The Degradation Of American Liberalism

For most of its recent history — for virtually all of its 20th Century history — perhaps the two most fundamental, core commitments of American liberalism were its devotion to free speech and its determined opposition to racial discrimination.

Notice I said “were” rather than “have been,” because unfortunately both of those twin, identifying principles have been largely discarded. I was prompted, again (I’ve been here before), to this sad conclusion by some typically thoughtful, and provocative, comments in George Will’s column yesterday:

For several decades in America, the aim of much of the jurisprudential thought about the First Amendment’s free-speech provision has been to justify contracting its protections. Freedom of speech is increasingly “balanced” against “competing values.” As a result, it is whittled down, often by seemingly innocuous increments, to a minor constitutional afterthought.

On campuses, speech codes have abridged the right of free expression to protect the right — for such it has become — of certain preferred groups to not be offended. The NCAA is truncating the right of some schools to express their identity using mascots deemed “insensitive” to the feelings of this or that grievance group. Campaign finance laws ration the amount and control the timing and content of political speech. The right to free political speech is now “balanced” against society’s interest in leveling the political playing field, or elevating the tone of civic discourse, or enabling politicians to spend less time soliciting contributions, or allowing candidates to control the content of their campaigns, or dispelling the “appearance” of corruption, etc.

To protect the fragile flower of womanhood, a judge has ruled that use of gender-based terms such as “foreman” or “draftsman” could create a “hostile environment” and hence constitute sexual harassment. To improve all of us, people with various agendas are itching to get government to regulate speech of this or that sort.

None of this, of course, is exactly news. These policies have been discussed here (for example, here), analyzed in books and articles, etc., for quite a while now. What struck me here, however, was not the familiar litany of transgressions but the first sentence, on the scholarly attempt to limit the First Amendment’s protections — and what that attempt says about the current state of American liberalism.

Indeed, I think Will’s statement could, and thus should, have been even stronger. For the past generation the best and brightest liberal scholars — especially but not limited to those teaching in law schools — have been hard at work creating, developing, and refining highly sophisticated theories to justify restrictions on speech (see, for example, books by Owen Fiss at Yale and Cass Sunstein at Chicago) and to reduce or eliminate restrictions on the ability of governments and private organizations to distribute burdens and benefits based on race.

In short, where liberalism was once all but defined by its support for free speech and its opposition to racial discrimination, the thrust of liberal scholarship for the past generation has been to tear down the wall that protects speech from government regulation and to build up the defenses that protect official racial preferences from the sorts of arguments liberals used to make, such as the argument that individuals should be treated “without regard” to race, creed, or color.

Aside from the merits of any particular restriction on speech or any particular protection of racial preferences, what is now left of liberalism as a coherent political philosophy?

Not much.

ADDENDUM

Because the “without regard” principle is such a fundamental, widely recognized core value, however, one substantial component of the residue of modern liberalism is, not to mince words, hypocrisy. Take a look, for example, at the written anti-discrimination policy of virtually any selective university that, in order to promote “diversity,” gives racial preferences in admissions and hiring. You will almost certainly find a stated devotion to the “without regard” principle, even though that principle is routinely flouted as a matter of university policy.

A perfect but not by any means unique example of this can be found at the University of Pennsylvania, discussed at some length here. Its Policy of Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination states the following:

Penn adheres to a policy that prohibits discrimination against individuals on the following protected-class bases: race, color, sex (except where sex is a bona fide occupational qualification), sexual orientation, religion, creed, national or ethnic origin, age (except where age is a bona fide occupational qualification), disability (and those associated with persons with disabilities), or status as a special disabled, Vietnam era veteran or other eligible veteran.

….

Penn is committed to ensuring that all academic programs (except where age or sex are bona fide occupational qualifications), including social and recreational programs, and services are administered without regard to an individual’s protected-class status.

Penn is also committed to ensuring that its personnel and other employment decisions are made without regard to an individual’s protected-class status. [Emphasis added]

As I wrote in the earlier post linked above,

It would be hard to find better statements of fealty to the fundamental principle that individuals should be treated “without regard” to their race, sex, ethnicity, or religion, but it would be equally hard to find evidence that Penn actually adheres to this policy in practice.

Not only does Penn ignore its own policy in practice, but it proudly announces that it does so. Thus there were two separate Penn briefs supporting the University of Michigan’s use of race in admissions, and Penn itself, as Lee Stetson, the director of admissions told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1999, practices race conscious admissions. “We continue to be committed to affirmative action in admissions,” he said, “what we prefer to call being conscious of the background the student comes from.”

It is impossible, of course, to practice race-conscious admissions while remaining faithful to the official policy that requires all university decisions to be made “without regard” to race.

….

Let me also add that one does not have to be a Philadelphia lawyer

Philadelphia Lawyer: A lawyer of great ability, especially one expert in the exploitation of legal technicalities …. A shrewd or unscrupulous lawyer.

— to argue that race preferences are good and wise and even a compelling governmental interest. Many decent and reasonable people believe that, some of whom used to be (and one or two still are) my friends. But even the battalions of Ivy League Philadelphia Lawyers at Penn cannot pound the square peg of “race conscious” into the round hole of “without regard” to race.

ADDENDUM II

At the risk of letting these tails (sick) of hypocrisy wag the dog I was trying to tell of the degradation of American liberalism, I must add another tail that has just been revealed.

I have argued here too many times to cite that opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative — Democrats, university administrators, labor unions, and their thugs in BAMN — have tried everything they can think of, and more, to keep MCRI off the November 2006 ballot, so far to no avail. Recently they have stooped to arguing that MCRI canvassers committed fraud in allegedly making the true statement to some petition-signers that MCRI, which would outlaw governmental racial preferences, is a civil rights measure. (See, for example, here.) Now the ACLU has jumped into this muck.

It has joined BAMN’s appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court in arguing that this “fraud” should prevent the citizens of Michigan from having an opportunity to decide whether the state should continue to be allowed to distribute burdens and benefits based on race. In fact, the ACLU’s amicus brief even echoes BAMN’s offensive, condescending racial paternalism by asserting (according to the ACLU Press Release) “that petition circulators approached unwitting minorities” and made fraudulent statements about the nature and intent of the MCRI petition. [Emphasis added]

Does the ACLU think that all minorities are “unwitting,” or only the ones who signed a petition that would outlaw racial preferences? Does it not care if a similar fraud was perpetrated on white or Asian petition signers? Oh, never mind.

But let us not be so quick to dismiss another striking aspect of this ACLU brief: the fact that the ACLU took a diametrically opposed position on the regulation of signature gatherers only a year and a half ago, in a brief it filed with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Citizens Committee for the DC Video Lottery v District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (No. 04-AA-957). Here are a few telling excerpts:

In arrogating to itself the power to disqualify the otherwise-valid signatures of thousands of registered District of Columbia voters because of allegedly false or misleading statements made to some unknown percentage of them in the course of persuading them to sign initiative petitions, the Board of Elections has asserted the right to regulate political speech for truth and accuracy. Yet “there is practically universal agreement” that the core purpose of the First Amendment “was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs” from government regulation. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966)

….

The Board’s action in rejecting 6,592 otherwise-valid signatures because it found that the political speech to which some of them may have been exposed was false and misleading violated the Constitution. Face-to-face speech between one citizen and another about a ballot measure is “core political speech” entitled to maximum protection under the First Amendment.

….

As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he circulation of an initiative petition of necessity involves both the expression of a desire for political change and a discussion of the merits of the proposed change. . . . This will in almost every case involve an explanation of the nature of the proposal and why its advocates support it. Thus, the circulation of a petition involves the type of interactive communication concerning political change that is appropriately described as ‘core political speech.’” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421-22 (1988). Accordingly, such communications are at the “zenith” of First Amendment protection. Id. at 425.

….

… the voters who sign initiative petitions “are acting in the capacity of legislators. They are members of the largest legislative body in the state,” and are to be treated as responsible actors.

….

To put the Supreme Court’s teachings in the vernacular, in the arena of political speech the cure of government regulation for truth or falsity is worse than the disease of misinformation.

If the ACLU can’t be counted on to defend what it itself recently argued was the “core political speech” involved in gathering initiative signatures, what is it good for? [Thanks to Jennifer Gratz, director of the MCRI campaign, for alerting me to the ACLU’s change of position.]

UPDATE [2/28]

See Chetly Zarko’s comment below and his extensive excerpts from (and thoughtful analysis of) the ACLU briefs on his site, here.

Say What? (50)

  1. actus February 27, 2006 at 8:23 pm |

    “If the ACLU can’t be counted on to defend what it itself recently argued was the “core political speech” involved in gathering initiative signatures, what is it good for?”

    But fraud is fraud. There’s never been a problem with regulating that.

  2. John Rosenberg February 27, 2006 at 8:37 pm |

    But fraud is fraud. There’s never been a problem with regulating that.

    You obviously haven’t looked at the ACLU brief in the DC Circuit that I cited. It, and all the courts it cited, found an enormous problem with regulating allegedly fraudulent political speech (and the collection of petition signatures has been widely held to involve classic political speech).

