Throughout most of their history the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund argued that discrimination was wrong. Now they argue that it’s wrong when it works to the disadvantage of blacks, but no big deal otherwise.
Thus, responding to the news that colleges are abandoning what the New York Times quaintly calls “focused scholarships” and the rest of us call race-exclusive scholarships, LDF Chairman Theodore Shaw
challenge[d] the notion that programs for minority students hurt whites. “How is it that they conclude that the great evil in this country is discrimination against white people?” Mr. Shaw asked. “Can I put that question any more pointedly? I struggle to find the words to do it because it’s so stunning.”
Speaking as one of (but not a representative of) “them,” I don’t believe I have ever maintained that racial discrimination is “the great evil in this country.” (Shaw, of course, may think it — defined as virtually anything that does not improve the position of blacks — is.)
But I do believe that all racial discrimination is wrong, even a little bit of it and even discrimination against whites or Asians or Arabs.
Something does not have to “the great evil” to be evil. (HatTip to Hube)
Racial discrimination for one group creates attitudes towards that group by the non-favored groups. The favored group cements their ‘assumed inferiority’ status.
But, for some reason, certain race pimps don’t see this…or maybe they do.
Getting rid of scholarships based strictly on race should be considered a step forward to equal rights advocates. It’s a way of saying they are no longer necessary for applicants to compete. I welcome that idea.
One thing that I’ve wondered about anti-racial preference people, like yourself, John, is what other ways do you (and others) fight to end racial discrimination?
Is fighting the “racism” of affirmative action your sole contribution to ending racial discrimination or are there other battles you are fighting to end discrimination for all people?
Were you an active anti-apartheid advocate? Were you active in the civil rights movement in the 60’s? Do you fight discrimination in home lending and business lending today? Do you fight discrimination in other ways?
Hull,
I can’t speak for John, obviously, but I’ll try to speak for myself. I was not an “anti-apartheid advocate,” if you mean a disinvestment advocate. Call me silly, but I think Black Africans oppressed and murdered by Black-led governments are pretty much exactly as oppressed or dead as those oppressed and murdered by White-led ones.
For what it’s worth, the principal campaign against apartheid seemed to involve denying South African schoolchildren donated American schoolbooks. Brilliant.
Were you active in the civil rights movement in the 60’s?
Again, can’t speak for John. I was born in October ’67, which puts me at a disadvantage.
Do you fight discrimination in home lending and business lending today?
Hull, again I can’t speak for John, but I want proof of discrimination before I’m to fight it. Proof would be that minority default rates are lower than non-minority default rates. That would mean that minorities are being held to unreasonably high standards. If that’s not happening, lenders are assessing risks more or less accurately. You happen to have cases like this? I keep anticipating some, but they never show up.
Do you fight discrimination in other ways?
I think he has, in ways pretty obvious to readers of this blog.
Hull – I was engaged in the civil rights movement (way back when it was supporting civil rights) in some ways that struck me as important at the time (and in ways that bothered some of my family and friends in Alabama), but I’m not going to answer your questions.
Based on your other comments here I’m sure they were asked in perfectly good faith, or innocence, and so I don’t mean this personally, but I am bothered by an implication in them that one has to earn a right to have an opinion, or that the persuasiveness of an argument can be judged, even in part, by the character of the person making it.
Let’s say I never lifted a finger to put any of the arguments presented here into practice, that, as movement types were wont to say, that all I ever did was “talk the talk” but never “walked the walk.” So what? All that would prove, or suggest, is that I’m a bad person or a lazy person or a hypocrite or someone who doens’t have the courage of his convictions or some such. Again, so what? The value of the message isn’t determined by the character of the messenger.
The information you request, in short, is relevant only for an ad hominem argument, and I try to discourage those arguments here.
John, you’re right.
You do not have to pass a test of sincerity to have an opinion.
But, there are people in this country that have suffered real discrimination: violence; loss of vote; loss of opportunity; loss of home; loss of life.
This is drastically different than not being admitted to your first choice of school or not getting the best job available.
