Jonathan Yardley Gets “A Historic Wrong Gotten Wrong” Right

Jonathan Yardley has an excellent review of WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, by Columbia professor Ira Katznelson, in today’s Washington Post.

Katznelson’s arguments are flawed, as Yardley points out, by controversial and even preachy assumptions about the meaning of both “affirmative action” and “equality.” As Yardley begins his review:

Ira Katznelson begins this study of how Southern Democrats warped New Deal legislation to deny blacks its benefits with a look back to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s notable speech “To Fulfill These Rights.” Delivered four decades ago as a commencement address at Howard University, at the height of Johnson’s effectiveness as civil rights president, the speech was “the first moment when a president from any region forcefully and visibly sponsored affirmative action for blacks.”

The problem, as Yardley points out, is that “[t]his was not affirmative action as the term is now commonly understood….” Today “affirmative action” means some amalgam of compensatory justice or the use of racial preferences to promote “diversity.” This is not,” Yardley notes, “what Johnson had in mind.”

Indeed it was not, although Katznelson’s error is quite common. It is based in large part on what I believe is a misinterpretation of Johnson’s Howard University speech of June 4, 1965. Here is the passage, under the heading “Freedom Is Not Enough,” often quoted to show Johnson’s support of what we now would (or should) call racial preferences:

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

Today we are accustomed to dealing with two very different standards to evaluate discrimination: an “intent” test, which requires finding a discriminatory intent in order to determine that a particular policy is discriminatory, and a “results” test, which does not require a finding of intent to determine that some “disparity” or “underrepresentation” is discriminatory. But that distinction had not emerged in 1965 when Johnson made his speech, and when he called for “equality as a fact and equality as a result” he did not mean proportional representation or an absolute equality of goods, money, assets, jobs, whatever that people mean today by “equality of results.”

What Johnson meant by “equality,” it is quite clear, is non-discriminatory equality of opportunity. The evidence? For starters, the very next sentence in Johnson’s speech, after the oft-quoted passage quoted above, states:

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities–physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness. [Emphasis added]

True, Johnson then says in the next sentence that “equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough,” but in the remainder of the speech he does not really specify what more is needed, other than various forms of assistance there is no reason to assume would be conditioned on skin color as opposed to need.

Next, three months after his Howard speech, Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 which required “affirmative action” of government contractors. But note how “affirmative action” was defined:

The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. [Emphasis added]

The strength of Katznelson’s book is his demonstration that during the New Deal Southern Democrats worked, for the most part successfully, to make sure that blacks were excluded from the social welfare policies that played such a large role in creating the modern middle class.

“But it is not true,” Yardley argues persuasively and with great force,

that “affirmative action then was white.” He writes that “federal social welfare policy operated . . . as a perverse formula for affirmative action,” that the GI Bill acted as “affirmative action for whites,” that “all the major tools the federal government deployed during the New Deal and the Fair Deal created a powerful, if unstated, program of affirmative action for white Americans.” Et cetera. But this completely ignores the essential point that Katznelson himself makes elsewhere: The goal of Southern Democrats was to deny the benefits of these programs to blacks, not to create an “affirmative action” program for whites.

Katznelson, who in most other respects is scrupulous and fair-minded, in this instance has fallen into the clutches of what some of his fellow historians call “presentism” — judging the past by the standards of the present. “Affirmative action,” as we understand the term, did not exist in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Southern Democrats — bigoted and mean-spirited and self-interested though they most certainly were — did not intend to single out whites for special treatment in the way affirmative action now singles out African Americans and other minorities. They wanted, pure and simple, to keep blacks in their place, to maintain a feudal labor system that bordered on slavery, “not just to impede but veto the full and fair participation of African Americans in the most important welfare-oriented advances of the 1930s.”

The congressional Southerners weren’t affirming anything; they were denying blacks — Southern blacks most specifically — the benefits of federal programs that, had those benefits been extended to them, might have helped them overcome generations of discrimination and move into the American mainstream. The language of late-20th-century diversity engineering is irrelevant to what they were doing, and to cast it in that language is to distort it beyond recognition.

Amen.

UPDATE [28 Sept. 2005]

Welcome, those of you who have just found your way here from the generous link by David Bernstein on the Volokh Conspiracy.

Here’s an additional thought, provoked by my re-reading Yardley’s review. Katznelson, as Yardley points out, makes the mistake of assuming that discrimination against one group amounts to “affirmative action” for all those not discriminated against. “Affirmative action,” in short, in this view is simply the other side of the coin of discrimination.