  3. actus February 27, 2006 at 9:03 pm |

    “You obviously haven’t looked at the ACLU brief in the DC Circuit that I cited.”

    I saw what you quoted. “Maximum protection” is still consistent with regulating certain frauds. However, you should also check whether these are two different ACLU’s that are filing these claims.

  4. Richard Nieporent February 27, 2006 at 10:28 pm |

    But fraud is fraud.

    Actus do work at coming up with these bons mots or do they just come natural to you? When one is handed a petition to sign, there is a written statement on the petition. You are supposed to read that statement before you sign the petition. As long as the petitions were correctly worded there can be no fraud.

  5. Chetly Zarko February 28, 2006 at 1:40 am |

    I blogged this issue last night, and posted clear text versions of each decision side by side at the non-blog newslink on my name along with an analysis. There is a gold mine of goodies in each ACLU brief.

    Actus writes:

    However, you should also check whether these are two different ACLU’s that are filing these claims.

    That’s priceless, Actus. Of course, I understand you mean that two different chapters of the ACLU filed, which is true (the Michigan and DC chapters are different). But that’s precisely the point!!!! Last I checked, the First Amendment was the same in D.C. as it is in Ann Arbor, and core political speech was always the first and prime mission of the ACLU.

    The fact that an organization can’t get its own act together on the most important issue it claims to protect (speech, not diversity) is telling.

    But if you insist on “hypocrisy” within the Michigan organization of the ACLU, I blogged last October (http://chetlyzarko.com/b2evolution/index.php?p=46&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments)

    a document I obtained directly from the ACLU. Here’s a quote from a passage where the ACLU rhetorically answers a common question on speech:

    I just can’t understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?

    The ACLU responds:

    Free speech rights are indivisible.

    Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anit-war protestors,…” etc.

  6. actus February 28, 2006 at 1:44 am |

    “As long as the petitions were correctly worded there can be no fraud. ”

    That’s the attitude I’m talking about: we can still regulate fraud.

  7. Chetly Zarko February 28, 2006 at 1:46 am |

    Oh, and actus, your “fraud is fraud” point is actually used in the ACLU Washington D.C case. To quote:

    Followed to its logical conclusion, the Board’s reasoning in this case would authorize the Board to set aside the results of the balloting on an initiative on the ground that proponents had mischaracterized the measure in their communications with voters. Why, after all, should the election be held to a lower standard of honesty than the petition drive? The Board’s reasoning might even authorize the Board to set aside the results of a candidate election on similar grounds. Fraud is fraud. But see Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60 (1982) (invalidation of election based on false and fraudulent statements of candidate “runs directly contrary to the fundamental premises underlying the First Amendment as the guardian of our democracy.”).

    The whole point is, where does it stop when the government determines was “truth” is.

    BAMN’s allegations aren’t about “factual” misrepresentation – there about opinions they think are wrong, and they assert our difference of opinion rises to the level of fraud. That’s why this hasn’t gone to a circuit court, where there would be jurisdiction to investigate “real” fraud. BAMN knows it doesn’t have evidence of fraud — if it did, it would be in the right place making this argument.

    And the ACLU of Michigan has gone down the rabbit hole with BAMN.

  8. Chetly Zarko February 28, 2006 at 2:46 am |

    I actually entered two comments, and still have one pending since I didn’t use the Typekey for either. It’s odd how the last one can be approved before the first (I understand why, it’s automated based on criteria), but just wanted to be clear why the one response above seems to come out of the order I intended. The next should show up when it passes the filter.

  9. Richard Nieporent February 28, 2006 at 7:23 am |

    That’s the attitude I’m talking about: we can still regulate fraud.

    Yes actus, I am sure when people of your ilk are in power that is exactly what they would do. And the reeducation centers would be overflowing with people who disagreed with them. After all when you know the truth there is no reason to allow differences of opinion.

  10. actus February 28, 2006 at 9:25 am |

    “But that’s precisely the point!!!! Last I checked, the First Amendment was the same in D.C. as it is in Ann Arbor, and core political speech was always the first and prime mission of the ACLU.”

    And you may realize that there are different interpretations to that. The different ACLU’s do make up their own minds on separate issues. Eugene Volokh has written about this.

    “The whole point is, where does it stop when the government determines was “truth” is.”

    And its ok for there to be a stopping point. For example if the wording on the petition was changed or obfuscated.

    I agree with your points that this is probably not fraud — I don’t know all the facts. This is different than the point of the government regulating fraud.

    “And the reeducation centers would be overflowing with people who disagreed with them. After all when you know the truth there is no reason to allow differences of opinion.”

    We’ll be using standardized tests.

  11. Chetly Zarko February 28, 2006 at 9:46 am |

    Actus,

    my response makes alot more sense in the context of the first response I wrote which appears lost to the ether of John’s filter and non-type key entries.

    In that response, I quote my own October 2005 blog entry quoting an ACLU MICHIGAN document about the primacy of the First Amendment. It’s internal contradiction, even though I understand these are different ACLU’s, they hold the First Amendment dear. The point is not the contradiction between the ACLU’s, it the Michigan ACLU throwing its values to the wind to protect diversity at any cost, even over the most important value this nation holds dear. But then again, the ACLU rushes to the defense of Neo-Nazis for historical reasons, and won’t defend kids holding bake sales. Obviously something wrong there? Or is that Nazi’s make better boogeymen for the ACLU to protect, but more mainstream attacks on diversity are harder to beat so we’ll just let universities censor them?

    And Actus, you’re right, government does and should have the power to regulate genuine fraud, and you’re right, this is not genuine fraud (absolutely no obsfucation of the petition or changing of the words was alleged by BAMN, just opinion stuff, and even then, BAMN only alleged opinion “fraud” that might have any real concern in literally only 3-4 cases (saying MCRI supported affirmative action), in another 30-40 cases it alleged a lack of opinion (not saying the words affirmative action at all), and to get to the statistically necessary 200 signatures challenged of the random sample of 500 they then argued that circulators who collected the 30-40 signatures without reference to AA were tainted circulators and all other signatures of their’s appearing in the sample should be tossed (fraud by assumption). The 30-40 key circulators were impugned by a “phone affidavit” that a BAMN member READ TO … SOMEONE … and received oral consent to “sign.” All the phone affidavits were the SAME (“cookie-cutters”) and illustrate the principle of why courts don’t allow leading questions, and certainly wouldn’t allow this stuff.

    BAMN built a paper house on top of shifting sands just before the tide comes in. Their legal case here is a pile of manure which stinks so bad they know they couldn’t take it to a real court because they would be fined for the argument.

  12. Shouting Thomas February 28, 2006 at 11:08 am |

    As far as I can tell, this dispute centers entirely around whether the term “civil rights” can be applied to any measure that benefits whites.

    BAMN’s argument is that any measure that benefits whites is not a

    “civil rights” issue.

    The death of liberalism was really triggered by the fall of the Soviet Union. If the left was so demonstrably wrong in its infatuation with communism, then every other facet of liberalism had to come into question.

    And what has come in question is the doctrine of good intentions. The left, to which I once belonged, had insisted that its intentions were so transparently good that its goals had to also be good.

    This equation is false. We all noticed. The house of cards fell.

  13. Richard Nieporent February 28, 2006 at 12:20 pm |

    We’ll be using standardized tests.

    No you wouldn’t actus. Everyone knows that they discriminate against minorities.

  14. Gary Imhoff February 28, 2006 at 12:35 pm |

    DCWatch, my organization, challenged the slots lottery initiative petitions before the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. The signature gathering process and the resultant petitions were rife with fraud — forgeries, forged circulator signatures, false circulator affidavits, and so on. As a minor additional argument, we presented testimony that the professional signature gatherers had solicited signatures by claiming that the petitions were for a measure to outlaw the proposed slots casino; by claiming that the petitions were for a different (fictional) initiative to improve the school system; by claiming that the signature sheet wasn’t a petition sheet, but only a lottery to win a car; and by making several other false statements.

    This went well beyond differences of opinion on the merits of the initiative or on its impact. Some signature gatherers were completely lying to voters about what they were signing. The ACLU argued that in the interests of free speech the signature gatherers should be free to use any trick on voters and to misrepresent what they were circulating in any way — that what would clearly be fraud in any other context could not be forbidden in the context of a political campaign.

    Neither the DC Board of Elections nor the court agreed. The parallel case in a candidate race would be that petition signature gatherers can solicit signatures by arguing that candidate A, of party X, is the best person in the race; that is a matter of opinion, and determining whether it is objectively true is beyond the scope or competence of the Board of Elections or the Court. But they cannot get signatures for A by mispresenting the petitions as being for candidate B of party Y. The ACLU of Washington, DC, believes that even outright fraud should be allowed in signature gathering; the ACLU of Michigan believes that even a difference of opinion with its preferred viewpoint should be forbidden.

  15. actus February 28, 2006 at 3:48 pm |

    “No you wouldn’t actus. Everyone knows that they discriminate against minorities.”

