Yesterday Helene and I went over the mountains to the Bookstack in Staunton to see something you’ll have to wait to see on C-Span (watch here for the date and time), a talk by Bob Laird based on his new book, The Case For Affirmative Action In University Admissions.
Bob is more reasonable than many people who argue what he does and a very nice guy, despite having been director of admissions at Berkeley from 1993 to 1999. (I told him that he could attribute any cranky argumentativeness he might detect in my questions as much to my having been at Stanford forever as to my being an admirer of Ward Connerly.) In addition to a rather civil exchange in the question period, I had a nice chat with him and his charming wife afterwards, as well as with Jack Blackburn, UVa’s director of admissions (last criticized here), who was in the audience.
I’m not going to summarize his presentation, which was substantially similar to a recent talk he made at Yale described here, but I do encourage you watch the C-SPAN schedule linked above so that you can watch the whole thing (but especially a couple of penetrating, scintillating, devastating, questions from the floor, if I do say so myself [well, someone has to]).
I will, however, mention a point or three. Bob argued, I think unpersuasively, that “no one” wants affirmative action to last forever but that “temporarily” the necessity to integrate American society “needs to transcend values of the 1964 civil rights act.” How long is temporary? Until there are no longer any racially identifiable differences in wealth, advantages, or status. This echoed the assertion Jesse Jackson made in the Introduction — that we must choose between integration and the colorblind nondiscrimination principle (or rather, Jackson’s assertion echoed Bob’s argument).
He repeated the familiar argument about the need for a “critical mass” of minority students — too many classes with one black, who then must speak for the whole race — and that the justification for preference-based “diversity” is not to bestow a benefit on the preferred but to provide it to the other students who need exposure to their cultural difference, etc. If I had not been concerned about monopolizing the question period I’d have also asked why, since we’ve agreed to let the social need for integration and diversity trump (“temporarily”) individual rights, universities didn’t simply assign students to classes and dorms by race where necessary in order to insure “diversity”? That is, why allow some classes to have many blacks when other classes were forced to go without? Sacrificing individual choice for this class or that would seem to be a small price to pay for “diversity” and integration compared to the racial discrimination the preferentialists already justify.
Bob also repeated the seemingly required complaint that affirmative action critics have hijacked the language of civil rights by, among other transgressions, unfairly defining “affirmative action” as reverse discrimination, preferences, etc. This was illegitimate, he argued, because as practiced by himself and other sensitive practitioners the consideration of race was only “one of many factors” considered. Under questioning, however, he acknowledged that “considering” race without extending some preferences based on it would be meaningless, and thus he agreed that “racial preference” is what he is concerned to defend. Of course, none of the hated Ward Connerly’s proposals [when some fire engines went loudly by, interrupting his remarks, Bob said “Ward sent them”] would eliminate consideration of any of those “other factors.”
Nicholas Lemann, author of a book on the SAT and dean of the graduate school of journalism at Columbia, said in a blurb that this book was about the best defense of affirmative action so far published. He may well be right.
UPDATE [11 April]
From a highly favorable San Francisco Chronicle article about Bob Laird’s new book:
Many voters, of course, simply believe racial preferences are wrong, [Laird] says. But he argues that a race-blind society isn’t possible without an integrated society, including the UC Berkeley campus — where only 25 black males who were not athletes were admitted last fall.
That, he says, is part of a growing system of segregation that is diverting most underrepresented minorities to the least competitive campuses, such as UC Riverside.
Two points, 1) one personal and 2) one at least marginally less so:
1. As someone who grew up under real segregation (Alabama in the 1940s and 1950s), I not only disagree with but bitterly resent the argument that colorblindness is indistinguishable from or results in a “system of segregation.” Segregation was a legal and social system built on the imposition of burdens (and the corresponding awarding of benefits) based on race. It was dismantled by writing into law the principle that every person must be treated without regard to race. While I’m at it, let me also say, for the record, that a) racial preferences in admissions etc. are not “as bad” as the discrimination that produced segregation; b) that “self-segregation” — black students, for example, choosing to eat or live together — is also not segregation (It may be unfortunate (especially for those who justify racial preferences because it produces “diversity,” but it is not segregation); and c) there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination.” A policy or practice is either racially discriminatory, or it isn’t.
2. I am increasingly impressed by the degree to which the argument that a “race-blind society isn’t possible without an integrated society” is simply a reprise of the argument used to justify busing for the purpose of creating racial balance, a practice that created such havoc in the 1970s.
UPDATE II
CARNIVAL visitors: thanks for visiting. If you were interested in this post, you may also want to look at this one, two posts down, which discusses similar recent “crisis” talk from Robert Birgeneau, Berkeley’s chancellor.
