At The Washington Post, More Fears-Mongering

In past posts I have complained that the Washington Post‘s point man on civil rights issues, Darryl Fears, equates civil rights with affirmative action (so that no one who opposes the latter can really support the former) and asserts that what minorities in the U.S. have in common is their victimization.

Now he — and by reasonable extension, the WaPo itself — is at it again. In a profile this morning of Gerald Reynolds, the new chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, Fears writes that Reynolds

is an outspoken opponent of race-based college admission policies for minorities, even though before the civil rights movement, colleges commonly discriminated against African Americans and other minorities by not allowing them in. [Emphasis added]

Imagine that! Reynolds (can you believe it?) actually opposes racial discrimination now even though racial discrimination occurred in the past!? I would say that Fears views Reynolds as a conservative cad … except that at the Washington Post those terms seem to be synonyms and hence either one of them is redundant.

Since I’m writing this on Martin Luther King Day, allow me an additional comment about journalism and civil rights. I grew up in Alabama during the days of the most virulent, often violent opposition to the Brown decision and civil rights. Most newspapers reflected, when they did not actually incite, this overheated insistence on holding on to a system based on racial preferences — for whites. Fortunately, those editors and reporters are for the most part long gone and largely forgotten.

But not forgotten — indeed, now widely regarded as heroes — is that small band of intrepid Southern editors who wrote against the prejudices of most of their readers, who supported racial equality when doing so was dangerous, not just unpopular: Ralph McGill in Atlanta; Harry Ashmore in Little Rock; Hodding Carter in Greenville, Miss.; P.D. East in Petal, Miss. (Many of you may not have heard of P.D. East and his Petal Paper, but he is definitely worth remembering.)

To put it mildly, the Washington Post is definitely not challenging the prejudices of its readers, who voted about 10 to 1 for Kerry and who presumably share, to about that degree, the support of racial preferences that appear undisguised in the WaPo’s news columns as well as editorials.

I’m not accusing the WaPo of unprincipled pandering (though no one could reasonably describe its coverage of civil rights as courageous). Its editors presumably believe what they and their reporters write. But I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that their editorializing be recognized for what it is and, further, to suggest (even though this would require a radical change) that it be limited to the editorial and opinion pages.

Say What? (33)

  1. actus January 17, 2005 at 12:42 pm | | Reply

    “Imagine that! Reynolds (can you believe it?) actually opposes racial discrimination now even though racial discrimination occurred in the past!?”

    And even though the past discriminitation continues to privilege in the present in non-racial means. the horrors!

  2. John Rosenberg January 17, 2005 at 1:09 pm | | Reply

    Actually, actus, I do find it horrible that so many otherwise sensible people think that past discrimination against actual people generates a debt that people who are innocent of that discrmination have the ability — indeed, duty — to repay by discriminating in favor of different individuals today whose only connection to the former victims is shared skin color.

  3. notherbob2 January 17, 2005 at 1:14 pm | | Reply

    The horror is your unintelligible syntax, actus. You have become so arch that one cannot tell what (if anything) you are talking about. Perhaps that is a blessing. Reynolds and Cosby are right and you are left – out.

  4. What Attitude Problem? January 17, 2005 at 2:52 pm | | Reply

    http://whatattitudeproblem.blogs.com/home/2005/01/john_rosenberg_.html

    John Rosenberg bangs one over the centerfield wall (See? I’m ready for baseball already!) with a dead nuts on post on the WaPo’s alleged civil rights guy:In past posts I have complained that the Washington Post’s point man on civil

  5. The Precinct Chair January 17, 2005 at 6:50 pm | | Reply

    Actus — do you propose jailing the descendants of criminals because they may in some small way have benefitted from the crimes of their ancestors?

  6. Ed January 17, 2005 at 7:41 pm | | Reply

    I still don’t get who this “Gerald Williams” is in the opening paragraph. We’re later informed that readers of the Washington Post “voted about 10-to-1 for Kerry.” Do only actual DC residents read the WaPo?

