Affirmative action by intent, design, and effect favors some racial and ethnic groups over others, and the divisive, racially antagonistic conflict among those groups it engenders has always threatened its own destruction from within. As Nathan Glazer, an astute early critic, pointed out in 1975, racial and ethnic preferences predictably 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. [Glazer, AFFIRMATIVE DISCRIMINATION (Basic Books, 1975), quoted in “Separation Of Race And State.”]
Students of affirmative action have long known — I have discussed some of the most striking evidence here — that Asians, not whites, are the primary victims of affirmative action college admissions. Indeed, one of the many mysteries surrounding our racial preference policies is why Asian Americans have tolerated for so long groups that ostensibly represent them, and why they have so heavily voted for Democratic candidates, that support policies that so clearly discriminate against their own children.
Recent events in California suggest that Asian Americans, despite the complicity of their leaders and representatives in this discrimination, have withdrawn their consent. The Democrats, with their supermajority in the state senate, were about to put an initiative on the ballot, SCA 5, that if approved by the voters would have overturned Prop. 209’s prohibition of racial preferences in college admissions. A grassroots rebellion of Asian American caused three state senators to withdraw their support, killing the measure for this session and probably beyond.
I have a longer piece discussing this issue forthcoming on Pajamas Media and so have refrained from dealing with it here. Meanwhile Abigail Thernstrom has an even longer, and better, discussion of it here. Read, as we say, the whole thing.
The Los Angeles Times has a sorrowful post-mortem on the Asian-induced death of SCA 5 that perfectly confirms Nathan Glazer’s prescient prediction.
The controversy has caused unusual friction among the Capitol’s ruling Democrats as lawmakers differ over how to control the fallout. Several legislators cited hard feelings among the party’s Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said she had “deep concerns” about how some of her colleagues backed off the legislation.
The Democrats, who passed the proposal on party lines, are now trying to redirect a debate that threatens their “big tent” of ethnic and racial alliances….
Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), chairman of the Latino caucus, said he was “disheartened” by that response…
Last week, black and Latino lawmakers released a statement declaring that they stand behind Hernandez’s measure, SCA 5, despite the baggage and want to see it revived.
“Let there not be any doubt,” Lara said. “The Black caucus and Latino caucus strongly support SCA 5, and we are committed to put something on the ballot in 2016.”
Finally, one modification of Glazer’s prediction is necessary. He foresaw affirmative action leading to racial and ethnic friction as groups competed for preference rewards. That has certainly occurred, and is occurring, but now the friction is even worse than Glazer imagined. It is no longer only between groups but within groups. In California, less successful Asian groups resent the Japanese, Korean, and especially Chinese, and indeed much of the opposition to SCA 5 came specifically from Chinese Americans. (See my discussion of Disaggregation: Not Enough Hmong Among Us?)
And recently in Florida, as pointed out in a Miami Herald article, many Hispanic legislators objected to a state merit scholarship program, Bright Futures, being based heavily on … merit, a reliance that predictably led the Obama administrations Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education to launch an investigation of “allegations that the state of Florida utilizes criteria for determining eligibility for college scholarships that have the effect of discriminating against Latino and African-American students on the basis of national origin and race.” Notably, however, other Hispanics, including many Cubans, disagreed.
“Bright Futures was meant to be for our best and brightest,” said state Rep. Jeanette Nuñez, R-Miami. “As we’ve raised the standards and achievement level in schools across the state, it made sense to raise the bar for Bright Futures. I don’t think it is fair to say that just because someone is Hispanic or African-American, he or she doesn’t have to make that bar.”
Affirmative action envisions an American made up of a confederacy of racial and ethnic groups, but as the groups “disaggregate” into warring factions it is becoming less clear what those groups are. Diversifiers claim not to favor quotas or proportional representation, but how many Cubans have received preferences in Texas or Michigan? Wouldn’t they provide more “diversity” than simply padding the numbers of blacks and Mexican Americans?
I don’t get it. How is it that those damned Asians (Japanese in my case) that made me work so hard in private school for males, JUST to keep up a respectable place on “the curve”, can ignore “doing the math”, or “looking up” the original intent of Affirmative Action, and citing it.
I suppose the siren song of “special” Affirmative Action Privilege (or inversely, Crabs in a Bucket)may be too seductive to be trusted to behave rationally.
You write, “Affirmative action envisions an American made up of a confederacy of racial and ethnic groups,…” Here I must disagree.
Affirmative action envisions an America made up of two groups, a privileged white group and a generic minority group. All gains to the generic minority group come at the expense of the white group.
What we are seeing here is the slow collapse of the original affirmative action vision.