An “event” in Southfield, Michigan, tonight will bring together “women of color” from across the state to oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and support continued preferential treatment of women.
It’s still not clear to me whether the typical arguments in favor of preferential treatment are disingenuous or simply confused. Consider, for example, these argumenst from Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence and LA SED (whatever that is) Executive Director Edith Castillo:
“I am proud to say that my daughter will be by my side for this important call to action,” Marshall said. “Women, particularly, women of color need to continue to have the doors of opportunity opened to them, so they can become empowered. Affirmative action opens the door, it doesn’t give you a free ticket. If you just stop discriminating against me and let me in the door, I will rise and fall on my own.”
….
Added Edith Castillo, executive director of LA SED and an honorary chair for the event: “At this critical time in Michigan, it is extremely important to maintain the programs and initiatives that level the playing field for women of color. Without question, Affirmative Action must continue in Michigan in order for us to have equal access to opportunities.”
Marshall says all she wants is to be free from discrimination: “If you just stop discriminating against me and let me in the door, I will rise and fall on my own.” But that’s not what the gender preferences she is actually defending do. Neutral anti-discrimination legislation ensures that the doors of opportunity are not closed; gender preferences, by contrast, extend preferential treatment to women — not “equal access” but preferential access.
Racial preferences don’t “level the playing field.” They shorten the distance to the goal for favored players, lengthening it for the disfavored.
I would be embarrassed to tell my daughter that she can’t succeed if she’s treated equally, that she is entitled to preferential treatment.
“I would be embarrassed to tell my daughter that she can’t succeed if she’s treated equally, that she is entitled to preferential treatment.”
Why do you assume that your daughter will be treated equally? History shows that not to be the case and for people of color that history of unequal treatment is by no means distant.
Your daughter should not be entitled to preferential treatment, but she should be entitled to an equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is what affirmative action seeks to compel. Do you have another means of compelling equal opportunity? If not, you are simply saying, “this affirmative action doesn’t work as well as I want it to, so let’s kill it!”
You frame the debate as if, without affirmative action, everyone would have an equal chance. You don’t know whether that is true or not and history shows that not to be the case.
“Despite the perception that there have been major gains for women,
particularly women of color, we know that there are huge voids for this
group when it comes to hiring, promotion and contracting,” said [Southfield] Mayor
Lawrence, who helped to organize the event.”
[Stare at screen in gape-jawed wonder. Violent shrugging. Now post.]
This statement was made by the female mayor of a major city in a state where the Governor is a … female … where three of the seven justices of the state supreme court are … female, including one female who is the immediate past Chief Justice … where one of the state’s two US Senators is … female, where the Presidents of the state’s two largest and most prestigious public universities are … female. Where the presidents of two of the state’s largest health care systems are … female, where most of the students enrolling in colleges and universities are … female, where, it goes on and on.
Is this woman living on the same planet as me, let alone the same state?
Why do you assume that your daughter will be treated equally? History shows that not to be the case and for people of color that history of unequal treatment is by no means distant.
I assume that because most people obey the law most of the time. If that assumption proves incorrect, Jessie is perfectly capable of asserting her own rights. Why do you assume that people will not be treated equally, and, even more bizarre, assume they deserve preferential treatment in advance as a remedy for the unequal treatment they have not yet received?
Your daughter should not be entitled to preferential treatment, but she should be entitled to an equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is what affirmative action seeks to compel. Do you have another means of compelling equal opportunity? If not, you are simply saying, “this affirmative action doesn’t work as well as I want it to, so let’s kill it!”
No, it does not. “Affirmative action” as defined and practiced today demands preferential treatment. That’s why the Micghigan ladies are having such a fit over MCRI. MCRI would take away only their preferential treatment, not the obligation to treat them equally. If all they wanted was equal treatment, they would demand the vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
You frame the debate as if, without affirmative action, everyone would have an equal chance. You don’t know whether that is true or not and history shows that not to be the case.
No, I don’t. I “frame the debate” as it in fact exists — between people who want to protect and preserve preferential treatment for women, blacks, and one or two other preferred ethnic groups, and those who demand equal treatment of all.
I am confident that I speak for the vast majority of anti-preferentialists when I say we support vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. If that’s all the preferentialists want, then I challenge them to come to us with proposals to strengthen that enforcement. We would join heartily in such an effort. But don’t come to us, as preferentialists all now continue to demand, asking to given preferences as a supposed remedy for the discrimination that would occur without them. Do you really think the people now gladly extending racial and gender preferences would suddenly begin discriminating against women and minorities if they were told they could no longer discriminate in favor of them?
You frame the debate as if, without affirmative action, everyone would have an equal chance. You don’t know whether that is true or not and history shows that not to be the case.
What we know is that by definition, with affirmative action everyone doesn’t have an equal chance. You can’t eliminate discrimination by discriminating.