  7. Cobra January 17, 2005 at 8:55 pm | | Reply

    Actus,

    The rub of course, is that many, if not most anti-affirmative action types don’t believe racial discrimination against minorities still persists today in any demonstrable manner, despite statistics, studies and investigations that provide irrefutable evidence. Gerald Williams, in my humble opinion, would NOT have been awarded this position had he not made such ridiculous statements, placing himself in lockstep with the conservative, monoculturalism movement.

    –Cobra

  8. bilge diver January 17, 2005 at 9:03 pm | | Reply

    Actus – It is clear that you believe race alone is a legitimate proxy for disadvantage in our society. I am not certain that is an adequate measure anymore. And I write from a unique vantage point – the white adoptive father of two Asian-Americans who were handicapped in college admissions due to their race as well as the adoptive father of a biracial child who may well derive advantage from policies that punished his siblings. It’s a tough sell around the dinner table that affirmative action is anything other than racial discrimination.

  9. John Rosenberg January 17, 2005 at 11:09 pm | | Reply

    Ed – In my original post I typed “Gerald Williams” the first time (but only the first time) I referred to the new chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, whose name of course is “Gerald Reynolds.” I corrected it shortly thereafter. Of course many people outside D.C. read the WaPo, but the paper remains very, very sensitive to the opinions of the “minority” community in D.C. (which is the majority community in D.C.)

  10. Ed January 18, 2005 at 12:32 am | | Reply

    So to say WaPo readers “voted about ten-to-one Kerry” is just rhetorical flourish to help identify Fears’ rhetorical flourish.

    I agree with Reynolds that education and healthy home environments would go a long way toward narrowing many of the yawning racial disparities that remain. And he’s spot-on calling Jesse Jackson a “charlatan.”

  11. Anonymous January 18, 2005 at 8:59 am | | Reply

    ‘Actus — do you propose jailing the descendants of criminals because they may in some small way have benefitted from the crimes of their ancestors?’

    I propose we not let criminals keep what they take. But when it comes to jail we need proof of culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

  12. Anonymous January 18, 2005 at 9:51 am | | Reply

    Now Cobra! Do you really think that us anit-AA folks think discrimination is a thing of the past? Heck no! We just want you to put a name on it and nail the people in actual practice. Don’t make all white folks pay for the people doing bad now. If you find a business or school diswcriminating against you due to your race, we’ll help you put them in jail. How about that? No more of this group guilt garbage man. That stuff don’t fly no more.

  13. actus January 18, 2005 at 10:39 am | | Reply

    ‘It’s a tough sell around the dinner table that affirmative action is anything other than racial discrimination’

    I know its discrimination. The question is how invidious. Note the discussion we had earlier on legacies. There were good reasons for legacy admissions — mostly in terms of future donations from the legacy family.

    The problem is that we had a period of non-black colleges. So a legacy prefrence system has the effect of being an (imperfect) white preference system. Therefore, in order to race-neutrally effect legacy preference, we have to have race preferences for past excluded races, at least untill we can have a race neutral legacy preference.

    This is just one example where affirmative action is used to de-institutionalize race preferences.

  14. notherbob2 January 18, 2005 at 11:59 am | | Reply

    In a lucid moment, actus makes an understandable comment. The Justice O’Connor 25 year plan. So what if it violates the Civil Rights Act? It’s a good thing and liberal judges will allow it. [sarcasm/humor alert] Those niggling “good government” types will complain, but let’s not lose our focus on doing good here. How about letting time and the hard work of minorities solve this problem, just like the Irish, Italians, etc. did?

  15. actus January 18, 2005 at 12:04 pm | | Reply

    So what if it violates the Civil Rights Act?

    So what if legacy admissions are an effective end-run on the civil rights act?

  16. ThePrecinctChair January 18, 2005 at 12:14 pm | | Reply

    WOuld you argue the same about the violation of a civil right — must there be personal culpability before your right not to be subjected to racial discrimination is violated? Or does the fact that you indirectly benefit from what someone did in the past the basis for the violation of ones’ rights?

  17. Anonymous January 18, 2005 at 12:34 pm | | Reply

    ‘Or does the fact that you indirectly benefit from what someone did in the past the basis for the violation of ones’ rights?’

