I surprise myself. I continue to be surprised at the capacity of some observers (make that “observers”) to be surprised by the obvious.
Clarence Page, in a light journalistic gloss on the Walter Benn Michaels book discussed here and here (in a light blogalistic gloss?), claims to accept Michaels’ argument that, as Page’s title puts it, “Equality Beats Diversity.” Does this mean Page will repudiate all his prior columns in favor of “diversity”? I doubt it. Nevertheless, the title is nice, and if Page now believes it so much the better.
In any event, Page writes:
Americans have “a love affair with race,” writes Walter Benn Michaels, a literature professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In his new book, “The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality,” he describes in eloquent detail how the liberal pursuit of social and economic equality was sidetracked by the pursuit of “diversity.”
Ironically, the more we’ve pursued diversity by repudiating racism and the notion that our racial biology is our destiny, the more we’ve perpetuated those very concepts, he writes….
Ironically? There is nothing at all ironical about the idea that blacks (all or any of them) are different enough from whites to justify giving them admissions and hiring preferences so that whites can benefit from being exposed to them leading to an increased awareness of, and emphasis on, race. Not only is that effect entirely predictable; it was widely predicted. Of course, those who did the accurate predicting were dismissed as racists or, almost as bad, conservatives by liberals in their mad rush to embrace “diversity.”
Similarly, Jonathan Turley, a ubiquitous talking ahead and, between gigs, law professor, writes:
Despite decades of affirmative action, we remain a highly race-conscious society with highly segregated neighborhoods, schools, prisons and —yes —entertainment.
Despite? See above.
To see how utterly non-sensical this sentence is, let’s rewrite it, substituting an accurate description of “affirmative action” for that purposefully obfuscatory term:
Despite decades of classifying people by race in order to reward some and punish others because of their race, we remain a highly race-conscious society….
You’d think that by now even liberals would recognize that if you subsidize something you get more of it.
John writes:
>>>”To see how utterly non-sensical this sentence is, let’s rewrite it, substituting an accurate description of “affirmative action” for that purposefully obfuscatory term:
Despite decades of classifying people by race in order to reward some and punish others because of their race, we remain a highly race-conscious society….
You’d think that by now even liberals would recognize that if you subsidize something you get more of it.”
Is your argument that the elimination of Affirmative Action would decrease segregation in neighborhoods, schools, prisons and entertainment?
If the answer is “no”, then how can you classify Mr. Turley’s statement as “non-sensical?”
–Cobra
Cobra,
I almost never see any black public figure truly arguing for desegregation.
What I usually hear black politicians and other public figures arguing for is that the segregrated black community should be givien special consideration so that being separate does not have a negative impact. Examples would be lower admission standards, “”Robin Hood” school funding laws, reparations, and “depolicing.”
The only thing that would eliminate segregation in “schools, prisons and entertainment” would be pointing a pistol at the heads of each and every American. Segregation exists because people prefer their own kind, and will continue to do so despite the diversocrat’s determination to force them to change. Segregation is the natural and preferred state of humans. It isn’t a “system” you’re trying to change, Cobra, it’s human nature. It’s a doomed effort.
After all these years of listening to the diversity talk, I still haven’t got a clue what it is. And I worked for seven years in an HR department that labored ceaselessly to try to figure it out. As near as I can tell, it means hiring black men as executives, despite the fact that half of them don’t finish high school. This led to a feeding frenzy whenever an actual black man showed up… was was almost never.
We became so discouraged in our hunt for the legendary potential black executive that we made videos in which we portrayed our executive staff as knee deep in black men… sort of like if we just pretended, it would eventually come true. Black male actors are easy to find… they’re available by the dozens. Often, they are very good. They are especially well trained in portraying the commanding black executive that the diversity-aholics crave.
And, I think that there’s a lesson here, too. In my experience, black men prefer heroic, masculine endeavors. They don’t make great cube dwellers. That seems to be the province of white males. We’re very well behaved.
And let’s not forget that churches are among the most segregated institutions that we have, despite the fact that the message of the church is explicitly inclusive — all are welcome. The segregation is voluntary. Would anyone dare to bus churchgoers to a different church?
Cobra, reading is fundamental. Turley said “Race conscious,” not “segregation.” It’s nonsensical because it implies that the two are contradictory, when in fact the two are the same thing. By definition, you can’t eliminate racism by officially implementing it.
