In a post several days ago I began trying to wrestle with a problem that has bothered me for a good while: those of us opposed to racial preferences often come across as preachy, standing so tall on our high horse of principle that we fail to see, or at least feel the pain of, the people who would be injured by a return to enforcing colorblind equality. (Mind you, I don’t say this criticism is fair, only that it is prevalent.)
If you didn’t see it let me suggest you read that post now, and the interesting comments it generated. One of those comments, I think, deserves a response that didn’t want to leave, possibly buried, in the comments to an old post.
I think the problem that anti-Affirmative Action folk need to address (and I consider myself a firm fence-sitter on the issue), is that it is not enough to JUST be against affirmative action. You need an alternative.
One might say, for example, “I am against affirmative action, but I am in favor of devoting whatever resources are necessary to guarantee that every needy person has sufficient resources to succeed by increasing all education funding, social services, and EEOC enforcement budgets.” However, most politicians you find who are against affirmative action also tend to be against increased government spending.
So, if I’m an open-minded member of the NAACP and I say, “Blacks are underperforming. Affirmative action is helping to make up for that. If you want to get rid of it, what are you going to do to help black people succeed?” it is not enough to just say, “I want everyone to be treated equally.” You are essentially acknowledging the problem, but not suggesting a solution that will actually improve it.
In a subsequent comment, responding to a critic, this same correspondent wrote:
My comment was primarily in response to “Still, it is a fact — a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless — that a large number of decent people like Bill Cosby view all critics of racial preference as uncaring racists.”
My point is, what evidence is there that critics of racial preferences actually care?
I believe these points are fair and serious and hence deserve a serious response. It is my impression that their failure to have an “alternative” is what silences many practicing politicians who would like to do away with preferences.
The first question to ask is, why is it “not enough to JUST be against affirmative action”? After all, we wouldn’t say it’s “not enough JUST to be against slavery.” Well, “we” might not say that, but it certainly was said before the Late Unpleasantness (the Civil War, for those of you not old enough to remember). Slavery, like affirmative action, was also seen by many as a “solution” to a “problem.”
Perhaps a clearer, and certainly more current, example is abortion. Do opponents of abortion have an obligation to do more than just oppose it? Must they propose alternative solutions to the problem? I believe this moves us a bit closer to the nub of the issue, for those on opposite sides of the abortion issue do not agree on the nature of “the problem” to which abortion is one solution. For many opponents, making adoption more readily available is an obvious solution to the problem of unwanted children. But defenders of abortion rights reply that adoption is no solution at all to the problem of interfering with the rights of women to decide for themselves when and whether to give birth.
My correspondent regards affirmative action as a solution to the problem of blacks “underperforming.” Let us agree with him or her that underperformance is a problem (see the new book by the Thernstroms mentioned in my original post). Affirmative action, however, does nothing to solve that problem. All it does is to reduce the use of performance as a criterion for entry to college, occupations, etc., but the underperformance continues unabated. (Minorities admitted preferentially have much lower grades and much lower graduation rates, for example, than students admitted without preferences.)
But affirmative action is a solution to another problem: “underrepresentation.” If one believes that rights inhere in groups, not individuals, and that groups have a right to receive benefits (admission, hiring, appointments, whatever) in proportion to their numbers, then affirmative action is clearly and closely related to achieving that goal.
Unlike the courts, my correspondent believes that affirmative action is justified, and perhaps even required, as compensation for past mistreatment.
Could centuries of racism — where striving rarely was allowed to lead to success — have anything to do with the “culture problem,” even if there is exactly zero actual racism today? Likely [From his/her second comment.]
But even here, I submit, there is something of a non-sequitur. That is, even if we agree that society owes minorities (or at least blacks) a debt to compensate for past racism, it does not follow that affirmative action is a reasonable form of payment. If racism has shaped a “black culture” that produces disproportionate numbers of individuals unable to meet society’s standards, it does not follow that those standards should be set aside. Even reparations makes more sense as a “solution” to this problem than exempting blacks from standards others are expected to meet.
Which brings us to the question of demonstrating that critics of preferences “actually care.” All too often, in my view, the only evidence of “caring” that is acceptable is a willingness to spend more money. Returning to the Thernstroms again, I don’t believe an honest reader of NO EXCUSES could think they don’t care, and yet most of the solutions they propose (more charter schools, more discipline and higher expectations in the schools, standardized testing, etc., etc.) don’t cost more than what we’re doing now.
I certainly do not claim to speak for other critics of preferences, but for myself I can say, without fear of successful contradiction (as Sen. Sam Ervin used to say), that I would enthusiastically support greater spending on closing the performance gap if I thought the spending had a reasonable chance of some success. Similarly, I would be in favor of greatly enhancing the authority of the EEOC, Justice Dept., and other agencies to root out discrimination … if discrimination were defined the way it used to be defined, which is distributing benefits or burdens based on race.
