The Residence Hall Association at Michigan State sponsored a debate between Carl Cohen, a University of Michigan philosophy professor who has long opposed racial preferences (a former head of the Michigan ACLU, Cohen is one of the few liberals who did not turn his back on the “without regard” principle of colorblind equality), and Tim Wise, who has written a couple of books supporting racial preferences.
Cohen argued that racial preferences are wrong, ineffective, and damaging to the people they are intended to benefit.
I’m not really sure what Wise argued (other than that it wasn’t wise). You decide:
Wise, who supports affirmative action, said eliminating the practice will not eliminate racial discrimination. On the contrary, he argued, it will solidify it.
Wise said racial discrimination is “cemented into the history of your state and this country.” He added that there are only enough affirmative action monitors to double-check institutions’ practices every 46 years, so it’s impossible to keep up on whether institutions actually follow it. Because of this, he said, people should rally for the hiring of more monitors rather than the banning of affirmative action.
I don’t know any critic of racial preferences who believes that eliminating them will eliminate all racial discrimination. (We do believe, however, that it will eliminate quite a lot of it.) As for the 46 year cycle of monitoring, does anyone know what he’s talking about? I don’t.
UPDATE: Another Debate [29 March]
Meanwhile, in Flint, emeritus Univ. of Michigan law professor Theodore St. Antoine debated Flint lawyer Glen Lenhoff, “who has won several reverse discrimination cases.” [For the record: there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”; there is only discrimination.]
St. Antoine offered three different justifications for racial preferences: 1) they are “vital to the success of minorities and women”; 2) in order “to offset years of discrimination, public entities must work to undo injustices”; and 3) “The future of our country depends on the acceptance of minorities…. Different groups bring different values and attitudes to the workplace and school.”
As a former law professor, he might have mentioned that the Supreme Court has accepted only one of his three justifications, “diversity,” and that only in a very constricted and circumscribed manner.
Lenhoff argued that “[u]niversities and employers who reserve spaces for people based on affirmative action often are buying into stereotypes.”
Indeed. Giving a preference to this or that individual black person because blacks, as a group, “bring different values and attidudes to the workplace and school” is the essence of stereotyping.
I think he pulled some numbers out of his… butt… to complain, apparently, about the lack of government bureaucrats to sufficiently enforce the kind of racial discrimination he likes.
John – appreciated your point about “reverse discrimination” – and that there is only DISCRIMINATION.
Reminds me a bit of the phrase “hate crimes.” Whenever I hear that, I always wonder, “and what exactly are the LOVE crimes”????
In fairness to Mr. St. Antoine, you could read point three as a paraphrase of the diversity rationale. Nonetheless, it’s interesting that he emphasizes equity concerns, as I believe most people who favor AA intuitively do.
anon – I think St. Antoine’s No. 3 is indeed the “diversity” rationale. Or at least what might be termed 3b is. 3a — the future of our country depends on accepteance of minorities — is rhetorical filler, except in the unlikely event he means literal “acceptance” into college.
In other words, St. A through a whole bunch of excuses for racial discrimination at his audience (all but one of which has been rejected by the courts), hoping that at least one of them would stick.
John writes:
>>>”I don’t know any critic of racial preferences who believes that eliminating them will eliminate all racial discrimination. (We do believe, however, that it will eliminate quite a lot of it.) ”
Please elaborate on your point here, and give me three specific examples of how if Affirmative Action is removed, “quite a lot of racial discrimination” will be eliminated.
–Cobra
cobra asks me to give examples of how eliminating “affirmative action” would eliminate a lot of discrimination.
Easy. As practiced almost everywhere “affirmative action” is employed, preferences are given to some individuals and not to others based on their race. That is racial discrimination. Eliminating those racial preference programs would thus, as I argued, would “eliminate quite a lot” of racial discrimination.
John writes:
>>>”cobra asks me to give examples of how eliminating “affirmative action” would eliminate a lot of discrimination.
Easy. As practiced almost everywhere “affirmative action” is employed, preferences are given to some individuals and not to others based on their race. That is racial discrimination. Eliminating those racial preference programs would thus, as I argued, “eliminate quite a lot” of racial discrimination.”
But we’ve gone around the mulberry bush on this before, and have established through debate that as far as elite college admissions go (the hill on which most anti-affirmative action types choose to charge up) only 2% to 5% of total admissions are affected by Affirmative Action at all. In the case of hiring, promotion and government contracting, you see similar, if not smaller percentages.
Not to be snarky, but if your definition of “quite a lot” is encompassed by “2% to 5%” then I would argue that the Cobra principle of “selective outrage” may once again be at work.
–Cobra
[…] a comment to this post below, “Cobra,” a frequent commenter here, challenged me to support my assertion […]