    Its a basis for you not getting that benefit, or for the fact that you getting that benefit is the equivalent of the continuance of the past wrong. If the only way we have of erasing the advantage of this benefit is race, then that shouldn’t be what stops us.

  18. notherbob2 January 18, 2005 at 6:19 pm | | Reply

    Yes, January, that is true. However, this problem will be solved by time and not so much of that. AA is a very, very, very bad precedent to set.

  19. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 18, 2005 at 8:33 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    The problem is that we had a period of non-black colleges. So a legacy prefrence system has the effect of being an (imperfect) white preference system. Therefore, in order to race-neutrally effect legacy preference, we have to have race preferences for past excluded races, at least untill we can have a race neutral legacy preference.

    But this is an argument, not for affirmative action as now practiced, but for preferences for non-whites and immigrants. Do you mean it as such? Would you give a boost to Asian-American students to compensate for the legacy preference they can’t have yet? Would you give an automatic boost to the children of immigrants of whatever race for the same reason?

    (actus, I really am curious about this. The argument for preferences for blacks I can understand, though without agreeing with it. The argument for preferences for the children of Mexican or Central American immigrants that doesn’t apply just as well to the children of Chinese or Vietnamese or Pakistani immigrants I have never seen. Maybe there is one, but it must be pretty well concealed. There are like language problems, like acculturation problems. But no one wants to do the obvious and make the same allowances for everyone facing the same difficulties. I really have not seen any explanation for the fact that Latino students get preferences and Asian-American students with exactly the same handicaps of language, cultural distance, and racial hostility don’t.)

  20. John Rosenberg January 18, 2005 at 9:15 pm | | Reply

    Michelle – I believe the inconsistency you persuasively point out (why prefs for Latinos but not Asians etc.?) results from what might be termed The Big Switch. Argument A justifies preferences as compensation for prior exclusion. But when one points out that immigrants who hadn’t immigrated yet were hardly excluded, the justification then shifts to “diversity.” But when one replies, “O.K., but why do only Latinos provide diversity, not Asians etc.?,” the justification switches once again. Now, the new argument goes, preferences are justified only for “underrepresented” minorities. Most places, it seems, have “enough” Asians without preferences, or, indeed, as in the Univ. of Calif. system, even too many of them; preferences to blacks and Latinos reduces the number of Asians who would have been admitted absent those preferences.

  21. actus January 18, 2005 at 10:53 pm | | Reply

    ‘But this is an argument, not for affirmative action as now practiced, but for preferences for non-whites and immigrants.’

    Certainly. I only use it as one example. And note that in my example, I don’t care about all the issues that legacy admissions brings. I’m not trying to undo it all, like how it disadvantages people who come from families that couldn’t afford universities for their parents. Im my example, I’m only concerned with making it race neutral.

    I’m just using it as an example of a situation where affirmative action and ‘racial discrimination’ can and should be used to de-institutionalize race preferences. I don’t try to argue for the support of all affirmative action policies. I don’t think situations like this account for all affirmative action policies.

    Frankly I think we should try to toss them all for socio-economic preferences.

  22. Cobra January 18, 2005 at 11:44 pm | | Reply

    It must be noted that a well-fed man with a full pantry may have a decidedly different perspective on hunger than those living in a famine strickened area.

    That’s the analogy that pops into my head during this conversation.

    It is the nature of conservativism to maintain a societal laissez-faire, with the gains, perks, boosts and advantages the majority staying in place to the detriment of those not in control.

    Now, often the Asian American is brought into Affirmative Action discussion, as some sort of innoculation against African American, Latino and Native American claims of discrimination. Usually it goes along the lines…

    “If Blacks acted more like Asian Americans and they wouldn’t need racial preferences.”

    I would never dispute the academic achievements of MANY Asian American students, (I will, for the sake of brevity not differentiate between variations of Asian nationalities, especially since none of the posters seem to care in their stereotyping) but so far, only Leo Cruz has admitted the discrimination problems many Asian Americans face when they LEAVE SCHOOL and enter the WORKPLACE. Then apparently, like the well-fed man during a seven course meal, the anti-affirmative action types seem to lose all of their empathy.