Indeed, since I am convinced that double standards do much more harm than good, even or especially to the temporary beneficiaries, I believe that opposition to such double standards is itself proof of “caring.”
There’s an undercurrent to Pathos’ posts which highlight, to me at any rate, a troubling shift in society’s presumptions about racial responsibilities and racism.
Historically, racism could be reasonably identified as conscious acts of commission; e.g. refusing service to blacks was racist.
This standard for racism subsequently morphed into un-conscious acts of commission; e.g. hiring a largely (yet not exclusively)white workforce, though in the absence of any explicit barriers to blacks.
It has now metastasized into what presently infects Pathos’ reasoning: racism is apparent through unconscious acts of OMISSION. I call this the Charles Barkely theorem.
Mr Barkely, erstwhile NBA all-star and full-time airbag, once leveled a charge of racism at his employer, the Philadelphia 76ers, because they did not field a team which was ENTIRELY black (there were 11 blacks and one white). By this logic, racial virtue could only be displayed through conscious, overt “help” (as Pathos might say) to blacks. That the 76ers didn’t assiduously apply this standard was proof enough of their malevolence for Mr. Barkely’s tastes.
Similarly, unconscious omission (or “uncaring”) is indication enough for Mr. ‘thos. It is simply not enough to remain detached or indifferent. No, the price of racial virtue continues to spike. Now, the coin involves active conscious commission. Blacks, boys, Mississipians, or Democratic presidential candidates can not be left to their own devices. They require active “help” and “caring”–to the exclusion of those not “helped” or “cared for” naturally.
This approach is a sad, and utter, departure from the ideals of this nation’s founding charter.
John, do you suppose the comment from an anonymous racist asserting a largely-hereditary IQ deficit in blacks has something to do with it?
You know this isn’t a way of saying opposition to AA is racist. It’s a way of saying that in the absence of hearing about alternatives to AA from you, the message of “Ratiocinator” is going to come in loud and clear and unwelcome. After that, minorities and liberals aren’t likely to admire any belief you and Ratiocinator share, even about the weather.
Andy – You may well be right … about what most people will think of my views of the weather and other things. Just as there are some righties who think that, since Castro favors socialized medicine, everybody who favors socialized medicine is a commie, I’m sure there are many on the left (and even in the middle) who similarly conclude that because some opponents of preferences believe blacks are inferior all opponents must think that.
I was struck long ago, back when I was still a leftie, that one of the saddest legacies of McCarthyism was the remaining fear some people held onto not to sign a petition that might also contain signatures from people beyond the pale, wherever the pale was. Thus I witnessed many liberal opponents of our entry into the war in Vietnam who refused to oppose it openly because people would think them communists. I decided then that that sort of paralysis was debilitating, and vowed not to let myself succumb to it. I see no reason to change behavior just because now I may be at risk of being identified with those to my right.
Besides, I always DO offer an alternative to discriminating on the basis of race: stop doing it.
In my previous comments on the subject, I stated that conservatives have in fact provided alternatives to affirmative action. For example, the Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation has been an advocate for educational choice for a very long time. However, when a policy is patently wrong, there is no requirement to provide an alternative to it to be allowed to oppose that policy. Discrimination can never be justified. It was wrong when it was used against blacks. It is no less wrong when it is now used against whites.
I believe you adequately represented many of my points in your post, but I may have been unclear about my proposed “purpose” for affirmative action. (Perhaps I was being a little too flip in my references to other under-performers, so I will stick solely to race here).
If it is true (and I would argue that it is), that a history of refusing to let blacks succeed, no matter their level of educational achievement, has led to a “culture of failure”, then wouldn’t the only appropriate remedy be to create a “culture of success”?
Whether it be a straight affirmative action program, or a “top 10% admitted” program like in Texas, working toward admitting a certain number of blacks to top schools (even if they are otherwise unqualified) is a step toward creating a “culture of success”. Unlike the bulk of American history before 1970, top black performers will be rewarded. (But haven’t we given it 30 years, and it hasn’t worked? I don’t know. Maybe 30 years isn’t enough to counteract the last 300.)
I don’t think that the comparison to abortion is entirely fair, though. In the case of race, the problem is “We as a society have hurt you. Therefore we, as a society must help you.” I am perfectly willing to be convinced that affirmative action is not the way to go about it. In fact, it would strengthen my position, because if affirmative action actually does NOT help, then there has been even LESS done to assist underperforming and underachieving blacks.
And what I am not willing to accept is that a fair response is to just not think about race at all. And I do mean serious ly what Stuart says sarcastically, “It is simply not enough to remain detached or indifferent.”
Stuart’s appears to be the prevalent tone of anti-affirmative action thought — although not, admittedly, on this site or in the Thernstroms’ book, (which I have not actually read, but I did read the excellent review of in a recent New Republic).
