Affirmative Action As Non-Sequitur

Vontilla Steven, a student at the University of Miami, is

tired of hearing people write about how affirmative action is an unfair endeavor maintained to accept unqualified black people while leaving white people out in the cold, leading to “reverse discrimination.” This argument would be valid if we lived in an equal society.

Why? That is, if there is no fundamental right to be treated without regard to race, why would it be wrong to be so treated “if we lived in an equal society” (whatever that may be)?

Steven goes on to defend affirmative action by pointing to items and citing statistics that will be familiar to Discriminations readers. Among them:

  • Job applicants with black-sounding names fare worse than those without black-sounding names;
  • blacks pay more for mortgages and car loans;
  • blacks receive “inadequate healthcare, housing, education and possess less wealth than whites”;
  • “black student (sic) are more likely to attend a majority black school because of white flight to suburban areas and subsequent enrollment in private schools”;
  • “Blacks still find it hard to break away from Jim Crow laws of the South”;
  • “Some believe the government’s War on Drugs is a new version of Jim Crow because of the crackdowns in inner city neighborhoods.”
  • Etc.

Steven concludes:

Do not tell me that this is a fair and just nation because I know that it is not. Many choose issues that involve them directly and take that individual issue out of context. Just because it is not socially acceptable for someone to hurl racial slurs in my direction does not mean this nation is that far from its tragic past. Affirmative action is used to right obvious wrongs. To those of you who quote Dr. King’s speech for your purpose I would like to tell you this: It has barely started.

I am struck by two things here. First, assuming that the list of specific grievances is true (which, by the way, for the most part I do), affirmative action of any kind seems monumentally irrelevant as a solution to them.

Second, and more important, I think this angry essay is, sadly, rather typical, and I believe its defense of affirmative action is fueled much more by a generalized anger and resentment than by any belief that racial preferences in college admissions will do anything much to attenuate the identified problems. Mr. Steven is angry at America, and that anger places a very visible and nasty chip on his shoulder, a chip that will, unfortunately but predictably, serve as an anchor limiting his future mobility.

UPDATE [ 28 Feb.]

I frequently (though certainly not always) disagree with Washington Post columnist William Raspberry, but, as reader of all things Fred Ray correctly points out, Raspberry’s recent column is right on target.

Raspberry admits his frustration with poor black students in D.C. who fail to seize the opportunity for a heavily subsidized college education that recent legislation provides them.

The program doesn’t make college free, but it does make it affordable….

Thousands of young people have taken advantage of the break, with the result that the college enrollment rate here has increased significantly since the program was established in 1999.

But thousands of others don’t even see the opportunity that seems so obvious to us. Surely their numbers include the “knuckleheads” of Bill Cosby’s impatient description, kids who won’t try to speak or dress or behave in ways that might encourage someone to give them a break. The comedian has been particularly harsh regarding parents who won’t take these youngsters to the woodshed and make them understand that they are blowing their life chances.

Raspberry, demonstrating his perception and insight, agrees with the point made above — that pointing, with heavy chip on shoulder, to racism as the Great Alibi for personal failure is as much a detriment to success as bad language and offensive dress.

As I have said before, Cos is right about the blown chances — right also that it is past pointless to blame the resultant failure on racism….

I think the present generation of black leadership has to bear some responsibility for the fact that we have so many young (and not-so-young) people who are expert at spotting inequity but virtually blind to opportunity. The leadership’s purpose, I’m sure, was to keep pressure on “the system” to broaden opportunity for those who have too little of it. But one of the unintended consequences is that too many youngsters have concluded that they don’t have a chance, and that there’s nothing they can do about it.

The opposite is true, of course. For the first time in black American history, what we do is a greater determinant of our future than what is done to us. We need to teach that and preach that and shout that — to our young people and to ourselves. We need to take note of the immigrants, including those from Africa and the Caribbean, who see opportunity where too many born here see only disparity.

I couldn’t have said it better myself if I tried. (Wait! I did try….)

Say What? (3)

  1. notherbob2 February 27, 2005 at 7:49 pm | | Reply

    On the contrary, I see a bright future for Stephen working for the Democratic National Committee. Right now Howard Dean needs help writing the new plank in the Democratic platform designed to appeal to black people about how the Democrats will fund new programs to replace the older failed programs (before being, in turn, replaced when they fail, by newer programs) all of which will provide employment for oppressed minorities. Someday all of those employed in these programs will be fully trained for careers in advertising. As those programs provide less and less benefit and require more and more subterfuge to provide the appearance of effectiveness, the skills of their backers are becoming enviable to advertisers where their artful relationship with the truth will be in high demand.

  2. Andrew P. Connors February 28, 2005 at 9:39 am | | Reply

    John, I think you hit on a very important point here, which goes beyond affirmative action policy. Why is it that many (liberal) policies do nothing to address the problems they’re supposed to solve?

    Think “diversity”, for starters.

    Here at UVa, Noah Sullivan, the “progressive” student council president, has been pushing hard for hate crimes policy to be passed, so that larger punishment will be given to students who perpetrate crimes on racial, religious, and sexual grounds (and all those other protected things, but not, interestingly enough, political affiliation.) What is this supposed to address? Well, a few weeks ago, somebody in a passing car shouted at a black person to “go back to picking cotton.” Apparently, this legislation will solve this. Don’t ask me how.

  3. Cobra March 5, 2005 at 11:49 pm | | Reply

    >>>Well, a few weeks ago, somebody in a passing car shouted at a black person to “go back to picking cotton.” Apparently, this legislation will solve this. Don’t ask me how.”

    So I guess Dean M. Rick Turner was correct about the racially charged atmosphere on the UVA campus, huh Andy?

    Notherbob writes:

    >>>Right now Howard Dean needs help writing the new plank in the Democratic platform designed to appeal to black people about how the Democrats will fund new programs to replace the older failed programs (before being, in turn, replaced when they fail, by newer programs) all of which will provide employment for oppressed minorities.”

    Exactly which programs “failed?” Affirmative Action has not “failed” because the goals of inclusion are being met. Underrepresented minorities are being hired, admitted to schools, and receive government contracts at a far greater rate than BEFORE Affirmative Action. To me, that’s a SUCCESSFUL program.

    John writes:

    >>>I am struck by two things here. First, assuming that the list of specific grievances is true (which, by the way, for the most part I do), affirmative action of any kind seems monumentally irrelevant as a solution to them. ”

    You know something John? I actually AGREE with you here. (checking my own pulse)For the most part, the issues listed by Steven are VERY familiar to me, as I’ve probably posted at length on all of them in the past. Usually I post them and a myriad of others to support my belief that America is still a racist nation with much work to do.

    Affirmative Action won’t solve these problems anymore than anti-biotics would cure a spinal cord injury. The truth of course is that you can have BOTH the injury AND an INFECTION at the same time. Two different problems–two different solutions–BOTH neccessary. Now, the cure for the spinal cord injury, much like the cure for racism by the majority, elludes even the best and brightest among us.

    Now, the laundry list of attrocious racial inequities that Steven lists are issues that are largely ignored IMHO by the executive branch of government that is SUPPOSED to enforce laws on the books to prevent them. What good is ANY law if it isn’t enforced? Moreover, CONSERVATIVE legislators are pushing for bills that would make discrimination lawsuits HARDER to pursue. It’s a flanking maneuver those in the status quo to keep things just the way they are.

    –Cobra

Say What?