Stanley Fish, controversialist and academic administrator extraordinaire (at least in his own estimation), is an outspoken advocate of racial preferences, but he regards ideological diversity as a sham.
“Balance is not a real value,” he explains.
Take the insistence that faculties be balanced so that there is a proportionate number of conservatives and liberals. That is the least defensible form of balance — called “intellectual diversity” by its proponents, but is really affirmative action for conservatives — because it assumes a relationship and even an exact correlation between one’s performance in the ballot box and one’s performance in the classroom.
One might respond by pointing out that our nonacademic commitments and affiliations — to religions, political agendas, ethnic origins, regional loyalties, sports teams — will have, to a great extent, formed the person who enters the classroom, but that is an argument of determinism…
Neither the dire consequences that supposedly come along with a predominantly liberal faculty nor the good consequences that would come along with a “redress” of the “imbalance” exist. The only thing you would get were you to enforce a political balance of persons hired or promoted would be a politicized university.
Fish does not explain why affirmative action for minorities to produce greater racial balance is not a deterministic argument (assuming a non-existent correlation between skin color and anything of academic relevance) that produces a racially politicized university, and society.
Most of these pro-discrimination (aka pro-affirmative action) advocated are so illogical for alleged academics, that I seriously wonder if they are insane or on drugs.
Fish says:
“Take the insistence that faculties be balanced so that there is a proportionate number of conservatives and liberals. That is the least defensible form of balance — called “intellectual diversity””
My reply:
But colleges have always been justifying their general education requirements for humanities & social science classes by stressing that these classes provide “intellectual diversity” and critical thought, rather than just pushing one-sided dogma. In admitting that these classes ARE just one-sided, de facto Democrat/liberal propaganda, he’s admitting the utter uselessnes of these classes.
(also,Fish bizzarely comments on “determinism”, but this is another example of a pretentious, pedantic academic injecting an irrelevant concept to the discussion, just to avoid the underlying issues.)
Fish says:
“The only thing you would get were you to enforce a political balance of persons hired or promoted would be a politicized university.”
My reply:
Man, talk about being isolated in an ivory tower. We’d GET a “politicized university”??? We don’t have that now??? Nearly all English and Philospohy classes are merely Democrat/liberal pablum where grades are based on simply regurgitating the professor’s liberal views.
At San Jose State, the chancellor (in violation of his contract) personally spoke at rallies against Prop 187 & Prop 209 (which dealt with affirmative action and illegal immigrant benefits). They even invited Jesse Jackson to speak, and bussed in people to fill the audience.
In fact, ALL of the Chancellors of the UC system and the CSU system signed statements in opposition to both Propositions. Meanwhile, back in the real world, both Propositions passed by 10-20 percent.
I guess Fish doesn’t see this as politicization since, like most far-left teachers, he thinks that the political spectrum only goes from moderately liberal to radically liberal, and anyone outside these views are just a small, ignorant, bigoted groups of people who should be ignored.
Fish truly demonstrates the practical operation of the “Peter Principle”…one being elevated to a level beyond his competence.
“assuming a non-existent correlation between skin color and anything of academic relevance”
Is this an assumption we can make about politics, and say, science?
Well, for what it’s worth (you decide), Fish himself is quite explicit about politcs being irrelevant to academic work of any kind.
Still, I may have been somewhat unfair to Fish in this post (although I have some doubts about whether it makes any sense to talk about unfairness to someone who rejects fairness in principle… oh wait, Fish doesn’t believe in “principle” … so, to someone who believes his side will prosper when things like a commitment to fairness and principle have been discarded).
Fish apparently doesn’t believe in racial balance, either (“believe”? oh well…). His justifications for affirmative action are typically based instead on a desire for compensation for past wrongs. Of course, if this were a different post instead of a comment I would point out that in the absence of a principle that condems discrimination on the basis of race it’s not clear what exactly was wrong about the past discrimination.