If the majority culture contributed to the problem, then it has a moral (if not legal) obligation to work to remedy it. And, in the social contract, just like in contract law, the appropriate remedy is often “whatever it takes to fix the problem.” I don’t know what that is, but the mantra of “race neutrality” doesn’t seem likely to fix the problem. We might have to try several more things before we hit on one that sticks.
I think your points about socialized medicine and McCarthyism are exactly on point. The same dynamic holds in other areas that are not exactly affirmative action, like bilingual ed. I told you once I voted against an anti-bilingual ed referendum that I thought was better educational policy than the status quo because I couldn’t bear to be allied with some of its sponsors, who were open bigots.
However, I’m a little disappointed in the alternative of “stop doing it”. Affirmative action holds out a theoretical possibility of improving life for minorities in the underclass, where they are over-represented. (I don’t think many of the AA programs succeed, but it’s different to rule them out on this basis than a blanket philosophy.) I think if and when the anti-AA movement has a recognized and plausible explanation of why “stop doing it” will still lead to an improvement of minority underclass economic status (and one could do this for at least class-based admissions!), the vehement opposition based in despair may alleviate. Note that I am not saying such an explanation is impossible, and indeed parts of it are probably already “out there” in books, but they haven’t become bound to the political anti-AA movement in the necessary way.
Pathos,
Whether it be a straight affirmative action program, or a “top 10% admitted” program like in Texas, working toward admitting a certain number of blacks to top schools (even if they are otherwise unqualified) is a step toward creating a “culture of success”.
How will admitting (in your own words) unqualified blacks create a culture of success? First of all, as has been stated by a number of posters, unqualified blacks flunk out at a much higher rate than whites and Asians at top schools. Do you really think this is the way to create a culture of success? Second, the other students resent the fact that unqualified blacks were admitted. Do you think that this open resentment will really create a culture of success? Third, and most important, the unqualified black students will know that they are not as smart as the other students. Do you think that will lead to a culture of success?
If you really want to create a culture of success you must make sure that the black students that are admitted have the same ability as the other students. Only by allowing the black students to succeed on merit will you create a culture of success.
If you are really interested in helping blacks succeed you should first understand why they fail. A useful book on the subject is “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America” by John McWhorter. Dr. McWhorter is a linguistics professor at Berkeley. He is also black. His book discusses the many reasons why blacks do not succeed academically. One of the points he makes is that affirmative action is the worst possible thing to do to blacks. Why? Because they know with affirmative action that they don’t have to try as hard and they will still get into the best schools. In other words, you don’t fool people by patronizing them.
It could be argued that Anonymous, who posted about the IQ gap, actually gave an unanswerable argument for AA forever. That’s what I thought when I read “The Bell Curve”. I thought it was ironic that the book was vilified by the people who ought to embrace it. If black people cannot make it, no matter what, because as a group they are inferior, then quotas are the only way they can succeed.
I believe that NCLB as it is constituted is flawed in some important ways; but its goal, to raise K-12 educational standards for specific groups as well as the whole, is probably as good a way as I can think of to provide an alternative to AA.
No, Laura, if The Bell Curve is correct (it isn’t), then quotas are the only way blacks can appear to succeed. True success would come from equal performance, and that would be impossible.
Pathos,
I think a lot like you. Black people in America have historically been screwed by white people. I want to know what white people can do to make up for that.
But I don’t think racial preferences have worked or will work. In fact, for reasons stated by Richard Nieporent, they may help keep black people down.
If we are truly serious about eliminating the racial gap, we will have to get to the root causes. This will essentially mean taking black kids away from their parents and their neighborhoods and bringing them up to be resilient strivers–to make them think that “acting black” is to defer ratification, work hard, do well in school, etc., etc.
Is anyone willing to do that?
I didn’t think so.
(And would it work? Of course not. No bureaucratic orgainization is going to be able to bring up millions of children and turn them into loving, succeeding human beings.)
Perhaps the second-best alternative is to simply enforce anti-discrimination, try to have decent (not great, but decent) schools for everyone, and let the cards fall where they may.
I think the “uncaring” label can best be applied to Richard N.’s simplistic:
“Discrimination can never be justified. It was wrong when it was used against blacks. It is no less wrong when it is now used against whites.”
That may be an acceptable Constitutional Law argument, but I see it as completely misguided as a moral system. You can’t kick your opponent in the shins, and then say it’s “discriminatory” to give him a head start in the race.
Discrimination “against whites” should be permitted precisely BECAUSE there was past descrimination against blacks.
Has anyone seen the underrated movie “School Ties” with Brendan Fraser playing a poor Jew who is allowed into a WASP school as a scholarship kid because he’s a great football player?
