed by the majority in perpetuation of their own subjugation of the minority (his example) equivalent to laws passed by the majority to undue this subjugation (my example). Really, that line “The law in its majesty prohibits the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges” is supposed to be mordant, not a normative statement of correct legal principle.
I do want to note here an unstated point of agreement with Stuart. White liberals (such as myself) have often been much too lenient about issues like corrupt black city government. The single vote I most regret in my life is probably for Marion Barry in his first campaign for mayor of DC, when, quite differently from his subsequent campaigns, he was the preference of the white minority. I’m not sure I see the relevance of the social pathology in largely black communities, though.
And I also want to point out a heretofore unstated point of agreement with you, Laura. I think that one reason white leftists (lefter than liberals?) and perhaps members of minority groups supported even AA programs that failed in their nominal objective was to punish whites under a theory that they deserved it somehow. I would like to think I do not hold this position, but I suspect we know people who do.
Andrew: That was quite a thoughtful and civil post, bereft of even a hint of “racist” accusation. Though I personally believe most racists these days congregate on the left-side of the political aisle (this doesn’t mean you). Do you think that Jackson/Sharpton/Maxine Waters et al. are not racist? But I digress.
Your characterization of my speculative 1965 position is almost a fair one, though missing a critical element: I would have (as was done–see previous post) supported inner city infrastructure and housing assistance, community/business development incentives, and even affirmative action under its original intent (which clearly does not exist in practical terms today). You are, I presume, aware of Hubert Humphrey’s infamous pledge.
No, today’s AA has metastasized into a sleek discrimination and racial spoils machine. There is a world of difference between giving blacks a fair hearing and giving them the store (I don’t recall Frederick Douglas or MLK asking for preferences). And really, enough with this level playing field line–you clearly are not in favor of such an environment yourself. I am, and there is only one way on Earth to get close: race neutrality.
Also, my conflating of the two issues was quite apt when dealing solely on principle, which is what I thought we were discussing. Andrew seems to view principles as malleable, contingent on what skin color passes the law, and what skin color is adversely impacted. Are the laws passed by the dozens of black city councils to be viewed through a different legal prism than those passed by whites? Come to think of it, this is precisely the leftist hypocrisy on the issue.
As for black social pathologies, I note them to draw a parallel to your belief in collective racial guilt. If the punative burden of Jim Crow is to be shared by all whites, then is also the guilt of rampant violent crime to be shared by all blacks? It’s a fair question inasmuch as it’s difficult to be more “oppressed” than dead. Do you believe in shared racial guilt or not? If so, then let’s apply it equitably.
Lastly, tell me why Chris Rock’s son should receive preferences over the son of an Eastern Kentucky coal miner when both apply to the same college. Make your case. I’ll be fascinated to hear it.
Well, first, I hope I never implied that the libertarian (I might say, context-free) version of colorblindness arises from racial animus. My complaint is that I think it’s insufficient to undo the damage done by persons who WERE motivated by racial animus.
Second, I don’t know enough about Maxine Waters to guess whether she is a racist. Jesse Jackson and (probably) Al Sharpton aren’t racists, themselves, but I think they pander to people who are. (Jackson, especially, is just a self-promoter.) Farrakhan, a racist. Now: Trent, Buchanan, Kirk Fordyce?? Not sitting on my side of the aisle.
Third, I’m not old enough to remember Frederick Douglas, but King was pro race-based compensatory programs.
In Douglas’s day, these programs could probably have been written race-neutrally merely by refererring to former slaves, and in that formulation, I suppose you would accept them. (I’m not sure about Owen; for him, having been a slave appears to be “unfortunate”, but not “unfair”.)
Fourth, on questions like collective guilt and how the African American community should feel about, say, the crime epidemic, I don’t think it’s fair to conflate a community with the government. If there is a black government that’s directing a race-based anti-white crime wave, by all means let it make race-based restitution. But AFAIK, no mostly-black city councils are passing such laws or even covertly organizing paramilitary organizations for such purposes. In the United States, only whites have to bear the history of official discrimination (and in other places tacitly-endorsed private discrimination).
And last, refusing to accept a blanket opposition of AA programs does not mean acceptance of all AA programs. I’m very skeptical of whether Northern state universities should be employing a race-based system, as opposed to a class-based system. (I don’t know your philosophical position on class-based systems? Owen, it would appear, is opposed; they are merely “unfortunate”.) Ironically, the long-ago Croson decision is an example where the Court struck down what seemed to me an obvious remedy for specific, animus-based discrimination.
Andrew: A good discussion, and one I’ll let rest (for now) after the following:
1) You say: “I think it’s insufficient to undue the damage…” Hey, I agree, it is insufficient. But every single slave and slaveowner and all their children are dead. The best we can do is remember the injustice and see that it never occurs again. The thing NOT to do in response is to create an entirely new regime of government-sponsored racial discrimination, which is precisely the rx of the Left (and to his eternal shame, George W. Bush, it appears). Instead of eradicating the injustice, you perpetuate it.
2) As for racist black politicians, they are legion. Now, I’ll grant you, Jackson and Sharpton are naked in their lust for money and power–they are as pristine in their immorality as any two human beings alive. However, the fact that the rhyming reverends love money more than they hate whitey should in no way dilute the fact that–they do, in fact, hate whites. As for Maxine Waters: When Terry Mcauliffe won the top DNC spot over his black opponent (I forget the name), Maxine was quoted admonishing her black colleages to “never again vote for a white boy over a black man.” Racist? I report, you decide.
Also, try this test: Give me one single prominent black Democrat who would not fit the objective criteria for “racist” that you would apply to a white conservative. Harold Ford from Tenn. is the only one I can imagine. By the way, who on Earth is Kirk Fordyce? And I don’t think Buchanon or Lott are racists. Give me a quote to the contrary, and maybe I’ll change my mind.