    We can turn the results upside down. Start practicing fillign in bubbles.

  16. Chetly Zarko February 28, 2006 at 4:24 pm |

    Gary, you hit the nail on the head, sort of. You’re conclusion frames the two ACLU’s nicely, but I am very familar with the DC case (and glad to hear from someone involved with it, and would invite private communication on the topic) and think you are overselling the ACLU of DC’s position a bit, and the conclusion of the courts.

    Read the ACLU brief I provide on the DC case — they break down the “frauds” into two types of allegations. Allegations of physical trickery, signature forgery, and serious factual fraud about the initiative (of the types you suggested); and allegations that your group made that the representation that a lottery expansion petition would “increase jobs” or “health care funding” (it might, these are conclusions of predictive opinion). DCWatch probably watered its arguments down and opened itself up to the ACLU amicus by making these “additional minor arguments” as you suggest. The ACLU vigorously defended the latter representations – it does not, at least vigorously, defend the overall behavior of the signature-gathering firm, which I agree with you, in the DC case, had very serious problems.

    The DC case actually proceeded in two phases – the DC Elections Board found the signatures fraudulent for a variety of nebulous reasons including petitioner statements and other fraud and the ACLU filed an amicus defending the political statements. The Court actually agreed (in “dicta”) with the ACLU’s concern and remanded the case to the Elections Board for a more precise accounting of the number of fraudulent signatures resulting from fraudulent process as opposed to statements. The Elections Board then declared more precisely the number of fraudulent signatures necessary to overturn the petition were from process, not statements. The Court then upheld the Board of Elections determination on those grounds. The firm that collected the signatures in the DC case deserved its fate given the lack of controls they had in their process. A review of the factual record in the MCRI case shows absolutely no allegations of physical fraud and alot of suppositions about the “fraud” of the difference of opinion about what “civil rights” and “affirmative action” means. I’m not even against, personally, the idea that elections officials might be able to regulate real fraud as defined by the precise laws of fraud, but that involves 1) factual inaccuracy 2) that is material 3) and knowingly caused by the circulator or process. But fraud requires evidence – not mere “allegation” as the ACLU admits is all that is present here. (Indeed, the ACLU Mich. brief clearly states that the allegation alone damages the “purity of elections”, so that all that is necessary is that any group allege signature-gathering fraud and the petition should be quashed).

    Curiously, the ACLU brief admits that the appropriate venue for “fraud” is a circuit court and not the Bureau of Elections or Board of Canvassers (and it argues that somehow the Canvassers should have referred it a court). If that is the appropriate venue, why didn’t BAMN file in court when it discovered fraud? Because the court has rules of evidence — the Canvassers and Michigan Civil Rights Commission are don’t and are ideal political fields to deliver a false message.

    But you are right – the tale of the two ACLU’s here is fascinating. And the court found the right solution in the DC case. Get a precise ruling from the Elections Board.

  17. Richard Nieporent February 28, 2006 at 4:30 pm |

    We can turn the results upside down. Start practicing fillign in bubbles.

    Was that comment supposed to have some meaning or is it just the fact that you must have the last word?

    Start your timer. Actus will respond in one hour or less.

  18. Gary Imhoff March 1, 2006 at 6:27 pm |

    I want to respond briefly publicly to Chetly Zarko’s characterization of the ACLU’s position in the DC slots initiative case. DCWatch and the other challengers to the slots petitions did not raise the issue of circulators’ using false or misleading arguments to solicit signatures — that issue was raised by members of the Board of Elections and Ethics. On this aspect of the case, we argued solely that petition circulators were not entitled to mispresent the nature of the petition — to pretend that it was opposing the slots casino, that it was an initiative to improve schools, or that it was a contest, etc. I agree that the Board’s broadening its investigation into other misrepresentations made by petition circulators weakened our case, but I think it’s a clear legal requirement, that raises no constitutional questions, that the petition circulator accurately tell the signatory what he is signing.

    All the public documents in the case are available at http://www.dcwatch.com/election/init18.htm.

  19. Hull March 2, 2006 at 2:09 pm |

    I have not kept abreast of the DC slots initiative, so I don’t want to comment on that issue.

    However, the original issue in this thread concerned reverse race discrimination in admissions, specifically U.Penn’s “without regard” statement.

    Why do you think U.Penn initially drafted such a policy? Why would U.Penn feel the need to state that they are committed to ensuring that their programs be administered “without regard” to race, color, sex, etc.?

    This policy and anti- discrimination policies on the whole were not devised in some vacuum where a color-blind society was deemed a worthy goal. Anti-discrimination policy was devised to address and redress past discrimination.

    So, this is not a situation where someone up and decided to give minorities a boost because they love minorities. These policies came about as a means to right past wrongs.

    Now many people who are not receiving the benefit of attempts to right past wrongs complain that they are being wronged in the process (read: white men).

    This argument completely ignores the previous wrongs done and the present situation that has resulted (at least in some part) from the past discrimination.

    My reading of the Penn “without regard” statement is that policies will be administered “without NEGATIVE regard” to race, color, sex, etc.

    Do anti-discrimination programs have a negative impact on whites? Are whites admitted to colleges at lower rates because of anti-discrimination programs? Are Penn’s policies administered with “negative regard” for anyone?

    According to a 2005 Princeton study, if racial preferences were eliminated, black and Hispanic acceptance rates would dramatically fall and four out of five admissions spots that would have been offered to those students would instead be turned over to Asian students. The effect on admission rates for white students would not be pronounced.

    http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml

    While a strict reading of the UPenn policy and other anti-discrimination policies and laws would indicate that either these policies violate Civil Rights law or are discriminatory; the reality is that most anti-discrimiantion policies do not negatively impact anyone, and in fact, they prevent already appalling disparities from becoming worse.

    Harping that anti-discrimination policies are discriminatory themselves, completely ignores the history of these policies and disingenuously places those who have historically BENEFITTED from discrimination in the role of victim.

  20. John Rosenberg March 2, 2006 at 3:13 pm |

    Hull – Thanks for your comment. I think it’s one of the better arguments for a policy that I regard as mistaken.

    At the risk of engaging in what you will regard as further “harping” (no, it’s not a risk; it’s a sure thing), let me leap over for the moment the tension between “your reading” and a “strict reading” of the anti-discrimination principle and observe that the fact that I, or anyone, disagrees with you about this issue doesn’t mean that we “ignore history,” etc.

    You are certainly entitled to “your reading” that what treating all individuals “without regard” to their race, etc., really means is not treating minorities badly, but I submit that that reading is fundamentally at odds both with the plain words of the principle itself and with the historical record out of which it emerged.

    It is of course true that the anti-discrimination principle was intended to put an end to the discrimination that had been occurring; it is not true that it was intended to “redress” that past discrimination. As I’ve pointed out here many times, even affirmative action was not intended to do that, as evidenced by the fact that the two presidential executive orders implementing it embodied the “without regard” priniciple into which you insist on reading what you would like to be there.

    Civil rights laws, based on the “without regard” principle were passed because of a late-blooming recognition that discrimination based on race is wrong. You read that principle to say it’s not wrong if the intent is to redress past wrongs. One of many problems with this reading is that the majorities that passed the civil rights laws did not agree with your reading, just as majorities today still do not. Neither the 14th Amendment nor those laws would ever have passed if people had realized that they would come to mean what you would like them to mean. Indeed, if discrimination on the basis of race is not at least in some sense inherently wrong, in and of itself no matter how justifiable the intent (rounding up those Japanese was done with the best of motives, after all), then it’s not clear why even the past discrimination was so wrong as to call for redress.

    You ask:

    Do anti-discrimination programs have a negative impact on whites? Are whites admitted to colleges at lower rates because of anti-discrimination programs? Are Penn’s policies administered with “negative regard” for anyone?

    In a word, yes. And, as you recognize in your next paragraph, not just whites:

    According to a 2005 Princeton study, if racial preferences were eliminated, black and Hispanic acceptance rates would dramatically fall and four out of five admissions spots that would have been offered to those students would instead be turned over to Asian students. The effect on admission rates for white students would not be pronounced.

    “Pronounced.” I like that. It means in effect that there’s no discrimination unless there’s a lot of it. That the right to be free from racial discrimination is not an individual right but a group right. If “whites” or “Asians” are not discriminated against to a “pronounced” degree, then there’s nothing to be concerned about. I wonder how many people who agree with you about this would apply that same lax standard to, say, an alleged NSA invasion of privacy. If people’s privacy rights (are they individual, or do they only apply to racial and ethnic groups?) are not invaded to a “pronounced” degree, and there was no invidious, personal intent, is that O.K.?

  21. Dom March 2, 2006 at 4:51 pm |

    Some points …

    The study cited by Hull concerns only “elite Universities”. But the arguments against AA are not restricted to policies at Universities. AA is also a policy found in businesses, government services, and elsewhere. Business, in fact, now look at the racial makeup of their suppliers, and the 2nd tier suppliers (those who supply the suppliers), and so on.

