Yet Another “Me!” Defense Of Affirmative Action

Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D, Tenn) offers another example of an increasingly familiar argument in favor of racial preferences: he, himself benefited. (I have discussed other examples of this “Me!” defense here and here.)

Thanks to Dean Esmay for providing the link. Dean asks whether Ford 1) “believes he is intellectually inferior” and so needed a boost to get in, or 2) “believes that, regardless of his station in life [son of a Congressman, etc.], by dint of being black he is automatically entitled to privileges” that the sons of others, who aren’t black, aren’t.

It would be interesting to hear from Ford why he thinks he deserves a preference others don’t, but he’s not saying.

Ford has said in the past that he benefited from affirmative action, but he declined to discuss his LSAT score or grade point average.

Similarly, it would be good to hear more from Rep. (and now presidential candidate) Richard Gephardt (D, Mo.). Gephardt, a Michigan law graduate, says he plans to file a brief supporting Michigan’s preferential policies because he believes affirmative action “is an essential tool in expanding educational opportunities to minorities.” (Note that this is not a “diversity” but a racial benefit argument.) But I wonder if Gephardt would have been willing to sacrifice his spot at Michigan to make room for a black or a (Mexican or Puerto Rican) Hispanic or a Native American. If not, why does he think another white or Asian or some other un-preferred minority who would have been admitted in the absence of racial preferences should be forced to do so? Does Gephardt think he “deserved” his spot more than those rejected applicants because his grades and test scores were higher than theirs? If so, why didn’t the rejected applicants deserve a spot if their test scores and grades were higher than many of the preferentially admitted?

While I’m at it, I wonder if the minorities who are preferentially admitted believe they “deserve” to be admitted more than the minority applicants with lower grades and test scores who were not admitted. If so, why? The closer one looks at the practical implementation of preferences, the more they begin to look like the discredited “race norming,” taking the highest scorers from each (or at least from several) racial groups.