After lots of anti-Semitic stuff happens, there is a resolution and Fraser is allowed to continue at the school. The Dean calls him into his office and asks if they can both just forget the whole incident happened.
Fraser responds: “You’re never going to forget this happened. You used me for football, now I’ll use you to get into Harvard.”
Well, good for him! He doesn’t fall for the “If I take advantage of my situation, I’m just as bad as they are” bullshit. He’s got the upper hand, and he’s going to use it.
Maybe it is fair for blacks to say, “You used us for cheap labor, now we’re going to use you to educate our kids.”
Pathos, I reject your argument that it is OK to discriminate against whites. If someone has been kicked in the shins, it wasn’t me who did it.
Andrew, I’m with you about success v. the appearance of success, but I suspect that that is an overly subtle distinction for black people who have internalized the bell curve argument.
Pathos:
Discrimination “against whites” should be permitted precisely BECAUSE there was past discrimination against blacks.
And discrimination “against Asian-Americans” should be permitted because . . . ? As far as racism goes, they were also historically on the receiving end, yes?
Richard N. said: If you really want to create a culture of success you must make sure that the black students that are admitted have the same ability as the other students. Only by allowing the black students to succeed on merit will you create a culture of success.
If you are really interested in helping blacks succeed you should first understand why they fail. One of the points…is that affirmative action is the worst possible thing to do to blacks. Why? Because they know with affirmative action that they don’t have to try as hard and they will still get into the best schools. In other words, you don’t fool people by patronizing them.”
Well said. But I think you didn’t go far enough. Whites shouldn’t be trying to ‘create’ a culture for blacks. Blacks have created their own culture in America, for good or ill. Currently it appears to be a culture of victimization, of excuses, of avoidance of anything associated with ‘being white’. If that culture is to change, blacks themselves have to do the changing. Imposing white ideas of appropriate ‘culture’ onto black society is just as bad in it’s own way as the injustices of historical racism.
If blacks continue to marginalize themselves by seeing themselves as powerless victims and abdicating responsibility for their own success or failure, they are hurting themselves worse than white racial bigots ever came close to.
Instead of trying to rewrite history to pretend that slavery never existed, maybe current black historians and moral leaders should instead be delving into black history. There is a wealth of inspiration in stories of blacks who, while enslaved, were nevertheless admirable human beings who lived their lives with courage, pride, and a belief in themselves as human beings. Instead, all that modern blacks can see is that they were in chains. Have blacks forgotten that the best in the human spirit cannot be defined by a person’s station in life? Or did they never even know this?
Blacks are resposible for their own destiny, and for creating their own culture. It can’t be done for them by whites or any other group – even self-appointed ‘leaders’. They can choose to accept help from outside or not, but ultimately they will have to answer to the Creator for their choices. And abdicating the right to choose is also a choice. Making excuses for failure is abdication.
“Tradition and history are the frozen forms of men’s choices. But they do not abolish the right to choose.” We are more than our history.
Pathos: You are audacious if nothing else. To call Richard’s statement “simplistic” in light of your own vacuous moralizing was certainly entertaining.
Though here’s a statement even more simplistic–sufficiently so that it may find purchase even with you: Whites are individual people and do not share a collective consciousness.
I personally accrue no benefit from the success of other whites, and I flatly reject any burden of their crimes. Though this is obviously going to be lost on you.
You appear to be a creature of starry-eyed socialism married to perpetual white guilt. And I have heard enough of both to last a lifetime.
I called Rchard’s statement simplistic because it was overbroad. Does a society owe nothing to a slave the second after yhe Emancipation Proclamation is signed? The second after the last Jim Crow law is repealed? Is it okay to impose neutrality immediately after imposing disadvantage? If a DA fabricates evidence that keeps an innocent man in jail for 50 years, does society owe him nothing after he is released other than a Sorry and a promise to be fair from now on? Of course not, he is entitled to be compensated, even if the original DA is long since dead.
I don’t see how my nuanced approach (remember, I said from the start that I’m a fence sitter on affirmative action) makes me any more vacuous than the various sloganeerings I’ve been reading.
Stuart writes:
“I personally accrue no benefit from the success of other whites, and I flatly reject any burden of their crimes. Though this is obviously going to be lost on you.”
Yes. Clearly I’m an idiot. Of course, no one is asking you to bear the burden of discrimination on your shoulders. But if the GOVERMENT wrongs someone, it must pay, even if the specific government actor is long gone.
Anyway, I could understand your sentiment here if I were suggesting a “Every White Guy Give $1000 to a Black Guy.” It might even be reasonable if I were suggesting some sort of White Tax. But permitting affirmative action is merely allowing a semi-public entity, or a private entity that receives public funds, to decide individually that it has not yet met its burden. The burden to you verges on negligible, if it exists at all.