But, since coins have two sides, does it not follow that to give “affirmative action” to one group is, inexorably, to discriminate against the group or groups not receiving it?

Say What? (31)

  1. Emil Sinclair August 24, 2005 at 5:30 am | | Reply

    what are the advantages of being white? why can you never raise this question? can you honestly answer this question with so much resentment and emotional investment in seeing everything from one perspective, namely your own? have you *really* given any substantive consideration to how often a white person does not have to think about his or her “race,” “whiteness”–and that this this is a *privilege,* a de facto and salient *advantage*? or that as a “white” person you most always are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise–as opposed to the other way round? you are most always judged as an individual–not a a representative of your race. though to hear you go on and on one would never realize this. you only see the “discrimination” and the “racial preferences” which (supposedly) don’t benefit you. but how about a little honesty in also thinking about the ones that do, and that the latter list would be far longer than the former?

    if you want to decry dishonesty and “discrimination” take a good, hard look in the proverbial mirror. the source of your resentment is your own myopic sense of entitlement because of your unwillingness to honestly assess the privileges of whiteness, instead of only carping on about its putative “disadvantages.”

    and stop conflating institutional racism with individual racism. then again, your focus on individuality is itself illustrative of the aforementioned privilege of whiteness in always being judged and regarded as an idividual, as just person–unqualified by race first.

  2. Richard Nieporent August 24, 2005 at 7:47 am | | Reply

    or that as a “white” person you most always are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise–as opposed to the other way round? you are most always judged as an individual–not a a representative of your race.

    Maybe if you stopped associating exclusively with Democrats you would find that not everyone thinks that way.

  3. Laura Blalock August 24, 2005 at 7:54 am | | Reply

    “…as a ‘white’ person you most always are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise.”

    As a white person myself, I can assure you that I do not view other white people that way. Nor am I viewed by other white people that way. If you were white you would never make such a stupid statement. You’re imagining what’s not there.

  4. Cobra August 24, 2005 at 7:56 am | | Reply

    This discussion seems familiar…where have I seen this before?

    –Cobra

  5. Stephen August 24, 2005 at 11:34 am | | Reply

    A surprising omission from this story: blacks were exempted from combat in the Second World War.

    This “discrimination” meant that my father had the opportunity to die, while Cobra’s sat on the sideline. My father was a non-union factory worker, the son of serfs who fled to America to escape the Irish Potato Famine. They sailed the Atlantic on “confin ships.”

    Might help to tell the whole story. Cobra, my family has suffered as much as yours.

  6. La Shawn Barber's Corner August 24, 2005 at 12:44 pm | | Reply

    Queries

    A couple of readers wanted to know how things were going with the comment-less blog and whether my stats were down as a result.

    The answer to the first question is, “Great!” Should’ve disabled comments a long time ago. The energy I …

  7. nobody important August 24, 2005 at 12:45 pm | | Reply

    The “White privilege” myth is part of the worldview that sees whites as monolithic. No divirsity of culture, no diversity of language, no diversity of religion, no diversity of political thought, just one huge undifferentiated mass of whiteness. All of it working like clockwork in a massive unconscious conspiracy to oppress non-whites.

  8. Chetly Zarko August 24, 2005 at 1:06 pm | | Reply

    Stephen,

    Many blacks were “in the line of fire,” not all were “exempted” (the Tuskegee Airmen, eg)and their service shouldn’t be considered less because the government chose to deny (most)them the opportunity to die for their country. And quite honestly, I find the denial of opportunity to die for one’s country in a noble cause, especially when blacks were volunteering for service, to be a higher order of moral problem than you give it credit. What does it say to the unity of a nation that doesn’t give equal choices to its citizens in wartime? Ending modern race preferences is as much about the deleterious effects on being “American” as it is any of the other good arguments against them.

    This all boils back to the to redefinition of “affirmative action” to equal “preferences”. The author has conflated government’s past preferences to certain individuals with “affirmative action” to them, whereas Kennedy/LBJ used the term “affirmative action” to mean affirmative steps and programs to “end discrimination” (and the “preferences for whites” that were discrimination incarnate).

    The author has ALMOST come full circle in the redefinition. If white discrimination against blacks in the 30s-40s was “affirmative action for whites”, and we agree that was immoral, how much more reasoning does it take to say the same of modern affirmative action?

