Before everyone gets the wrong idea what this referendum means: there is no constitutional requirement that universities engage in affirmative action. Instead, the Supreme Court has only said that, in some case, it AA is permissible. The referendum only means that one state chooses not to engage in it.

On the other hand, there may be constitutional reasons why public universities must offer the same benefits to domestic partners. Likewise, many state constitutional amendments may be subject to challenge under Romer v. Evans.

Larry, at 6:35 am EST on November 8, 2006

Black’s Must Be Helped to Catch-up

White America refused to allow Blacks the right to learn to read or own property or borrow money for over 100 years. The negative effects of those past practices exist today.

On the basics, we must provide Blacks with support to overcome these past practices.

The vote went too deep into the social fabric to be justice.

My hope is that rational thought overcomes this example that bigotry is alive and well in America.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 6:55 am EST on November 8, 2006

Look what happened in CA

The results of the Connerly-supported initiative in CA have been quite obvious—already small minority enrollments have plunged in the years since the measure took effect.

Treating people equally is ultimately the goal, but I don’t believe for a second that the playing field in this country is level for everyone. All this initiative will do is make it harder underrepresented minorities to compete with upper-class and upper-middle-class students.

Also, when you’re voting in league with a racist group (the only group to come out in favor of this measure was a KKK offshoot), you’ve got to wonder if the measure is sound.

AE Ismail, at 8:15 am EST on November 8, 2006

Some of the comments here reflect the faulty thinking of race based thinking. Scott implores us to help “blacks” who are disadvantaged. But AA does not do that, it helps blacks whether they are disadvantaged or not. Colin Powell’s son gets points over a white janitors son. Most of America opposes race based affirmative action (rightly I think), but it would (and I would) support a race neutral alternative to help out disadvantaged folks of all races.

Ken, at 8:50 am EST on November 8, 2006

End the Double Standards Shuck & Jive Now.......

The voters of Michigan, like those in Washington and California, when given the chance to vote on it, overwhelmingly showed how much they despise and loath all the race-baiting, ethnic hustling, and box-checking schemes so beloved by university folks.

The arrogant, brown-shirted thugs from BAMN who opposed proposal 2 in Michigan showed by vicious, anti-democratic example throughout the campaign how personally odious and nasty defenders of race and gender preferences have become.

Larry’s special pleadings ignore this shattering defeat of the whole double standards industry in Michigan and its widespread but very shallow support.

Verily, it seems more likely that in the next few years the Supreme Court may well revisit the issue, and probably drive a spike into the heart, or many nails into the coffin of, what has degenerated into a divisive, racist, sexist and mean-spirited scam operation that needs to be excised as soon as possible.

Chuck, at 9:35 am EST on November 8, 2006

Ken writes, “Scott implores us to help ‘blacks’ who are disadvantaged. But AA does not do that, it helps blacks whether they are disadvantaged or not.”

I think that’s a largely ignorant way to perceive AA. In reality, AA “helps” all citizens by helping to provide learning environments that have many of the characteristics that a diverse society and global world market will entail. We all benefit from AA.

Look, I know that many white males think that they are being discriminated against when AA comes into play. But, many folks apparently fail to realize that white males have an advantage on the competition because of our nation’s pervasive and deep-rooted discrimination that gave white males a form of AA for most of our history. The Supreme Court just a few years ago noted that they, “expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That’s not very long, but mostly white voters were too greedy to wait.

sean, Associate Professor at Grand Valley State University, at 9:36 am EST on November 8, 2006

Answer to Douglas

Douglas, From time to time I have posted source materials on here, but most academics were not interested. You can read the text of the amendment here: http://www.crcmich.org/election/Prop2language.pdf

Larry, at 9:50 am EST on November 8, 2006

How can the people who supported this ban say they are for fairness and equity, but yet will not put forth an initiative to ban other types of affirmative action, like the one based on income and wealth? By not doing this, it is crystal clear what their true agenda is — limiting access for minorities, but keeping legacy and policies that favor wealth over hard work, motivation, and merit.

