Joshua Holland, a staff writer at Alternet, answers a query about the left’s core values. He begins by stating:
There are two core beliefs which inform my worldview: I have an almost universalistic sense of morality — that’s the big one — and I believe that under- or unregulated markets are neither free nor fair.
The latter view is simple: I haven’t gulped down enough of Milton Friedman’s Kool-aid to believe that market mechanisms alone create an economy that confers the greatest good on the greatest number. Rather, when unchecked by robust government intervention, they tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, who subordinate political power for their own narrow interests and the result is the kind of inverted pyramid of benefits that we see in today’s American economy.
Nothing surprising there; we wouldn’t expect a lefty to think much of markets or to question “robust government intervention.”
Holland’s second core belief, however, I find more interesting:
I think a broad, if not universal, moral framework guides most on the left. Operationally, it comes down to the Golden Rule — the belief that both as individuals and as a community of individuals, we should fight for others to have the same opportunities that we want to have.
Think about all the policies that flow from such a basic belief. I’m not gay, so I take the right to marry for granted. And I want the same rights for others. I’m not an immigrant, but if I were I’d want to be treated with human dignity. I’m not unhealthy, but if I were, I’d want to know that I wouldn’t be ruined getting treatment. I’m not a minority, but I believe in affirmative action because I had a good start in life and I think everyone should have one. I don’t live in an environmentally sensitive area, but if I did, I’d want that heritage to be protected. I’m not a Nicaraguan, but if I were, I’d want the U.S. government to stop meddling in my country’s internal politics. The list goes on and on. [Emphasis added]
Although I shouldn’t really be surprised, since I’ve argued this before, but still, it’s a little jarring to see that I really have been correct in pointing out how thoroughly “affirmative action” has supplanted “civil rights,” even rhetorically, on the left.
Also, note the confused, foggy philosophy here. Holland says his foundational value is the Golden Rule, that “we should fight for others to have the same opportunities that we want to have.” But how does “affirmative action” flow from this premise? Should everyone receive preferences? Should I “want to have” more preferences than others, or fewer? If an equal amount, then no one would receive preferences and we’d be back at old-fashioned “without regard” equality. Or maybe “affirmative action” has lost its relation to race altogether (despite Holland mentioning that he’s not a minority) and simply means that all goods should be redistributed equally (by, of course, “robust government intervention”).
This all sounds to me more like fools’ gold than the Golden Rule.
I think a broad, if not universal, moral framework guides most on the left. Operationally, it comes down to the Golden Rule — the belief that both as individuals and as a community of individuals, we should fight for others to have the same opportunities that we want to have.
The golden rule? Don’t you believe it. I can sum up Joshua Holland’s philosophy in two words: noblesse oblige. The world’s downtrodden are the white man’s … I mean the Left’s burden. That is as long as the downtrodden know their place and remain beholden to the Left.
Dangit! Richard stole my thunder. I was going to say that the left is all for fighting for equal opportunity…as long as they still have the right to veto any opportunity that cramps their style.
— Holland says his foundational value is the Golden Rule, that “we should fight for others to have the same opportunities that we want to have.” But how does “affirmative action” flow from this premise? —
Affirmative action flows from the “same opportunities” premise in that it works to give equal access to resources like job interviews and college education.
Many minority groups would not have a significant degree of access to education and employment were it not for affirmative action.
Oftentimes, despite the efforts of minorities, access to education and employment is limited. In education, the deplorable condition of many inner city schools prevents minorities from having the opportunity to go to college. If a child who makes it out of such circumstances is slightly below the standards of College X, perhaps College X should consider lowering their standards (for that individual) in the interest of helping to uplift an impoverished community.
In employment, oftentimes employers are unwilling to grant minorities the opportunity to compete for positions (take NFL coaches for example). Affirmative action gives access to minorites seeking these postions.
In these ways Affirmative Action gives minorites the same opportunities as those who presently enjoy the bulk of opportunity in this country.
First, let’s be clear that what you are defending here is racial preference. The objection to “affirmative action” is precisely that it does not provide “equal access” but preferential access based on race or (selective) ethnicity.