    Is this “redistributive justice” or “retributive justice”?

  9. ArthurS August 24, 2005 at 2:33 pm | | Reply

    Stephen “A suprising omission…”

    African Americans in World War II:

  10. ArthurS August 24, 2005 at 3:12 pm | | Reply
  11. John Rosenberg August 24, 2005 at 3:50 pm | | Reply

    If I were a reader I would regard my own defense of my own “honesty” as somewhat suspect, so I’ll refrain from insisting “I am, too, honest!” I also may have limited powers of analysis, since I find it hard to square Emil Sinclair’s obvious resentment of people who oppose racial preferences with his equally obvious resentment at people being judged as a representative of their race.

    In addition, I was going to add an ADDENDUM saying what Chetly just said above, but then he said it.

  12. Cobra August 24, 2005 at 10:57 pm | | Reply

    What a thread! I almost don’t know which comments to respond to.

    Laura writes:

    >>>”As a white person myself, I can assure you that I do not view other white people that way. Nor am I viewed by other white people that way. If you were white you would never make such a stupid statement. You’re imagining what’s not there.”

    Unless you’re a mind-reader, it’s quite hard to see how others honestly view you. Maybe you’ve never seen or read any writings by people like Stephen, but I don’t know if your statement would hold water after doing so. My continuing point is that there are MILLIONS of Americans who view the world as Stephen does. That’s the same Stephen who says my late WW2 veteran father and his brothers’ service was invalid. I challenge you to search through this blog for other Stephen posts. Then come back here and tell me you STILL claim “If you were white you would never make such a stupid statement.”

    I don’t often agree with Chetly Zarko, but yet AGAIN I find myself applauding him here, if only for the FIRST half of his post.

    Arthur beat me to the punch on the cross-examination, and presentation of evidence. It’s a shame that in 2005, with millions of megabytes of information at one’s fingertips he had to EXPLAIN our nation’s history to this man. Just another reason why the “Black Men at Penn” need donations.

    Emil, I hope you continue to post here. Whenever the skin of the American race onion is pulled back, the tears of truth will pour from freshly opened eyes.

    –Cobra

  13. john August 24, 2005 at 11:38 pm | | Reply

    “…as a ‘white’ person you most always are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise.”

    As a white person myself, I can assure you that I do not view other white people that way. Nor am I viewed by other white people that way. If you were white you would never make such a stupid statement. You’re imagining what’s not there.”

    Agreed.

  14. john August 24, 2005 at 11:47 pm | | Reply

    “what are the advantages…”

    native americans and hispanics, who get large preferences in hiring, admissions, etc., often are “white”, in that they have white skin, and appear white. Do they deserve preferences if they don’t experience any discrimiation?

    What about those african-americans who also are “white”, in that they have predominantly white anscestry, have “white” skin, and don’t experience discrimination? (I’ve met such african-americans where I didn’t know for months that they were “black”). Do they deserve preferences?

    Finally, Emil, you’re the one who appears to be conflating institutional and individual discrimination. The discrimination you’re talking about, in terms of subjective perceptions on the part of some people, while regrettable, is not unconstitutional. Discrimination by the government, on the other hand, clearly appears to be in light of the 14th amendment.

    Finally, let’s not forget that ethnic preferences are probably the single greatest factor perpetuating ethnic tension and resentment today. Heck, it even provides a rational basis for questioning the qualifications and abilities of minorities. That’s a positive?

  15. john August 24, 2005 at 11:56 pm | | Reply

    P.S.: Any minority who presumes to claim that any “white” person is priviliged simply by basis of their being “white” is being at least as ignorant and presumptuous as a “white” person claiming to know what it’s like to be a minority.

    “Privilige” is far more a factor of economics and upbringing than it is of ethnicity, and government policies (and everyone else) should recognize this basic fact. This kind of unthinking, knee-jerk assumption is very similar to the kind of non-thought behind most other kinds of ignorant prejudice.

  16. john August 24, 2005 at 11:58 pm | | Reply

    “My father, like innumerable other racial and ethnic minorities, was a combat WWII veteran. He was a combat engineer in the Pacific theater (Philippines, Okinawa, etc). From a Hispanic Vietnam War veteran.”

    For what it’s worth, Stephen didn’t claim hispanics were exempted from combat.

  17. john August 25, 2005 at 12:12 am | | Reply

    “What a thread! I almost don’t know which comments to respond to….”