Pathos: I have to say that I’m quite relieved to learn that the impact of racial preferences on my family and I is negligible. Indeed, when I apply for the next promotion in my company (positions which are subject to strict racial quotas–or “guidelines” to you and me) I’ll be certain and mention this fact to my supervisor. Likewise, when my two young children reach college-age, your words will undoubtedly assuage their concern as universities scramble to maintain the fabled “critical mass.”
Of course, I could always eschew the corporate grind and ply my trade as a government contractor. But then as a non-minority, 10% is automatically added to my bid–you know how oppressed those black construction companies are. Sounds unfair to me, though at least I can console myself to the fact that the impact of AA is negligible.
A couple of other points: I’m perfectly amenable to compensating the victims of slavery. Find one, and I’ll be first in line. But their great-great-great grandchildren. Please. My sister’s good friend was murdered by a black thug. Does his family owe a racial debt also, pray tell?
Finally, where do you imagine the government gets its money? If the government pays, then you and I pay. If you are so inclined to express your deep “caring” through monetary means, I welcome you to do so, though please leave me out of it.
By the way Pathos, since you are such a caring individual, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I’ve been waiting 3000 years for my reparations check. Could you please call the Egyptian embassy and find out what’s holding it up?
I think the “uncaring” label can best be applied to Richard N.’s simplistic:
“Discrimination can never be justified.
Pathos, rather than attempting to argue the merits of your views, you simply make derogatory comments about your opponents. However, I would like to thank you for the compliment. No, I’m serious. If I could not get someone like you to call me uncaring I would be afraid that I was no longer able to make a rational argument.
How can blacks have any self-esteem when you constantly tell them that they are too stupid to succeed on their own. Frankly, the last thing blacks need are “caring people” like you. You want re-enslave blacks by treating them as children who are incapable of fending for themselves.
I find it fascinating and revolting to watch this kind of discussion, which is why I’m not often here. Now that I am I will try to remind you that ‘discrimination’ has degrees and the greivous error you all do is ignoring the matter of degree for the sake of a self-serving principle.
There is not nor ever will be any amount of discrimination that blacks will heap upon whites which amounts to a fraction of that heaped upon them. This is why the cause of anti-discrimination when directed at Affirmative Action appears so uncaring. It is not so uncaring as it is lacking in perspective, and ultimately thoughtless considering what we know about its victims.
This is to express to you precisely this, anyone who is incapable or unwilling to recognize the difference in intent and degree between racial preferences for the sake of inclusion in middleclass college education and racist discrimination for the purposes of exclusion from equal housing is unfit for the discussion. Recuse yourself. If you choose to get verbally pugilistic I will only remind you once that I am the boy whose pregnant mother dodged a brick thrown by whites in defense of restrictive covenants in Torrance CA – the kind of private sector racism most anti-affirmative action types don’t lift a finger against. Not that protestations to the contrary matter so much as a sense of balance and perspective in recognition of the most serious problems with race.
I am perhaps an excellent example of the kind of victim I imagine denied students are. For I went to a Cal State University instead of UC. Every time I watch CNBC I am reminded of the hundreds of thousands of people no smarter than me who triple my salary because of the connections they have because of their elite schooling. I’ve made more than 6 figures for the past 6 years, I pay more taxes than the overwhelming majority of Americans, but think of what potential I have not fulfilled because I went to a miserable state university instead of a prestigious one. Feel my pain!
Sure I live in Redondo Beach, but look at all those people in Palos Verdes! Sure we have two cars, but one of them is used. My kids ought to be in private schools instead of public schools. Do you realize how difficult it is to send three kids to private school when you and your wife are both entrepreneurs who have to buy their own healthcare?
Sure I was a senior business developer in Silicon Valley, but if I had connections at Stanford I would have been a CEO of my own startup. The whole economy is worse off because of my missed opportunity, and for what?
My point is simple. Either this country is better off when people like me do better, or when more marginal people than me get into college instead of not.
I will be accepting paypal at my blog which will help offset those fucking capital gains taxes I must pay. Your moral consistency and support of Randian meritocracy is expected.
Cobb – what kept you out of UC?
I can’t see Rand expecting me to give you money. I went to a state school, too, a very small one, and you make a lot more money than I do. I’m not sure what I owe you. You’re telling us how successful you are, and I’m thinking, well hell, what’s your problem? That you don’t have more? Cry me a river.
Suppose that white people do need to be discriminated against, even people like me who were four years old when the Civil Rights act was passed. At what point is it enough? Who decides? And how can we leave the place in history where people are discriminated against due to race, if we deliberately stay there?
Cobb, I must say that your situation is truly heart-wrenching. 6 figure incomes, private schools for the kids, house in Redono Beach. A true testament to the pain you have suffered. Im ashamed of my opulent $60k home and my expensive state university degree all paid for with the labor of my own hands.
Cobb,
That was sarcasm, right? (I didn’t realize until the 4th paragraph.)