I don’t think I know anyone who objects to recognizing that applicants who have overcome significan hardships, such as an education in many inner city schools, may deserve some special recognition. The objection is to using race as a proxy for hardship. Many people of all hues have overcome hardship, and it is not fair to exclude the wrongly hued ones from whatever special recognition overcoming hardship is thought to deserve.
Many minority groups would not have a significant degree of access to education and employment were it not for affirmative action.
I don’t believe this is true. What is true is that many minorities who formerly would have been admitted to, say, Berkeley or UCLA under the regime of preferences, now may have to “settle” for Irvine or Davis or Riverside or Santa Cruz or (horror of horrors!) San Jose State, Northridge, or whatever, It is not accurate, however, to regard an education at one of those or similar institutions as a denial of access to education.
I don’t believe there is much denial of an opportunity to compete based on race. In any event, affirmative action advocates generally do not demand equal opportunity to compete; they demand something approaching racially proportional results of the competition.
The way you justify AA here makes it sound like a welfare program, or an anti-poverty program. I’m all in favor of helping people who need assistance in order to be able to compete, but I’m not in favor of conditioning that assistance on their race.
sharon,
“Affirmative action flows from the “same opportunities” premise in that it works to give equal access to resources like job interviews and college education.”
No it doesn’t flow from that, that is what is whispered out of the right side of their mouths while they practice ‘racial discrimination’. Just because you can give yourself a ‘warm and fuzzy’ for discrimination doesn’t change the fact that it ‘is’ discrimination.
“Many minority groups would not have a significant degree of access to education and employment were it not for affirmative action.”
Bullsh*t – there are too many grants and loans out there available to ANYBODY that take the time and trouble to look for them…. don’t have a computer – go to the library, contact the councilor at the local college, etc. You can even get this information from your high school councilor.
“Oftentimes, despite the efforts of minorities, access to education and employment is limited. In education, the deplorable condition of many inner city schools prevents minorities from having the opportunity to go to college. If a child who makes it out of such circumstances is slightly below the standards of College X, perhaps College X should consider lowering their standards (for that individual) in the interest of helping to uplift an impoverished community.”
This is just SO BACKWARDS…. instead of ‘lowering standards’ why are we insisting that ‘inner city schools’ raise theirs????? What in the world is wrong with you??? Oh, sure, lets make all of our kids stupid – and just what makes you so sure that ‘all minorities’ want to be treated like they are incapable of competing??? Why do you automatically assume that they can’t compete??? Do you know how many scholars and successful business people came from disadvantaged backgrounds??? The only thing that will help people in those circumstances is being ‘forced’ to look reality in the face and quit subsidising stupid and destructive behavior. Make them accountable for their decisions.
“In these ways Affirmative Action gives minorites the same opportunities as those who presently enjoy the bulk of opportunity in this country.”
No, it gives them ‘more opportunities’… Why can’t you just understand that you can’t legislate ‘outcomes’… they have the opportunities – but it is up to them to make the most of them.
In education, the deplorable condition of many inner city schools prevents minorities from having the opportunity to go to college.
Hull, if you are really concerned by the poor quality of inner city schools then I suggest that you complain to the teachers’ unions and the Democrat party. They have conspired to prevent the students from escaping those schools by opposing vouchers.
Here in California, after Prop 209 passed and AA was banned in state universities, the Administration at Berkeley tried everything under the sun to find a way to bring in “underrepresented minorities”. They tried giving special weight to applicants whose parents had not gone to college. They tried children of poor parents. It went on and on. Surprise! Almost every time, the results were that more poor white applicants would have been admitted. Can’t have that! The nasty truth came out that it was poor, rural, white kids that were the ones truly shut out of the system. They went to small, rural school without AP classes. Their parents had little money or education. Meanwhile, we were giving “preferences” to black kids from homes with $100,000 incomes and parents with grad degrees. All that is gone. Another thing everyone discovered. If an “underrepresented minority” applicant to UC doesn’t get into Berkeley or UCLA, he can go to any other college in California and transfer into Berkeley or UCLA after two years. There’s almost always room. Here in San Francisco, we have a program at our City College that gives students a list of required courses for Berkeley. Take them all and get B or better, and you get an automatic transfer to UC as a junior. Truth is, it’s much fairer here without AA. And, the “underrepresented minorities” who graduate from our universities have a degree that everyone knows they earned.