    Your point about “mind-readers” seems generally valid. How can anyone claim that all (or even most) of society views “whites” one way, and “minorities” another? I’ve seen plenty of discrimination/prejudice based on where people went to school, etc.

    Further, do you really believe that the fact that some people are still racist justifies government-sponsored discrimination against people who may be completely innocent of such views, and who may in fact have less opportunities and resources than most minorities?

    Our nation’s history is only releveant to the extent it affects individuals today. If a minority is economicaly disadvantaged today as a (possible) result of our history, then it may well make sense to take that into account in admissions. But if they’re not, I don’t really see how the fact that someone else suffered sometime in the past really factors in. Should Jews get preference based on this, regardless of their current individual circumstances? Irish? Catholics? (The KKK hated them too, just in case you didn’t know.)

    The real problem here is the conflating of individual circumstances with group circumstances. The fact that many minorities are disadvantaged doesn’t change the fact that many are successful, and their children privileged. The fact that many “whites” are successful doesn’t change the fact that many are disadvantaged, as are their children. Each person should be treated according to their circumstances, not according to their skin tone. This is the only policy that makes any real sense, or is at all just.

    Finally, I think Shrek did better with his onion metaphor.

  18. john August 25, 2005 at 12:24 am | | Reply

    One final point:

    As far as the LBJ quote goes, I don’t think there’s any real need to try to dissect it. The bottom line is that if he really believed equality of results was a greater imperative than equality of opportunity, he was simply mistaken, like he was about so much else during his administration.

    Demanding true equality of results, of course, would mean taxing most asians and jews more heavily, until their incomes matched the national median. It would mean drafting women into the military until they reached parity in numbers. It would mean taxing the many successful african-americans and hispanics until their income was also at the level of the national median. In other words, it would mean denying, on a wholesale basis, the ability to advance through greater effort or ability. The result would be, of course, a society where no one ever strived for excellence, or to create a better life for themselves and their children, because a “better” life would in fact be impossible.

    However, I think this is probably a good summary of the difference between the two parties today.

  19. Cobra August 25, 2005 at 7:58 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”The real problem here is the conflating of individual circumstances with group circumstances. The fact that many minorities are disadvantaged doesn’t change the fact that many are successful, and their children privileged.”

    You’re doing a bit of conflation yourself in this statement. Paraphrasing my buddy, Dell Gines, there were some blacks who were “successful” during the time of slavery (Fredrick Douglas, etc) so by extrapolation, can’t you make the argument that slavery didn’t prevent “black success?”

    Basing rules on the exceptions is not a wise standard to apply in terms of human interaction. I would simply point you to the OVERWHELMING statistics that reflect DISPARATE treatment of African Americans in regards to health care, hiring, promotions, wages, housing and the legal system. John Rosenberg, the blog host, doesn’t like when I fill this screen with DOCUMENTED FACTS on these issues, because nobody can refute them anyway.

    I have a sneaky suspicion that you can’t refute them either.

    –Cobra

  20. Cicero August 25, 2005 at 9:36 am | | Reply

    Affirmative action (racial and gender preferences) really amounts to an ingenious scheme by upper class whites, who were the true beneficiaries of slavery and Jim Crow, to hang the blame on ALL ‘whites’ – including the working class and ethnics.

    In this way, the opportunities of these lower class and ethnic ‘white’ males could be transferred to minorities and women, and the upper class’s substantial piece of the pie would never be touched.

    Upper class whites avoid paying the piper by collectively indicting ALL ‘whites’, while having the lower classes pay “reparations” through lost educational and employment opportunities. Brilliant!

  21. Richard Nieporent August 25, 2005 at 9:46 am | | Reply

    Cobra, you can make your points, such as they are, without “shouting”. You see what you want to see, and what you see is an oppressive white society that has never stopped discriminating against blacks. Yes you can find studies that purport to show massive discrimination against blacks. I can also find studies that show how capitalism discriminates against working class people, how women are only paid 70% of men

  22. john August 25, 2005 at 1:54 pm | | Reply

    Cobra writes:

    “You’re doing a bit of conflation yourself in this statement….”

    Well, to be honest, Cobra, I don’t think Frederick Douglas’s child should’ve received ethnic preferences either, given that he was a Senator with more power, influence, and income than most whites.

    (To be honest, the fact that there were thousands of blacks successful enough to own slaves during this time does, in fact, indicate that not even slavery made “success” impossible for all blacks.)

