Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, writes a column for the Rocky Mountain News that I always find interesting and often agree with. (See here, here, and here, for example.) Today’s, however, is a decidedly mixed bag.
He begins by discussing a recent conversation with one of his mentors, someone who’s been teaching for over 30 years compared to Campos’s 15, and, “inevitably,” he writes, the conversation turned to affirmative action.
Bill is a contrarian by nature, and he has never been able to stomach the combination of moral sanctimoniousness and rampant dishonesty that often characterizes the most aggressive supporters of affirmative action, especially in the academy. He spoke with open contempt about several of his colleagues who had been hired for affirmative action purposes, and with even more contempt for his white colleagues who had made these hiring decisions.
The issue was not, if you’ll pardon the expression, black and white for either of them. They both felt “uncomfortable,” for example, teaching about “racially charged” issues with no or few blacks in class, and, Campos writes, “both of us remain deeply conflicted on the issue.” Demonstrating his conflict, he concludes with an unimpressive, to me, plague on both their houses:
I suspect what bothers us most is the sheer dishonesty that marks every aspect of the matter. Consider a scale from one to five that represents the following positions: race should never be taken into account when distributing social goods; race should only be used as a tiebreaker between substantially identical candidates; race should give a black candidate (for example) a small advantage; race should give the candidate a big advantage; social goods should be handed out on the basis of racial quotas.
Many supporters of affirmative action claim to support the second position. In a candid moment, they might admit they sincerely believe they support the third position. In fact, they typically behave as if they support the fifth position.
As for affirmative action opponents, they all naturally claim to adhere to the first position, when in fact quite a few behave as if being black (for example) should be considered a negative factor when evaluating candidates. This is hardly surprising: It’s extremely difficult to grow up in America without absorbing some racist beliefs.
First, note that there is no difference in principle between positions two through five. They all reject the “without regard” colorblind principle; they all support the use of race in distributing social goods. The only difference among them concerns matters of degree, which calls to mind the exchange variously attributed to George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
As for whether “quite a few” affirmative action opponents “behave as if being black (for example) should be considered a negative factor when evaluating candidates,” I’m not able to comment on Professor Campos’s colleagues at the University of Colorado law school. Perhaps he has witnessed the sort of racist behavior he describes (or perhaps what he has seen is only the natural suspicion that those who demand preferential treatment are less qualified than those who don’t). I have participated in the evaluation of both student and faculty applicants, however, and I consider myself reasonably familiar with the prominent arguments against affirmative action, and I must say that I’ve never seen the behavior that Professor attributes to “quite a few” opponents of racial preference. I will add, however, that any such behavior that does exist directly contradicts the fundamental principle shared by opponents of racial preferences, while, as mentioned above, someone who claims to believe that race should play a small part in the distribution of social goods but behaves as though it should play a large or even determining part has no principle to violate.
Finally, if it is so “extremely difficult to grow up in America without absorbing some racist beliefs,” how is it that millions upon millions of Americans have done so, as I believe they have?
“Finally, if it is so “extremely difficult to grow up in America without absorbing some racist beliefs,” how is it that millions upon millions of Americans have done so, as I believe they have?”
“millions upon millions”? no offense, but you’re pitifully naive.
I think that story you attribute to Churchill is in fact attributed to George Bernard Shaw. I say “attributed” because I think it’s one of those stories that gets told about various public figures.
There’s another Churchill story–Lady Astor says, “Winston, if you were my husband I’d give you poison” and he replies, “Madam, if I were your husband I’d take it.” I have also heard that about Bill Klem, the famous umpire, among others.
The problem with incessantly adhering to, “race should NEVER be taken into account when distributing social goods” without exception is that if one finds ANY example where race should fairly be taken into account, then the entire theory is refuted.
This is another example of “you’re either with us or against us,” false dilemma, thinking which is fine if you’re on a playground, but not so succesful in adult practice.
The necessity for exceptions to the rule is the reason why Courts have allowed race to be used in distributing social goods when the distribution is narrowly tailored to meet compelling state goals (strict scrutiny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)
In fact there are several examples where race should fairly be taken into account when distributing social goods. One example that I think you have mentioned before is using Black undercover officers to investigate crime in predominately Black areas. Whites are excluded from those positions on the basis of race. But does anyone think that is unfair? No. So the idea that race should NEVER be taken into account falls on it’s face and again that is the reason why adhering to such an all-or-nothing position is doomed to failure.
Also, as Chauncy points out, the notion that millions upon millions in America have grown up without absorbing some racist beliefs is a practice in willful ignorance. Unless you have been quarantined from televsion, radio, news media, and cinema, you have at some point absorbed some racist beliefs. Are you telling me that these millions of people never feel uncomfortable around people of other races or feel that some group is in some small way better or worse than another group? Not likely.
It is probably impossible not to have beliefs about race. Scientists say race is a social construct so if you recognise the word you have a belief.
But whether those beliefs must be racist beliefs is quite another matter. The old definition was ‘a belief that some races are superior to others’.
The current definition is ‘whatever’. We no longer know what is being discussed.
But ‘Discriminations’ looks at preferences in action based upon race, sex, origin, class, creed, etc. Don’t forget disabilities.
Preference is quite different from racism – one could be an utter racist and never actually give or advocate preference.
And exactly what merit lets ‘diversity’ trump equal treatment? And exactly when? A lot of people think they have figured that out. Others say nothing is more important than equal treatment.
Hull – As you are no doubt aware, the 1964 Civil Rights Act allowed exceptions to its strict colorblindness for bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs). I have already endorsed that exception in the only example I can think of, which is similar to your example: “taking race into account” in assigning a black undercover policeman to a black gang. I’m not sure that qualifies as as “distribution of a social good,” but if it is it is an exception to the otherwise valid colorblind rule. My problem with your position all along (I say “your” to refer to defenders of race preferences) is that you are so comfortable with race preferences for everything that preferences are no longer “exceptions” because you reject the rule altogehter.
So then, John, your position is NOT that, “race should NEVER be taken into account when distributing social goods.”
You acknowledge that there is at least one situation (and likely more) where race should be taken into account. Again, an exception here, an exception there, and all of the sudden “never” turns into “sometimes.”
In reality, on the one through five scale mentioned in the article:
“Consider a scale from one to five that represents the following positions: race should never be taken into account when distributing social goods; race should only be used as a tiebreaker between substantially identical candidates; race should give a black candidate (for example) a small advantage; race should give the candidate a big advantage; social goods should be handed out on the basis of racial quotas.”
you (like most reasonable people) are not an adherent to the first postion. Race is a fact of our society and unfortunately to combat racism we must, on occasion, take race into account.
For the record, I’ve become convinced that class is a better way to deal with preference than race, but that does not mean that race should NEVER be taken into account.
In my scheme of things, the ban on using race to distribute social goods is as absolute as anything in life ever is. I regard it as every bit as absolute, say, as the Ten Commandments, as absolute as anything can be in law (separation of church and state, prior restraint on speech, cruel and unusual punisment. In that list of five choices, the first is clearly my position, and I have no second choices there. I don’t really think you mean that because I would allow a police dept to limit choices for undercover work in a Hispanic gang to Hispanics my theory is shot and its a slippery slope all the way down to your position. If you do mean that, then you’re being silly.