I'm a pretty big fan of Jon Chait, and in principle, I agree that Obama should embrace class-based Affirmative Action, but I find some of the reasoning behind this disturbing:
Third, the politics are phenomenal for him. He needs to try to regain his "post-racial image" that took such a beating in the primary. When you read interviews with whites who fear Obama, they often express a fear that Obama is only going to look out for his fellow African-Americans. What better way to show this isn't true?
But Chait doesn't ask why this is true. Maybe it's because I'm, you know, black, but there is nothing more irritating about the heat Affirmative Action generates, as compared to its actual effect on white people. From a black perspective, the greatest engine of our middle class are Historically Black Colleges and Universities which still generate half of all black college degrees in this country, 50 percent of all black school teachers, and 70 percent of all black doctors and physicians. This is why I've always been kind of "meh" about Affirmative Action myself. On the other hand, I'd love to see some stats on how many white folks will ever be affected by Affirmative Action in any way. I know that this is politics and Obama is a politician, but a tacit acceptance of irrational racial fear, is dangerous and short-sighted.
I have a radical theory: If you never address white paranoia, class-based Affirmative Action is doomed. What Chait isn't seeing (and I submit this with much respect, because I am a fan) is that racism poisons everything. The War on Poverty programs were also class-based, but that didn't stop white racists from demonizing these programs a handouts to Negroes. Welfare supported more white people than black, but that didn't stop people from turning poor black women into welfare queens. The theory of class-based Affirmative Action as "great politics" rest on a foundation which black folks have always found wanting--the ability of crucial swaths of white people to not cut off their nose to spite their face. But, in regards to race, this country entire history is based on white people cutting off their nose to spite their face.
As policy, class-based Affirmative Action is great. As politics it is a nasty short-cut which seeks to avoid a very difficult, and politically costly discussion: Of all the great forces affecting the daily lives of white people, why do so many believe that Affirmative Action is somehow crucial? Given this country history and treatment of black people why does AA bother so many whites? Is it because it's poorly constructed policy? Or is it something else. You know what I think kids.
MORE: Commenter Riise offers an interesting critique:
It's true that I have no backup for the claim that "most white people aren't affected" by Affirmative Action--which is why I don't make that claim anywhere in the original post. Even the sentence the reader cites is much more nuanced than that (If I may compliment myself). What I asked was "Of all the great forces affecting the daily lives of white people, why do so many believe that Affirmative Action is somehow crucial?" Clearly that question rests on the idea that there are other forces that have a greater impact on the lives of whites but even that isn't the same as saying "most white people aren't affected.""Of all the great forces affecting the daily lives of white people, why do so many believe that Affirmative Action is somehow crucial?"
Eh, I dunno about this sentence. I support affirmative action, but I understand and am slightly sympathetic to arguments against it. The idea that "most white people aren't affected" is a spurious one, and a slightly irrelevant one. First of all, do you have any backup for that? I mean, every white person who applies to college is affected by it. Most white people applying for a job are affected by it. Every white person running a business are affected by it...That's a lot of white people. Again, I support the policy, because I think that the minorities it helps are affected by a whole range of other factors that make it harder, but I think to say most white people aren't affected by the policy is wrong. It may be only at certain times in one's life, but they are important times (college application, job interview, etc.)
Also, even if a white guy isn't affected by it, that's kind of beside the point. It's a policy you can either support or oppose. There's probably a million policy questions that don't really affect YOU (or maybe only on the periphery) , like gay marriage or extended tours of duty in Iraq or abortion rights, that you would get majorly riled up about. And rightly so. Again, not necessarily agreeing with the sentiment of AA-opposition, but why should they not be worked up about something they oppose?
It's true that Affirmative Action will affect you if your white and apply to college, depending on where you live. In fact Affirmative Action has effectively been outlawed in almost a third of the country (Michigan, Texas, Florida, California). Furthermore, it's spurious, on its face, to say that Affirmative Action affects every job--or even most jobs--people apply for. I highly doubt it has any serious affect on, say, entry level jobs at Wal-Mart, which last time I checked was the largest employer in the country. But agricultural policy, for instance, comes with no such caveats. It affects everyone, everywhere who consumes food. Yet the words "Farm Bill" or "Agricbusiness" simply don't ring with same emotion as "Affirmative Action."