    And again, you’re missing the point. Yes, on average, the average african-american makes less than the average caucasian (and the average asian makes more than the average caucasian), and this may often be the result of societal inequities. But a full 1/3 of all african-american households have incomes equal to or greater than the average caucasian household, and a full 1/3 of all caucasian households make less than the average african-american household. (This going by U.S. Census data.) I hardly consider this a minor “exception”.

    In light of this, it simply makes no sense to grant blanket preferences to people simply based on their skin tone. IF an applicant is actually disadvantaged as a result of the disparities you allege (and wich, in many cases, probably even exist), then yes, that disadvantage in terms of educational or economic opportunitiy should be factored in. But if someone is the child of a black/hispanic millionaire, black/hispanic billionaire, or otherwise successful professional, I do not see why that individual should receive preferential treatment over a caucasian or asian child that may have experienced signficantly more deprivation and hardship. In other words, every case should be treated on its individual merits, not on illusory stereotypes about different ethnic groups.

    (In terms of hiring and promotion, I’ve also seen statistics noting that wherever objective standards/criteria are used, minorities are hired ahead of caucasians with stronger criteria. We can argue over whether this is justified, but it certainly seems to rebut to some extent the context you’re presuming, unless you’re relying on data from the 1950’s.)

    Again, when comparing a disadvanted hipanic/african-american to a better-off caucasian or asian, I agree we should factor in that disadvantage. However, when comparing a wealthier hispanic/african-american to a disadvantaged caucasian or asian, I’m not sure why we should increase what is already an unfair advantage. To do so appears to rely upon a metaphysical view of ethnic guilt, which, of course, was the original justification for slavery in the first place, and which has little place in an enlightened, rational society.

  23. ArthurS August 25, 2005 at 3:43 pm | | Reply

    The unrelenting jeremiads of certain conservatives/right wingers have been to blame the failures of some white persons on the ideology/orthodoxy of liberals/leftists, such as,

  24. Cobra August 25, 2005 at 9:34 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>Well, to be honest, Cobra, I don’t think Frederick Douglas’s child should’ve received ethnic preferences either, given that he was a Senator with more power, influence, and income than most whites.

    (To be honest, the fact that there were thousands of blacks successful enough to own slaves during this time does, in fact, indicate that not even slavery made “success” impossible for all blacks.)”

    You’re not mentioning the fact that Frederick Douglas was HIMSELF a slave, and no amount of money would’ve protected his life during a trip through Dixieland. Douglas’s children were affected by both the Dred Scott decision, and their children felt the effects of Plessy vs. Fergusson. Do you agree with the white justices in either of those decisions, and what do these decisions illustrate concerning white privilege?

    John writes:

    >>>(In terms of hiring and promotion, I’ve also seen statistics noting that wherever objective standards/criteria are used, minorities are hired ahead of caucasians with stronger criteria. We can argue over whether this is justified, but it certainly seems to rebut to some extent the context you’re presuming, unless you’re relying on data from the 1950’s.)”

    As frequent readers of Discrimiations know, I draw alot of my data fresh from the headlines. Recently, I posted the findings of Princeton Sociology Professor Devah Pager:

    >>>Equality of Opportunity is an interesting concept. Let

  25. john August 28, 2005 at 4:58 am | | Reply

    “I, like most racial and ethnic minorities, simply want equality of opportunity – as an individual, the right to succeed on individual merit, regardless of race, national origin, or ancestry. However, because of the realities our society, I believe in the vigorous enforcement of our constitutional and statutory laws that prohibit acts of discrimination. Unfortunately, the hearts and minds of our misguided brethren cannot be so easily changed.”

    I complete agree with all of the above.

    I also believe that the only way to change the hearts and minds of our more misguided brethren is to evaluate people based on objective standards, as this is presumably the best way to build mutual respect between different groups.

  26. john August 28, 2005 at 5:19 am | | Reply

    “You’re not mentioning the fact that Frederick Douglas was HIMSELF a slave, and no amount of money would’ve protected his life during a trip through Dixieland. Douglas’s children were affected by both the Dred Scott decision, and their children felt the effects of Plessy vs. Fergusson. Do you agree with the white justices in either of those decisions, and what do these decisions illustrate concerning white privilege?”

    How exactly is any of the above relevant?

    Personally, I of course disagree with both Dred Scott and Plessy, just as I disagree somewhat with the “new” Plessy of Gratz. I rather think people should be treated as individuals, on their own merits, and not as members of ethnic groups.