The Discriminations take on AA
John Rosenberg of Discriminations discusses a crucial topic for college admissions: Are those of us who oppose affirmative action under the obligation to come up with something better? He first made this post: Still, it is a fact — a…
Fascinating discussion on here (of course I’ve linked to it.) What amuses me most about Pathos’ statements is his willingness to support AA as open racism, when every college admissions officer twists and contorts himself into denying that AA is in fact racism. To be honest, I’d have more respect for a college that admitted they were admitting underqualified blacks to make up for white racism; at least they’d would be open about it, instead of making pious statments about “diversity.”
I also find Pathos’ comments about slavery and innocent men imprisoned to be illuminating about his thought processes. The analogy falls down when we consider that no black American now living was a slave. Simply because it is important to make restitutions to individual who have suffered does not imply that we make restitution to an entire race, some of whom have not suffered. Why should colleges be obligated to take on the burden of benefiting those who, though they may have suffered racism, have not suffered through anything near as bad as slavery?
Pathos, what we owe to black children is nothing more or less than what we owe to all children, and that is a good solid education. AA at the college level is an admission that we are not doing that; it is a useful indicator of the problem that nonetheless does nothing to fix it.
Kimberly, I enjoyed your thoughtful and elegant post. But as for the truly towering intellect (as he himself will tell you!)…
I don’t know whether or not my comments contributed to Cobb’s revulsion, though I’m hopeful. He’s definitely one nutty cat, but it’s time now to get serious. So Cobb, pop a Ritalin, take off your toy space-suit, and tune into Earth temporarily.
Since I can’t begin to fathom the gibberish of your first six paragraphs, I’ll address what you claim is your simple point. And as a response: No, the country is not better when “people like you” (there’s more?!) are admitted into universities to the exclusion of more qualified “marginal people.” The country is in fact better when the government, and its state universities, do not racially discriminate against the very citizens which fund their existence.
There, that was easy. Now go back to your Buzz-Lightyear doll.
StuartT,
Great post. I also could not follow the “logic” of Cobb’s comments.
it was sarcasm, folks. the sarcasm born of boredom with a topic which people never seem to grasp.
here on earth, i think that those white students with objectively higher test scores who suffer the racial discriminations of being denied a superior education and who get a merely excellent education should not be the first priority of anyone dedicated to matters of racial justice.
spelling it out more slowly, if a person is truly more intelligent, shouldn’t that be manifest throughout their lives? or is the discrimination done in service of {diversity/integration/legacy of slavery} the single most life altering discrimination an american is likely to face?
i say that if you took all the whitefolks who have suffered from the discrimination of undergraduate affirmative action and lined them up at the center of compton, they wouldn’t reach halfway to the first suburb. the racial discriminations college whitefolks suffer is real, but they don’t rate.
so for those of you who thought my complaint was real and dismissed it, you understand my perspective perfectly.
it is reasonable to suggest that tolerance of any racial discrimination lowers the civility of our society, but i think people have to rise to the level of anti-racist activism to make a difference, and i see much of the whining about affirmative action little more than whining.
what i never see posted here, or anywhere for that matter, is the real caseload of the EEOC. but some white kid who gets a box of cookies chucked at his head at UW makes headlines.
by the way stuart, you make my point exactly. privileged people with high test scores getting super educations are not as important to the well-being of the country as beat-up people with marginal test scores getting quality educations.
The simple answer to this is that some of us who oppose affirmative action have come up with an alternative. Socioeconomic preferences (of course, some conservatives oppose them too). I can give you the science (Richard Kahlenberg), I can give you the internal University of Michigan research (http://chetly.home.comcast.net/wsj.html), I can give you the internal Berkeley documents from the late eighties, and I could go on and on.
The more complicated answer is, no, we shouldn’t have to give that answer, because affirmative action as currently configured doesn’t help blacks perform better, so it is irrelevant ultimately if you argue that affirmative action actually harms its alleged targets of assistance. But even if that weren’t the case, helping someone at the expense of another innocent person is unethical a priori.
I do not adhere any rights to groups, only individuals. I also agree fully with more enforcement of the Civil Rights Act as originally construed, and with other realistic social programs that might actually improve the lot of minorities (and all poor regardless of color).
it was sarcasm, folks. the sarcasm born of boredom with a topic which people never seem to grasp.
Cobb, if we are boring you so much why do you keep on positing? Nobody is forcing you to stay, and you certainly aren’t making any intelligent contributions to this discussion.
Cobb,
Being forced to sit at the back of the bus wasn’t a huge imposition on southern blacks–the seats back there were just as cusioned, after all. And the number of black folks forced to stand for whites in crowed busses was probably small. But it was WRONG. So it had to end.
Furthermore, the “beat up kids with marginal test scores” CAN get a quality education–at Cal State, or at one of this nation’s non-selective colleges, which by the way are three times as numerous as the selective ones.