(If your parents can afford to send you to an SAT camp for 2 weeks in the summer and spend thousands on private tutoring and college prep. activities, the kind of preparation most of us are not privy to, it doesn’t mean you’re smarter or have more merit, it just means you have more money).

PS, at 10:01 am EST on November 8, 2006

frustration!

As a straight, white, middle-class, post-graduate degreed female; I am livid over the results of this election. I will never understand why we continue to vote in oppressive legislation. As a white person, I try to fight for equal rights for minorities and as a straight person I am very active in lgbt education and activism. People need to look around, see the big picture, and move beyond their personal beliefs to fight for equality.

Kelly, at 10:05 am EST on November 8, 2006

Reply to Kelly

As a straight, white, middle-class, post-graduate degreed male, I am thrilled over the results of this election. I will never understand why we continue to support oppressive practices; this measure is long overdue. As a American, I try to fight for equal rights for all Americans and don’t believe that people should be treated differently because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. People need to look around, see the big picture, and move beyond their personal bigotry to fight for equality.

Reply to Kelly, at 11:05 am EST on November 8, 2006

I am very concerned that so many people hold up “treating everyone exactly the same” as “equality,” including ethnic, gender, and sexual equality.

As a heterosexual European-American male, and an evangelical Christian, I recognize that putting forward an argument of “sameness” only serves to reinforce social advantages of the “majority” (note that people like me are the majority, even when the population includes more women).

There is something people who claim to be supporting “equality” while opposing Affirmative Action should consider — the existence of privileged irresponsibility. Unfortunately there’s no Wiki page on this, but however you do so, before arguing that everyone must be treated the same, please inform yourselves about privileged irresponsibility and selective history. When I learned about them, I could not deny their existence; and when I recognized their existence, I had to change my views.

It is not to say that anyone opposed to me is a “bigot;” we all have our assumptions, which feed into our bigotries. But it is to say that, when we are properly informed, we recognize that not everyone is the same, and society does not treat everyone in the same way. Therefore, establishing laws based on sameness is a very poor way to regulate our society.

Many people will disagree with me — more power to you for caring. But if you really care, please, for your own sake, inform yourself of privileged irresponsibility and selective history. My life is so much better for it — I would wish this change on everyone (hey, I can’t help it — I’m an evangelical!).

Kirk

Kirk, PhD Student at Syracuse University, at 11:10 am EST on November 8, 2006

Here we go AGAIN...

It never ceases to amaze me how, when people here the term “Affirmative Action,” they automatically focus on race. Then, there’s the pervasive myth of minorities — particularly Blacks — being underqualified. (You know, those Negros were never too bright. I mean, their ancestors got caught & sent here, didn’t they?) No one ever, ever, ever talks about gender. Heavens no. White women have benefitted MORE from Affirmative Action than anyone else; however, folks still think that college admissions personnel are grabbing every Black kid off the street and admitting them to their institutions.

Dear me. When oh when did we think that Whites are always qualified? When oh when did we always think that White men are qualified? Still, people go on about how slavery ended eons ago and such; yet, Jim Crow legistlation isn’t even retirement age, last I checked. Oh me oh my. Our own president is an Affirmative Action case, is he not? I mean hell, who else can come from a powerful, wealthy family, gradaute from an Ivy school with a barely passing GPA, have run-ins with the law and STILL steal an election? The conservatives are saying, “America’s becoming to Hip-Hoppety, too brown. Let’s keep THEM out, especially if it means my kid will have to suffer!”