    It will certainly be interesting to watch the arguments of my fellow posters as this nation undergoes its inevitable “browning.” Will the call for a mythical, unprecedented “color-blind” society still be the cry if it adversely affects THEIR friends, families and loved ones?

    –Cobra

  23. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 18, 2005 at 11:47 pm | | Reply

    John, I see the argument shifting, sure, but I don’t understand why it shifts in the particular ways that it has. Unless, indeed, the idea is that minorities underrepresented anywhere ought to be brought up to the proper level of representation, By Any Argument Necessary.

    I don’t see why a Spanish-speaking immigrant whose parents arrived here with next to no money is in a different position from a Vietnamese-speaking immigrant, who, ditto.

    The difficulty is that the Asian kids have this incovenient habit of getting good grades and good SATs and otherwise setting themselves on the road to college.

    actus, I would absolutely second your request for a straight “class” preference. There’s some point to that; there is not for treating some underclass kids as favorites, and others not, divided by race.

  24. actus January 19, 2005 at 12:10 am | | Reply

    ‘actus, I would absolutely second your request for a straight “class” preference. There’s some point to that; there is not for treating some underclass kids as favorites, and others not, divided by race.’

    This is one of my favorite reasons for affirmative action. It gets people to support class based privileges. Someday we’ll have the great awakening to class in this country. King was on his way to make that happen when he was shot.

  25. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 19, 2005 at 12:52 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Now, often the Asian American is brought into Affirmative Action discussion, as some sort of inoculation against African American, Latino and Native American claims of discrimination. Usually it goes along the lines…

    “If Blacks acted more like Asian Americans and they wouldn’t need racial preferences.”

    Imagine two students, both children of immigrants who arrived here speaking little or no English, same income level. One kid’s parents are from Mexico; the other’s are from Vietnam. Cobra, can you give me any justification for giving the first a preference over the second? Any at all? Do you not see the slightest problem here?

    Especially as you acknowledge that there is continuing racism against Asian-Americans:

    [S]o far, only Leo Cruz has admitted the discrimination problems many Asian Americans face when they LEAVE SCHOOL and enter the WORKPLACE.

    Well, we have here a non-white group that has suffered discrimination in the past and still does, yes? So why shouldn’t it also receive preferences in college admissions? Any reason at all? (Other than the obvious one, I mean — the one stated by someone round the time of Prop. 209, that if UC went to merit admissions, UCB and UCLA would become mostly Asian?)

  26. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 19, 2005 at 1:26 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    This is one of my favorite reasons for affirmative action. It gets people to support class based privileges.

    You know, it might make a tiny bit more sense to argue for class-based privileges directly.

    Most people understand that there is considerable inequality in our society, and agree that those who have had fewer and poorer opportunities to learn deserve a boost in college admissions. But, actus, I promise you that the chief opponents of that idea are the friends of affirmative action as it now is.

    Part of the objection is that there are disadvantages suffered by minorities that go beyond their standard of living. Which is true enough. But the larger problem is that if you group everyone by income and give preferences to the poor, you don’t get the same outcome you do if you give preferences to Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans.

    The closest thing we have to class-based AA is the X% Plans that guarantee state university admission to every student in the top so many percent of a high school class. Residential segregation by income is pretty much a given, so what we have here is a way of rewarding the highest-achieving students in every class demographic. Who hates it? Cobra and those who think as he does. The idea has real problems (the big one being that some schools are so bad that even their top students may be utterly unprepared for university work), but the other problem with it is that it puts wealthy underrepresented minorities in direct competition with their schoolmates; you have to be in the top X% of your own school, not the top X% of the state, and underrepresented-minority kids with wealthy parents suddenly find themselves having to outperform their actual classmates, rather than poorer kids of their own ethnicity.

  27. Anonymous January 19, 2005 at 3:00 pm | | Reply

    ‘But, actus, I promise you that the chief opponents of that idea are the friends of affirmative action as it now is.’

    Not the wingers who don’t like ‘eat the rich, share the wealth, class war’? Ok. great!

