I’ve written here a number of times that I don’t understand why people who support racial preferences claim they oppose quotas, since I can’t figure out what’s wrong with quotas that isn’t also true of racial preferences.
The Democratic Party presumably doesn’t find quotas offensive in principle since Section 4 of the Bylaws of the Democratic National Committee provides that “The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women.”
In addition, most state parties have rules in place that allocate delegate slots by race. In the battleground state of Ohio, for example,
The state party has set a goal of 35 slots for African-Americans, four for Hispanics, three for Asian-Pacific Americans, 10 for lesbians and gay men and six for young Democrats (ages 18 to 35).
“The goal is to have the delegation look like Ohio,” [Kerry campaign spokeswoman Kathy] Roeder said.
“Goal” indeed. Anyone who doubts that a “goal” is merely the polite label a quota dons in mixed company should talk to Brennan Lafferty, 33, of Kent, Ohio. According to the Akron Beacon Journal article linked above, Lafferty was one of about 30 names the Kerry campaign struck from the 300 or so candidates seeking to become delegates to the Democratic convention in Boston this summer.
Jim Ruvolo, Kerry’s Ohio campaign manager, offered a partial explanation.
He said the delegate ballots were reworked in some districts to ensure that the Ohio Democratic Party’s affirmative-action goals were met.
He said the delegate candidate list was “pared down” to get the required number of minorities and women.
As I discussed here, John Kerry explained recently that his 1992 speech at Yale questioning some aspects of affirmative action didn’t really question affirmative action. “What I objected to then, and still do today,” Kerry told the Boston Globe, “are racial quotas that divide America and create resentment among Americans.” (Kerry, like others of his persuasion, has not explained why the divisions and resentments produced by racial preferences are O.K.)
If John Kerry really opposes quotas, perhaps he should inform those running his campaign in Ohio.
UPDATE
A friend emailed the following response:
Do you think the situation here, though, might be somewhat different than in some other quota contexts? Given that the delegates presumably don’t have much real authority (or do they?), and don’t get much by way of tangible perks, might this be like an advocacy group choosing for its ads a particular mix of faces, designed to appeal to a broad range of the public? My tentative sense is that such selection, especially by groups engaged in public speech, is not that troublesome, especially when few serious tangible benefits are riding on this, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
To which I replied:
Very interesting points. I hadn’t thought about this issue that way. But now that, thanks to you, I have, I think you’re looking in the wrong direction, or perhaps describing the wrong part of the elephant.
To me, what is significant here is not the victims of this particular form of quota-imposed discrimination. No one has a right to be a delegate; perhaps the parties have a right to discriminate in the selection of their delegates (making them, if true, different from parties holding, say, white primaries). Thus I think you have a good point in saying that this particular form of discrimination (if it is discrimination) isn’t especially egregious.
BUT … I don’t think the actual discrimination is what is important here. What I think is important is what Kerry and the Dems think about real, hard, rigid quotas in the “real” (as opposed to political party) world. Aside from legality, etc., if Kerry means what he’s said about his opposing quotas (I quoted one recent comment, but there are many others), why does he not oppose those over which he has absolute control? If he finds quotas desirable here, why not elsewhere? The main point, in short, is what (if anything) Kerry believes, and whether he is believable when he says what it is. Mickey Kaus made this same point today talking about the medals flap:
The issue of course in all the cases above (and the I-never-said-I-was-Irish business and the It’s-not-my-SUV business, etc.) is less Kerry’s relation to the Navy and his medals than his relation to the truth.
I think you can make a principled argument for preferences without having to go so far as to endorse quotas–i.e., I think you can distinguish between the two.
Assume for a moment that college X–unlike any real college I know of–truly wants an actually diverse student body. That is, that it honestly believes aggregate educational outcome is a function of the composition of the cohort, and does not necessarily derive from a simple selection of the individually most meritorious candidates. That college will strive to assemble a diverse population, but may well forsake precise quotas in favor of a more intuitively-derived sense of balance. In other words, despite the fact that diversity-in-practice is often hypocritical, being a fig leaf to cover the attainment of certain racial outcomes, that does not mean that an actual diversity program in line with the alleged theory is not possible.
Again, I doubt this is the case in practice, and one is free to contest the underlying assumption that diversity of gender, race, temperament, nationality, personality, religion and skills is an important factor in enhancing educational outcomes. But I do think a non-hypocritical approach to preferences, one that does not fall back on quotas, is possible.
Fenster, perhaps that avoids the dictionary definition of “quota,” but isn’t “intuitively-derived sense of balance” just another way of saying that there’s an allowable range, essentially a fuzzy quota? At some (subjective) point the minimum or maximum bounds of the range will be breached, setting off the same corrective mechanisms (i.e., outreach programs, lowering of standards, scholarships and enticements) used to achieve a precise quota.
If the gap in average SAT scores is 200 or more between acceptees who are black and those who are white/asian, there is a major problem–whether or not quotas are being used.
The dropout rate of blacks in elite schools also suggests the problem is serious–regardless of quotas.