Yee-ha. Class and race in America are so closely aligned that it’s hard to differentiate one from the other. Yes there are poor whites. Yes there are wealthy Blacks. However, the percentages still fall in favor of Blacks, because Black America is STILL recovering from centuries of institutionalized racism (Affirmative Action for whites) that denied them even the privilege to vote. Tut-tut. Remember, Jim Crow legislation hasn’t yet reached the tender old age of 65... If one were to check demographics, there were more Blacks in the South than in the North, so, how much do you think has been done to rectify all the damage “White-only” affirmative action has caused? Oh, by the way, Brown vs. Board of Ed isn’t retirement age yet EITHER. So see? One doesn’t have to go back generations, just ask your parents or an older relative. I wonder how many of YOU who are pleased with these election results got to drink from that coveted water fountain. Hmmm... How many of YOUR parents, uncles, aunts and so on got to sit in the front of the bus, and felt entitled to do so. Hmmm... Uh-oh, have I touched a nerve? Well, good. Let’s continue.

So we should address how many WHITE WOMEN are reaping the benefits of Affirmative Action. Think of ANY major university and then consider how many recently appointed a female President. BOOM! There you have it: Affirmative Action strikes again! Didn’t anyone learn anything about Harvard’s now past President? Women no excelling in the hard sciences is a fact. Still, programs that recruit women to chemistry or engineering are Affirmative Action, and are now deemed as UNFAIR. So no, Little Suzie, you’ll have no special treatment, even though you are top in your class and you’re of an infinitesimally small percentage of female students here, no retention programs for you! Now strap on those stilettos and work that bunsen burner!

Where was I? Oh, rambling...yes, yes, yes...

I attended UMich and I always find it interesting that the largest Black population was in its body of althete-students. Well, come to think of it, MOST of the major NCAA sports-programs are really good about allowing those Negros to run and jump, unfettered in the recruitment process. But then, one arrives on campus and finds the majority of brown faces working at the cafeteria, or sweeping up some fratboy’s vomit. Hmmm...is this mere coincidence? Honestly, I didn’t realize that the Negroid race was overrunning any desirable collegiate institution. I mean, really. What sane White student’s trying to attend an Historically Black College? Uh-oh Spelman! Look out Morehouse! The ANGLOS are a’coming! Maybe, just maybe, what will happen is that Blacks will go BACK to segregation and enroll their kids in HBCUs. I assure you, there will be more for these parents to consider, especially when the average Black student at the predominantly White college constantly encounters hostility for being an Affirmative Action case. Remember all those cases of kids dressing in blackface? Hmmm. I wonder if there’s a connection to this newfound resentment...

As for the faculty issue, what’s hilarious to me is that there is already a significant underrepresentation for minority faculty, especially when it comes to tenure. I mean, maybe the Black race is just as dumb and lazy as many bigoted White males were SO openly willing to point out. (THANK YOU, great White Man, for your honesty. I shall be a credit to my race! I just have to be!) Hmmm. Maybe women and that confounded maternity-leave just need to stay their pretty little heads home in their kitchens, and let men handle men’s work: research and publication. That’s right little-missy! You benefit too. You know, I won’t even get to the discrimination and bias endured by those who are on the opposite of that lively binary, especially people who are openly gay or are of an unfamiliar religion. Let’s just keep watching “Will & Grace” and believe that they embody the typical gay experience in America. Yes! You can be independently wealthy or a lawyer and be safe all the time! Oh, and never mind those who are sad and downtrodden, being gay is a full-time party! You’ll never require Affirmative Action policies to help you out. Dear me, no. Besides, when it’s time to redecorate the office, they’ll need you. You’re in!!

So yeah, let’s celebrate moving the social-progress back several decades. Let’s rejoice in re-instituting systematic bias an dprejudice against ALL who are the lesser-represented. I wonder how many White women really believe they just worked so hard and were rewarded. I wonder how many White men believe that they aren’t privileged, just because they’re struggling to get by. Race privilege in this country, and in this world, exist in ways people would never imagine. I take that back — WHITE PRIVILEGE exists in this country in ways people would never imagine. Yes, even you Billy Bob, in your trailer park have more privilege than you realize. Some may call it a myth, but let’s see them try to catch a taxi or be accidentally shot in the back by police or followed in the store or asked about intimately personal data when applying for a mortgage or...well, maybe I’m imagining things. In the latest film, “The Departed,” Jack Nicholson’s character says in the opening lines that what’s wrong with Blacks (he says Niggers in the film) is that they expect everything to be handed to them. Maybe he’s right. Maybe I’m too sensitive. I’m such a woman! Hmmm, maybe it’s all going on in my pretty little head.