“I would point out that in the absence of a principle that condems discrimination on the basis of race it’s not clear what exactly was wrong about the past discrimination.”
Its probably that it was imbalanced. For example, a principle that we should not take from others does not call us to leave with the thief what he has taken, lest we take as well.
Ergo we condemn imbalanced racial discrimination, but not when when we use it to correct past wrongs.
actus – this is nothing more, or less, than the compensation justification I mentioned. There are many problems with it — among them, that the “thiefs” from whom you justify confiscating are not the thiefs, and the victims whom you would compensate are not the victims. But maybe that’s good enough for government work….
P.S. I should have added above: “unless you believe in inherited racial guilt and inherited racial virtue.”
But then, of course, you do.
“actus – this is nothing more, or less, than the compensation justification I mentioned. ”
I know. I know that that justification has problems, but I also believe that one of its problems is not that “in the absence of a principle that condems discrimination on the basis of race it’s not clear what exactly was wrong about the past discrimination.”
It is clear what was wrong about the past discrimination. Among other things its created the imbalances we are currently trying to correct.
“But then, of course, you do.”
I believe in inherited wealth, and that form of affirmative action for the rich can be corrected with proper estate taxes though. Who’s against equality of opportunity?
Actus says:
“Ergo we condemn imbalanced racial discrimination, but not when when we use it to correct past wrongs.”
OK…let me play that game as well. Here’s some groups that should get racial preferences now:
1. All white people and asian people for the 4 decades that blacks & Hispanics have gotten racial preferences (explicitly in college admissions & government jobs, less so in private sector jobs). And of course the institutional preferences for blacks & Hispanics under affirmative action have been nationwide and actually occuring right NOW, while the prefences for white people under segregation was limited to the South, and occured before most living Americans were even born.
2. All whites should get affirmative action over all black people, due to the fact that millions of Europeans were kidnapped and put into slavery by Africans in the past
link: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040322/slave.html
3. More German-Americans and Italian-Americans than Japanese-Americans were put in internment camps in WWII. So German-Americans and Italian-Americans should get affirmative action.
4. Irish-Americans suffered much discrimination once. They deserve affirmative action.
Obviously, if every group plays this “revenge” game, going back to the past and demanding advantages, we wind up like Yugoslavia (where the term “balkanized” comes from) or Palestine/Israel. Is this what the left in America wants? A civil war?
Your examples are interesting. I’d like to know more about how, for example, Irish and germans are suffering now compared to the average american.
It is clear what was wrong about the past discrimination. Among other things its created the imbalances we are currently trying to correct.
But this is purely ciruclar: you’ve abandoned the principle that there’s anything wrong with benefits or burdens being distributed on the basis of race (otherwise there could be no preferences based on race), but you still want to say that there is something inherently wrong with a society that is “racially imbalanced”
Why?
It’s easy for me to say why, because I believe that people should be treated without regard to race, but you’ve denied yourself the ability to use that argument, and hence to be coherent when you find something wrong with “racial imbalance.”
“Why?”
To think that when a group is now disadvantaged because it was once picked on and it should now be advantaged in order to catch up or erase the disadvantage does not lead to the thought that one has “abandoned the principle that there’s anything wrong with benefits or burdens being distributed on the basis of race.”
There is clearly something wrong with it. And there is clearly a way to fix that wrong that takes race into account.
Which is not to say that this is the only approach and that that this approach is not the only one. It is clearly possible to close our eyes to the disparities which have been created and call everyone equal.
It is also possible to not be able to find any disparities, or to not be able to fix any ones we can find.
The way to “take race into account” when you’re attempting to compensate victims of racial discrimination is … to identify victims of racial discrimination. Giving preferences to anyone who is black on some theory of “group compensation” is offensive. It subsumes individuals in their racial group; assumes group villainy (all whites, or any random particular whites, should pay) and group victimhood. It is inconsistent with any coherent theory of individual rights.
