« Does Colorblind Non-Discrimination Violate Human Rights? | Main | Political Parties And Identity »

“Affirmative Discrimination”

The U.S. in 1975, via Nathan Glazer, Affirmative Discrimination (Basic Books, 1975) [quoted here]:

[Racial and ethnic preferences will lead to] a real Balkanization, in which group after group struggles for the benefits of special treatment.... The demand for special treatment will lead to animus against other groups that already have it, by those who think they should have it and don't....

The rising emphasis on group difference which government is called upon to correct might mean the destruction of any hope for the larger fraternity of all Americans.

The U.S. in 2008, via Steven Malanga in City Journal:
As the Hispanic population has expanded in formerly black areas, Latinos have also vied more intensely with blacks for affirmative-action slots, public-sector jobs, and political power. In one notable late-1990s case that presaged future confrontations, Hispanic leaders in South L.A. launched an official complaint that blacks made up the overwhelming majority of the county hospital’s staff. A federal agency then forced the hospital to hire more Latinos, provoking bitterness among local blacks. More recently, in Compton--where Hispanics have replaced blacks as the largest ethnic group, but where blacks continue to dominate local politics--Latinos have been grumbling that they don’t hold as many jobs in the public schools as they should, given their numbers.

This battle over quotas for public-sector jobs is a glaring example of how immigration is turning the race-based policies of the last 40 years, originally designed to help blacks, against them. For African-American leaders like Claud Anderson, head of the Harvest Institute, the turnabout represents a betrayal of the civil rights movement: only blacks deserve quotas. “When did our government ever exclude immigrants or deny them their constitutional rights, as they did African-Americans?” he asks. But for other blacks, the demands of Latinos and Asians that government set-aside programs include them are further evidence that racial preferences were misguided in the first place. “Blacks who support skin color privileges now will be singing a different tune later once government starts discriminating against them once again, this time in favor of Hispanics,” writes columnist and blogger La Shawn Barber.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.discriminations.us/sa/mt-tb.cgi/6496

Say What?

And thus generations of progress is lost as we return to patronage over freedom, excellence, and inclusion.

"When did our government ever exclude immigrants or deny them their constitutional rights, as they did African-Americans?”

I'd say he had a good point. I don't like AA, but if we have it, I want it to help American descendents of slaves who meet a means test. No recent immigrants, not even from Africa. No wealthy blacks, like Jackson, Sharpton, Cosby, etc. No white women. And certainly no Hispanics.

And this is the natural result of moving from affirmative action as remedial to the idea of affirmative action as promoting "diversity," whatever that is. When it was remedial, blacks could reasonably claim that the idea was to remedy the discrimination that they undoubtedly had suffered, terrible and long-standing. When the issue is diversity per se, blacks have no more claim on affirmative action than Hispanics.

Alex: yes, but the problem was that when it was remedial, people naturally started asking for evidence that the specific beneficiaries had something to be remedied, and that those injured had done something which justified the remedy. By switching to 'diversity,' it could be applied to any situation, without regard to any proof of anything.

Was your business opened in 2005, and therefore long after segregation, and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing, and therefore nothing to remedy? Doesn't matter -- you still need 'diversity,' don't you?

Post a comment