SAM, at 12:25 pm EST on November 8, 2006

I am an african american male and am a supporter of socioeconomically based version of affirmative action. The disparity between the quality of life of the average white males vs. that of their respective minority counterparts is very evident. That being said I used to be a supporter of race based affirmative action but for the reasons listed by various commentators, it does not work as it should. The help given to those minorities who from a socioeconomic standpoint do not need it is just as wrong as when disadvantaged, poor whites are lumped into the same boat as their more affluent bretheren. AA has been utilized because it is hte best thing that is on the book. I would be less upset about his vote in California if it were paired with an economically based form of affirmative action because make no mistake it is necessary. The decrease of minority representation in both Texas and California gives a dark vision of what is in store in Michigan if constituents and legislators do not place more focus on the overall education policy from headstart all the way through high school. If the quality of education where even, then the playing field would be even, but until America is truly a free country, free of constraints placed on paricular individuals because of race, economics, and a historical factors.But what we as minorities should be more upset with is the historic lack of voter turnout by minorities. Until we are willing to take part in the democratic process we do not and will not live in a democracy. Even the feeling of disenfranchised voters does not give rationale to not voting. There needs to be a consistent and aggressive drive in “get out hte vote” for all Americans so that the fate of cities, states, and a country aren’t determined by a few willing to make their voice heard.

Dean, at 12:30 pm EST on November 8, 2006

Equality

This issue all comes down to how you view equality. Some individuals believe that the only way to achieve equality is to have everyone start with the same advantages. Others believe that equality only requires everyone be under the same rules. How one views the outcome of the Michigan decision is greatly defined by ones opinion on the definition of equality.

James, at 1:50 pm EST on November 8, 2006

AA supporters don’t want to fix the real problem

It’s interesting that both sides assume white males are the primary victims of AA. But there is solid empirical research (e.g. by Espenshade and Chung of Princeton) to show that the true victims are Asians. Sure, whites lose some slots to AA, but they make it up on legacy and athletic admits (after all, most of those cross country and lacrosse rosters aren’t filled with folks of color).

Meanwhile, William Scott is completely right to remind us that African-Americans still suffer from the after-effects of slavery. As a white Republican who supported MCRI, I freely admit that it is our duty as a nation (and as taxpayers) to ensure that educational justice is finally served for the great great grandchildren of the slaves.

But AA as it currently exists does not accomplish this noble and necessary goal, it’s just an entitlement program for the black middle class, Many of its beneficiaries are in fact of African or Carribean rather than true African-American descent (think Obama at Harvard).

AA at elite colleges and law schools intervenes far too late in life to help African-American children overcome the still living legacy of slavery. To solve the real problem, Democrats and Republicans will have to join hands to fix the hideous educational death trap that our urban public schools have become. In a nutshell, this means raising property taxes on well-off white home owners and breaking the power of the teachers’ unions to resist the introduction of market competition and parental choice (aka vouchers).

Both conditions are indispensable. Right now it doesn’t look like either side is willing to sacrifice its sacred cows. A little leadership from the Democratic side of the fence might help right now — as a Republican, I’m telling you that I and many like me are willing to talk turkey about taxes. But I’m not holding my breath.

Jeff, at 3:55 pm EST on November 8, 2006

Real Affirmative Action

Contrary to what many of my fellow commentators in this forum have said, affirmative action is not relevant for every higher education institution, neither is it about admitting those who are unqualified. The book Shape of the River by Bowen and Bok does an excellent job of demonstrating that affirmative action policies are only relevant for and practiced by the 200 or so moderate to highly selective postsecondary institutions in the U.S. Out of over 4000 postsecondary institutions nationwide, this is a mere drop in the bucket. Related to this point though is the fact that for most college students, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, they are attending a college or university that is NOT practicing affirmative action. Let’s take note of the fact that there is a difference between having a equal opportunity statement and an affirmative action statement. The University of Michigan used affirmative action, Wayne State University does not and does not need to in order to achieve racial, ethnic, or gender diversity. Why is this important to know? Because contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of White traditional age college students were not likely denied admission to their preferred college on the basis of affirmative action since the institutions that use affirmative action do not admit any where near a majority of college students.