All of that said, I think it's pretty clear in the post that I am--at best--lukewarm toward race-based Affirmative Action, and thus very sympathetic to the policy arguments against it. And the commenter is correct, you can oppose it even if it has no effect on you. But that post isn't a defense of Affirmative Action. It's an argument over whether class-based Affirmative Action will fair any better. One point I'd make--class-based Affirmative Action would still disproportionately aid blacks more than any other group, save Latinos. As I said before, we tried the stealth apporach once before--it was called the War On Poverty. There was nothing race-based about it. How'd that work out?
MORE: In the interest of equal time. Here is Riise's well-considered response. We aren't in total agreement, but I think he makes some excellent points:"It's true that I have no backup for the claim that "most white people aren't affected" by Affirmative Action--which is why I don't make that claim anywhere in the original post."
Acknowledged. Not sure why I thought I saw that sentence, so what I was responding to was certainly a more extreme position than the one you staked out, at the very least. Apologies for the misread.
But moving on to your substantive critique...
"But agricultural policy, for instance, comes with no such caveats. It affects everyone, everywhere who consumes food. Yet the words "Farm Bill" or "Agricbusiness" simply don't ring with same emotion as "Affirmative Action.""
In some sense, yeah. But again, you could make the exact same argument about abortion. Many more people will be affected by agricultural policy than abortion law, but people get more worked up about Roe v. Wade and rightly so. It's because the issues at hand are basic of issues of life and death, freedom of choice, equality, etc. Likewise, affirmative action is viewed by many (on both sides) as an issue of racial and social equality. Why shouldn't these issues attract more attention than the wonky details of agricultural policy? There's simply more hanging in the balance on issues like aff. action or abortion or gay marriage than on other, less popular issues, even if the less popular ones "affect" more people. Even if a white guy doesn't encounter affirmative action on a daily basis, the way in which he encounters it (e.g. failing to get a job because he's white) would tend to rile him up, and it's easy to see why.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
In regards to race, this country entire history is based on white people cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Does this include slavery?
The above is not intended as snark, by the way. I wonder what your argument for nose/face spite is in the large-scale exploitation of "free" labor.
No, I wouldn't include slavery, mostly because slavery was fairly universal around the world. That said, I would include the apparatus that came with slavery--the notions of white supremacy. Whereas slavery is virtually as old as civilization, white supremacy (which arose as a means to justify slavery) is a relatively recent development.
I would argue that white supremacy has been the cause of much pain for American whites as well as blacks. As I've argued before, this is the only country in the west that sacrificed 700,000 of its own to end slavery. Think about that. We basically had to sacrifice a major city--and really major city by 19th century standards--to end slavery.
Yes, it would include slavery, cause the vast majority of southern whites weren't slave owners, were economically damaged because they had to compete with free labor, yet they were willing to fight, kill and die in defense of such a system
Here's my problem with affirmative action:
In cases of education or business, the idea that I could provide a superior product, service, or resume and have that superseded solely by another applicant's skin color, regardless of his/her personal background is grossly unfair...I especially think of this in terms of business as a self-employed person, and that I could apply for city funds and lose out on this even though i could provide a better and more efficient service for the public purpose that I am trying to serve. And what kind of message does that send to younger minorities? It simply pounds into their heads that they are disadvantaged at all times and without a leg up they couldn't compete with whites. To me, that's a recipe for perpetuating the condition of black or other minorities as second-class citizens rather than erasing it.
"Of all the great forces affecting the daily lives of white people, why do so many believe that Affirmative Action is somehow crucial?"
Eh, I dunno about this sentence. I support affirmative action, but I understand and am slightly sympathetic to arguments against it. The idea that "most white people aren't affected" is a spurious one, and a slightly irrelevant one. First of all, do you have any backup for that? I mean, every white person who applies to college is affected by it. Most white people applying for a job are affected by it. Every white person running a business are affected by it...That's a lot of white people. Again, I support the policy, because I think that the minorities it helps are affected by a whole range of other factors that make it harder, but I think to say most white people aren't affected by the policy is wrong. It may be only at certain times in one's life, but they are important times (college application, job interview, etc.)