I don’t need to make intelligent contributions here. I’ve done that at my own website, whose arguments I’d wager you are incapable of improving. I’ve done the work, which is self-evident and I am quite comfortable in being intolerant, provocative and snarky over here.
You’re always welcome to blast away at anything I’ve written there and I’ll gladly and civilly engage, but I think Discriminations is becoming a hangout for whiners which is unfortunate.
lyman you’re absolutely correct. I talk about the appropriateness of remedies to racist exclusion in Effective Resonance.
The question is how much chat, posturing, political pressure, insurgency and militance should be brought to bear on the injustices. I’m calling for some perspective on the matter. What I resent is the suggestion that those who weigh in loudly against the racial discriminations done by Affirmative Action claiming inheritance of the Civil Rights Movement. It’s like the invaders of Grenada comparing themselves to those who stormed the beach at Normandy.
As David Bernstein notes, anyone anywhere seems to have license to cause a panic by claiming racism. I am beginning to believe that this kind of outrage becoming common is defacto evidence of the failure to create a substantial anti-racist coalition across the two parties. Much of the blame falls to liberals who have assumed a false leadership based on the premises of ‘race relations’, although conservative intransigence and ignorance has contributed mightily.
More later, elsewhere.
Cobb says he doesn’t need to make intelligent contributions here, and that ‘Discriminations’ has become a hangout for whiners. He then grimly proceeds to provide his own example of both points.
However, one interesting issue he raises is that of which side in the debate may lay claim to the moral and philosophical lineage of the civil-rights movement. Naturally, he claims this for his own, though certainly from a standpoint of logical consistency, the issue is hardly black and white (pun intended).
Martin Luther King’s message resonated with the American public (of all races) precisely because it carried a clear, transcendent principle culled straight from the soul of this nation’s founding: that men should be judged by the content of their character and without regard to their race or religion. This message was powerful precisely because it was so “simplistic” “overly-broad” and “un-nuanced” as Pathos might complain.
Now Cobb may find it unpalatable that white opponents of AA (or Whiteys, as he has called us on his site) would appropriate the language of the civil-rights movement. Yet this in no way vitiates the crux of the arguement: that men should STILL be judged by their character and without regard to race. That this position is now inconvenient for Cobb and the Jackson-Sharpton race industry does nothing to diminish the ideal or those people who continue to champion it.
I assume you do understand how the ‘http’ tag works. I call whitefolks whitefolks. Be so kind as to back up your claims about what I say and mean at your leisure.
At any rate, I have a bit more patience because I am dealing with the Pantywaist Problem and the Failure of Anti-Racism separately.
What King may or may not have understood but what Baldwin certainly did, was that what one does with the racial identity they inherit by dint of being Americans is a very incisive clue as to what their character is all about. Anyone who would settle for the lighter interpretation of King’s cliche demonstrates that they are lazy at best.
Cobb on Jackson, Sharpton & Others
The Pantywaist Problem
Whiners. Threat or Menace?
Cobb: I’m always happy to be of service. Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/000161.html. And for those without the curiosity, stomach, or bad sense to read the silly post, here’s its denouement–and my favorite part: “I don’t think whitefolks take God seriously enough to care if He’s black.” Aside from Cobb’s casual and obligatory anti-white rhetoric (that’s racism for you and me) it’s just a profoundly stupid comment.
As for the rest of your post and linked material, I can hardly follow a word of it.
Have any of you ever actually read king? what for instance does king have to say about the idea of affirmative action? anything?
i’ve been looking for a term….i think whiner is absolutely perfect.
to take an example…blacks in birmingham didn’t fight solely to end sitting at the back of the bus right? let’s just focus on three things:
*blacks couldn’t vote
*black tax dollars funded white education
*blacks were brutalized for the slightest of offenses
take the kids who got stuff thrown at them. is there anything they have to deal with in their collective lives that compare? and this is the question that MUST be asked…because unless we talk about affirmative action on race AND class (which i support), what we’re really talking about is picking what portion of society most deserves renumeration IN ORDER TO BETTER US ALL.
Hello Lester, and welcome to the discussion. You make an interesting “whiner” comment. I suppose some of us could be more stoic and take our racial discrimination in silence like a man–as I’m certain you would. Though discussions such as this would be quite a bit less active if so.
Also, I had a question regarding your concluding remark. I was just wondering, really. You wouldn’t happen to be a component of that “portion of society which most deserves remuneration” would you? It would be quite convenient for you if so. But at least such remuneration will BETTER US ALL. So as Bill Murray said in Caddyshack, “I figure I’ve got that going for me.”