Secondly, AA has nothing to do with admitting those who are unqualified for admission. For instance, let’s say Selective University has a minimum GPA requirement of 3.3 and minimum SAT requirement of 1200. You have Joe App who has a GPA of 3.9 and an SAT of 1400 and Bill App with a GPA of 3.3 and SAT of 1250. Only one spot remains in the first year class, so only one of these can be admitted. Guess what, they are BOTH qualified for admission to Selective University because they BOTH have scores equal to or above the university’s minimum requirements. How do I break this tie? Well, Selective University has a racial/ethnic population that’s 93% White, 3% non-White, and 4% international with very few first-generation students and a lot of upper-middle and upper class students. Having a diverse student body is important to Selective U. so I look now at race/ethnicity. Bill App is a person of color(he could also be first generation and/or working class). Joe App looks like most of the students who are already there (White, parents attended college, upper-middle class), so Selective admits Bill App, a QUALIFIED applicant and denies Joe App, who is ALSO qualified. Has Selective denied Joe App his equal rights by denying him admission? NO. Selective has simply exercised its right to practice academic freedom to choose its first-year class.

Under the same example, none of those who are applauding the vote in Michigan would have a problem with denying Joe App if Bill App was working class, first generation, and White. Why do you have a problem denying Joe App when the difference is race? Consider that a rhetorical question.

Dafina Stewart, Ph.D., Assistant Professor at Bowling Green State University, at 3:55 pm EST on November 8, 2006

This issue all comes down to how you view equality. Some individuals believe that the only way to achieve equality is to have everyone start with the same advantages. Others believe that equality only requires everyone be under the same rules. How one views the outcome of the Michigan decision is greatly defined by ones opinion on the definition of equality.

The most astute observation of the day... the accusations on both sides that others are willfully bigoted or discriminatory is rather juvenile.

K.T., at 3:55 pm EST on November 8, 2006

The Public Has Spoken

The public has definitely spoken on the issue of affirmative action. This is the third time that a state has passed a ballot initiative banning state supported affirmative action.

The MCRI was opposed by the major newspapers, university administrations, the unions, the civil rights organizations and many religious organizations. The proponents of the measure were routinely caricatured as prejudiced or at best misguided. The opponents outspent the supporters by at least three to one. Yet the measure passed with an almost 3 to 2 majority.

The thing is that most of the people who are in the college administrations and are leaders of civic organizations occupy positions of privilege in our society. Most people who vote do not. They are not legacies, they are not rich, and they have not ever had anything handed to them on a silver platter. When their children apply to college nobody is looking out for their kid’s applications. The opponents of MCRI are asking the majority of people to work very hard to make the money to pay the taxes to support the elite state universities where their children are discriminated against. Did anyone really expect them to vote against a measure that to most people is simply a matter of fairness?

I have one question for the President of the University of Michigan.

What part of no don’t you understand?

The admissions policies of the University were flagrant violations of the fourteenth amendment and now they will be violations of Michigan State Law.

The pros and cons of AA have been debated for years. What the MCRI vote tells us is that as far as the American public is concerned the issue is essentially settled with a sizeable majority of people opposed to it.

Jonathan Cohen, at 6:25 pm EST on November 8, 2006

Hail to the Victors?

As a UM alumna, I am not surprised that the state of Michigan finally got rid of Affirmative Action. It IS Klan country after all. I’m actually shocked it took this long to do away with the policy. It was working too well, after all.