Also, even if a white guy isn't affected by it, that's kind of beside the point. It's a policy you can either support or oppose. There's probably a million policy questions that don't really affect YOU (or maybe only on the periphery) , like gay marriage or extended tours of duty in Iraq or abortion rights, that you would get majorly riled up about. And rightly so. Again, not necessarily agreeing with the sentiment of AA-opposition, but why should they not be worked up about something they oppose?
this generation of white people should take this one ( affirmative action) 4 the team ( America as a whole). 100 years from now, maybe i'll be ready to listen to their complaints.
stop whining about shit. the amount of self pity is unbeleivable. I mean, shit just started working in black peoples favour ( slightly) after how many 100 years? Its only been a minute comparatively that these unfair "advantages" have been in play, and they already depressed and throwing fits.
Lets not forget that the primary benefactors of AA have been white females, though it is still largely viewed as a Black thing.
Ta-Nehisi, I just finished saying what you've said in this post, though more broadly about racism as a means to drive everyones living standards down. Look over at Europe, at their wages, health benefits, vacation time, social safety net, etc., and look at the US. Racism is the reason no one in this country has these things. If you wanna kill a program or idea in the US, paint it black and its as good as done.
In Marxist terms, racism is referred to super-exploitation. It exploits one group harder but drives everyones wages down in the process. This is part of the reason wages are and have been so low in South, for example.
When white people wake up, they will see racism hurts them as well, and the super rich are manipulating those who labor for a living, against each other. At that point, we'll be talking about class based approach to reorganizing of the wealth in society as opposed to simply some reform program for jobs and education.
With regard to affirmative action in college admissions, I think one of its main problems is non-transparency. For every white who actually loses a spot, there are many who think that's why they didn't get in. I think it should work as follows: Hold a lottery among the admitted whites, and send each of the winners a card that says "Congratulations, you have been randomly selected to help right an historical wrong: your place in the entering class of University of College has been given to an underrepresented minority." Sure the recipient might resent this, but at least you wouldn't have so many losers blaming their failure on someone else.
I agree with Kai of Rebelology, more or less. It's a fight for a piece of the pie at the lower end, there is fear that you might lose what little you got - forget trying to get into collage. This is from Kathy G at Tapped
"increasing the minimum wage, providing universal health care, and making it easier to organize unions may well be more effective strategies for helping low-income families."
She also mentions more investment in trade schools etc.
Interesting how other commenters believe all white folks should 'take one for the team' to 'right a historical wrong.' This idea of collective guilt based on race is total BS - I feel as bad about our racial history as the average Joe, but the idea that I should consent to state-sponsored racial (or gender) preferences of any kind is ridiculous. Whatever help affirmative action provides (very little overall, I'd guess) is not going to compensate for structural problems like out of control illegitimate birth rates, low high school graduation rates, and endemic black-on-black violence. Fix the first two and the third would plummet and we wouldn't even be having this conversation about affirmative action.
Dear Ta-Nehisi Coates:
There actually isn't any proof that class-based "affirmative action" programs of one kind or another will disproportionately benefit blacks and Latinos. Keep this in mind: there are more poor and working-class whites in the US than there are blacks and-or Latinos. It is a simple numbers game.
As with any kind of government program or private initiative, if it isn't targeted, it isn't effective.
Also, know this: if it were not for federal, state, and local race-based assistance, there would not be the number of blacks firmly planted in the middle-classes you see today. How do you explain the large influx of black federal and state workers since the early 70s? Blacks and women in media? Blacks and women working in large corporations (especially the ones who compete for federal and state contracts)?
Finally, all those who find any kind of "affirmative action" program not to their liking tend to do so on some dubious notion of their always being some white man out there more qualified. They really aren't interested in the era when the competition was suppressed, and certainly won't listen to anyone who says that some of that suppression still takes place to an extent. Mr. Coates, you had it right on one thing: All those swift, smart blacks who attended historically black colleges pre-1970s were just that: swift and smart. And also restricted in the kinds of opportunities open to them. During that time, mediocrity was rife and acceptable as long as you were white.