Alright, I grow weary and my bunions need their lotion.
i asked a question about king in response to something you wrote stuart. when you noted that king’s message resonated with the american public, exactly how are you measuring this resonation? the support throughout the south for brown v. board? the support throughout the north for his northern desegregation campaign? it appears to me that the majority of folks who like to cite king haven’t really read him at all. nor do they understand the dynamics of that time period.
this is unfortunate for a number of reasons…but in this case it seems to me that we are engaged in is a debate about what democracy is. surely a debate worth having.
Stuart. You are hereby Not Taken Seriously. I can’t stop chuckling that you’ve taken a joke I wrote about Morgan Freeman in a Jim Carrey movie as a substantive position on race, which proves my point entirely.
When you grow up, read the Race Man’s Home Companion. It’ll still be around.
Alright guys, I’ll have to call a temporary pause in hostilities after this response, as real life beckons. I’ll save the least for last.
Lester: First, I didn’t cite King’s words whatsoever in my post, except in the most over-arching paraphrase. I have not read him, nor do I intend to. Additionally, I was making no statement as to the tactical maneuvers of his campaign or the political climate in which it was born.
I was and am speaking exclusively of strategic vision as I believe it was perceived by the vast majority of Americans. And that perception was simply that sanctioned discrimination against blacks was immoral and did not square with the founding principles of this nation. This was a clear bright-line concept that (open-minded) people of every race, class, or educational level could grasp.
You ask how I measure the resonance of this ideal. I’m certain you’re being glib here, but if you’re actually unclear. I measure it by the fact that history students memorize his speeches; scholars, pundits, and talking heads invoke his words (whether accurately or not); and he is the only single American citizen who is honored with a Federal Holiday. Sounds pretty resonating to me.
If you are truly serious about this discussion Lester, the point I am making is that the principle of King (as perceived) transcended the actual man. We care about him because of the vision of nondiscrimination he articulated, not whether he wore boxers or briefs. That you no longer find this principle convenient does not diminish its import.
Lastly, I’d love to debate you on the issue of democracy. Are you pro or con?
And finally…Cobb: That you no longer take me seriously was indeed a bitter pill. You are a cruel man. Though you should rest easy with the knowledge that I do not take your post, or anything else you have written, as “a substantive position on race.”
Whew! Lock ’em all in a room and see which one’s left standing!
What’s scary is that this is the kind of talk that starts wars… and gets people killed. Every one of you is so godd****d convinced you’re right, but few are willing to stand on the strength of their position, opting instead to insult the other guy or his position. (“I may not win, but at least I can make sure he loses.”)
I think we got a lot of excess male testosterone floatin’ around here…
I don’t know if Stuart will see this but I have decided, upon further consideration & reflection, to be less cruel and take any verbal drubbing or browbeating necessary.
My intent is to enable a thought process that aids the creation and maintenance of anti-racist ethics and politics. It is not to outsnark folks and be a wise-ass.
Despite the fact that I get exasperated and have de-emphasized this aspect of my writing, my motives and principles have not changed. I’m simply not doing the work as much. ‘The work’ involves engaging people constructively at all levels of understanding and this is where my lack of patience can easily be confused with a lack of tolerance, respect or tact.
So I offer my apologies for being short-tempered.
Wow, reading all of these statements leads me to believe that the fundamental question of posing viable alternatives to Affirmative Action really haven’t been answered. I am currently working on an EMBA writing a research paper on alternatives to AA and found this link. I am looking for anything that seems comparable and am trying to be objective since I didn’t know much about the subject prior. It seems like the solutions posed are fixing education K-12 in all areas-pay teachers a fair salery, have the gov’t fund extra learning programs and AP calsses for underprivledged areas etc. Do more studies since little research has been done to corrolate standard tests and sucess. What is success defined as? Get rid of standard tests such as SATs as they have not been proven to predict sucess. Look at other predictors such as leadership, ability to fit into groups etc. Realize that a more diverse work environment helps everyone-the customer and employer. I could go on and on. How am I going to sum up my paper-I am still working on that but one thing for certian I know is that race issues still, and unfortunately always will, spark tension. My background becasue I am sure people are trying to figure me out quickly-human nature I guess-I was raised by a single mother, I am a white female, joined the army at 19 to pay for college, eventually got a scholarship to go back and finish a BA and come back in the Army as an officer. I graduated top of my class (if you took my high school grades you would have never thought that) and chose to go into aviation and fly helicopters. I was an aeroscout pilot where women are less that 1% in my field. Did I have to deal with sexism-you bet! Did I work for everything I got-you bet! can other people in this country work for what they want to-you bet! If they let other people get them down, can’t brush it off and focus, it is something they need to work on. You can’t live your life feeling your a constant ‘victim’ or you will never get ahead. Perhaps where the problem lies in our society is that fact that some parents do not raise their children with the belief they can succeed. Don’t give them all the boundries they will encounter-they will figure that out. Give them a sence that they can do anything they want. It is amazing how far that will go-it worked for me.