While it is true that you don’t have to have gone through apartheid or jim crow to claim injury from discrimination, it seems frivolous to claim discrimination when those injuries are not a part of your narrative.
In the end, though, you are right and no one has to earn a right to have an opinion.
Still, if hypocritical people are making arguments that are swaying society, there is a problem.
If you don’t really believe that abortion harms anyone and you are trying to push for a ban on abortion, I don’t think you should be taken seriously.
If you (any anti racial preference adherent) are a person that is trying to fight injustice across the board, I say bravo. But if you are a person that is trying to make a slick argument to maintain hegemony, I say your argument should not be taken seriously.
I am not a psychic and I can’t see into the hearts of anyone, so I’ll never know if someone is making a sincere argument or a self-serving one, but I think we need to distinguish between an academic argument and policies and laws that effect people’s lives.
When I read this post about LDF Chairman Theodore Shaw’s incredulity at the notion that discrimination against white people is a major issue; I understood his point of view. Discrimination against white people is not and has not been detrimental to the progress of that group. We are not drowning in derogatory images of white people. White people were not lynched. White people were not consider a fraction of a human being. White people were not barred from educational institutions.
Given the history of discrimination in this country, it seems incredible that white people seriously argue that discrimination against them is a problem of any significance. To me, this is like Germans arguing that Jews have given them a raw deal or the U.S. government claiming that Native Americans are taking their lands.
This is not meant as an ad hominem attack and I hope I’ve explained what I was getting at earlier.
Well, I certainly supported the civil rights movement. I voted for Prop 209 in California, which guarantees equal rights to everyone, and special rights to no one.
John –
I believe there is a widely held presumption that those who fight against minority preferences are somehow unknowing or closet racists. A presumption that arguments against preferences must surely be ground in spite rather than reason.
To those people I ask:
If I can be against crop subsidies without being presumptively anti-farmer; may I object to demographic preferences without being a called a racist?
Hull, that era is over.
The whole bag of discrimination jargon needs to be junked.
Racial discrimination will never entirely end, nor should it. As any sensible person knows, racial discrimination is a key to self-defense in any large city. People will continue to want to live with their own kind. Some people will continue to dislike those who are not of their own kind. This cannot be fixed. Any attempts to attempt to improve on the fix will only produce something far worse.
Just because you admire the heroic, romantic stance of the civil rights era, that is no reason to carry it on.
It’s over, Hull, completely over. Time to go home.
It really should have all ended long ago. You need to give up. The fact that you refuse to give up is, now, the real problem.
Hull writes:
You do not have to pass a test of sincerity to have an opinion.
But….
….
While it is true that you don’t have to have gone through apartheid or jim crow to claim injury from discrimination, it seems frivolous to claim discrimination when those injuries are not a part of your narrative.
In the end, though, you are right and no one has to earn a right to have an opinion.
Still, if hypocritical people are making arguments….
I think that the trouble you’re obviously having recognizing the legitimacy or good faith of arguments you don’t like unless the arguer takes a whole host of positions you do like — or somehow proves to you his or her good character — is based either on an impossible standard or on a double standard.
The fact is, whatever problem or evil someone opposes will always appear trivial compare to greater evils or problems. And since, as you admit, you are not in a position to judge the character or motives or hypocrisy quotient of most people who take opposing positions, I believe civil and constructive discourse requires dealing with the messages, not the messengers.
This simply restates your original point, and so I will restate my objection: there is no requirement for anyone “to fight injustice across the board” in order to argue against any particular injustice. On one level you obviously agree with this, or you wouldn’t be so sympathetic to the NAACP’s Theodore Shaw getting agitated only about discrimination against blacks. (By the way, I think they/he have a perfect right to do that. But doing so makes the NAACP no longer a “civil rights” organization but a black advocacy organization, which is perfectly legitimate.)
I think we need to distinguish between an academic argument and policies and laws that effect people’s lives.