From my previous post: "Keep this in mind: there are more poor and working-class whites in the US than there are blacks and-or Latinos."
I should have written: "...there are more poor and working-class whites in the US than there are poor and working-class blacks and-or Latinos."
From my previous post: "Keep this in mind: there are more poor and working-class whites in the US than there are blacks and-or Latinos."
I should have written: "...there are more poor and working-class whites in the US than there are poor and working-class blacks and-or Latinos."
"It's true that I have no backup for the claim that "most white people aren't affected" by Affirmative Action--which is why I don't make that claim anywhere in the original post."
Acknowledged. Not sure why I thought I saw that sentence, so what I was responding to was certainly a more extreme position than the one you staked out, at the very least. Apologies for the misread.
But moving on to your substantive critique...
"But agricultural policy, for instance, comes with no such caveats. It affects everyone, everywhere who consumes food. Yet the words "Farm Bill" or "Agricbusiness" simply don't ring with same emotion as "Affirmative Action.""
In some sense, yeah. But again, you could make the exact same argument about abortion. Many more people will be affected by agricultural policy than abortion law, but people get more worked up about Roe v. Wade and rightly so. It's because the issues at hand are basic of issues of life and death, freedom of choice, equality, etc. Likewise, affirmative action is viewed by many (on both sides) as an issue of racial and social equality. Why shouldn't these issues attract more attention than the wonky details of agricultural policy? There's simply more hanging in the balance on issues like aff. action or abortion or gay marriage than on other, less popular issues, even if the less popular ones "affect" more people. Even if a white guy doesn't encounter affirmative action on a daily basis, the way in which he encounters it (e.g. failing to get a job because he's white) would tend to rile him up, and it's easy to see why.
Sorry, I'm realizing it's possible I'm again not responding to your actual point. Were you saying that it's incorrect that they don't ring with the same emotion or simply observing that they'll never be that way? If option B, then I guess ignore my post...
Important to keep in mind that at the most elite colleges, being a legacy is more of an advantage than being in an affirmative action category. Similarly being an athlete -- and while the popular image of someone getting in for being an athlete may be a black basketball player, it's actually more likely to be a white lacrosse player, or rower, or squash player, or...
And I don't have data to hand at the moment, but it's certainly the case that a lot more white people believe themselves to have lost a job or rejected by a school because of affirmative action than has actually happened. A lot more.
I mean, every white person who applies to college is affected by it. Most white people applying for a job are affected by it.
Are white people being barred from higher education and employment? No. At most affirmative action is a minor inconvenience for some hypothetical white person who was edged out of a particular school by an equally qualified person of another race. Honestly, I doubt if it's even that. There are plenty of dumb white people with good jobs and college educations to prove my point. Cripes, they run the country.
"At most affirmative action is a minor inconvenience for some hypothetical white person who was edged out of a particular school by an equally qualified person of another race. Honestly, I doubt if it's even that."
Sorry, that is so insanely false, I don't even know where to begin. It's not "equally qualified." That's the whole point of affirmative action. It admits minorities who are, by the other standards used by the college, less qualified than other applicants. That is the nature of affirmative action, and I don't think its supporters would dispute that premise.
"There are plenty of dumb white people with good jobs and college educations to prove my point."
This somehow proves the point that affirmative action isn't actually what affirmative action claims to be? This point is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that dumb, white people get jobs does not mean that some white DON'T get a job they were more qualified for as a result of affirmative action.
There are other avenues to success besides college and there are other people who might be affected by affirmative action besides the individual who failed to get into an elite school. What about a biased foreman who wants to get his friends or neighbor a good high-paying job? Or into a good trade? Another example is a foreman who has race biases that might have more difficulties at work if there was a shift in the racial balance of the workers. When I worked as laborer on construction crews, I got the impression that race mattered a great deal to many if not most of the foreman. Had some of the foreman I worked with been forced to work with more minorities I think they would have had great difficulties.
Persons such as Riise who write about something called "affirmative action" tend to believe they themselves are always the most qualified in any pursuit.