What exactly makes Bob more reasonable, or nicer, than similar sounding people you routinely discuss here? I would guess that most of them are also civil in person most of the time. A few probably even have charming spouses. Was it that he didn’t call you a racist? He did say (at Yale)
It is clear that the “diversity” rationale and the “critical mass” rationale are nearly opposites, but Bob uses both of them. Do you know if anyone used the diversity rationale before the first Supreme Court decision? Do you know if anyone used “critical mass” before the more recent decision? Do you know if Bob did?
Bob is original in one respect: what others call “civil disobedience” and engage in with the hope that the law will be changed, Bob calls “transcending” the law, and he engages in it with the hope (or rather the certainty) that the law will be ignored.
On an unrelated point, John, I hope you will get around to trashing this article from MIT’s Technology Review entitled, “Diversity Pledge”. If not you, then who? It’s your destiny, John.
What kind of nonsense is this guy Levin talking about? he is talking absolute rubbish.That is something every freshman at Ol’blue should understand. You mean Yale is racially diverse? ha, ha, ha,In Levin’s definition I guess. you mean just because the percentage of blacks at Yale is higher than the percentage of blacks at Berkeley or UCLA, Yale is more diverse than Berkeley or UCLA. Whites make up just 33% of the freshman class. That is a better definition of diversity. The less whites there are in a freshman class, the more racially diverse a class is. Even nearby University of connecticut has probably more non- whites in its freshman class than Yale does in terms of absolute numbers. Some propaganda rubbish from Levin, eh?
i meant that at Berkeley , whites make up only 33 % of the freshman class.
Wow, is there anyone working at UC Berkeley who isn’t certifiably insane?
Laird says that temporary – until there are no longer any racially identifiable differences in wealth, advantages, or status.
But…has there ever been any country where all the different races are totally equal in aptitude and interest in academics, which leads to wealth? When will asians stop doing better in school than whites, and when will whites stop doing better in school than blacks? When will large scale immigration of uneducated Hispanics stop? All of these things will need to happen before educational equality will occur. Which makes the “temporary” description laughable.
As for the “critical mass” to improve education argument, the students don’t buy that nonsense for a second. They want the smartest students in each class to study with, regardless of race.
And to hear that he is upset with conservatives equating affirmative action with racial preferences, and then admitting that “”racial preference” is what he is concerned to defend” shows what a moron this guy is.
“But…has there ever been any country where all the different races are totally equal in aptitude and interest in academics, which leads to wealth?”
This is why i think a dual understanding of not just present inequity but a clear past harm must inform affirmative action policies.
Of course its even better when other reasons are found, such as when a state medical school finds that a minority community is underserved by doctors, and that doctors from that community are more likely to serve that community, and then decides to have an affirmative action program to bring in those applicants.
Just to clarify my remarks on “large scale immigration of uneducated Hispanics”……
I did not imply that Hispanics were inherently less likely to have a high aptitude or interest in education. It’s certainly possible that 2nd or 3rd generation Hispanics have academic interest/aptitude about the national average. But most Hispanics immigrants ( unlike Asian immigrants – many whom are on student visas) are not chosen for their educational background. Most are here illegally or here through family reunification visas.
Therefore, if a large percentage of the total Hispanic population are poor, uneducated immigrants, how can the average Hispanic ever be at the national average in terms of education? It can’t be – as long as our immigration system does not change, in terms of national origin, educational qualifications for immigrants, or total immigration. And therefore how can Laird’s conditions for ending the “temporary” affirmative action ever be met?
Actus,
You want affirmative action for black doctors??? May you have your next surgery performed by someone like the infamous Patrick Chavis, who got admission to medical school over the more qualified Alan Bakke, the subject of the 1978 landmark Bakke case. And do you want your “community” served by such a person? (see link, Chavis killed one patient, and was sued for malpractice 27 times)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/749581/posts
“You want affirmative action for black doctors??? ”
I’d like communities to not be underserved by doctors. I don’t know if they’re black or white.
Will, maybe we can (literally?) kill two birds with one stone. Liberals can have all of the affirmative action doctors they want. However, Liberals must be the ones that use them for their medical needs.
Actus wrote…”and that doctors from that community are more likely to serve that community”
Can you quantify the level of “more likely” that is needed before affirmative action should kick in? 1%, 5%, 10%, 75%, 200%, 400%?
How should this “more likely” quality be measured during the application process?
actus:
… doctors from [the minority] community are more likely to serve that community….
If the social goal is to produce more doctors who will serve in minority communities, the most efficient way of doing so would be to offer an admissions bonus to applicants who will sign a pledge to spend x number of years serving a minority community.