Oh, note, these people will cheer for the athlete, but they vehemently oppose ANY possible threat to their status and privilege. I do recall that after orientation, there was an unofficial “Black orientation” where students warned freshmen where NOT to go, even during sunrise. It seems that the Klan’s beloved Grand Dragon was also a “neighbor” who lived not too far away from good-ole A-Squared (Ann Arbor).

I also came across this lovely tidbit while net-surfing: http://www.mediamouse.org/features/101306racis.php

Yes, there are some towns, like Howell, MI, where non-whites are virtually non-existent. There was a significant amount of racial hostility and tension on campus when I was there nearly a decade ago. I wonder, now that everyone’s being held to the same standard (although many have a greater head-start), what will the new sources of tension be?

How does one view equality? Well, it’s hard to say when the Western paradigm as always been to play with a stacked deck...

Grad Student, at 7:20 pm EST on November 8, 2006

Thank you, Michiganders

The comment by Jonathan Cohen is compelling, poignant, and powerful. It says it all with brevity and accuracy.

The weeping, hand-wringing, racist allegations, guilt-tripping, finger-pointing, and enraged charges from the brown-shirted thugs of BAMN and their preferences supporters will continue to rain down on the voters, the campuses and chat rooms for months on end.

The bottom line truth is that the American people have repudiated racist double standards and group differences in treatment for public employment, contracting and admissions.

The diversity zealot President at Ann Arbor can stomp, fume and stammer all she likes, eerily resembling George Wallace standing in the school doorway vowing “never.”

But a brigade of lawyers will be watching UofM and public contracting agencies like hawks and at the first sign of their law breaking, down will come the hammer and the gavel.

“Whenever the railroad train of history goes around a sharp curve,” observed Lenin, “a certain group of intellectuals fall off.”

Adios, Mary Sue Coleman and her desperate band of race-thinkers. Thank you Michiganders for booting them into mid-air.

Shawna, at 6:30 am EST on November 9, 2006

2nd reply to Kelly

According to the national Department of Education, 133 women will graduate from college for every 100 men this year. By the decade’s end, projections show that there will be 142 female graduates for every 100 male graduates.

Kelly, for the good of all of us minorities (non-white non-females) please drop out of college and do your part to stop the white female oppression of everyone else.

Thanks!

Mike H, at 6:35 am EST on November 9, 2006

Affirmative Action

“Michigan as Klan country?” You must be joking — it is the Upper Midwest (not Indiana), a “blue” state, home of the UAW, two liberal Democratic Senators, etc. etc.

As a Michigan native I am ecstatic that we finally got rid of affirmative action. Now U of M alumni have to make sure it is not brought in the back door through changes to the weighting of various application criteria.

Univ of Wash PhD Student, at 6:40 am EST on November 9, 2006

Joshua falls into a trap that has hand-cuffed academia for decades: he defines “merit” as test-scores and class-rank. Undoubtedly, students worked hard for high grades, lofty class-ranks, and test-scores approaching perfect. The question is “what do these things have to do with meriting a seat in a classroom to be taught by one of the best"? The academy has defined merit along these lines, and while they may be one logical definition of merit, they are not by any means the only let alone the best definition. Other definitions that could be used are: purpose for which said education is desired; desire to learn (achievement is not the only analog that could be used here to measure desire); or previous family access to this education (perhaps you eliminate legacies because their families have already had access to a particular school). These are just a few examples of how one might otherwise define merit. When one is arguing about “fairness” and what one “deserves” one needs to be a bit more open-minded. One person’s definition of merit is another’s definition of road-block. The current definition of merit is far more a definition of the lottery of life (born into a family from a “good” zip code) than it is a measure of what anyone has achieved, or merited. To claim anything else is to deny what the research has shown. The number one predictor of academic success in higher education is your zip code, and that prediction is the earliest one we have as it holds true from the birth of the candidates.

