Quotation du jour

...and forecast of Supreme Court's decision in Monday's affirmative action cases:

The Supreme Court will say that diversity programs are unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. He's a weird bird on race issues -- a few years back he made a passionate speech to the ABA in which he railed against the nation's harsh criminal justice system, excessive sentences, and racial disparities. On the other hand, he voted against the Michigan affirmative action programs. It's interesting because lots of people who see racial inequalities in traditional civil rights areas like education and employment don't see them in criminal justice -- Kennedy is just the opposite. His comments in yesterday's oral arguments, as well as his votes in previous cases, suggest he will vote against African-American and Latino interests, as identified by traditional civil rights organizations.

-- Prof. Paul Butler on Blackprof.com today

Tags: Law, policy, affirmative action, Supreme Court, race, racism, anti-racism, white supremacy, Seattle Open Choice Program, Seattle public schools, Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, Louisville public schools, Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Brown v. Board of Education. 

 

Comments

[TallSkinny]

I'm afraid that, as a practical matter, the bigots have won this argument in the public mind.

Affirmative action does more harm than good. Affirmative action creates the false impression that the culture is making a meaningful effort to integrate African Americans (Latinos are a different subject entirely.)

This culture is not making a meaningful effort to integrate African Americans. But most think it is.

The reality of affirmative action on the ground is: (1) these programs accomplish little for the ostensible beneficiaries, and (2) everyone else resents the hell out of them. The programs don't really help African Americans much, but everyone else assumes African Americans are getting a pass.

That's way wrong, and implicitly bigoted, but that's the way people think. Racism is now tacit, not explicit. People no longer believe they're racist, though they are -- we're dealing with an unconscious racism now.

Better to end the charade of affirmative action. It accomplishes little, and gives people an excuse to continue resenting African Americans.

There's got to be a better way, a way which drives down to the tacit assumptions which are the foundation of American racism.

One example: After California outlawed affirmative action, the Regents of the University of California pitched the SAT (inherently biased) in favor of the ACT (less inherently biased.) That did a lot to keep the African American enrollment numbers up (though they did decline.)

We need many more examples like that. Affirmative action has lived out its useful life as a means toward integrating African Americans. We need to go deeper, into the real roots of American racism.

[emily]

I agree in part & disagree in part w/ TallSkinny. AA does give the (false) appearance of caring about racism. On the other hand, I do think AA has actually helped many Black people get educations & jobs that racism would otherwise have kept them out of.

[Dr. Eek]

Yes, affirmative action alone will not solve deeply entrenched inequality. Of course there are better interventions; and of course, we need to go deeper. But Tallskinny's argument fails on two counts. First, it's naive to believe that affirmative action is a substantial driver of racism. Any effective anti-racist program will provoke resentment. Second, it's self-defeating to abandon imperfect interventions that help some people in favor of pie-in-the-sky solutions that might help more, but aren't likely to happen anytime soon.

One more thing--if we're going to dream here, let's dream about something more than substituting the ACT for the SAT (which does nothing to correct for the fact that Black kids are more likely to receive inferior educations). Let's think about decriminalizing drugs, emptying prisons, paying reparations, radically reorganizing schools, redistributing wealth... but in the meantime, I'll stick up for affirmative action.

[Stein]

I agree w/ TallSkinny's opening shot: that ideological white supremacy is unquestioned among most white folks (my language, not TS's).
I agree too w/ TS that the evil of affirmative action is that it appears to be a remedy for white privilege, while not really attack white privilege at its roots (again, not TS's language).
And I agree w/ Dr. Eek's basic defense of affirmative action.
Only, I would go further. The synthesis of TS's & Dr. E's points, I think, is this: Affirmative action should be defended (practically, through litigation & pressure, and ideologically -- in arguments w/ white folks) on this basis:
Affirmative action doesn't go FAR ENOUGH. The true purpose of affirmative action should be an intentional redistribution of wealth.
Wealth is actual dollars as well as access to privilege, including access to jobs, housing, and education.
This privilege is unjustly concentrated among whites in this society.
Anti-racists should make a point of defending any program (government, private, or activist) that fundamentally attacks this status quo, and also programs that DON'T attack it fundamentally, but ameliorate it to any degree.

[Mars]

Stein hit this one on the head -- We need to change these terms of debate. Forget "Is Affirmative Action the answer" vs. "Is Affirmative Action racist against whites?" Go straight to "It is a drop in the bucket in the right direction."

The issue of it being a scapegoat for racist sentiments is very real -- and needs to be attacked sharply on all fronts. No one should get away with assuming every Black with a degree got it based on race. And yet in every job I've held, at some point someone starts referring to my "priviledge" of getting a great education. They assume it WASN'T that my SAT's were excellent and I worked late hours all through college to pay for it. They say the same of my sister -- who got into Yale on being a pure genius, not her skin color. It's an outrage that society has taken Affirmative Action to mean all of us are getting extra advantage -- it's further outrage that we think the solution to THAT is to let the racists win by opposing Affirmative Action.

[Stein]

I also want to encourage folks posting comments here to click the "Prof. Paul Butler" link above & go to Blackprof.com -- there is a comment debate happening there. Note that a little while back, Blackprof debated having comment moderation because of a problem w/ (white) trolls posting comments that (the Blackprof bloggers worried) chilled the participation of their Black readers.

[TallSkinny]

"Let's think about decriminalizing drugs, emptying prisons, paying reparations, radically reorganizing schools, redistributing wealth..."

Those are exactly the sort of things we should be thinking about, and exactly the sort of thing I meant. Sorry for using such a minor example (SAT/ACT) but I had just finished reading an article on AA in the UC system, so it came to mind easily.

Maybe it's a generational thing. I don't know. The generation behind me has been brainwashed into thinking that AA unfairly disadvantages them. These kids aren't racists -- just lazy -- it's the only reality they've ever known.

For instance, I had a heck of a time convincing a pre-med student (who is not racist) that she was more likely to lose a spot in med school to the son of a rich Doctor than to any Black or Latino applicant.

Only after she got admitted did she get it. And, even then, I had to (rhetorically) whack her on the side of the head with it:

"Look -- you got in because I got you that job at the hospital, and I got you the job at the hospital because of my friend the Doctor. African Americans don't have those connections. You are an example of Irish/Jewish affirmative action, and you aren't Irish or Jewish, so don't you ever resent Blacks or Latinos for getting the small bones our culture throws their way."

That's the way the real world works.

Now, here's a controversial proposition:

Why is it that when Latinos in this town form a political organization based on patronage employment, they get shut down, vilified, and indicted?

I don't like HDO, but it's doing the same thing every other ethnic group did. I'm Irish. We sure as hell did it. Why the hell do the rules suddenly change when it becomes the turn of Blacks and Latinos to do the same thing everyone else did?

[TallSkinny]

Not inflammatory enough, eh? Try this:

Yesterday, the Chicago Police, working with Federal Prosecutors, announced that they had "decapitated" the leadership of the Latin Kings, indicting a large number of high-level leaders of the LKs.

In bygone times, when the Chief of Police announced a crackdown on the Irish gangs, the Irish gangs responded by storming police headquarters, and ransacking the place.

Those gangs included the future political leadership of this town, including our Mayor's father and his closest friends.

What's changed, except the color of the skin?