  28. Cobra January 20, 2005 at 1:20 am | | Reply

    Michelle,

    In other words, the X% of high school student plans are segregation motivators, for the odds of many minority children will increase proportionately to the amount of isolation they have from children of other ethnicities. If you claim that Asian Americans have higher test scores and grades, then the motivation for white parents would be to have as few Asian Americans in their neighborhood as possible to give their child better odds, right? I mean, that only makes sense. What chance would the B average, 1050 SAT white kid have in a school district with a disproportionate amount of Asian American kids? He’d have to compete with that group and the higher achieving white kids, lessening his odds. I’m sure the realtors, zoning , town councils and other powers that be, after a few X% dissappointments would get to work on “limiting” the amount of Asian American competition.

    Of course, the opposite effect is also theoretically possible, where white parents, mindful of stereotypes about African American and Latino underacheivement in education, may migrate BACK to the inner city, where an advantage might materialize on the X% scale for that B average 1050 SAT kid.

    That’s not likely, however.

    –Cobra

  29. Anonymous January 20, 2005 at 1:49 am | | Reply

    Everyone,

    Let me get this straight, All kinds of preferences are wrong, the only valid preference in this world are preferences for the poor. Glass Ceilings against Asians Americnas in the workplace is not a justification for preferences in university admissions for Asian Americans. It is true that when ASians leave the UC system, a large number still face discrimination against them in the workplace, but that is not a justification for preferences towards Asian Americans.Discrimination against Asian Americans in the workplace is not cannot be corrected by giving preferences to Asian Americans in university admissions. I am a Pilipino, but I was livid with anger when a hack like Bill Kidder of the Equal Justice Society suggested that Pilipinos ought to sdie with blacks in supporting race preferences in admissions at Boalt law school. Kidder must be out of his mind, a complete ignormaus, that ‘s what he is. Kidder says that since Pilipino applicants don’t have average LSAT scores equal to their Chinese or Korean counterparts then ought to support race preferences for Pilipinos and blacks in Boalt Law admissions. Doesn’t he know that most of the Pilipino applicants to Boalt law have parents who are doctors, nurses, engineers and acocuntants. If the Pilipino applicants were all poor, then they do need preferences, otherwise let them study as hard as the Koreans and the Chinese.

  30. leo cruz January 20, 2005 at 2:42 am | | Reply

    I had always stated that the only kind of preferencese that are valid are class preferences or a starighforward preference for the poor.. i will make a comment about Cobra’s latest letter to Michelle, at least he is talking about something sensible instead of demanding outright race preferences. i’ll do it tomorrow.

  31. ThePrecinctChair January 20, 2005 at 1:04 pm | | Reply

    One of the problems, though, is that the very concept of using race as a factor for awarding/denying advantage is that it constitutes the constitutionally prohibitted “corruption of blood”, punishing descendants for the sins of ancestors.

  32. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 20, 2005 at 3:41 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, I’m disappointed in you.

    If you claim that Asian Americans have higher test scores and grades,

    What I “claim” would make no difference, would it? “If Asian-American children actually do out-perform white children in the same schools” is what you mean. But continue:

    then the motivation for white parents would be to have as few Asian Americans in their neighborhood as possible to give their child better odds, right? I mean, that only makes sense. What chance would the B average, 1050 SAT white kid have in a school district with a disproportionate amount of Asian American kids? He’d have to compete with that group and the higher achieving white kids, lessening his odds. I’m sure the realtors, zoning , town councils and other powers that be, after a few X% dissappointments would get to work on “limiting” the amount of Asian American competition.

    Oh, sure they would, because we all know that realtors are all part of the White Power Structure, rather than people trying to sell houses for as much money as they can; and zoning out Asian-Americans is perfectly legal; and town councils just naturally want to scare parents with brilliant kids out of their jurisdiction. Jeez, Cobra, I could make a better case that Asian-American parents would voluntarily disperse themselves in order to take advantage of the rule, so that their kids might be in the top 10% of a mostly non-Asian class rather than (as is the case in some districts now) somewhere towards the middle of a largely-Asian one.

    But you’re missing the point, one I hope others have seen even if you haven’t.