Michael, at 4:50 pm EST on November 10, 2006

Tim Wise Piece: Affirmative Action for Whites

May 24, 2003

The Mother of All Racial Preferences:

Reflections on Affirmative Action for White Folks

By Tim Wise

A slightly different version of this essay appeared as a ZNet Commentary, 5/24/03

Ask a fish what water is and you’ll get no answer, and not only because fish can’t speak. Even if they were capable of vocalizing a reply, they wouldn’t have one for such a question. When water surrounds you every minute of the day, explaining what it is becomes impossible. It simply is. It’s taken for granted.

So too with this thing we hear so much about called “racial preference.” While many whites apparently are convinced that the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.

Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S. Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians, and American Indians could not. Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.

In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially-restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the ’60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs. In other words, on balance, white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in history. Such preference has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.

White racial preference explains why white families, on average, have a net worth eleven times that of black families: a gap that remains substantial even when only comparing families of like size, composition, education and income status; and it also helps explain, at least in part, why a full-time black male worker in 2003 made less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities do not merely indicate the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites: the necessary flipside of discrimination.

Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents: property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time when people of color couldn’t. To place this in perspective, we should note that this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRA’s and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.

Yet few whites think of our position as resulting from racial preference. Indeed, we pride ourselves on our hard work and ambition, as if we invented the concepts; as if we have worked harder than the folks who were forced to pick cotton and build levees for free; harder than the Latino immigrants who spend ten hours a day in fields picking strawberries or tomatoes; harder than the (mostly) women of color who clean up messy hotel rooms, or change bedpans in hospitals, or the (mostly) men of color who collect our garbage: a crucial service without which we would face not only unpleasant smells but the spread of disease.

We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity: housing, education, employment, criminal justice, politics and business. We ignore that at every turn, our hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure to which millions of others have been denied similar access. Privilege, to us, is like water to the fish: invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it.

It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President’s critique of affirmative action at the University of Michigan, during the recent court battle over so-called “racial preferences” at that institution. President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action — the kind set-aside for the rich and mediocre — proclaimed that the school’s policies were unfair. Yet in doing so he not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but also made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation; an inability sadly ratified by the Supreme Court when it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Michigan case, in June 2003.

To wit, the President, and ultimately the Supreme Court, attacked Michigan’s policy of awarding twenty points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who were members of underrepresented minorities, which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians. To many whites such a “preference” was blatantly discriminatory. Yet what Bush and the Court failed to mention were the greater numbers of points awarded for other things, and which had the clear effect of preferencing whites to the exclusion of people of color.

For example, Michigan awarded twenty points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since those points could not be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don’t get forty points), in effect this was a preference for poor whites. Then Michigan awarded sixteen points to students from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural and almost completely white area.

Of course both preferences were fair, based as they were on the recognition that economic status and geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for such things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences, though disproportionately awarded to whites, remained uncriticized throughout the litigation on this case, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remained hidden because it wasn’t called white preference, even if that was the effect.

But that’s not all. Ten points were awarded under the Michigan plan to students who attended top high schools, and another eight points were given to students who took an especially demanding AP and Honors curriculum. As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may have been race-neutral in theory, but in practice they were anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan’s schools are the most segregated in America for blacks according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the “best” schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites. So even truly talented students of color would have been unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status, and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.

Then up to twelve points were awarded for a student’s SAT score, which is itself directly correlated with a student’s socioeconomic status, which in turn is highly correlated with race in a way that favors whites and disadvantages most students of color.

Four more points were awarded to students with a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites.

In other words, Michigan was offering twenty “extra” points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 70 extra points for students who would almost all be white. But while the first of these were seen as examples of racial preferences, the second were not, hidden as they were behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded. White preferences, by being the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.

To recognize just how blind so many white Americans are to the workings of white privilege, one need only consider the oft-heard comment by whites that “if I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college.” Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any group, even with affirmative action, to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, “that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same: that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.”

But this ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself: the privilege of not having one’s intelligence questioned by books like The Bell Curve, or one’s culture attacked as dysfunctional by politicians and so-called scholars; the privilege of not having to worry about being viewed as “out of place” when driving, shopping, buying a home, or attending the University of Michigan; the privilege of not being denied an interview for a job because your name sounds “too black,” as a recent study discovered happens often to African American job-seekers.