    And the comments about California are misleading, since they do not take into account minority applicants outside the elite universities, nor does it consider the number of minority graduates as opposed to applicants. The effect that elite universities are “taking” minority applicants away from other universities is sometimes said to have an adverse effect on graduation.

    Dom

  22. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 2, 2006 at 6:13 pm |

    Hull,

    Why does it matter who loses when “underrepresented minorities” gain? If anything, the fact that the likely winners in a preference-free situation aren’t whites but other “people of color” would seem a plus, yes? Better in “diversity” terms and the like.

    I don’t think you can read “without regard” as “without negative regard” as you do. If you give preferences to evey group except white men, you are obviously handicapping white men. And if you give preferences to everyone but whites and Asian-Americans, you are singling out one group of people of color for unfavorable treatment relative to all other people of color. Tell me why this makes sense; tell me why it’s not obviously racist.

  23. Hull March 3, 2006 at 9:07 am |

    First, let me say thank you (all) for responding to an opposing argument in a reasonable fashion. I think if Americans could engage in more civilized debates on the issues of the day, we would all benefit.

    O.k. on to the debate: John argues that “it is not true that [anti-discrimination policy] was intended to “redress” past discrimination.

    However, approximately a year after he signed the Civil Rights Act of ’64, President Lyndon Johnson framed the concept underlying affirmative action in a speech to the graduating class at Howard University:

    “”You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html#1964

    Later that year President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 enforcing affirmative action for the first time.

    The year before the Civil Rights Act of ’64 President Kennedy said the following regarding Civil Rights:

    ” We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

    Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

    The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.”

    http://www.jfklibrary.org/j061163.htm

    In fairness to the argument, JFK’s speech focuses on equality not righting past wrongs, but the quote remains (for you “strict” readers out there) and the point remains clear from Johnson’s speech as well as Nixon’s actions (read: quotas) on Affirmative Action: Anti-discrimination policy was devised and executed (at least in part) to redress past wrongs.

    I don’t want to filibuster the conversation, so I’ll briefly address the arguments regarding the impact of “reverse discrimination” against whites.

    Blacks make up about 12% of the population. Whites make up about 75% of the population. About 18% of Blacks have a Bachelors degree or higher; that’s 18% of 12% of the population or about 2% of the total U.S. population. Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Anti-discrimination critics are basically saying that they are unfairly having to compete against 2% of the population. Anti-discrimination critics are saying that 18% is too high for Black educational attainment.

    The present disparity in education coupled with the history of discrimination that (in part) constructed the present disparity make it difficult not to throw the “racism card”.

  24. John Rosenberg March 3, 2006 at 10:57 am |

    Hull – Let me return the compliment (if that’s what it is!) by commending you again for both the quality and tone of your argument. As I said, I believe the way your present your argument (noting, of course, the limitations of this forum with regard to space, etc.) is strong, and the argument itself is one many reasonable people can and do believe. (Excuse me if that sounds patronizing; I don’t mean it to.) Indeed, the only thing I find lacking in your argument is persuasiveness.

    First, on the “redress” question. By1964 there was a new national consensus, widely shared except for some diehard segregationists, to put what Gunnar Myrdal called “The American Creed” (he meant what I’ve been calling the “without regard” principle) into practice. Not only did that consensus NOT extend to providing preferences based on race; there was a universal agreement that civil rights did not and should not provide racial favoritism. You’ve no doubt seen references to Sen. Hubert Humprey’s often quoted promise to eat his hat if the civil rights act resulted in racial preferences. He was responding to charges that the proposed civil rights allowed what you say it allows.

    The high-water mark of your argument is President Johnson’s Howard University speech of June 4, 1965 — a speech, it is important to note, not an executive order (I’m coming to that) or a piece of legislation — with its rhetoric that “equality is not enought” etc. I have discussed this speech at greater length here —

    http://www.discriminations.us/2005/08/jonathan_yardley_gets_a_histor.html

    What Johnson meant by “equality,” even there, I argued, is non-discriminatory equality of opportunity. The very next sentence in Johnson’s speech, after the “equality of results” passage, was:

    For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities–physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness. [Emphasis added]

    Moving on, you mention that later that year President Johnson “issued Executive Order 11246 enforcing affirmative action for the first time.” (Actually, it was not the firt time; President Kennedy has issued Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961, with identical operative language.) What you fail to note, however, is what that Johnson’s Executive Order (and Kennedy’s) provided:

    (1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Emphasis added)

    What Lyndon Johnson, the old New Dealer, meant when he said that “equality is not enough,” it is quite true, is that people who had been injured needed assistance. But the assistance he had in mind were measures like the poverty program and other welfare measures; he most assuredly did not intend to condition any government benefit on race, or to allow private organizations covered by the civil rights act to do so. And in any event, whatever he may have subjectively intended, he supported no legislation to do so, and made it as clear as words can be that justice requires treating people “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

    Your point about “whites” (or Asians or whomever) as a group not being significantly injured by racial preferences that exclude them is true but largely irrelevant since rights inhere in individuals, not groups.

    I recognize that your motive for reading “without regard” to mean “with regard” is well-intentioned. It would certainly have been appropriate to make that argument in 1964 (when no one did), to suggest to Martin Luther King before his speech that what he really should say is that some people should be judged by the color of their skin some of the time, or to push the color-conscious “with regard” principle in supporting new legislation today. Then we could have a civil, reasonable argument about what we should do. But your argument here that the law, executive orders, and strong consensus supporting the “without regard” principle is really a commitment to compensatory race preferences is simply not persuasive.

  25. Hull March 3, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    John, my compliment was sincere. I’m relatively new to the “blogosphere” and my exploration of the “right” side of the sphere has been bumpy. So, I appreciate a civil discussion.

    On the “without regard” argument:

    In addition to looking at Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; if time and resources allowed, we would also have to look at the Warren Court and its role in affirmative action and anti-discrimination policy.

    Unfortunately we all have jobs and other responsibilites that prevent us from digging deeply. That said, I think the quotes from Kennedy and Johnson show how people can take opposing points of view while reading the same text.

    I read the quote you provided: “The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

    to show that the executive order required an “affirmative action” be taken to “ensure that applicants are employed.” In other words, employers must make positive steps to ensure that historically disadvantaged peoples be brought to some level of parity.

    I think it is also important to note that laws and policies are not confined to the paper that they are written on. I’m one of those people Scalia would attack for embracing a “living Constitution.”

    Are you arrested or fined everytime a police officer sees you jay-walking or speeding? Are sodomy laws barring sex outside of the missionary position, prosecuted vigorously? No. Laws and policies are applied (and should be applied) in a manner that makes sense and works for the society that they are applied to.

    You and others have argued that discrimination is discrimination and even though discrimination in favor of Blacks may ameliorate past wrongs and current disparities, it is still illegal and racist.

    I say that many people making this argument are disingenuous.

    The dictionary defines racism as:

    The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    Affirmative Action neither holds race to account for differences in character nor does it hold minorities superior to other races. Affirmative Action cases generally involve righting specific acts of discrimination or requiring institutions to include minorities in their consideration for employment or education.

    In any case, it does not in any way posit that one race is superior to another. Does anyone think that Blacks are given special consideration in any area because they are considered superior? No.

    Affirmative Action attempts to right past wrongs and it does not do so by holding one race superior nor does it attempt to right past wrongs on the basis of character.

  26. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 3, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    Hull,

    Let me just add a few addenda to John’s comment. There is a case to be made for affirmative action (in the racial-preferences sense) for Blacks, and you make it well, though I’m still unpersuaded. But expand this to “underrepresented minorities” and it makes no sense at all. Latinos aren’t in the position of Blacks and never have been. If anything, Asian-Americans have historically suffered more racial hatred and racial discrimination than Latinos have. Recall the Japanese internment camps, and for a real treat read some of Mark Twain’s accounts of the treatment of Chinese immigrants in San Francisco.

    All of this, I’m told, is irrelevant, because most Asian-Americans are recent immigrants or their children, and haven’t lived through any of this. True enough; but you could say the same of most of the Latino population, and yet it gets lumped in with the Black population, the only one IMO that has a legitimate grievance, purely because in the grades-and-test-scores field, Latinos as a group score below the median, and most Asian-American groups score above.

    It seems to me that if we’re compensating for past discrimination, we compensate all minority groups that suffered discrimination, or else none. Leaving Blacks aside for the moment, why on earth should a poor Mexican immigrant’s son have an advantage over a poor Vietnamese immigrant’s daughter? Both have to learn English as a second language, both suffer from poverty, the dislocation of moving to a foreign land, and the like. Only the Vietnamese girl has the disadvantage of being “Asian,” which means she is “overrepresented.” Too many kids presumably interchangeable with her are already there.

    Try to persuade me that this isn’t cruel.

  27. John Rosenberg March 3, 2006 at 1:24 pm |

    Hull – Two rejoinders. First, you write:

    I read the quote you provided:

    “The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

    to show that the executive order required an “affirmative action” be taken to “ensure that applicants are employed.” In other words, employers must make positive steps to ensure that historically disadvantaged peoples be brought to some level of parity.