    [T]he X% of high school student plans are segregation motivators, for the odds of many minority children will increase proportionately to the amount of isolation they have from children of other ethnicities.

    Cobra, the only way that sentence makes sense is if you think it’s impossible for Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans to rise to the top X% of a high school class unless the school in question is nearly all Black, Latino, or Native American; if you don’t think that underrepresented-minority kids are capable of matching white and Asian kids of the same class, in the same neighborhood, going to the same school. If what you must think is true, then that is the problem, and racial preferences just push it up a little further through the pipeline. I happen to think it’s false, myself.

  33. leo cruz January 21, 2005 at 3:05 am | | Reply

    Cobra says,

    ” n other words, the X% of high school student plans are segregation motivators, for the odds of many minority children will increase proportionately to the amount of isolation they have from children of other ethnicities. If you claim that Asian Americans have higher test scores and grades, then the motivation for white parents would be to have as few Asian Americans in their neighborhood as possible to give their child better odds, right? I mean, that only makes sense. What chance would the B average, 1050 SAT white kid have in a school district with a disproportionate amount of Asian American kids? He’d have to compete with that group and the higher achieving white kids, lessening his odds. I’m sure the realtors, zoning , town councils and other powers that be, after a few X% dissappointments would get to work on “limiting” the amount of Asian American competition. ”

    We’ll Cobra, you’re claim that middling white students with average SATs of 1050 will be “segregation motivators ” is actually quite irrelevant or have not prevented the rise of Asian Americans. If you claim that fearful white parents, town councils , or real estate agents will actually try to prevent Asian parents from moving in their neighborhood to protect their oh so precious white children from competition , then their efforts were not very succesful indeed. I am saying this from what I had seen here in Southern California. You have realtors here claiming how good the schools are ia a particular suburb. Good , compared to what?

    Last the average SAT scores of white kids at Beverly High school in the Math portion of the SAT was 590. There is an inner city school in the Koreatown/ Wilshire area that is 98% non – white called Los Angeles High School. The average Math SAT score of the Korean high school graduates at Los Angeles High School is 550. You know as well as I do that an average is nothing but the center of gravity in a random normal distribution. What that means is that there are white kids at Beverly Hills school who have Math SAT scores that are lower than the average SAT math score of the Koreans in that inner city Los Angeles High. My question is this Cobra, should I buy a house in Beverly Hills so I can give my kid a good education. ? Remember the average white family in Beverly Hills is far wealthier than the average family that lives in the Koreatown area. But that picture is even nothing compared to other high schools in San Gabriel Area of Los Angeles that is the home to home to high school with a majority or a large percentage of Asian Americans. There is a high school in the City of Alhambra with a high percentage of Chinese students. Alhambra is just east of of downtown LA. The average Math SAT score of graduating Chinese students last year was 594 in this high school called Mark Keppel. Get the picture Cobra ? it means that the average Chinese student who graduated from Mark keppel high school did better than the average white kid who graduated from Beverly Hills high school. Alhambra has a more middle class cast to it, compared to obviously very wealthy Beverly Hill. There are virtually very few or there are no white students that attend Mark Keppel high school. The white students in this area of Alhambra have moved to other suburbs or just abandoned the area (maybe there are too many Chinese ). Do you think this is just an isolated case in the San Gabriel area or in California ? That is most certainly untrue ? There are several other high schools in the San Gabriel area or California with a large number or a majortiy of Asians students that exhibit the same characteristic as Mark Keppel high school. In other words, the average ASian or Chinese student scored higher Math SAT averages or composite ( Math and English ) SAT averages itself than their white counterparts at Beverly Hills High School. The average SAT math score of Chinese students at Arcadia high school is 656 and their average composite SAT score is higher than the average composite SAT score of white kids at Beverly hills high school. You know what means right?, in Soouthern California, Beverly Hills high school is regarded as the top high school for whites. In several of these high schools that have higher SAT scores than Beverly High school, whites are fewer or significantly much fewer than ASians. In other words, Asians were able to do this without whites in their midst, is it then necessary for blacks to have white classmates to make the same achievement as Asians did?

    ?

Say What?