With that said, let me add this: There is no such thing as "affirmative action" as one monolithic entity. There are many approaches and considerations and initiatives in the public and private spheres which in their totality can be summed up under that title. What Riise complains about, however, is itself insanely false for the reason that there is no one single approach. What Riise describes is mostly caricature, especially because whites have never been held to rigid standards of qualifications in just about any arena (jobs, schooling, whatever).
"Affirmative action" has always been the rule, not the exception in American life. Since the 1970s, it is just that black Americans have had a modest bit of it sent their way. So, please get a grip on yourselves, opponents of "affirmative action." Especially you, Riise, whoever the heck you are and whatever your user name implies.
BM Weber,
I am not an opponent of affirmative action. I said so in my previous posts (many times, so as to make it very clear). Some of the reasons you mention are reasons for which I support the policy.
However, it annoys me when people support affirmative action, but then want to pretend that it's not actually happening. The fact that legacy admission sucks or that people can be racist against blacks doesn't mean that affirmative action doesn't discriminate based on race. Like racism in hiring or school admission etc., affirmative action discriminates based on race. That is a fact. Whether or not it's a worthy program is another issue, but it just irritates me to no end when people pretend that affirmative action does not do what it was INTENDED to do.
Criticize the other aspects of American life in which merit is not the only consideration. Please do. I will, as well. But the fact that those factors exist does not mean that "affirmative action", that is any program that values minority status in hiring or admission or awarding contracts etc. is not in itself discriminatory. If it wasn't discriminatory, there'd be no reason for it to exist.
"especially because whites have never been held to rigid standards of qualifications in just about any arena (jobs, schooling, whatever)."
This is a ridiculous blanket statement. And, I mean, it's a racist statement. I assume you're white, but this statement makes broad, indefensible statements about the history of white people. I don't even think it's worthy of a response.
"Especially you, Riise, whoever the heck you are and whatever your user name implies."
My user name doesn't imply anything about me, except that I couldn't think of one and my favorite soccer player is (was, after the Chelsea debacle) John Arne Riise. He's a Norwegian dude. I am not.
Your points are simplistic, Riise. And repetitive. And very much ahistorical. You make the usual ad hoc arguments against "affirmative action." You add nothing to the debate at large.
My statement was neither "ridiculous" nor "blanket," just based on history. And it is the height of silliness to call it "racist." Do you know any American history, Riise? I called the racist history of restricted employment and education access a version of "affirmative action" to make a larger point which seems to have been lost on you.
If you don't like the way I phrased it, fine, but just because you deem what I said not worthy of comment doesn't make it untrue. Note this: I said "rigid standards" of qualifications, I did not say, "no qualifications." The history of America before "affirmative action" has not been one of rigid, meritocratic rule-following when it came to dispensing the goods.
Come back to start making comments when you've read a little bit more. How you feel and what you think about this (again, in that ad hoc sort of way) is irrelevant. Come back when you can articulate something based on historical reality.
Also, why can't you just come out and say why you really don't like "affirmative action" conceptually? Don't give us the usual wordy, ahistorical clap-trap that simply amounts to "two wrongs don't make a right." Ugh. This is what passes for sophisticated argument these days in the blogosphere?
BM Weber,
I mean I don't know what to say. You sound like the archetypal "snooty professor" character in some stupid movie. The basic argument you use, which is "If only you'd read the books I've read, then you'd know!" or "If you truly knew the history, then you'd say!", is a lame and pedantic one.
The arguments I make are not ad hoc arguments. They are legitimate reasons why someone might oppose affirmative action (though I do not, as I noted previously). Not every argument has to be some tortuous treatise with extensive footnotes. Sometimes very basic statements get to the heart of why something is right or wrong. And yes, you're right, "two wrongs don't make a right" is a simplistic summation of one reason a person might reasonably oppose AA. The longer version would go on to say that fixing past and current racism with a program of, perhaps, more obvious racial discrimination will serve only as a band-aid on the problem and serve to cause further racial resentment. I assume you'll say this is simplistic, but again, that's not an argument. So congrats.
And the larger point about affirmative action being part of a larger system of inequality in hiring, admission, etc. wasn't lost on me. I agree with it! And it's one of the reasons I support affirmative action. But it does not wipe out arguments against AA. Someone could quite legitimately say, "all aspects of American culture which undermine meritocracy are unjust and thus we should do our best to undo them." And on that basis they might oppose AA. And there's nothing ahistorical or immoral about that, in my opinion.
