WAITING FOR AN END TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

It’s always nice to see declining numbers in racial preferences, though I feel it would be much better to see those preferences end once and for all. The original idea of affirmative action, which started in 1965, was to help a particular group — African-Americans — get access to higher education after years of discrimination and slavery. Though some have termed it as a product of white liberal guilt, it was actually a good idea when then President Lydon Johnson got it off the ground.

What happened afterwards is what galled a lot of us who are sincere in helping out a disadvantaged group close the gap in education. Affirmative action was not meant to be a permanent fixture; neither was it meant to include every group like women, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities who happily hopped on the bandwagon. The entrance of these groups, along with the liberalization of guidelines for those who can qualify for special references, has so distorted the meaning of affirmative action that African-American intellectuals in elite colleges and universities have complained about native blacks being by-passed in favor of those coming, say, from the Caribbean. It has become one whole mess.

On top of this, the Supreme Court decision last year involving the University of Michigan College of Law has muddied the waters further by justifying the continuation of affirmative action, on narrow grounds, by invocation of what has become an almost meaningless word — diversity. What kind of diversity was Justice O’Connor talking about in casting that deciding vote to revive a policy breathing its last dying gasps at that time? As best as I can tell, she was still talking of race, skin color, or ethnic status. We don’t know, at this point, when the next Supreme Court challenge will come.

I come from a minority group (Asian-Americans)which is now described as “over-represented due to the superior academic performance of its students. That’s a loaded word with all its ugly connotation,implying as it does that other groups are “underrepresented” because of us, which then begs the question of what we need to do to fit numbers based on percentages of each group in the general population. It’s a revolving door, no matter how you look at it.

Would it not be nice when all of us, wherever we came from, can be judged by the same standards? I just cannot wait for that day to come.

RJ. G. LACSAMANA, M.D., at 7:10 pm EDT on June 2, 2005

End of Affirmative Action in Admissions

As a Black instructor, I would much rather face a classroom of “minority” students than Caucasians, who I find are know-it-alls and hard to discipline. Minority students, while they may not be the smartest bulb on the planet, are eager to learn, listen, and do what’s expected. The Caucasian students on the other hand expect grades to be handed to them, don’t want to participate in group projects, and the declined requests go on and on and on. Anytime I walk into a classroom where the majority are “minority” including Asians, I take a sigh of relief.

Li Wright, Adjunct, at 9:05 am EDT on June 3, 2005

Reverse Discrimination

As a resident of the Washington, DC area and a 20-year government contractor, I say “YES, let us end discriminatory racial preferences in all walks of life!” Space limitations prevent me from documenting here all of the numerous times government contracting officers have told me to my face “Sorry, Mr. Fay, we cannot hire your firm because you are white and male".

I do take issue with author Scott Jaschik’s use of the term “Affirmative Action", as in his phrase “...many colleges abandoned affirmative action in admissions...” The proper term in the above phrase is “discriminatory racial preferences” instead of “affirmative action".

As Mr. Jaschik must surely be aware, the original unamended Civil Rights Act of 1964 enshrined “non-discrimination” and “outreach” as proper and just goals in our society. The original Act correctly eschewed “racial preferences", as currently practiced, as well as other forms of racial discrimination, including denying any job, promotion, contracting opportunity or educational admission based in any part upon the applicant’s skin color.

In the 40+ years since the passage of the original, unamended Civil Rights Act numerous amendments have bastardized that act into an enforcer of discrimination based upon skin color, gender, and national origin. The constitutionally dubious legal assumption that each race, gender, or nationality must be “proportionately represented” in all walks of life in the U.S. gained currency during these past 40+ years, albeit through misdirection, misiniformation, miseducation, and outright race-baiting.

What about “equal opportunity” instead of “equal results", Mr. Jaschik? Don’t you think that merit, ability, and competence should determine who is hired or promoted or admitted to college? Apparently, you do not.

I agree completely with Roger Clegg in his call for an end to these divisive racial distinctions, and also with correspondent RJ. G. Lacsamana, M.D. in his call for an end to this pernicious form of racial discrimination.

