One of the more humorous fictions in our current racial debates is the claim of the preferentialists that they oppose quotas. A not insignificant problem with this claim is that examples of liberals actually opposing quotas are so hard to find.
I suppose reasonable people can debate whether, say, the University of Michigan law school’s unerring ability to form entering classes that contain around 12% minorities reflects a quota or not, but minority set-aside programs don’t contain even this much ambiguity.
And here’s another one, sent to me by a friendly reader in Iowa. House File 363 is a bill being considered by the Iowa General Assembly. If I made this up I’d be accused of conjuring up a reductio ad absurdum straw man:
An Act providing for the appointment of minorities to appointive boards, commissions, committees and councils.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
Section 1. NEW SECTION. 69.16B MINORITY REPRESENTATION. All appointive boards, commissions, committees, and councils of the state established by the Code if not otherwise provided by law shall, in the aggregate, provide for minority representation. A person shall not be appointed or reappointed to any board, commission, committee, or council established by the Code if that appointment or reappointment would cause the percentage of total members of all boards, commissions, committees, and councils subject to this section, of a particular minority, to be less than the percentage of that minority of the total population of the state based upon the most recent federal decennial census. All appointing authorities of boards, commissions, committees, and councils subject to this section shall consult with one another to avoid a violation of this section…..
EXPLANATION
This bill provides that all appointive boards, commissions,
committees, and councils established by the Code shall provide
for minority representation. The bill provides that no person
shall be appointed to any board, commission, committee, or
council if that appointment would cause the percentage of
total members of all boards, commissions, committees, and
councils to be less than the percentage of that particular
minority of the population of the state based upon the last
census. A minority person means an individual who is a Black,
Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian, or
Alaskan native American.
First, let me repeat: this is real; I did not make it up. (As I wrote recently about a masochistic, liberal (redundant?) serial commenter here who incessantly offers outrageous defenses of racial preferences, I’m glad he’s here. My only reservation is a concern that other readers will think I’m paying him to serve up the arguments he does.)
This proposal is such a slow, fat pitch that whacking it wouldn’t be any fun. Besides, you don’t need me to make the obvious 14th Amendment argument (Yes, Iowa, there still is a 14th Amendment, despite the fact that some Supreme Court justices frequently ignore it), or to ask whether a blond Argentinean is “Hispanic” even if both his father’s and mother’s families are Italian. I won’t even ask why Arabs (not to mention Muslims) are not regarded as a minority in Iowa.
But there is something I can’t avoid asking, and that is: what, precisely, would this bill require? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to say that no one can be appointed to any state board, etc., if doing so would result in the representation of any official minority group on the total of all such boards would be reduced to a level below its representation in the population of the state. Right?
Let’s assume, then, as the authors of this legislation obviously do, that the proper, natural state of things is that each official minority group is proportionately represented among the totality of all board, etc., members. Now imagine that a Filipino-American resigns from, say, the Board of Corn Quality. That person could not be replaced with a black, for doing so would leave the “Asian or Pacific Islander” minority group illegally underrepresented. Every Hispanic vacancy would have to filled by another Hispanic. Etc.
And, although we all know government never grows, what if some crisis led to the creation of a new board or commission? No problem … so long as the new board consists of 5 members (or 6, if there is to be a white member) … and all were appointed at the same time.
Finally, if proportional representation is so important, why should it be limited to appointed members of state boards, commissions, etc.? Why not all state employees (college faculty, state general assembly and senate staffs, etc., etc.), and even the employees of all organizations that receive any state aid or subsidy?
My first thought was that this proposal can’t be serious, but my last is that, after all, this is Iowa … the state that gave us John Kerry.
UPDATE [19 Feb. 9:30AM]
Here’s another problem. The 2000 census reported a total of 8,989 American Indians or Alaska natives in Iowa, 0.3% of the population. I don’t know how members there are on all the official boards, commissions, etc., in Iowa, but let’s assume there are a thousand. To comply with this the requirements of this bill, 30 3 American Indians or Alaska Natives would have to be appointed to (and remain on) these boards. [Actually, as an astute commenter observed, that number should be 3, not 30. Now everyone can see why I didn’t pursue a career in math or science.]
No problem, you may think. That number shouldn’t be too hard to find, you tell yourself. But wait; not so fast! [Warning! All you grammarphobes: stop reading now.] Go back and read the bill quoted above and prepare for a quiz.
Quiz: How many minority groups have a right to representation on state boards?
You’re right: Five. That’s because of the power of the serial comma, discussed at length here. “American Indian” is one of those five groups, and “Alaska native American” is another. Whether or not this last group includes white people born in Alaska may be open to question, but in the spirit of this bill let’s assume that it does not (or at least was not intended to; room for lawyerly maneuvering remains).
So, how many American Indians must be on the boards, and how many Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or whatever? I can’t tell from the census numbers in the site I’ve linked. Do Iowa legislators know of other, more precise numbers? In fact, I wonder if there are any Aleuts in Iowa. Before voting on this bill, Iowa legislators should wonder as well.