But this implies that you favor policies that effect people’s lives and people who disagree with you don’t. You can see why people who don’t agree with your arguments find such assumptions offensive. It’s another way of saying that people who don’t agree with you are not good people.
Discrimination against white people is not and has not been detrimental to the progress of that group.
Ah, so only groups have rights. Discrimination against individuals doesn’t count unless such discrimination affects the fate of the “group” to which that person belongs. All of us who believe rights inhere in individuals, not groups, reject that view, as did the the majorities that enacted our various civil rights laws. All those references to such things as “no person can be denied the equal protection of the laws” etc. also were not guily of grammatical imprecision.
Given the history of discrimination in this country, it seems incredible that white people seriously argue that discrimination against them is a problem of any significance.
Same point. I believe you also misconstrue the opposition to racial preferences. It is not based on the view that discrimination against whites is the most pressing evil of our time. It is rather based on the view that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, and either is or should be illegal. It would certainly be true, to pick just one of many possible examples, that in our time no particular act of anti-semitism in the U.S., no matter how egregious, could be said to do any great damage to Jews as a group (other than offend them). But that doesn’t mean that it should not be opposed vigorously wherever and whenever it appears.
But, there are people in this country that have suffered real discrimination: violence; loss of vote; loss of opportunity; loss of home; loss of life.
These are bad things. All of this, unless the result of accident, is already illegal. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think such things are bad. But all these bad things don’t happen to minorities, and yet I don’t hear you in effect wondering whether the NAACP is hypocritical to the degree it doesn’t fight these injustices “across the board.”
The irony of this argument, to me, is that insofar as the advocates of racial preferences succeed, what they succeed at is undermining the seriousness of the wrong (discrimination) they complain against.
“I believe civil and constructive discourse requires dealing with the messages, not the messengers.”
Yet if Adolph Hitler told Isrealis that they should treat Palestinians better, an Isreali would certainly take this message differently than if Ariel Sharon said the exact same thing.
The messenger is vitaly important in deciphering their message.
(See: Deconstruction – The term deconstruction was coined by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s and is used in contemporary humanities and social sciences to denote a philosophy of meaning that deals with the ways that meaning is constructed and understood by writers, texts, and readers. One way of understanding the term is that it involves discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying — and unspoken and implicit — assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction)
Taken more concretely, there are many organizations that argue against racial preference: Stormfront, white civil rights.com, David Duke, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The intent of these messengers (I think) is different than most people who post on this blog. Should I spend my time debating these issues with the aforementioned? No. Why? Because their arguments are not motivated by a desire for equality or justice. Their arguments should not be taken seriously.
We distinguish between arguers of good intention and otherwise to filter through arguers who are simply hate-mongers. Why should any of us waste our breath arguing with people who will never be swayed?
Along the same lines, recently I’ve heard many anti-Iraq War family members, preface their disapproval of the war by naming their family members who serve in Iraq. Why do they do this? Why not just say I disagree with the war because of XYZ as opposed to saying, “my son lost both arms in Iraq and I feel that . . .” They name their family members who serve to show that they are arguing in good faith. They are not arguing from a hate-monger’s position of hating the United States.
This is basically why I initially asked what other ways people that argue against racial preference fight for equality.
Hull, black teenagers trying to get into college today have not experienced Jim Crow or apartheid. If they have even halfway decent grades and test scores they have colleges and universities falling all over themselves to recruit them and offer financial aid. I agree with John, that rights adhere not to (racial) groups but to individuals. To say otherwise, I believe, is to be racist.
Hull,
You also hear the idiotic “I support the troops but oppose the policy.” This is simply mumbo-jumbo designed by the speaker to hold the moral high ground in a conversation. This is why the anti-war arguers you use as an example would start with how many family members they had in the military.
Typically, I bring up family military service when some numb nut makes an asinine statement like, “If you are in favor of the war, why don’t YOU go serve?” As if the only people who have the right to an opinion are those of military service age and ability.
John’s point about civil rights service is most appropriate. It doesn’t matter whether one participated in any civil rights events or not. We are all allowed to hold opinions. If Adolph Hitler had said what you suggest, his remarks should be examined for their veracity or falseness, not on the speaker.