    I think it is also important to note that laws and policies are not confined to the paper that they are written on. I’m one of those people Scalia would attack for embracing a “living Constitution.”

    Well, all I can say is that that is a very creative reading. Indeed, simply reading the “without regard” requirement out of the Order altogether provides an excellent example of the problem many of us have with reading texts as though they are “living” (since, in this case, the operative part of the text just dies, becoming a literally dead letter).

    You introduce the dictionary definition of racism, but again I think it is true but irrelevant. I do not believe, and I’m sure I have never said, that racial preferences are racist. Racism and discrimination are not at all the same thing, nor is it necessary to believe an individual (or his or her group) is in any way inferior to discriminate against them. Much of the older discrimination against Jews, after all (such as Ivy League quotas), was based on the view that they were in some ways superior (too brainy, etc.).

    Recall also that most people on your side of this argument believe that policies or programs that have a “disparate impact” on minorities are, or should be, regarded as impermissible discrimination, even though by definition they are not intended to oppress or degrade or denigrate any group.

  28. Hull March 3, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    This is a great discussion. I don’t understand how people can go to sites that support their points of view and simply nod with the choir in agreement about what they believe. I think that if your ideas can’t stand the pressure of scrutiny, then they are not worth much.

    A couple of points: I mentioned racism because Michelle raised the point and many others have raised similar points in discussions I’ve had on these issues. Some think racial preferences are racist. I tried to explain why I disagree.

    As for broad readings of law versus strict readings: this is an ongoing tension in law. I think strict readers of laws are doomed from the outset because very few laws are written perfectly. If the law is not written perfectly then it needs to be interpreted. Once you draw interpretation in, you are no longer a strict contructionalist. But this is an ongoing debate like the meaning of life. Not likely to be resolved today.

    Michelle makes a good point in comparing the plight of Latinos to Blacks. Latinos did not have the same experience that Blacks have had in this country, so that throws the “past wrongs” argument out the window. As she correctly points out, why should a poor Mexican immigrant’s son have an advantage over a poor Vietnamese immigrant’s daughter?

    The first thing that comes to my mind is that different immigrants to this country are regarded with varying degrees of animosity. The UAE ports deal reminds us that people can feel drastically differently about situations and people depending on what group they are associated with. Asians, Latinos, and Blacks are regarded with varying degrees of animosity as well. Still, perceived notions of “who has it worse” are no way to make policy.

    Without thinking about this too deeply, I guess I rest on the notion that imperfections in the application of anti-discrimination policy are no reason to throw the entire policy out.

    Affluent Black (Latino, Female) people should probably not be given much special consideration in admissions programs.

    That said, my earlier point about the appalling disparities that some groups (Blacks and Latinos in particular, though disabled people also come to mind) have historically been burdened with will only increase if we do away with these programs.

    Is that a goal to push for?

    Similar to the letter John posted on the front page (thanks for the kind words, btw), how would you all address discrimination and disparities?

    We have an admittedly problematic system in place. What do you all propose we do to address the problems this system is meant to ameliorate?

  29. John Rosenberg March 3, 2006 at 2:40 pm |

    Hull – You are right that we won’t resolve this tension here (or anywhere), just as we won’t resolve the question of what (if anything) or how much (or little) to do about (which?) “disparities.” But I do want to say a word (or several) about interpretation.

    You equate strict/narrow/whatever reading with rejecting interpretation altogether:

    Once you draw interpretation in, you are no longer a strict contructionalist.

    I don’t believe that is true. Laws don’t apply themselves; interpretation is necessary. No intelligent “strict constructionist”/strict reader disagrees with that. The disagreement is not interpretation vs. “strict construction”; it is over what, if anything, constrains interpretation. The fact that interpretation is necessary does not mean that one interpretation is as good as another. The trouble I have with the “living” approach to documents is that it so frequently makes the meaning of text so elastic that it can be stretched to cover anything, thus undermining the advantages of having a written Constitution and written laws.

    And (thank you! thank you! thank you!) a classic example of “loose [read, no] construction” is to read

    “The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

    as though it says

    “The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that historically disadvantaged peoples be brought to some level of parity.”

  30. Cobra March 3, 2006 at 3:03 pm |

    Hull writes:

    >>>”We have an admittedly problematic system in place. What do you all propose we do to address the problems this system is meant to ameliorate?”

    First of all, I welcome your posts. They are refreshing and insightful, rife with statistical analysis and cogent historical references.

    Second, you posit a question that I have often asked since I began posting on this blog almost two years ago. And to this day, I don’t believe I’ve received an adequate response to it. Perhaps you will have better luck. I doubt it, but this is what you’re going hear in one variation or another:

    “We have laws on the books to handle these issues, and they should be enforced.”

    The problem of course, is that in a three branch system of government, this little beautitude means absolutely nothing UNLESS there is a DETERMINED WILL by those in the executive and judicial branches to “vigorously apply” the laws written by the legislative. Given the scope of the problem, I would argue that such a “vigorous application” would take an executive branch candidate or judicial appointee who makes minority civil rights enforcement a PRIORITY.

    This is 2006 America. The campaign and platform strategy of Conservativism does NOT prioritize minority civil rights enforcement.

    Once again, I’m delighted when I read your posts, Hull. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll get anymore satisfying an answer to your questions than I did.

    –Cobra

  31. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 3, 2006 at 3:12 pm |

    Hull,

    I agree with you: There’s no point in having discussions where everyone’s in agreement. My favorite blogs are those with intelligent commenters of very different views, who are interested in persuading their readers rather than insulting them. There aren’t many, but this is one.

    To points:

    Re “racism,” my point was simply that giving a preference to a Latino immigrant’s child as opposed to a Vietnamese immigrant’s child amounts to preferring one race over another with no other justification. If the two children are otherwise similarly situated, I say this is racist. It takes race to be significant quite apart from the difficulties of being in a racial/ethnic minority. If two kids are each ESL learners, immigrants, poor, new to the American culture, and one gets a boost because his surname is Gonzales and the other doesn’t because her surname is Truong, I call bias.

    Re the UAE Ports thing, I suppose it makes no difference, but I’d just like to point out that Arab-Americans are not an affirmative action category at any university I know. They are also “overrepresented.” It doesn’t matter how persecuted they are if they continue out-performing the American population at large; no one’s going to give them preferences.

    Affluent Black (Latino, Female) people should probably not be given much special consideration in admissions programs.

    “Female”? Good Lord, Hull, universities are on the point of giving preferences to men, just to do something about the huge gender imbalance. What is it now, 57/43 or so?

  32. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 3, 2006 at 3:19 pm |

    Cobra,

    As long as you’re around, can you please explain to me why recent Mexican/Central/South American immigrants ought to have preferences, and recent immigrants from anywhere else ought not? In all seriousness, I don’t understand this.

  33. Cobra March 3, 2006 at 4:52 pm |

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”As long as you’re around, can you please explain to me why recent Mexican/Central/South American immigrants ought to have preferences, and recent immigrants from anywhere else ought not?”

    This is an interesting question, because it pre-supposes that “recent immigrants from anywhere else” is a monolithic group.

    As I’ve pointed out numerous times before here, Affirmative Action is not only about 2% to 5% percent of enrollment at the top universities. It encompasses hiring, promotion, government contracts–issues where Americans of Asian descent frequently discriminated against.

    –Cobra

  34. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 3, 2006 at 5:44 pm |

    Cobra,

    As I’ve pointed out numerous times before here, Affirmative Action is not only about 2% to 5% percent of enrollment at the top universities. It encompasses hiring, promotion, government contracts — issues where Americans of Asian descent frequently [are] discriminated against.

    Very handsome of you, Cobra; but doesn’t it bother you even slightly that Asian-Americans are de facto discriminated against in university admissions? I’ve said it before and will say it probably a great many more times before I die: If preferences are meant to compensate groups that have suffered from racism, then Asian-Americans deserve preferences at least as much as Latinos do. Will they get them in university admissions? Of course not. Because there are too many of “them” already making the grade, and everyone knows that, for diversity purposes, Asians are fungible. As long as you have a decent proportion, any more are an encumbrance . Just like Jews, in fact; no one can claim that Jews haven’t experienced discrimination in higher education, certainly more than Latinos have, but, hey, despite the discrimination they keep getting into college out of all proportion to their numbers, so why bother compensating them?

    All of this assumes that we should be talking about a “them,” rather than a “him” or “her.” John and I disagree.

  35. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 3, 2006 at 5:57 pm |

    Cobra,

    I forgot to address this:

    This is an interesting question, because it pre-supposes that “recent immigrants from anywhere else” is a monolithic group.

    No, it doesn’t. What I asked was why recent immigrants from Mexico and parts south were an affirmative-action category while recent immigrants from anywhere else weren’t. That doesn’t make the latter a “monolithic group,” only a group unified by being excluded from preferences. It never occurred to me to put immigrants from Cambodia, Pakistan, Russia, Taiwan, and Egypt all in a “monolithic” basket. But our higher education system does: They are all “immigrants from non-English-speaking nations who shall be treated as “white” for admission purposes.” Which is to say, made to jump through more hoops than they would were their first language Spanish rather than Chinese, Arabic, Cambodian, Russian.