It makes no sense, based on rank speculation, to assume that people will discriminate and “rectify” this in advance by discriminating against other, innocent, people, just to make up for this discrimination that might take place in the future.
The 800lb. Gorilla in the middle in the room is that discrimination against those who receive Affirmative Action now has and continues to happen. It will continue regardless of whether Affirmative Action is defeated or not.
I find it interesting that there are many anti-affirmative action types say they endorse vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, while they simultaneously endorse politicians and judicial appointments who are at best INDIFFERENT, or at worst HOSTILE to the same cause.
I’m not questioning their sincerity, of course. I just find it “interesting.”
–Cobra
Cobra,
Are you seriously contending that women are discriminated against in college admissions? Would you say, in particular, that women of color ought to be given preference relative to men of color, since the former are doubly disadvantaged, by virtue of race and gender?
I don’t think you would, because you’re possessed of considerable common sense, and you know as well as I do that Black men are in a much more precarious state regarding higher education than Black women are.
Still,
The 800lb. Gorilla in the middle in the room is that discrimination against those who receive Affirmative Action now has and continues to happen. It will continue regardless of whether Affirmative Action is defeated or not.
So will discrimination against some who don’t receive Affirmative Action as you define it; but that’s no particular biggie, is it?
Some people are more interested in equality of outcome than in equal opportunity.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Are you seriously contending that women are discriminated against in college admissions? Would you say, in particular, that women of color ought to be given preference relative to men of color, since the former are doubly disadvantaged, by virtue of race and gender?
I don’t think you would, because you’re possessed of considerable common sense, and you know as well as I do that Black men are in a much more precarious state regarding higher education than Black women are.”
First of all, thank you for saying that. The thing that separates your posts from many others is your willingness to actually see that there is a problem. As Laura aptly put in another thread, women, particularly women of color aren’t perceived as being the level of threat that men of color are in American Society.
Michelle writes:
>>>”So will discrimination against some who don’t receive Affirmative Action as you define it; but that’s no particular biggie, is it?”
Well, if you think that California post Prop. 209, and Washington post Prop. 200 no longer have discrimination against African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, then you would answer your own question. We both know this isn’t the case.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Some people are more interested in equality of outcome than in equal opportunity.”
And some people are more interested in maintaining the status quo.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I don’t think you really believe that Black men are far outnumbered by Black women on university campuses because the admissions officers feel “threatened” by them. The actual reasons are perfectly obvious, and just like the ones affecting the college gender balance in other groups, only more intense. Men are more likely than women to get themselves into legal difficulties in their youth, more apt to envision futures for themselves that don’t involve college, to some extent more likely to get hold of decent work (or, for that matter, indecent work) that doesn’t involve a college degree. The only difference with young Blacks is that the alternative career paths are more likely to be implicitly or explicitly criminal, or else vaporware. I suspect that there are a lot more young Black men than Black women who stake everything on being a sports star or a top recording artist.
So, to bring things back to the question I asked but you didn’t answer: Does it make sense to give Black women preferences over Black women in college admissions? I mean, women are oppressed relative to men, yes?
[W]omen, particularly women of color aren’t perceived as being the level of threat that men of color are in American Society.
Well, of course not. I think I’d have a rather difficult time trying to assault the average man, whereas the average man would have a rather trivial time assaulting me. Throw in that men generally do commit, oh, ten times as many violent crimes as women, and you do seem to see something like a [cough] profile. As for “men of color,” why this wholly irrational fear and hatred of them leaves out the Indian subcontinent and all of eastern Asia is anyone’s guess.
Well, if you think that California post Prop. 209, and Washington post Prop. 200 no longer have discrimination against African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, then you would answer your own question. We both know this isn’t the case.
You didn’t answer “my own question,” and didn’t help me answer it for myself. My own question was whether discrimination against people not favored by AA struck you as worthy of mention. I said (as I have many times before) that there is racism in the US. My point was that racism in the US is not directed exclusively against the categories of people that figure in college affirmative-action schemes. If you really think there is no racism in the US against people of Arab or Persian or Indian or Pakistani or Chinese or Japanese or Korean or Cambodian or Lao descent, you need to get out more often. But these ethnicities aren’t going to show up in the plus column in any college affirmative-action scheme I’ve ever heard of, and you know that as well as I do.
For the record, I’ve seen very nasty behavior of white Californians towards Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; none that I know of against Native Americans, possibly because it is extremely difficult to identify a Native American by sight unless s/he is determined to be identified as such; and rather a lot of nastiness directed at Jews (who had, of course, also identified themselves as such).
Aaargh. Second graf:
So, to bring things back to the question I asked but you didn’t answer: Does it make sense to give Black women preferences over Black women in college admissions?
Black women over Black men, of course. Jeez Louise. That must have been very confusing to whatever lost souls happened to read it. Sorry.