“assumes group villainy (all whites, or any random particular whites, should pay)”
It doesn’t really assume villainy, not all harm allocation in our society is due to villainy. People who have to move out of their houses because a highway is coming arent villains, but still are allocated that harm. People whose neighborhoods are zoned industrial so that polluters can move in and create jobs are also not villains, though they face the harms.
You are right that in some sense we are turning in its head the logic of discriminating against a group in favor of discriminating for a group. In some sense, the logic of oppression becomes the logic of liberation.
Group harms were waged for a long time. And now we are all to be looked at as insular individuals. Because what has triumphed is not the end of those harms, but the end grouping?
It doesn’t really assume villainy…
Now you’re being coy. You may not want to call it villainy, but that’s not really the point. Your argument is that all white, or any random group of whites, owe a debt today for wrongs that were done in the past by other whites. In other words, you are talikng about a racial debt. Individuals and their actions don’t count. All that counts is the racial group to which you belong: if you’re white, you owe; if you’re black, you deserve. As I said, this is offensive.
It’s no accident that the courts have so thoroughly rejected this justification for affirmative action.
Actus:
According to your logic of “Ergo we condemn imbalanced racial discrimination, but not when when we use it to correct past wrongs”….
…racial preferences for Germans, Italians, Irish, all white people, even asians – at the expense of other races – is acceptable. They all have been subject to racial discrimination in the PAST (or RIGHT NOW) – I’m just playing your silly little game of revenge and collective racial guilt. Why do you people get to have all the fun?
“Now you’re being coy. You may not want to call it villainy, but that’s not really the point.”
I know villainy is not the point. You mentioned it and I corrected you. And its not that its de-bt, its more like a statistical or comparative advantage. But I agree that this is a problematic conception, and support more generalized welfare policies and a broader understanding and condemnation of socioeconomic disadvantage.
“.racial preferences for Germans, Italians, Irish, all white people, even asians – at the expense of other races – is acceptable”
What sort of disadavantages do you see these peoples facing now?
“What sort of disadavantages do you see these peoples facing now?”
Boy, you don’t learn very quick. YOU brought up PAST discrimination as a reason for “corrective” discrimination. I was using your theory.
As for disadvantages that Germans, etc. face now, I clearly mentioned affirmative action, which has existed for 40+ years.
” YOU brought up PAST discrimination as a reason for “corrective” discrimination. ”
I’ve also brought up current disadvantages. According to my theory, AA for non-germans wouldn’t be a current disadvantage, if it was correctly correcting for current disadvantages of non-germans.
But I agree that this is all very problematic and would prefer more general welfare policies.
Actus writes:
>>>But I agree that this is all very problematic and would prefer more general welfare policies.”
Personally, I prefer a more concentrated version of the same programs in place right now, but far be it from me to interrupt a “surgeon” at work.
Keep dissecting, Actus. It’s a beautiful thing to behold.
Will writes:
>>>As for disadvantages that Germans, etc. face now, I clearly mentioned affirmative action, which has existed for 40+ years.”
How do you make that argument that Germans were specifically disadvantaged by Affirmative Action, when German American women were in line to receive the GENDER benefit of the program?
John writes:
>>>Your argument is that all white, or any random group of whites, owe a debt today for wrongs that were done in the past by other whites.”
I believe that the environment we live in today is the sum total of yesterday’s actions (or inactions.) Every American child today has the national debt hanging over him or her, a far more polluted environment, an uncertain job market,a violent world in turmoil, a 50% divorce rate and unfathomable education costs on the horizon…all factors that were NOT the child’s fault. Each generation must deal with the mess handed to them by the previous ones, and unfortunately, this applies to RACE and GENDER in America, IMHO. American Society cannot default on it’s racial debts, and “bankruptcy” is not an acceptible option.
–Cobra
[…] like Stanley Fish, does not explain why striving for ideological balance promotes “polarization” but […]