  36. Cobra March 3, 2006 at 10:39 pm |

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”What I asked was why recent immigrants from Mexico and parts south were an affirmative-action category while recent immigrants from anywhere else weren’t.”

    And again, I don’t understand your question, because the obvious inference you’re making–that Asian Americans DON’T receive affirmative action simply isn’t true.

    Asian perspectives on Affirmative Action

    Second, there’s a very interesting phenomenum at work in this thread.

    As Hull quite aptly pointed out in a post…

    >>>”According to a 2005 Princeton study, if racial preferences were eliminated, black and Hispanic acceptance rates would dramatically fall and four out of five admissions spots that would have been offered to those students would instead be turned over to Asian students. The effect on admission rates for white students would not be pronounced.”

    This is very CRITICAL to the discussion. Look at the penultimate example of the education aspect of Affirmative Action:

    Jennifer Gratz.

    The fact remains EXPLICITLY CLEAR that no form of Affirmative Action prevented Ms. Gratz from being admitted to college and obtaining a degree… because she was admitted to a college, and she earned a degree.

    What she DIDN’T get was the instant gratification of immediate placement in her first choice of elite universities–something THOUSANDS of students from all walks of life deal with every year.

    From the time I’ve been on this blog, nobody (save Superdestroyer,) has ever made a hullabaloo over the abundance of black, brown and red folks at “non-elite” colleges and universities, when in reality, the same anti-affirmative action argument should be in effect.

    It is only in the ELITE schools we seem to see the most vigorous opposition, which dove-tails back into our discussion, Michelle:

    >>>”They are all “immigrants from non-English-speaking nations who shall be treated as “white” for admission purposes.” Which is to say, made to jump through more hoops than they would were their first language Spanish rather than Chinese, Arabic, Cambodian, Russian.”

    Is it your argument that you find a problem with a system that doesn’t neccessarily allow 2 to 5% of Chinese, Arabic, Cambodian or Russian immigrants to get the “instant gratification of immediate placement in her first choice of elite universities?” And what is the overall societal impact of this lowered sense of entitlement?

    –Cobra

  37. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 4, 2006 at 12:31 pm |

    Cobra,

    Of course Asian-Americans receive affirmative action, but they don’t in university admissions, apart from (I think) Filipinos and possibly Hmong at some schools. If preferences are meant as a compensation for past racial discrimination, there is no reason at all to prefer the child of a Mexican immigrant to the child of a Korean immigrant. Zero. The only reason one is preferred and one isn’t is that without preferences, the admissions numbers don’t look nice.

    Personally, I would be a lot happier with preferences if they were forthrightly compensatory — that is, if they were meant to be due to all who have suffered from racism. That would mean that being Chinese-American would be an admissions plus, just like being Mexican-American. What, they don’t need help, you say? No, but they do deserve it, as least as much as any voluntary immigrant population does.

    This [that eliminating affirmative action would generally replace Black and Hispanic students at elite universities with Asian students, not whites] is very CRITICAL to the discussion.

    Why?

    I ask in all seriousness. Your point seems to be that Jennifer Gratz’s personal admissions chances weren’t much affected by preferences. I don’t see why that matters at all. I suppose you think a white girl made a better test case than the Asian kid who would be more likely affected. Maybe such considerations went into the suit; maybe not. I would have thought an Asian-American plaintiff would have had a stronger case, personally.

    Is it your argument that you find a problem with a system that doesn’t neccessarily allow 2 to 5% of Chinese, Arabic, Cambodian or Russian immigrants to get the “instant gratification of immediate placement in her first choice of elite universities?” And what is the overall societal impact of this lowered sense of entitlement?

    Cobra, if you didn’t think getting into an elite university were a privilege worth fighting for, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. You’d just note that there are lots of excellent universities below the alleged “top tier,” and plenty of room in them for students who couldn’t get into the “power schools.”

    (That’s truer than most people know, actually; the academic job market is tight enough that the faculties of so-called second-tier schools are as good as the best. The one advantage the top schools have besides name recognition is the quality of the student body, which is why all the scramble to get into the Ivies &c.)

    Anyway, I just don’t get this “sense of entitlement” business of yours. You seem to think that having Spanish (as opposed to the other languages above) as your first language is a valid reason to move towards the head of the line. I don’t understand this; I don’t think you understand it yourself.

  38. Cobra March 4, 2006 at 5:49 pm |

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”Cobra, if you didn’t think getting into an elite university were a privilege worth fighting for, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. You’d just note that there are lots of excellent universities below the alleged “top tier,” and plenty of room in them for students who couldn’t get into the “power schools.”

    (That’s truer than most people know, actually; the academic job market is tight enough that the faculties of so-called second-tier schools are as good as the best. The one advantage the top schools have besides name recognition is the quality of the student body, which is why all the scramble to get into the Ivies &c.)”

    You asked and answered your own question regarding the “sense of entitlement.”

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”I would have thought an Asian-American plaintiff would have had a stronger case, personally.”

    IMHO, there’s no “victim” like a white “victim”, especially a young, telegenic white female–the “damsel in distress wronged by the cruel system.” At least, that’s how the CIR’s strategy apparently played out.

    Also, your post, whether you intended it to or not, actually is an endorsement of my position on Affirmative Action, because you offer absolutely no defense, dismissal or explanation for racial discrimination you claim is being suffered by the non-whites you list. Actually, you seem to take a arbitor’s position in negotiating the proper compensation in paragraphs like this one:

    >>>”Personally, I would be a lot happier with preferences if they were forthrightly compensatory — that is, if they were meant to be due to all who have suffered from racism. That would mean that being Chinese-American would be an admissions plus, just like being Mexican-American. What, they don’t need help, you say? No, but they do deserve it, as least as much as any voluntary immigrant population does.”

    It appears we’re a heckuva lot closer in our opinion on this subject than previously believed.

    –Cobra

    :)

  39. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 4, 2006 at 9:35 pm |

    Cobra,

    [Y]our post, whether you intended it to or not, actually is an endorsement of my position on Affirmative Action, because you offer absolutely no defense, dismissal or explanation for racial discrimination you claim is being suffered by the non-whites you list.

    I am sorry, but I don’t understand this. Please clarify.

    I want to know why the child of a Vietnamese immigrant is to be disadvantaged relative to the child of a Mexican immigrant in university admissions. You haven’t given me even the ghost of an explanation, Cobra, and neither has anyone else. Can you explain?

    [Y]ou offer absolutely no defense, dismissal or explanation for racial discrimination you claim is being suffered by the non-whites you list.

    Well, of course not. Why would I?

    What I said was that a plainly compensatory system of preferences is more defensible than what we have now (which is what you are defending). If white Americans have behaved abominably towards Chinese immigrants and Mexican immigrants, let’s give both immigrant groups a boost relative to whites, and never mind that the Chinese-Americans are outperforming whites already; that doesn’t have anything to do with the historical grievance. If you stole my ancestors’ fortune, you presumably still owe me even if I’m now richer than you are.

    Of course, as you well know, I don’t like racial preferences, and would prefer class/income preferences if we are to have any at all. But if we are to have racial preferences, they ought, as I said, to be based on historical discrimination, and not on making sure the numbers look good. That means that all groups that have suffered discrimination get them. That means that Asian-Americans are not only not treated as “white,” but get the same preference Hispanics do. That means that a Pakistani immigrant is as much an “affirmative action” kid as a Mexican-American is.

    As I said, I don’t like this, but I like it better than the current regime, in which it doesn’t matter how much racism you’ve suffered if it hasn’t damaged your cohort’s schoolwork on average.

  40. John Rosenberg March 4, 2006 at 10:20 pm |

    Michelle – It seems like years (maybe it has been years!) that you’ve been trying to get Cobra, or actus, or anyone, to explain “why the child of a Vietnamese immigrant is to be disadvantaged relative to the child of a Mexican immigrant in university admissions,” or something similar.

    You’ve argued, persuasively, that, if we must have preferences, basing them on compensation for past sins makes more sense than the “diversity” etc. mish-mash rationale we have now. It is certainly true that there are several groups who suffered great discrimination in the past — the Chinese and Japanese, for example — who are denied preferences now.

    But, as you well know, and have mentioned, in their wisdom the Supremes have put a nix on compensation as a justification for current discrimination, and have given us “diversity” as the only reason good enough (so far) to engage in discrimination in the present. Note, however, that even under this strained rationale it makes no sense to impose disadvantages on Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, etc. applicants relative to all (not just disadvantaged) Hispanics and blacks. Why, you might add to your long unanswered question, would those un-preferred minorities not also provide “diversity”?

  41. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 4, 2006 at 11:51 pm |

    John,

    Why, you might add to your long unanswered question, would those un-preferred minorities not also provide “diversity”?