But suppose the prairie preferentialists in the Iowa legislature say “oops” and take out the comma after “American Indian,” thus lumping American Indian and “Alaskan native American” into one group. That solves the problem, right? I’m not so sure. Let’s say there are some Aleuts in Iowa, but all 30 3 appointees are American Indians. Don’t you think the NAACA (National Association for the Advancement of Aleuts) would complain, and wouldn’t many preferentialists regard their complaint as just?
Somewhat more realistically, what if all 30 3 American Indian appointees were selected from the same tribe? That wouldn’t seem to violate the letter of the bill, but you can bet there would be hell to pay. Just as there would be if all “Asian” appointees were Japanese, or Korean, or Chinese, or even if they were only “disproportionately” so.
Pass this bill, Iowa, and have fun. The rest of us certainly will as we watch.
Actually, as nearly as I can tell, the law does not allow a Filipino-American to be replaced by anyone, including a Filipino-American.
Wow are you really saying you don’t understand what this bill is trying to address?
The bill stipulates only the minimum levels of representation that must be met, and only for those five groups, so a possible solution to your conundrums is to liberally pad each noted group’s representation. Also, those of mixed race could be appointed as utility players, able to dynamically switch affiliations to balance representations until permanent replacements could be appointed.
Yeah, but the joker in this is Prez Bush’s tactic. Appoint a black or a woman, but a conservative one.
The reply of the crazies is, then: “Well a conservative black isn’t really a black. So, Clarence Thomas isn’t black, he’s an Uncle Tom. Michelle Malkin is an Aunt Jemima. Condi Rice is a House Nigger.”
This brings to mind the current spat between Susan Estrich and the Los Angeles Times. The Times carried a group of articles about and by women, and dared to balance this between conservatives and liberals. Estrich screamed that the Times was prejudiced against women precisely because it dared to publish articles by conservative, non-feminist women. She’s calling for a boycott of the paper. If you are female and opposed to Estrich, you ain’t a woman.
http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/default.asp
So, there’s a way around this. Despite the claptrap to the contrary, race, sex and class are not predictable indicators of political affiliation.
Nels – I think your point is both literally and statistically valid but politically very unrealistic. You’re right: the literal text of this bill says only that the proportion on all boards, etc., of the the five officially sanctioned minorities may not fall below their proportion of the state population. But the principle on which it is based is that fairness, equality, and justice require proportional representation.
According to the 2000 census, Iowa is 2.8% “Hispanic or Latino” and 2.1% “Black or African American.” As you point out, the literal requirements imposed by this bill would be met if blacks made up, say, 35% of all boards and commissions as long as Hispanics didn’t fall below 2.1%. In real life, of course (or in what passes for real life in the Age of Racial Preference) such a result would not be tolerated, even in the absence of black-Hispanic conflict over spoils that approximated the earlier battles between the Irish and Italians. And why not? Because it would not be regarded as fair.
Make no mistake: this bill reflects — and would reinforce — the new preferential principle that fairness requires proportional representation.
Phil, I get migraine headaches that I could address with a sledgehammer to my cranium. Is that a good idea?
Actually this type of quota system would not be unprecedented. This is the exact way that the Democrats choose their delegates to the presidential convention. Except there they also add in sex and sexual preference as categories. By any chance is the sponsor of the bill a Democrat?
Phil writes:
>>>Wow are you really saying you don’t understand what this bill is trying to address?”
Now you understand why this “masochistic, liberal (redundant?) serial commenter here who incessantly offers outrageous defenses of racial preferences” posts to this blog.
–Cobra
Perhaps you, Phil, and Cobra can understand something else.
A problem, or a possible problem, is identified. You guys seem to think that every conceivable bullet must be fired at that problem to show that we all CARE. It doesn’t matter if the bullet reduces the problem at all, or if it masks other problems, or if it causes other problems, or even if it makes the problem worse. The thing is to do something, anything, and don’t ask questions. Asking questions or pointing out potential drawbacks of that bullet shows that you don’t CARE. And that, in the end, is the ultimate crime we conservatives are accused of.
If you have been following the Churchill flap you can see one of the end results of AA folly. Because he was
0.3% of 1,000 is 3 not 30 members of the board or commision.
You know, if you read this bill literally, if there does happen to be only one Aleut in Iowa, the state is compelled to put him or her on a board or a commission or whatever, because otherwise the percentage of Aleuts amongst the commissioners (zero) will be lower than the (nonzero) percentage of Aleut Iowans.
John, are you sure you did not make this up?
[sarcasm/humor alert]
Actually there’s another problem with this bill. It’s a separation of powers issue. If the bill is supposed to apply to appointments by the governor then the question is whether the legislature can even do this. Usually the governor can appoint whoever he wants and the legislature gets to confirm or reject. They can’t tell him who to appoint.