3) MLK: Your quotes do imply that he was grubbing for money, although he also reportedly dreamed of men being judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. So, either he was conflicted in his beliefs or I’m not discerning the fine subtleties of his position. Obviously, the latter, though I’m willing to be educated.
4) I’m going to draw on a couple of personal anecdotes which I don’t intend for cheap emotional points, though I think they poignantly illustrate what you are missing.
a) In the fully integrated public high school I attended (about 65-35 white/black) I witnessed at least a dozen instances of whites being attacked by gangs of black thugs. The consistent response to this was: Yawn. Just another broken-up whitey, boys will be boys after all. Yet, had a group of whites savaged a lone black student, our school would have been the epicenter of worldwide outrage. I fully expect we would have been visted by the attorney general, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, Interpol, the Sierra Club, the Jedi Knights, the Federation of Planets, and maybe even Janine Garofolo. My point here is that government discrimination can be just as pernicious through acts of omission as those of comission.
b) Approximately a decade ago, my sister had a male friend scheduled to visit with friends from another city. Foreign to the area, they stopped to ask directions to her neighborhood. According to witnesses, events transpired as follows:
“Joe”: “Hey guys, could you give some directions?”
Thug: “Yeah, I got some directions, MF. Take your white A back where it belongs.”
Joe: “Look, I don’t want any trouble here, we’re just lost.”
Thug: “Well, you found trouble, MF (approaching the vehicle, now brandishing a handgun). Now give me your Fing money.”
Joe: (Hits accelerator, pulls from curb)
Thug: (Fires once into open driver’s side window)
Joe is departed now, while his murderer was never apprehended. I sometimes wonder if a more fitting epitaph on his grave would have been the following: Here lies Joe, his racial debt: PAID IN FULL. The fact that his death occurred through informal, rather than sanctioned, racial hatred must be cold comfort to his family.
Gosh, Stuart, what a story.
FYI: Kirk Fordyce is the previous governor of Mississippi, the first Republican to win that office since Reconstruction. Funny story: The day after that election the first week of November, whatever year it was, there was a freak snowfall. It usually doesn’t snow in the Mid-South until late December or January, but here were these big, floppy flakes. We all decided that Hell must have frozen over. My parents, Republicans in Mississippi, and my in-laws, Democrats here in Tennessee, all laughed about that. As far as Gov. Fordyce being a racist, I can’t remember anything specific, unless being a white Republican Mississippian is enough to label him such. There was a scandal about him having an affair with a Memphis woman, but that wouldn’t have been know about if he hadn’t declined state trooper protection and wrecked his car and himself on his way back from visiting her.
Hi Laura, and thanks for the information. I didn’t know you were a Tennessean–I like you already. It’s probably my favorite state, and I’ve been to most of them (including about 50 trips to Andrew’s fair District). I’ve enjoyed many summer days on Percy Priest and Center Hill Lakes and spend at least one weekend every fall in Nashville for a Titans game. Always a great time. Then there’s the three summers in Memphis…
As for Fordyce, the scales quickly fell from my eyes. He is a white Southern Republican. Case closed: Racist. I don’t know obviously, but if he’s also a Christian, then he’s plainly evil incarnate.
Well, I’m awfully sorry about your friend. I still think there’s something missing in the connection to state action, though.
Kirk Fordyce was indeed the Republican Governor of Mississippi. My recollection is his campaign ran anti-welfare ads, which is fine, but oddly enough they featured blacks, while over half the welfare recipients in MS are white. But I couldn’t verify that story with Google.
How about the new Governor of Georgia, Mr. Barnes? A major theme of his upset victory was a referendum to restore a state flag based on the Confederacy’s. I don’t know whether he’s a racist, but he was certainly looking for the racist vote.
A very partial list of black politicians I don’t think are racists:
Ron Dellums (now retired)
Barbara Lee (his successor)
John Lewis
Willie Brown
but this is far from my specialty.
Andrew, I have very strong feelings about the Confederate flag. Here are my strong feelings: I don’t think we white conservatives have any right to tell black people to let go of the past, quit griping about 400 years of oppression, and get with the program, as long as we are waving that durn thing around. If people want to put it up in their homes or on their pickup trucks, or even at their businesses, fine. Displaying it at Confederate gravesites and other memorials, fine. I think it has no place on any government building or any current state flag. A few years ago they quit allowing it to be waved at Ole Miss football games, and to me, the telling argument was that waving that flag started when James Meredith integrated Ole Miss (over Gov. Ross Barnett’s dead body). Previous to that, it wasn’t done. I’m not saying that everyone who supports still using that flag is a racist. I’m saying that I think the most charitable thing I can say is that they haven’t thought it through. But one very strong characteristic of us Southerners is that we are danged if we will let anybody (particularly Yankees) tell us what to do. The more pressure brought on us to abandon that stupid flag, the less likely we are to do it. Where racism stops and stubbornness starts, I can’t tell. I think racism is a far greater evil than stubbornness and thoughtlessness, which is why I shrink from assuming that large numbers of my fellow Southerners are racist in their determination to keep the thing.
BTW, Stuart – Tennessee is a terrific state. There’s something for everyone. I love the mountains in East Tennessee. I’ve been trying to get my kid to go to UT Knoxville, but no go. Memphis is definitely not at its best in the summer, though. I don’t think anybody ever adapts to it. Springtime when the dogwoods and fruit trees and redbuds are blooming is my favorite.
Jihad on Frisco
Frisco, CA has a long tradition of declaring jihad against the rest of the state. That city, together with the surrounding counties (commonly known as the Gay Area), is responsible for this state’s unenviable reputation as the land of fruits…