    Oh, but you know the answer to this, John. There are too many of them.. There’s “diversity” and then there’s “rather too much diversity,” and the latter is what we’re talking about here. It reminds me of my Dad complaining about the “Oriental Mafia” at the Juilliard Pre-College School when I was there — it wasn’t that the Chinese/Japanese/Korean students had a stranglehold on the admissions process, it was that, instrumentally, they more or less kicked ass, and damn well deserved to be where they were.

  42. Cobra March 5, 2006 at 11:44 am |

    Unfortunately, you both have missed the crux of my statement here:

    >>>”As I’ve pointed out numerous times before here, Affirmative Action is not only about 2% to 5% percent of enrollment at the top universities. It encompasses hiring, promotion, government contracts–issues where Americans of Asian descent frequently discriminated against.”

    Now, I fully understand that your focus is on academics and admissions, with the 2 to 5% percent of total elite school applicants being the theater in which choose to wage this fight.

    I choose not to “narrow-cast” the Affirmative Action

    debate, but re-iterate Hull’s question:

    >>>”>>>”We have an admittedly problematic system in place. What do you all propose we do to address the problems this system is meant to ameliorate?”

    –Cobra

  43. Hull March 8, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    I just wanted to get one last point in on this thread because Michelle posed a question that I really had to stop and think about:

    “why should the child of a Vietnamese immigrant be disadvantaged relative to the child of a Mexican immigrant in university admissions”

    Lots of different things pop into my head in thinking about this question: method of immigration (legal vs. illegal); degrees of animosity towards groups; differences between race and ethnicity (“Latinos” and “Asians” represent many different ethnicities and nationalities). But, after thinking about all those things I come back to a couple of basic points.

    Affirmative Action does not work as an all or nothing propostion. Is there any reason to think that a disadvantaged Vietnamese person would be disfavored in relation to a Mexican person? They are both disadvanteged. We don’t know anything else about their backgrounds, but admissions committees do. There is absolutely no reason to think that admissions committees would find two candidates who are equal in every way except that one is Asian and one is Latino and give advantage to the Latino. My suspicion is that both would be admitted. I think the idea that Asians and Latinos are considered differently by Affirmative Action has more to do with whether the applicant is actually disadvanteged. Has anyone ever documented this scenario? Has anyone ever heard of two equally disadvanteged Asians and Latinos being treated differently? Does this happen often?

    The idea that racial preference alone dictates admission, is false.

    That said, I think admissions committees (and the entire United States) have an interest in supporting communitees that are struggling.

    In the end, all Affirmative Action should be applied on individual basis, taking into consideration all factors that suggest special consideration be given.

  44. John Rosenberg March 8, 2006 at 10:49 am |

    Hull asks:

    Is there any reason to think that a disadvantaged Vietnamese person would be disfavored in relation to a Mexican person?

    John replies: Yes. There is every reason. Hispanics (except, in some cases, Hispanics from Spain but including Italians or Germans from Argentina) are given preferences — based on their being Hispanic — that Vietnamese are not. The only way to prevent that travesty is to bar preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity.

    You seem to think that “affirmative action” is a remedy for “disadvantage,” but almost everywhere it isn’t. You can, and do, make good arguments that it should be, but your argument is weakened to the degree that you think that’s how it operates now. In any event, to the degree that it does operate that way now, such disadvantage-based preferences would not be precluded by barring preferences based on race and ethnicity.

    Deal? You support banning race and ethnicity as bases for preference and I’ll support (even LOUDER) special treatment based on disadvantage.

  45. Hull March 8, 2006 at 1:54 pm |

    As I’ve said before John, I appreciate having my ideas and arguments tested.

    I am not persuaded that race should be banned as a category of preference, but you (and others here) have given me strong arguments to consider.

    At some point in the future, you should address the question that you posed, “is affirmative action a remedy for disadvantage.” You’ve probably discussed this point ad nauseum on this site, but I think it is central to the discussion.

  46. John Rosenberg March 8, 2006 at 9:55 pm |

    Hull writes:

    As I’ve said before John, I appreciate having my ideas and arguments tested.

    I am not persuaded that race should be banned as a category of preference, but you (and others here) have given me strong arguments to consider.

    At some point in the future, you should address the question that you posed, “is affirmative action a remedy for disadvantage.” You’ve probably discussed this point ad nauseum on this site, but I think it is central to the discussion.

    First, let me repeat that I (and I’m sure I speak for others as well) are glad to have you here disagreeing with (most of) us. It’s difficult to get and keep the tone of online debates civil, in part because of the medium — typing — and in part because of the strong feelings around the messages. Some people here do that better than I do, but I do want to apologize in advance for any sharpness of tone that creeps into my replies when I’m not looking.

    Moving on, I think affirmative action is ill-suited to be a remedy for disadvantage. In operation (though not in original intent) it has become almost exclusively race based, and the problem is that that a majority of the “disadvantaged” are not not minorities and not all minorities, by a long shot, are disadvantaged. Moreover, I believe the best way to help those in need is to equip them to compete on equal terms, not to lower the standards for them. LBJ’s poverty program, however flawed, was an attempt to do this. Affirmative action isn’t.

  47. Cobra March 10, 2006 at 5:08 pm |

    John writes:

    >>>”Moreover, I believe the best way to help those in need is to equip them to compete on equal terms, not to lower the standards for them. ”

    Now “we’re cooking with grease”, as my late grandmother would always say.

    What would you say, is the “equipment” that successful white Americans use to compete with? What is the origin of this “equipment” in American history and society? And the $100,000 question…

    What specific policies should be enacted to supply “those in need” with this “equipment?”

    –Cobra

  48. Hans Bader May 25, 2006 at 5:13 pm |

    The ACLU, self-proclaimed champion of free speech, doesn’t believe in free speech when it’s aimed at the ACLU itself, even though it believes that other private organizations should be compelled by law to tolerate dissent in their ranks or face a lawsuit.

    That is illustrated by a May 24, 2006 New York Times article discussing ACLU leader Romero’s attempt to silence ACLU board members who have criticized the ACLU’s recent willingness to support curbs on hate speech and anti-abortion speech.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution only restrict the conduct of state actors. Private associations are thus free to condition membership on not publicly criticizing the association’s positions or leaders, and to require that members share a common religion or other characteristic (unless the characteristic is prohibited by an antidiscrimination statute that does not intrude too deeply on the association’s First Amendment freedom of association). This is called the “state action” doctrine. It greatly limits federal courts’ control over private institutions, promoting freedom of association and a free market economy.

    The ACLU, however, opposes the state action doctrine. It believes that private institutions, such as shopping centers and private colleges, should be subject to restrictions under the First Amendment, and that even the smallest businesses or associations should be subject to the Equal Protection Clause. For example, it argued in a Connecticut case that the Klan should be able to demonstrate in a private shopping center, overriding the property and free association rights of its owners, and recently persuaded the New Jersey courts to use the New Jersey State Constitution to force private housing developments and shopping centers to host political advocacy groups. Similarly, the ACLU argued that the boy scouts should not be able to dictate membership criteria, a position the U.S. Supreme Court rejected in 2000 on First Amendment freedom of association grounds. And it unsuccessfully urged the Oregon Supreme Court to hold that the owner of a small business violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, not just state law, by engaging in workplace religious proselytizing, in the 1995 Meltebeke case.

    However, there is one special private organization that the ACLU believes should be exempt from judicial oversight so that it can restrict its members’ speech: the ACLU itself. The ACLU’s leader, Anthony Romero, has apparently created files on dissident members of the ACLU’s national board, who have criticized the ACLU for failing to oppose restrictions on politically incorrect speech, like anti-abortion ads. And he is pushing to forbid board members from criticizing the ACLU’s board or its staff, arguing that such criticism makes “fund-raising” harder for the ACLU. This is a very ironic position for an organization that claims to be a champion of free speech to take.

    It is especially ironic given that the ACLU has repudiated far more limited speech restrictions it endorsed in the past. The ACLU continually depicts as a shameful cave-in to McCarthyism the ACLU’s own Post-World War II policy of excluding supporters of totalitarian movements from its board. That prohibition had the effect of excluding several communist ACLU board members who had backed Stalin’s dictatorship and previously supported the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact. Apparently, the ACLU believes in free speech for totalitarians, but not for First Amendment advocates.

    Romero justifies the proposed speech restriction by pointing to a supposed need to balance “conflicting” rights. “Take hate speech,” he told the New York Times. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.”

    This is a frequent ACLU tactic, to argue that free speech is overridden by a competing “right” when the speech becomes inconvenient. The ACLU’s “balancing” is applied in an inconsistent and unprincipled manner, based on how much it sympathizes with the target of the speech.

    For example, the ACLU successfully argued that Nazis advocating genocide should be allowed to march through the town of Skokie, home to many Holocaust survivors, saying that the Nazis’ free speech rights outweighed the interests of the Holocaust survivors. And it later sued a private restaurant for refusing to serve neo-Nazis because they insisted on wearing swastikas while dining, trampling on the restaurant owners’ freedom of conscience and their private property rights.