In theory (not in practice) one might be able to eliminate segregation via race preferences. But one can’t possibly eliminate racial consciousness by classifying people by race and handing out benefits to them on the basis of those classifications.
Cobra asks:
Is your argument that the elimination of Affirmative Action would decrease segregation in neighborhoods, schools, prisons and entertainment?
No. My argument is that the elimination of racial preferences (I’d happily leave alone any affirmative action that does not rely on racial preferences) would eliminate a vast amount of racial discrimination. Call me old-fashioned, but I continue to believe that eliminating racial discrimination is a Good Thing.
John writes:
>>>”Call me old-fashioned, but I continue to believe that eliminating racial discrimination is a Good Thing.”
Well…if that’s how you feel, let me draw your attention to statements from this very thread:
Stephen:
>>>”The only thing that would eliminate segregation in “schools, prisons and entertainment” would be pointing a pistol at the heads of each and every American. Segregation exists because people prefer their own kind, and will continue to do so despite the diversocrat’s determination to force them to change. Segregation is the natural and preferred state of humans. It isn’t a “system” you’re trying to change, Cobra, it’s human nature. It’s a doomed effort.”
Now, I simply asked you a question about the Turley statement, which I did NOT take out of context.
David writes:
>>>”But one can’t possibly eliminate racial consciousness by classifying people by race and handing out benefits to them on the basis of those classifications.”
“Racial consciousness” is not a malevolent term, IMHO. The mythology of color-blindness may have duped some of those in the racial majority to believe that skin color is inconsequential in America. The reality of America is that those in the racial minority are constantly reminded of their skin color and/or ethnic affiliation in a variety of social, occupational, financial and legal examples.
That’s one of the reasons I dig Stephen so much. I believe his posts are the unfiltered, behind closed door voice of the right winged underbelly of America.
–Cobra
Cobra – You will have noticed that, with very exceptions, I don’t censor comments. Thus what others say about things is what they, not I, say about things. You asked, “is your argument…,” and I told you that argument about “affirmative action” has nothing to do with “segregation.”
I use quotes around “segregation” because I’m also old enough to believe that word applies to legally imposed racial separation. It does not, in my view, refer to racial groupings that are not legally imposed. I don’t even think its appropriate in situations like the “self-segregation” of black dorms, etc.
“That’s one of the reasons I dig Stephen so much. I believe his posts are the unfiltered, behind closed door voice of the right winged underbelly of America.”
Cobra, you WANT to think ill of your fellow Americans, you TAKE PLEASURE in it. Isn’t it a little nicer to hope for the best and be disappointed when you run across statements that appear to you to be racist? Because you’re painting yourself into a corner here. You can’t hope for issues of race to get better because you’ll be denying yourself a source of pleasure if they do. MLK had a vision, he expressed it clearly, and he worked toward it until the day he died. That didn’t mean lying to himself about the way things were – read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” – but it also didn’t mean deriving satisfaction from assuring himself that his fellow Americans were a bunch of unregenerate racists. What’s your vision, Cobra, what do you hope for, what makes you happy to read or hear? Do you want to see racial tension and struggle in this country forever?
John writes:
>>>”I use quotes around “segregation” because I’m also old enough to believe that word applies to legally imposed racial separation. It does not, in my view, refer to racial groupings that are not legally imposed. I don’t even think its appropriate in situations like the “self-segregation” of black dorms, etc.”
But you’re an outspoken advocate of “color-blindness”, which should make you an automatic detractor of “racial groupings”. Also, it’s difficult to have “racial groupings” without “race consciousness”.
One might successfully argue that the pro-preference position is the intellectually honest one, because it takes into account Stephen’s reality of a race conscious America.
–Cobra
But you’re an outspoken advocate of “color-blindness”, which should make you an automatic detractor of “racial groupings”.
Yes, I am “an outspoken [or at least an out-typed] advocate of color-blindness” [I removed your un-needed quotation marks], but it’s clear that you have a limited understanding of what that means. The colorblindness of which I am an advocate refers to the way I believe the state is/should be obligated to treat its citizens. In addition, unlike many Libertarians, I would also impose the obligation to be colorblind through civil rights laws that cover most commercial activities but not many private choices. My belief in colorblindness does not mean I have or should have any obligation not to take notice of the fact that you are (or anyone is) black.