So long as those privileges remain firmly in place and the preferential treatment that flows from those privileges continues to work to the benefit of whites, all talk of ending affirmative action is not only premature but a slap in the face to those who have fought and died for equal opportunity.

Nikki, Maybe you will listen to a white guy at UCLA where there is NO diversity, at 4:05 pm EST on November 11, 2006

Ban not Bigotry

Couple points: As noted, it doesn’t make much sense to call a ban on state discrimation “bigoted".

Secondly, minority enrollment in the UC system did not “plunge” after Prop 209 was passed. In fact, minority enrollment overall increased, while white enrollment decreased. (This is partly because asians, who also suffered historical discrimination, were now being judged fairly against their white counterparts.)

Even latino/african-american enrollment has remained fairly constant in the UC system. The only difference is that they are now (to a greater degree) attending those UC schools where their admissions numbers make them competitive. One can also argue this provides them with a better educational experience than if they were somewhere where everyone else had higher admissions standards.

Finally, the problem with race-based AA, as also noted, is that it does not focus on those people who are disadvantaged, but rather makes blanket assumptions that all latinos/blacks need help, while no whites do. The truth is that we can help those minorities who are in fact disadvantaged without use to blanket ethnic preferences. We can do so by programs that focus on educational and economic opportunity. In that way, we won’t unfairly reward privileged minorities (1/3 of all african-american households earn more than the average white household) or unfairly punish underprivileged whites. (1/3 of all white households earn less than the average african-american household.) We also won’t perpetuate divisiveness and negative stereotypes the way that current AA does.

John, at 1:20 pm EST on November 12, 2006

I cannot believe that the clip of Tim Wise’s discussion about race and white privilege is not heard by rational people. And as for the “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument, give me a break. You cannot “fix” racial discrimiation on the backs of those historically discriminated against-it can only occur by those who have received the advantages. The cycle has to be broken-leveling the unlevel playing field, which took hundreds of years to create, will take many years to undo. It will take reasonable people to understand the long-term effects of the racial problems of this country which Tim Wise describes in a very rational way. But I understand that racism and racial fear is irrational and after reading these posts from so-called educated people, I fear will never end.

andy, at 8:36 am EST on November 14, 2006

It is interesting that we can still vote behind closed curtains to pass laws which have the affect to limit access based on race (Remember Jim Crow laws), yet we all know, especially in higher education, that preferences which have an adverse affect on the admissions of racial/ethnic minority groups are prevalent in admissions. Further, we all know (if we as a society are honest) that race still does matter in hiring, promotion, contracting, where we go to church, etc. I always remain hopeful that Dr. ML King’s dream of equality will be realized in the US but that is still just a dream when you see efforts like this to hamper the progress of a group of people because of who they are.

Many forget that the purpose of affirmative action is to right a wrong and the number of those benefiting is all so small! These very laws are perhaps discriminatory in and of themselves in that they only attack racial preferences and leave all other preferences alone.

Hope, at 10:05 am EST on November 17, 2006

Affirmative Action’s Shifting Demographics

Advocates who cite slavery and Jim Crow laws as the justification for affirmative action programs are ignoring demographic changes that are making a mockery of affirmative action. Hispanic Americans have surpassed African Americans as the nation’s largest minority. Hispanics are becoming the majority in California, Texas, and most of the Southwest. In my hometown, a border city of about 750,000 residents, 80 percent of the population is Hispanics. Intermarriage between Anglos and Hispanics is common, yet the offspring of these unions (think Camneron Diaz) are also eligible for affirmative action. Once the city’s African American, Native American, Asian and non-Hispanic white females are counted, about 95 percent of the city’s population is eligible for affrimative action programs. As you might imagine, this make affirmative action extremely popular.

Blair, at 1:46 pm EDT on March 18, 2007