Laura writes:
>>>”Hull, black teenagers trying to get into college today have not experienced Jim Crow or apartheid. If they have even halfway decent grades and test scores they have colleges and universities falling all over themselves to recruit them and offer financial aid. I agree with John, that rights adhere not to (racial) groups but to individuals. To say otherwise, I believe, is to be racist.”
But that’s the VERY situation that anti-affirmative action types are arguing against…that colleges and universities should NOT be falling all over themselves to recruit and give financial aid to “blacks with halfway decent grades or test scores.” We know this because a large enough chunk of the discussion on this blog revolves around standardized test scores and results compared by RACE.
John writes:
>>>”These are bad things. All of this, unless the result of accident, is already illegal. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think such things are bad. But all these bad things don’t happen to minorities, and yet I don’t hear you in effect wondering whether the NAACP is hypocritical to the degree it doesn’t fight these injustices “across the board.””
Well, as a poster who has exhaustively catalogued on this blog statistics and investigation results regarding the very discrimination against African-Americans Hull has described, I must say I concur with him in this statement:
>>>”If you (any anti racial preference adherent) are a person that is trying to fight injustice across the board, I say bravo. But if you are a person that is trying to make a slick argument to maintain hegemony, I say your argument should not be taken seriously.”
This excellent paragraph is closely related to the phrase I’ve coined for many of the discussions here: “selective outrage.”
And you will notice, Hull, that this is now TWO threads you’ve posted in that you haven’t received a satisfactory answer to your question.
–Cobra
Cobra,
[in response to Laura],
But that’s the VERY situation that anti-affirmative action types are arguing against…that colleges and universities should NOT be falling all over themselves to recruit and give financial aid to “blacks with halfway decent grades or test scores.” We know this because a large enough chunk of the discussion on this blog revolves around standardized test scores and results compared by RACE.
Yes, Cobra, correct. Some of us don’t think people ought to be “falling over themselves” to recruit kids with “halfway decent grades or test scores” because they are Black. “Halfway decent” doesn’t get you into Stanford or Cal or the Ivies if you aren’t “underrepresented,” and it has not for a few decades.
Unrelated but interesting: I was crunching the numbers yesterday on the UC admissions figures, 1997 (last year pre-209) vs. 2004 (last year I could find numbers). As a matter of fact the figures were very interesting. If you compared the two years across the system as a whole, there was very little change in percentages. Black enrollment was a little down, Chicano/Latino enrollment was a little up, Asian-American enrollment was a little up. White enrollment was down; “unknown” was way up, though not enough to account for the difference.
But here’s what startled me: something over 5% of applicants, and about the same percentage of admitted students, were Filipinos, and another 2% or so were East Asian/Pakistani-Americans. Do people even talk of these groups in affirmative-action terms? Certainly they don’t appear in the classic Black/Hispanic/Native American litany of The Underrepresented. Yet I had always understood that Filipinos were actually underrepresented. If they’re 5+% of the applicant pool, why aren’t they being paid attention to? Or are they being counted by people as “Asian,” thereby fungible with Taiwanese, Koreans, whatever? Ditto with “East Indian/Pakistani”?
(For what it’s worth, the Native American contingent was something like .7% in both 1997 and 2004, and admitted in proportion.)
Cobra, to acknowledge that a situation is reality is not to agree that it’s right.
“This excellent paragraph is closely related to the phrase I’ve coined for many of the discussions here: “selective outrage.””
Yes, Cobra. You do display “selective outrage.”
“And you will notice, Hull, that this is now TWO threads you’ve posted in that you haven’t received a satisfactory answer to your question.”
Satisfactory being the operative word here. And, frankly, he won’t receive a “satisfactory answer,” because to give him an answer he is “satisfied” with would mean going off topic and descending into the realm of ad hominem attacks. I mean, that’s the reason one would be more interested in another person’s extracurricular activities as opposed to the arguments under discussion.