If “intuitive” methods of achieving diversity cannot improve on the more blatantly racialist methods currently being used, the whole system is in trouble.
Nels:
Maybe you’re right. All I was trying to do was a thought experiment, an attempt at sympathizing with a way of thinking. Put yourself in the position of someone who sincerely believed that an incoming class of the most meritorious would result in a suboptimal outcome, and that a more optimal result would obtain from a mixing of talents–not just racial but athletic, personality, temperament, skills, gender, cultural, etc. In other words, true diversity as opposed to the tinny, one-dimensional diversity that is generally practiced
I don’t find this outlandish. Education is not comprised of one individual, a faculty member, on one end of a log and another individual, a student, on the other. Education is a cultural enterprise, and students teach each other as much as they are taught one-on-one by faculty. Accordingly, it might well be appropriate for private college X to attempt to focus energy on the composition of the entire class, as oppposed to considering admissions only as a reward to discrete individuals for perceived merit, bringing in a class in rank order of expected individual performance.
You may not agree that this is a sound approach. But I do think you can have a principled view along these lines. Maybe a libertarian wouldn’t like it, but I don’t think it would be anathema to a communitarian, right or left.
So: rather than start from the concept of (hard) quotas, finding them invalid and then finding (soft) preferences tainted in turn, what if the analysis were reversed? What if you start from the legitimacy of overall class composition as a valid educational goal? Wouldn’t you be forced into some sort of process, albeit a difficult one, in which differences were taken into account?
Fenster, I agree as long as you’re speaking only of private colleges. There is undoubtedly a market for schools which, to possibly wildly various degrees, sacrifice academic standards in order to broaden the cultural experience of their students, just as the market supports schools like Bob Jones University which lower their academic standards to actually narrow the cultural experience. I’m not convinced, though, that the educational benefits from diversity are worth all the negatives which arise when its implemented through public funding.
Fenster – I have no hesitation acknowledging that it is theoretically conceivable for some college — alas, hypothetical, so far as I know — to be honestly and sincerely devoted to “real” diversity. And I would also agree that such a college could employ racial preferences, thus avoiding quotas, in a manner where the preferences are not a hypocritical fig leaf covering their real but secret determination to reach predetermined racial outcomes, i.e., quotas.
But … even though I understand why such a use of racial preferences would not be hypocritical (in the sense, at least, of being, or maybe not being, a quota in all but name), I still don’t understand why those who would embrace such a policy claim to oppose actual quotas. What is it about quotas such folk find bad? It couldn’t be that they object to dispensing benefits/burdens based on race, for preferences do that. It couldn’t be that quotas are “divisive,” as Kerry fatuously claimed, for preferences are also divisive. What is it, in short, about fixed numbers/per centages as opposed to vague and slightly shifting numbers and per centages that is thought to make quotas so bad? I know why I don’t like quotas, but I honestly don’t understand what preferentialists (even honest ones, if there are any) object to about them.
Were I a student who considered diversity of some kind to be an important factor in selecting a college, I would think that I would actually prefer a school which employed traditional quotas over another which relied on more intuitive, black box methods, as quotas would better ensure me a consistent experience. And schools I imagine would also prefer the more scientific approach as it would assist them in maintaining and tweaking the quality of their product from year to year. Once a particular school became known for having a highly diverse student body wouldn’t it benefit everyone if that school actually had a formula for replicating and building on its success? I certainly wouldn’t want to spend $150,000 to attend Diversity U. only to have the poor intuition of a new admissions officer result in a class full of clones.
John:
I think that the reason quotas are not defended in practice is tied to the fact that diversity-in-practice does not resemble my hypothetical construct, and is in fact hypocritical at its base. Being so, its adherents recognize that they are in fact out to engineer a racial outcome, and also recognize that there is very, very limited public (i.e., non-elite) support for that path.
In truth, I don’t really believe most educators really believe that diversity-as-practiced leads to a demonstrably better educational outcome. I think they recognize they are in the equity game (viz. that Michaels article in the New York Times: let’s all agree we are social engineers and get on with it fer cryin’ out loud!)
If they were truly convinced of their rhetoric of better educational outcomes from racial engineering, they ought to be willing to endorse quotas to achieve that better education.
We’re probably saying about the same thing.
Fenster – I think everything you’ve said about diversity — your last comment and earlier ones — is all true, but we’re still talking past each other a bit. It is no doubt true that most defenses of “diversity” are bull. But my point, or my lack of understanding, is this: if we suspend disbelief for a moment and take defenders of diversity who deny it amounts to a quota at their word, what is it about quotas they find offensive that is not also true of diversity? One answer: nothing, and they are lying when they say they oppose quotas. Maybe that’s true, but it’s hard to believe they’re all liars. Another answer: if they realized diversity as practices amounts to a quota (though perhaps a soft and fuzzy one as opposed to a hated [why?] “rigid” one), they would throw up their hands in horror and abandon diversity forthwith. That’s also hard to believe. So I remain confused….
My son’s comment when finished with a college recruiting presentation about how diverse the college was? Who cares, I here to get an education.