John points out the contradiction between the “preferences for all” and fact that that would return us to true equality.
Another one though that struck me was the attempt to steal the terms of “individualism” and the contradiction that preferential affirmative action presents to individualism.
Here’s the quote:
the belief that both as individuals and as a community of individuals
Which is it? Individuals or the community (of individuals – nice touch in spin there).
Preference judges people by their membership in groups, and thereby breaks down individual identity in favor of group identity.
“I’m not a Nicaraguan, but if I were, I’d want the U.S. government to stop meddling in my country’s internal politics.”
Does Holland want left-wing people (and governments) from other countries to stop meddling in the internal politics of the US? Actually, based on this and other comments made here, I think it unlikely that Holland has any core beliefs whatsoever.
Deb,
The comments you attribute to me were actually made by Hull. All I said is that the left is all for preferences as long as those preferences do not detrimentally affect them.
And Hull, the NCAA has determined that the dearth of black coaches is not due to discrimination in hiring practices. We had this argument previously.
“I don’t think I know anyone who objects to recognizing that applicants who have overcome significan hardships, such as an education in many inner city schools, may deserve some special recognition”
O.k., so some preferences are o.k. The question then is, why should preference be based on race.
Preferences should be based on a number of different factors including income, disability, family history, and geography. I argue that race should be included in that list.
First, race should be included in that list because it has been included in that list in the past (to use conservative thinking) and the problems that compelled the call for racial preferences have not yet been resolved. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, among others have advocated racial preferences.
Second, many of the people that you would give preference to for poverty, also happen to come form racial minorities. Responses from several posters above indicate a belief that consideration of one preference such as race, necessarily excludes other preferences such as poverty. This is not the case. Poor white people are not excluded from all special consideration in admissions because they are white. This is not a zero sum game.
Third, from 1960 to 1995, according to data in The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, the percentage of blacks aged 25–29 who had graduated from college rose from 5.4 to 15.4%, the percentage of blacks in law school grew from below 1 to 7.5%, and the percentage of blacks in medical school increased from 2.2 to 8.1%. Affirmative Action has helped minorities achieve equal access. It has worked to improve the condition of African Americans, among others, so why discontinue something that works, particularly when, despite strides forward, there is still much more work to be done.
Next, John mentions that many minorities who formerly would have been admitted to, say, Berkeley or UCLA under the regime of preferences, now may have to “settle” for Irvine or Davis. And what of the many minorities who were admitted to Irvine or Davis under preferences? Removing racial preferences will decrease the number of kids who got to college across the board. I cannot understand how anyone could advocate that trend.
Finally, my advocacy of affirmative action doesn’t mean that I don’t support improving elementary education and education in the inner cities and among the poor. But, while elementary and secondary education improves, we still have to wait for those kids to become college aged. So, if we cut off affirmative action while improving secondary education, we are effectively saying, screw you kids who were not fortunate enough to go to elementary school before we made these reforms. Affirmative Action is racist and that hurts the feelings of the majority (but not their pocket books), so you all that are slightly below our usual admissions standards should find some type of minimum wage job.
Finally, I have heard the George Wills of the world proclaim that poor people are poor because they don’t appreciate the values that lend to success such as: “punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification, etc. — that are not developed in disorganized homes.” I see something of this line of thinking here as well. If minorities would just take advantage of what’s in front of them they’d be fine. Or if poor people just acted like the rest of us, they’d be fine. To those people I would ask: Do you have some study to support that notion? Do you work with poor people and minorities? Are you that familiar with poor people and minorities’ motivations that you can speak confidently on why they are in the position they are in?
I suspect that many minorities’ are excluded from this society because of discrimination. I have read several studies that support this notion (including studies documenting disparities in health care, home loans, and business loans). These studies, history, and my personal experience lead me to believe that discrimination plays a role in minorities circumstances in life. Why do you believe what you believe?
Hull writes:
O.k., so some preferences are o.k. The question then is, why should preference be based on race.