But you’re right: I don’t like “racial groupings,” even voluntary ones, but that doesn’t mean I would bar their existence. I think that if blacks want to sit together to eat, that’s their privilege, but I believe the term “self-segregation” is an oxymoron and I don’t use it.
Racial consciousness is the fundamental underpinning of racism.
Not “is,” Cobra. “Should be.” Unfortunately, as long as government keeps handing out goodies based on race, it will continue to be consequential.
Of course they are. That’s the essence of affirmative action as practiced in America. And you support that, instead of fighting against it.
David writes:
>>>”Not “is,” Cobra. “Should be.” Unfortunately, as long as government keeps handing out goodies based on race, it will continue to be consequential.”
Again, this fantasy among the anti-affirmative action types is amazing. There was racism BEFORE Affirmative Action. There is racism in states where Affirmative Action has been eliminated.
Do you agree with what Stephen wrote? That “Segregation is the natural and preferred state of humans?”
If you DO, then you can’t sit here and blame Affirmative Action, a policy not even 50 years old for something thousands of years in the making.
–Cobra
Cobra – You keep missing my point.
You’re right: ending racial preferences will not eradicate racism or all racial discrimination (Who said it would?). “All” it would do is eliminate a vast amount of currently occurring racial discrimination.
Cobra,
You can nitpick the quote about segregation all you want but the prima facia evidence is that all ethnic groups in the US prefer to self-segregate.
From the AME church to BET to the Omega Fraternity to the black barbershop, it is obvious that blacks will self-segregate as much or more than any other ethnic group.
What you seem to want is the government to breakup any situation where whites or Asian self segregate while tolerating and/or encouraging black to maintain their separateness.
I will believe that blacks want to really integrate when black politicians stop using terms like “black folks.”
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”You can nitpick the quote about segregation all you want but the prima facia evidence is that all ethnic groups in the US prefer to self-segregate.”
Which is PRECISELY why we NEED Affirmative Action. You’re saying it yourself, only you and other anti-affirmative action types try to play this kabuki dance: “Ethnic groups prefer to self-segregate, but they would NEVER DREAM of self-segregatory discrimination when it comes to hiring, education, government contracts or loans.”
I may have been born in Jersey City, but who are you trying to kid with this line of reasoning?
At least John makes some admissions in his argument here:
>>>”You’re right: ending racial preferences will not eradicate racism or all racial discrimination (Who said it would?). “All” it would do is eliminate a vast amount of currently occurring racial discrimination.”
We disagree on the remedy for a problem we both agree exists. You and some of your fellow posters don’t believe there is really a problem outside of a challeng to a system unquestionably designed by and historically, irrefutably RIGGED for white Americans.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>”I will believe that blacks want to really integrate when black politicians stop using terms like “black folks.”
Ummm…considering that some of the first blacks were brought here in 1619, do you really want to heap nearly 400 YEARS OF HISTORY on the backs of politicians born after Eisenhower took office?
Laura writes:
>>>”What’s your vision, Cobra, what do you hope for, what makes you happy to read or hear? Do you want to see racial tension and struggle in this country forever?”
I think you’re missing the point of this blog. Disagreeing with a post or comment doesn’t make me a “glum gus.” As a matter of fact, YOUR posts are some of the most refreshing here, because even though we disagree, your sense of fairness and humanity comes through. I can tell you speak from experience and actually interaction with people, whereas some here don’t get beyond philosophical posturing and theories.
That being said, I believe there will be racial tension and struggle as long as the ruling majority views the minority as “less”. I say “ruling” because the population demographics are shifting, and withing a generation or two, the definition of ethnic minority will change radically in America.
–Cobra
We disagree on the remedy for a problem we both agree exists. You and some of your fellow posters don’t believe there is really a problem outside of a challeng to a system unquestionably designed by and historically, irrefutably RIGGED for white Americans.
Key word: historically.
Now, it’s rigged against white Americans.
David writes:
>>>”Now, it’s rigged against white Americans.”
Rigged by other white Americans who control the system. C’mon, Dave. You and the other anti-affirmative action types are waging war over 2 to 5% of placement in elite public colleges, affecting not the best and brightest white students, but those on the margins. Apparently, judging by the collective indifference, or outright DEFENSE of a system that works to the disadvantage of minorities in MOST OTHER areas, you shouldn’t act shocked or surprised if conscious, non-solicited African-Americans like me challenge it.
–Cobra