I note in passing that many TRILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer-funded race-based aid (a.k.a. “Reparations") have been paid to blacks and other minority groups since 1964 in the form of racial preferences, racially preferential college admissions policies, race-based government contracting preferences, and race-based private corporate employment, promotion and contracting policies, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded federal transfer payments for race-based housing support, race-based child support, race-based food stamps, and a zillion other social programs spawned during and after President Lyndon Johnson’s administration.

If, during the past 40+ years of taxpayer largesse and aid, blacks and other supposedly disenfranchised “minorities” have not been able to achieve “economic parity", then one must certainly look beyond “racial discrimination” as the root cause of those groups’ continuing underachievement.

Is “racism” still present in the U.S. in 2005? Almost certainly. Is “illegal racial discrimination” still present in the U.S. in 2005? Well, not for blacks, Hispanics and other non-white groups. Current law provides great and racially discriminatory advantages to these ethnic groups. By current definition, “illegal discrimination” can almost never be practiced against these protected racial / ethnic groups (blacks and Hispanics primarily). Conversely, “illegal racial discrimination” against whites, males, and other groups of European descent is alive and well today. All thanks to the “racially preferential policies” whose imminent demise author Scott Jaschik bemoans.

Tim Fay, Chairman at Adversity.Net, Inc., at 7:23 pm EDT on June 3, 2005

Whiteness and Historical Ignorance

The shrill chorus of whingeing and stereotyping regarding affirmative action from those deeply invested in whiteness and white supremacy, regardless of the color of their skin or ethnic background,is quite distressing. They are either ignorant of or unwilling to admit that racial preferences are as American as the proverbial apple pie. This country was founded and suckled on racial preferences, in everything from who could be a slave, who could be a citizen, who could be a witness at trial, serve on a jury, run for public office, to access to jobs, education, land, housing, human respect and dignity...even life itself, the list is virtually endless. Until fairly recently in American history, those racial preferences were explicitly and unashamedly based on whiteness. However, the moment non-whiteness attains a modest claim to this all American modus operandi, it is suddenly and ahistorically characterized as somehow “unamerican” and inconsistent with American values and history. The juxtapositon of merit versus racial preferences for non-whites betrays an equally ignorant appreciation of reality. As the Court noted in Grutter and every affirmative action case back to Bakke, the racial minorities benefiting from such preferences were uniformly qualified for admission on the basis of every objective criterion. However, we still hear constant references to students that gained admission to schools, or applicants to jobs “solely on the basis of race.” As if non-whiteness has become an exclusive ticket to entry without the benefit of hard work and achievement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yet we know that non-white sounding names continue to deprive applicants of even gaining an interview for jobs. Based on a recent study published in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, we now also have some evidence that such names also significanly effect the manner in which students are treated by their teachers in class. As the late Stephen Jay Gould noted, “expectation is a powerful predictor of results.” Non-whites are still routinely and blantantly denied access to rental housing, loans, service, promotions and charged more for many consumer goods and services... “solely on the basis of race.” It is way past time for America to wake up and smell the coffee; race still matters very much in America, as it always has, for both those raced as whites and those raced as non-whites. If America is to compete and win in a global economy it cannot afford to continue to deprive itself of the talents, energies, and achievements of whole portions of its population simply because they do not fit the historic white paradigms of value. Like all wars, in the American culture war, truth is all too often the first and bloodiest victim.

Cecil Hunt, Law Professor, at 11:36 am EDT on June 7, 2005

Qualified

Surely, Dr. Hunt, you realize that difference between being qualified and being the best qualified. Elite schools often say that 90% of their applicants are qualified to attend. Yet, they will proceed to pick those with the highest scores, grades and involvement.

Unfortunately, the darkest skin often becomes some sort of additional factor (in which schools prefer Hispanic over White and Asian, and black over Hispanic).

The best qualified students should be those whom are accepted; their race or ethnic background or level of income should be irrelevant to admission. I question why an institution would even ask for this information.

Regardless of any past or current discrimination, schools are supposed to attract the best qualified students and provide them with the best education they can.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 2:12 pm EDT on August 20, 2005