    However, neither decision changes the fact that as a Senator, Douglass was certainly more privileged than the vast majority of white people, as were his children at that point. The idea of “white privilege” is largely an illusion once divorced form the economic realities surrounding different individuals and families.

    “As frequent readers of Discrimiations know, I draw alot of my data fresh from the headlines. Recently, I posted the findings of Princeton Sociology Professor Devah Pager”

    I’m quite sure that if a liberal sociologist really wants to find evidence of discrimination, he’ll be able to produce a study apparently displaying such discrimination.

    However, it’s also far from clear how exactly “equal” the applicants in the study were. It also doesn’t change the apparent fact that in jobs that actually involve objective, quantifiable indicia of ability and achievement, minorities are generally favored in hiring.

    As noted previously, I’m sure that minorities do at time face racism and discrimination, just as short people, ugly people, albinos, etc. face differential treament. The question is whether it is correct (or helpful) for the government to begin openly discriminating in favor of such groups simply because some individuals in those groups may at times experience discrimination from other private individuals. It is far from clear that such government-mandated discrimination, devoid of any actual analysis of economic hardship or educational disadvantage, is truly justified, especially in light of the fact that such ethnic categorization and preference is probably the greatest irritant in ethnic relations today.

    No one is disputing the need for vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. That is a far different thing from programs that often apppear to be attempting to repair past wrongs with new ones.

  27. Cobra August 28, 2005 at 3:55 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>No one is disputing the need for vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. That is a far different thing from programs that often apppear to be attempting to repair past wrongs with new ones.”

    But you know what, John? That’s like saying we need vigorous enforcement of drug laws, tax code violations, immigration laws, etc. It sounds GREAT on paper, but the REALITY is usually more of the status quo, and the status quo benefits white males in America. It always has, and apparently there are those willing to fight and keep it that way. There was an excellent discussion here a few months back about the ACTUAL percentage of white students affected by Affirmative Action at the U of Michigan. When it turned out it only involved the low single digits, I began to question the logic of this tumult, as should all involved in the debate.

    John writes:

    >>>As noted previously, I’m sure that minorities do at time face racism and discrimination, just as short people, ugly people, albinos, etc. face differential treament.”

    That’s a gross trivialization of race in American society. The Founding Fathers didn’t make a 3/5th compromise on “short people”, “ugly people” and “albinos”.

    John writes:

    >>>It is far from clear that such government-mandated discrimination, devoid of any actual analysis of economic hardship or educational disadvantage, is truly justified, especially in light of the fact that such ethnic categorization and preference is probably the greatest irritant in ethnic relations today.”

    I agree. “ethnic categorization and preference” is a great irritant in ethnic relations today. Ending GOVERNMENT ethnic categorization and preference does NOTHING to end ethnic categorization and preference in American society at large. It just keeps the government from doing so, which will result in the return to the status quo of white male preference and monopoly that is the story of America thus far. Underrepresented minorities and white women have absolutely nothing to gain by this and much to lose, while white males in the borderline, single percentage point margin have much to gain.

    If you can disprove this equation through historical example, please do so. I doubt you can, however.

    –Cobra

  28. The Volokh Conspiracy September 28, 2005 at 2:40 pm | | Reply

    “When Affirmative Action was White”:

    Ira Katznelson had a piece in the Washington Post yesterday discussing the discriminatory effects of New Deal and Fair Deal…

  29. h0mi September 28, 2005 at 10:08 pm | | Reply

    I always thought a privlege was limited to a select few, the elite. The rich are privleged in that they have money and the ability to buy things few people had. That’s what privlege is. Privlege isn’t something that’s available to 80% of the population. “White Privlege” is a grotesque misnomer and seems to me to be similar to how living in a warm climate “privleges” you from having to deal with Nor’easters or living in Louisiana “privleges” you from having to deal with Californian earthquakes.

  30. scott September 29, 2005 at 6:10 pm | | Reply

    There was an excellent discussion here a few months back about the ACTUAL percentage of white students affected by Affirmative Action at the U of Michigan. When it turned out it only involved the low single digits, I began to question the logic of this tumult, as should all involved in the debate.

    So, if we only re-enslave say 5% of all blacks, that would be okay?

  31. Kotz Flops May 6, 2011 at 1:30 am |

    […] I indicated below in praising Jonathan Yardley’s criticism of Ira Katznelson’s new book, WHEN AFFIRMATIVE […]

Leave a Reply to ArthurS Click here to cancel reply.