That approach would have what some of us regard as the added benefit of not engaging in odious racial discrimination justified by the mere chance that the preferred minority applicants might, perhaps, spend time in a minority community.
Moreover, what if the statistical probability that minority medical graduates are “more likely” to spend time in minority communities is less than the statistical probability that minority medical students are less likely to finish medical school and be licensed? Are you sure you want to justify racial discrimination on the basis of statistical probabilities?
“Can you quantify the level of “more likely” that is needed before affirmative action should kick in? 1%, 5%, 10%, 75%, 200%, 400%?”
I have no idea how those numbers would affect the communities, so no, I can’t.
“How should this “more likely” quality be measured during the application process?”
In the application process they could simply ask questions. In my school its normal to ask and evaluate whether someone is planning a public interest career in the future, for the purpose of dolign out public interest funding.
Or they could just avoid the questions if they find that people from those communities are more likely to serve those communities.
“If the social goal is to produce more doctors who will serve in minority communities, the most efficient way of doing so would be to offer an admissions bonus to applicants who will sign a pledge to spend x number of years serving a minority community.”
I think fidel castro does something like this. Trains inner city american doctors to practice medicine in American cities. Good for him.
“That approach would have what some of us regard as the added benefit of not engaging in odious racial discrimination justified by the mere chance that the preferred minority applicants might, perhaps, spend time in a minority community.”
I think wealth transfers to minority communities would accomplish lots of goals. Sure. I think we should be open to how doctoring gets done in these communities and what sorts of methods work to increase the numbers of doctors in these communities.
Me:
“If the social goal is to produce more doctors who will serve in minority communities, the most efficient way of doing so would be to offer an admissions bonus to applicants who will sign a pledge to spend x number of years serving a minority community.”
actus:
I think fidel castro does something like this.
Me:
So does the U.S. Public Health Service.
On this model, which I’ve advocated before, anyone given a “diversity” preference would be required actually to provide some diversity by agreeing to be assigned to an insufficiently “diverse” class or two as needed, to a community needing more “diversity” after graduation, etc. Oh, wait. That would conflict with giving racial preferences to black medical students because they might be marginally more likely to serve black communities, thus perpetuating undiversity. Boy this is complicated….
“Boy this is complicated….”
Its not really that complicated. They’re just two different rationales for affirmative action. You’ve thought about this stuff. Don’t make it more opaque than it is.
actus,
Its not really that complicated. They’re just two different rationales for affirmative action. You’ve thought about this stuff. Don’t make it more opaque than it is.
In other words AA is what you want, and you’ll take any argument whatsoever that leads to more of it, even if the arguments are wildly inconsistent with one another. Which leaves the question: why is it you really want it? It can’t be for no reason at all, so one of your reasons is real, and at least some of the others are flatly disingenuous.
“In other words AA is what you want, and you’ll take any argument whatsoever that leads to more of it,”
me? i don’t like the diversity arguemnt much. I think its rather weak. It is, however, the only one the supreme court accepts.
Call me a cynnic, but I’ve yet to visit a doctor with “Affirmative Action Recipient” stamped in red across his or her degree.
–Cobra
Cobra,
You don’t have to look for the stamp, just look for the diploma from Florida A&M or Howard University Medical School on the wall.
After many years working in large medical institituion, I can tell you that most people would be better off walking out of any physician who went to Howard University Medical School instead of letting such a physician treat them.
“I can tell you that most people would be better off walking out of any physician who went to Howard University Medical School instead of letting such a physician treat them”
How is that school accredited? Maybe we don’t need tort reform then, if these guys keep on practicing.
“He repeated the familiar argument about the need for a “critical mass” of minority students — too many classes with one black, who then must speak for the whole race”
Why?
Why should we expect one black to speak for a whole race?
The Carnival Of Education: Week 10
Welcome to the tenth edition of The Carnival Of Education. Here we have assembled a variety of interesting and informative posts from around the EduSphere (and a few from the Larger ‘Sphere) that have been submitted by various authors and readers. Th…
Carnival of the Vanities #134 – Avignon Edition
From Wikipedia: An antipope is one whose claim to being Pope is the result of a disputed or contested election. These antipopes were usually in opposition to a specific person chosen by the papal electors (since the Middle Ages, the…
There will be “reverse discrimination” when whites experience 300 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow Laws, redlining in insurance and bank loans, steering to racially segregated neighborhoods, inferior police and public services, limited job opportunities that continue from the earliest times until today and inferior schools and teachers. When that happens then we can discuss “reverse discrimination”.
Desil
http://www.special-ringtones.net/mp3/ ringtones site free. ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE. from website .