Preferences should be based on a number of different factors including income, disability, family history, and geography. I argue that race should be included in that list.
I have written about this argument so often that I was forced to assign it its own Category: IUNS, for “Invidious Ubiquitous Non-Sequitur.” Just click on that from the Category list and you’ll pull up a bunch, though unfortunately, not all of them.
Briefly, I find the argument that discriminating on the basis of race is politically, morally, and constitutionally no different from discriminating on the basis of any other characteristic to be wrong, even offensive, on so many grounds that I will mention only one here: it is, and has proven to be, self-defeating, because it trivializes the evil — racial discrimination — that it purports to cure. If preferences for race are on the same moral, political, constitutional plane as preferences for oboe players or peanut farmers, what’s the big deal?
So, Hull, yes. Some preferences are O.K. But preferences based on race, religion, and ethnicity are not. That’s why so many Americans continue to believe that everyone here has a fundamental right to be treated “without regard” to race, creed, or color. I truly believe that rejecting that principle is, literally speaking, un-American. (Not that I would revive HUAC, fire people who believe it, etc.)
Hull also writes:
No one does advocate that trend, because it is not a trend. The number of minorities enrolled in the University of California system was not reduced by the passage of Prop. 209 barring preferences. The number attending Berkeley and UCLA was temporarily reduced (now it has recovered), but no one was deprived of access to higher education in California as a result of barring preferences.
“To those people I would ask: Do you have some study to support that notion? Do you work with poor people and minorities? Are you that familiar with poor people and minorities’ motivations that you can speak confidently on why they are in the position they are in?”
I have no studies but I do have personal experience. My father was raised in an extremely poor family. The choice he made that changed my family history was simple: he joined the military. By doing so, he was forced to become a disciplined person who grew to value education and determination as the basic tenets of a good life. Because my father made GOOD choices, he gave his 3 children a better life and 2 of them graduated from college (1 from law school). This man who didn’t graduate from high school managed to put together a Leave It to Beaver family through “punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification, etc.” If you need more examples, read about people like Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell who grew up in the projects but through “punctuality, hygiene, industriousness, deferral of gratification, etc.” they have created much better lives.
Sharon, I appreciate your anecdote and as the son of a former goat herder who worked too many jobs to name to go on to own his own economics consulting business, I agree that people can overcome their circumstances in this country to succeed. But I think that my father, your father, Cosby, and Sowell, are exceptions, not the rule. If there is a study or report that says otherwise, please point me in that direction.
John said:
“I find the argument that discriminating on the basis of race is politically, morally, and constitutionally no different from discriminating on the basis of any other characteristic to be wrong, even offensive, on so many grounds that I will mention only one here: it is, and has proven to be, self-defeating, because it trivializes the evil — racial discrimination — that it purports to cure.”
If the evil discrimination you refer to is the same evil discrimination that seeks to improve the current 18% college graduation rate for Blacks to the detriment of no one, then I can live with it.
Racial preferences are not administered with animosity or resentment. In other words racial preference is not invidious. You are basically equating racial preference of today with racial segregation or some other invidious discriminiation from the past and that is not the intent of racial preference or the result. White people are not being relegated to second-class citizenship because of racial preference (as opposed to racial minorities who experienced genuine invidious discrimination in this country).
“preferences based on race, religion, and ethnicity are not [o.k.]”
I take it then that you are also opposed to President Bush ordering DHS to create a center for faith based aid. You should also be opposed to colleges giving admissions preference to foreign students who are ethnic minorities in this country. What about admissions preference for religious minorities? These are all wrong to you?
And Native Americans? Do you oppose ethnic/racial preference (in employment and admissions) for them as well?
Hull,
I think John is right about the actual effect of Prop. 209. The “flagship” schools’ minority admits (“minority” in the sense you mean, that is, because I doubt you’re counting people surnamed named Nguyen or Chang or Hashimoto, or for that matter Rosenberg) decreased for the first couple of years, and have since crept back up, though not quite to where they were before. Meanwhile Black admissions at a couple of the other UC’s actually increased the first year. (I’m pretty sure Irvine’s did; no time to check right now.)