    But in another case, Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, it filed an amicus brief supporting a state court’s gag order banning an employee from uttering even a single racial slur, based on racial harassment that was found to have occurred years earlier, even if no other employee ever heard the slur. The ACLU argued that such slurs could be banned because they were just “verbal acts” of “discrimination” against Hispanics, rather than “pure speech.” The state court accepted the “discrimination” rationale for restricting speech, even though federal courts have consistently held that a single slur does not constitute discriminatory harassment, either by itself or in conjunction with harassment that occurred long ago, and is irrelevant if other employees are not aware of it (and even though the employee accused of harassment was himself married to a Hispanic and the soccer coach of the very employees who accused him of harassment).

    “Balancing rights” enables the ACLU to skirt principle to reach whatever pre-ordained politically correct result it wants.

    Links to the cases discussed above can be found at the Open Market Blog at http://www.ceiopenmarket.org/openmarket/2006/05/what_free_speec.html.

  49. John Chuckman July 8, 2006 at 9:43 am |

    June 29, 2006

    WHY AMERICAN LIBERALISM IS IMPOSSIBLE

    John Chuckman

    I heard an interview the other day with Peter Beinart who has a new book called The Good Fight: Why Liberals – and Only Liberals – Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again . Apart from a slight nausea induced by a toothy Richard Beymer smile offering reassuring platitudes, there was a sense of both déjà vu and ennui, and the interview only succeeded in reinforcing my gloomy conviction that there are virtually no liberals left in America.

    You cannot be a liberal in any meaningful sense of the word and talk about winning a war on terror. It is a ridiculous inconsistency and a revealing one. When someone representing himself as a liberal feels he must appeal to Americans in these terms, it tells us a lot about the state of that nation’s values, just as it did when Michael Moore announced he supported that arrogant, perfumed generalissimo, Wesley Clark, for president.

    How can you have a war against a technique? Terror is not an army, not an idea, not a philosophy. It is what people with serious grievances of many kinds resort to when they have no other means of redress. The rational approach would be sorting out the grievances, but the rational approach doesn’t achieve the true objectives of a War on Terror.

    If you define the noun liberal carefully, I think you come up with something along the lines of one who supports the little guy or the underdog while embracing the values of democracy, human rights, and a relatively free economy. A true liberal also has an open mind to new ways of doing things.

    Liberalism is impossible in America because most of the elements of this definition are missing.

    First, there’s the elephant in the living room nobody wants to discuss: the simple fact is that the current President of the United States was not elected to either of his two terms. He was court-appointed to his first term with a minority of the popular vote, and the evidence is now striking that vote fraud in several major states purchased his second term.

    Of course, that is only part of the story. George Bush entered the arena for his party’s nomination in 2000, his pockets stuffed with $77 million. He had no national stature, he had no business or professional success behind him, and the record of his tenure as Governor of Texas was undistinguished. He went through the first bundles of cash quickly, but they were replaced again and again. The donations would prove astute investments since Bush’s literally society-distorting tax cuts plus malignant war profits would pay record returns to investors within a few years.

    The implications of these circumstances go far beyond American blog-stuff about “when Bush goes, we’ll have our democracy back.” The fraud and legal manipulation involved in both the 2000 and 2004 elections do not magically disappear when the current office-holder retires. Neither will the horribly corrupting role of private money in American elections. American democracy is a sick old man, and the country is simply missing the sine qua non condition for liberalism.

    Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights legislation, morally right as it was after centuries of repression, itself contributed to a fundamental realignment in American politics during the 1970s. An entire chunk of the Democratic Party, the Southern Democrats, simply left the party as southerners moved to suburbs and started new private schools to avoid integration. While Southern Democrats never were truly liberal, they nevertheless created the critical mass required for political compromises which sometimes made real progress, the Civil Rights Acts itself being perhaps the greatest example.

    Another fundamental change affecting American national politics has been the shift for decades of American population away from old centers like New York or Illinois – places where unionism and political machines gave the Democratic Party its spine – to sun-belt, high-growth places like Arizona or Texas – places were the prevailing values might be described as super-suburban.

    Suburban values are in many respects inherently anti-liberal. It’s as though American society were being run through a centrifuge with the cream of income and potential floating to the top and the rest sinking to the bottom. With the de-centralized nature of much of American government, interaction between various groups becomes almost non-existent. An acre of land, five bedrooms, two SUVs, no sidewalks, no meaningful town center beyond a private mall, and schools supported by per capita grants unimaginable in most cities assure the permanence of the arrangement. More than a few such places are gated just to make sure.

    The Democrats have responded to this changing environment with their own strong shift to the Right, so much so that many Democrats even in the North are sometimes indistinguishable from Republicans. Al Gore started his 2000 campaign with a pathetic speech on family values. John Kerry started his campaign at a time of illegal war posed in front of an aircraft carrier. Joe Lieberman cannot be distinguished – either by attitudes or effective intelligence – from George Bush. Poor Bill Clinton achieved almost nothing of significance to liberals during eight years in office.

    There are other developments reinforcing American conservatism. First, is militarism. Eisenhower was right when he warned of the military-industrial complex, but the subject of his warning is no longer a fear or a possibility, it is reality.

    America has actually spent the last half century fighting liberalism through war. War sets up a powerful divide in any society: you are, in Bush’s remarkably articulate words, either “with or against us,” you support “the boyz” or you don’t, and you either give “the enemy” comfort or you don’t. War reduces things to absolutes, erasing all the complexities of reality. The real enemy through the Cold War was liberalism inside America. The War on Terror is more of the same.

    War and militarism create many mechanisms to reinforce conservatism. First, there’s the training of millions of young men (and now women) receive. The values of this training are opposed to liberalism: they are about authority, obedience, flags and drums, and heavily colored with contempt for those with differing points of view. Dissidence and democracy are impossible by definition within the military, and the greater the number of young people immersed in this culture, the weaker the liberal values of any society. Because of the secular religious overtones of military service and extreme patriotism, the values imbued in the young are highly charged and quite powerful.

    War and militarism richly reward those who make them possible, and this is true for all the talented individuals making careers as it is for the great corporations who hire them. In America, such companies are associated with much above-average incomes but also advantages such as good health insurance and suitably suburban locations. There is no prospect for a decline in military spending and all the loyalties engendered by it.

    Another important conservative influence on America is the country’s uncritical support for Israel. Uncritical support by a great power of any state can be dangerous because it extends a form of absolute power inviting a form of absolute corruption. Israel in the early twenty-first century has become a center of pure power representing no ethical, statesmanship, or human rights principle.

    Yes, Israel is nominally a democracy, but it is one with no written rights, it is one which defines itself in narrow theocratic terms, and it is one with many parallels to the apartheid government of South Africa. More importantly, it is a country like 1984’s Oceania engaged in a perpetual state of war. No matter what the original motives for this were, the ultimate effect after many decades is morally debilitating. The great values of historic Judaism are nowhere apparent in Israel’s behavior today.

    Israel’s influence strongly reinforces conservative values in many parts of American society, from its cozy relationship with America’s Religious Right to its ceaseless advocacy of new wars to its own benefit. Dreams of Greater Israel linger still, and war and the threat of war serve the same purpose in Israel they do in the United States, even more intensely so because Israel’s armed forces are its greatest national industry and the country is virtually a garrison state.

    America has become a very conservative country since the era of the New Deal, but that is only what was to be expected. Except for a brief time during the New Deal, liberalism has almost no place in America’s history. That history is one of ruthless expansion and conquest. America is an inherently conservative country, and I don’t mean the kind of reflective conservative we sometimes get in Canada or the British produce in a man like Edward Heath, the kind of people that are sometimes called Red Tories because of their generous social views.

    Just consider that America uses as its constitution a document from the 18th century, a document that is strongly anti-democratic in a number of its provisions and many of whose assumptions are simply out-dated. You can’t demonstrate the fundamental embrace of conservatism more clearly than that.

    Mr. Beinart refers to Harry Truman and John Kennedy as liberal figures, but that is simply a misinterpretation of history. Truman was a hack local politician elevated to high office through America’s bizarre office of Vice-president, a narrow man who used the word “nigger” to his dying day. He decided to use the atomic bomb on two cities full of civilians, the most savage decision in American history, claiming he never lost a night’s sleep for making it. John Kennedy had grace and style, but he was a jingo, secretly trying to murder Castro, sending more advisors to Vietnam, and creating the night-crawler Green Berets who distinguished themselves not long after their creation by cutting thousands of villagers’ throats. Kennedy took money from the Mafia for his election, and he was only elected through vote fraud in Illinois and Texas.

    I don’t believe Beinart’s words have any more validity than some of the blowhard speeches of Bill Clinton. Or perhaps I should say Zell Miller who not many years ago gave one of the most moving speeches ever given at a Democratic convention but went on to support George Bush and become a contributor to Fox News.

  50. […] again, in “The Degradation Of American Liberalism” back in 2006, For most of its recent history — for virtually all of its 20th Century […]

Comments are closed.