And lastly, you're acting like a huge dick. I think I was pretty cordial to you. Yeah, I responded to your statement by saying it wasn't worthy of response, but I was attacking your statement, not you. You don't know anything about me, and acting like I'm uneducated or something is clearly nothing more than an attempt to undermine me rather than address my arguments.
Keep it civil fellas. Nothing wrong disagreeing. Ain't gotta be personal though.
Riise,
You seem to live in some idealized world where everything functioned honestly and perfectly before "affirmative action." What riles you so about it? It the main and in the present, it really isn't so very much comprehensive that it affects huge numbers, either on the black and the white side. So why the disproportionate response? Just to make schoolboy debaters points? I wonder.
Dear Mr. Coates:
Message received. Thanks.
Dear Mr. Coates:
Message received. Thanks.
Not sure if anyone is still reading this but I find this phrase really interesting:
"Even if a white guy doesn't encounter affirmative action on a daily basis, the way in which he encounters it (e.g. failing to get a job because he's white) would tend to rile him up, and it's easy to see why."
I have to wonder if Riise has any more backup for this claim (ie: people failing to get jobs they "deserve" b/c of AA) than Ta-Nehisi did for his. That's not to say either is necessarily wrong -- it's just that it's virtually impossible to know for sure. Are there more blacks and women in colleges/the middle class because of AA? Or is it because we've gotten more enlightened since the Civil Rights Era? How on Earth do separate the two in any sort of study? Similarly, assuming you're not dealing with Mr. 4.0 GPA 1600 SAT, how do you know that white kid who didn't get into the "reach college" of his choice lost his place due to AA instead of the not-quite-perfect essay or the lack of extracurriculars or any of the many other qualitative factors that go into college admission? That question gets even trickier when you're talking about jobs, where personal relationships and social position matter a whole lot, and there's not even any universally recognized metric for deciding what makes someone a "better" candidate.
The fact is we just don't know how much marginal impact AA has as a policy. It seems intuitive that helps black folks some, and it seems intuitive that white folks sometimes don't have the same privileges they used to. But how much of that is AA and how much is the fact that middle class white folks now have to compete with the 12-15% of the population that was previously excluded (and that's leaving out the Asians, Latinos, etc... who are also competing for those admission slots and hot jobs)?
It's just ironic to me that we're supposed to be really concerned about white people being forced to deal with some sort of imposed inequality that may or may not exist given the state of education in this country. K-12 is still segregated. Every year a new study comes out documenting the way that young black and Latino public school kids in most cities in the country are given a grinding competitive disadvantage (less experienced teachers, higher turnover, fewer alternative schools, fewer financial resouces, etc, etc...). And of course, the social networks that will get you that awesome, high paying job have only become racially integrated very recently, and whites still have much better access to them than minorities do.
Riise lays out this argument that's it's frustrating to "know" you lost a job because you had the wrong race. And that's exactly the way the issue is usually framed. But of course it's offensive in that decontextualized context. It would be a lot harder to make that argument if we as a society were talking seriously about very real barriers we set up before you even get to the point where you can apply for college or a job.
BM Weber,
I don't get particularly riled up about, as noted previously, I'm not even arguing a point I believe myself. And I've never claimed the world before AA was perfect. Or even desirable (it wasn't).
"I wonder."
Incisive!
NS,
I think the last point you make is interesting, that it's actually difficult to "know" when affirmative action may have been at play. And I'd agree that often that assessment is made by white people, when that may not have necessarily been the reason.
At the same time, it's silly to say AA is not having an impact. Look at the numbers of minority admissions to the UC school system once AA was banned there. I just graduated from Michigan, and they had some assessment of how minority enrollment would collapse after AA was banned there. Some of that is due to applications falling, but that can't account for all of it. Those examples, where racial AA exists one year doesn't the next, offer pretty good proof that AA is having an effect. And, I mean, any admissions person could tell you that if your application ticks the box for African-American or Latino, it's a whole different ballgame in terms of what your GPA, SAT, extracurriculars, etc. need to be in order to get in.