If the evil discrimination you refer to is the same evil discrimination that seeks to improve the current 18% college graduation rate for Blacks to the detriment of no one, then I can live with it.
I am not sure about “to the detriment of no one,” and neither are you, or you wouldn’t be so concerned about students who would formerly gone to Berkeley now displacing other students who would otherwise have gone to Irvine. Someone always is going to lose out somewhere, if only in the sense (as Scott said above) of having to spend two years at a “lesser” school before transferring to his/her original first choice.
But there’s more to it than that. If the [insert whatever underrepresented minority you like here] dropout rate once in a top school is higher than the dropout rate of other students, admitting such students results in fewer students who complete their degrees at the end of the process. Someone prepared for a very demanding education hasn’t gotten it, while someone who could have done with less pressure and completed a degree now has no degree, but has denied a slot to someone who could have done the work. An old and familiar argument, yes, but I think it’s basically a true one.
And that other old argument: This isn’t really racial discrimination in the bad sense, because it’s kindly meant. Yeah, well, the Great Society’s massive housing projects were kindly meant too, rather like the French Cités, and yet several (of the former, not the latter — yet) had to be dynamited before that particular experiment was over.
Do any universities give preferences to foreign students over American citizens? I doubt that very much, though if “diversity” is really what they seek with racial preferences, they should; obviously a Kenyan or a Haitian or a Cape Coloured is going to provide the school a more radically different slice of life than a Black American can, or for that matter an Austrian or a Kurd or a Tajik or a Tamil or a Bangladeshi or a Dane than one of any number of boring old white suburban Americans can, assuming that you buy the premise (which I don’t) that people within some racial/ethnic/cultural/religious niche are fungible, and so the best way to increase the “diversity” is to multiply the niches. I don’t believe this — I think you can find quite enough variety of perspective to be getting on with if you collect the people living on one block (one block of nearly anywhere) — but if you really want unfamiliar perspectives, obviously going to other countries is about the first thing you’d think of. In actual fact, it’s about the last thing anyone seemed to have thought of, at least in university admissions. It’s another thing that makes me convinced that “diversity” isn’t the point but the pretext.
I suppose the ideal Diverse University would encompass as many cultures as possible. So far as I know, though, the only preferences for foreign students aren’t in admissions but in tuition: There’s a proposal in CA, for example, to grant anyone who’s successfully gone to three years of high school here while illegally in the country an in-state tuition fee, which is to say about a 75% discount on what an American citizen from anywhere else in the country would pay. Needless to say, it doesn’t grant tuition breaks to foreign nationals who haven’t broken immigration law. Go fig.
Hull – I responded to your “invidious” point in a post.
You quote me:
preferences based on race, religion, and ethnicity are not [o.k.]
and then write:
I haven’t followed the DHS issue and so am unfamiliar with the details of “a center for faith-based aid, but by now you will not be surprised to hear that I oppose singling out religious groups or individuals for favorable or unfavorable treatment by government. Thus I think it clear that “preference for religious minorities” (or majorities) should not be allowed.
Admissions preferences for foreign students strikes me as analogous to geographic preferences in this country. Should Harvard lower its admissions standards, if necessary, get a student or two from Idaho? I really don’t care but certainly see nothing in that practice that legislation should bar. (Disparate Impacters, on the other hand, might well regard such a policy as discriminatory, there being few blacks in Idaho.) One thing that is clear is that many selective schools have been driving up their “minority” number by admitting foreign blacks. (I wrote about this here and here.)
Native Americans are a special case. No, I don’t believe in preferential admissions, but the tribes are like independent nations with various rights guaranteed by treaties. Aid etc. can certainly be directed to reservations, etc., but should your cousin, Aunt Emily’s daughter, be give preferential admission to State U. because great uncle Arthur always claimed he was part Cherokee? No.
“And Native Americans? Do you oppose ethnic/racial preference (in employment and admissions) for them as well?”
I was born in this country, so I’m a native American. So is my husband who is 1/8 Cherokee. I don’t think either of us is looking for preferences based on that, although illegal aliens shouldn’t get in-state tuition rates.