Again, I support it, but isn't a little silly to pretend that it's not doing anything? It obviously is, and if it wasn't, there'd be no reason for it to exist.
In the college context it is Asian-Americans that are being asked to bite the bullet for past racial injustices. Is there any good reason why that should be so?
First, in order to argue about Affirmative Action, one would have to know what it is and that's where Riise's argument falls apart. Anyone wanting to argue about Affirmative Action should view Tim Wise's argument about it and argument from that point on.
The biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. It's a number's game. It doesn't bar poor white people and class based affirmative action wouldn't solve everything.
Riise is arguing on emotion of already accepted norms in the mainstream, I'm talking about the facts of affirmative action. Quota systems for hiring are illegal and have been since the 1970s. So it doesn't affect white people on the job, in fact despite the EEOC having many reports of discrimination (not by white people... surprisingly..they aren't able to investigate as many because of the abundance of reports). So, I say we argue, not "what we know to be true," based on how we think affirmative action works, but the facts of how Affirmative Action really works.
Your mothers received affirmative action, your girlfriends, your sisters, and your nieces and cousins. Any woman in a field dominated by men (particularly, in the maths and sciences) has probably felt the sting of being thought to be an affirmative action recipient.
Anyway, here's that video from Tim Wise:http://youtube.com/watch?v=6uH0vpGZJCo
In the college context it is Asian-Americans that are being asked to bite the bullet for past racial injustices. Is there any good reason why that should be so?
Sebastian, your argument is based on the assumption that Asian-Americans don't receive affirmative action. They do, it usually depends on a number of things, 1) ethnicity, 2) class, and 3) generational immigrant status divide. They also experience discrimination, backlash from the model minority myth, and a glass ceiling of their own. That's the thing, Frank Wu wrote an excellent book called "Yellow."
Riise,
I apologize --I didn't mean to come off as a dick, as you say.
Anyway, here goes, and it isn't directed at you, just the general trend of the debate.
Hypothetical anecdotes that bear no relation to the way American society actually works are senseless and useless except as ideology.
Hypothetical anecdotes reign supreme whenever "affirmative action" is the topic du jour, historical reality be damned! The way the world works is an inconvenience to even self-professed supporters of assistance programs and initiatives and so on.
(I see someone brought up the "Asian-American" trump card. As it is conceived, "affirmative action" isn't simply for restitution of the past horrors of racism, as it seems to be in the minds of most, but mainly for the current manifestations of discrimination which have their roots in past legal and extra-legal --public and private-- discrimination. It is an ongoing project rooted in present problems more than past awfulness. Anyway, vis a vis "Asian-Americans," why is it generally assumed that a black guy or gal is taking the place of an "Asian-American?" Selection processes are more complex than this incomplete (and silly) version of the zero-sum game. This is the problem: no one ever wants to talk about real-world selection and discrimination whether "affirmative action" exists or not. Biases of all kinds have existed (before "affirmative action")and continue to exist. "Affirmative action" even in its highly flawed form simply gives blacks (and women and Latinos and so on) entry into previously-existing biased selection processes, whether they were (are) rhetorically meritocratic or actually so. Everyone here seems reasonably intelligent, but the assumptions that inform some of the analyses are almost criminally limited.)
I don't mean to get anyone's goat, but many of us tend to resort to just-so stories to make inaccurate points. I wasn't being pedantic; I just wanted to speak up for the way our world actually functions historically and currently. Many of us seem to take the side of the factless, ahistorical, and strongly biased anecdote --this is what I object to.
I'm curious as to why Chait and those who are sympathetic to his argument think that race and class based AA must be mutually exclusive. I actually think if both were presented (as well as AA for women) as part of a larger project to counter disadvantage, there would be a broader base of political support to draw from. Whites in Brazil tend to favor AA because it explicitly benefits the poor, women, the indigenous as well as blacks. The argument might not hold up as well in the American context where the ideal of meritocracy has a firmer hold on the national imagination and the plight of the poor is an unfortunately less pressing political issue than in most countries in Central and South America, but I think embracing both rather than ditching one is the more politically just and politically shrewd move.
http://apcole86.blogspot.com/2008/06/debate-link-lash-part-ii.html