An Associated Press article today by Hope Yen wonderfully if unwittingly reflects some of the zaniness of today’s liberals and the mainstream press (but I repeat myself) on the meaning of civil rights.
It begins with a question that is either hopelessly confusing or a non sequitur, or both: “WASHINGTON (AP) — Has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?”
This is not rather like asking, it is asking: “Has the nation lived down its history of awarding benefits and burdens based on race and should it continue awarding benefits and burdens based on race?”
And then another question: “In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity.”
First, this questions assumes — all the rapidly accumulating “mismatch” evidence to the contrary — that the “benefits of racial diversity” outweigh the damage done not to “equal opportunity” but to the preferred themselves. Second, assuming that the “benefits of racial diversity” to those who do receive it (whites and Asians, since blacks and Hispanics would receive those benefits at less selective institutions in the absence of preferential admissions) can justify the discrimination against those who are denied admission because of their race. In practice, many Asians and whites are denied admission because of their race/ethnicity so that other, more privileged whites and Asians can receive the storied benefits of “diversity.”
Moving on, another question: “… in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations — in the South, particularly — have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted..”
Thus according to the AP’s Ms. Yen, a ruling that the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act is no longer required — because, to pick one of several possible reasons, minority voting is at least as prevalent in the “covered” jurisdictions as in most uncovered ones — that would mean there would no longer be any laws on the books prohibiting racial discrimination against voters.
That notion is so absurd that one suspects Ms. Yen has actually written an April Fool’s spoof rather than a news story, a suspicion that is strengthened by her quoting — and as far as can be told, taking seriously — an observation by “Roderick Harrison, a demographer who is black” and “a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau,” that “[t]he term ‘minority’ often refers to an unequal or disadvantaged status and isn’t always about numbers or counts…. Minority status is a matter of exclusion from full participation in society, remaining long after a nation becomes ‘majority minority.'”
On the other hand, many major media stories on race and civil rights read like April Fool’s jokes, and so unfortunately there is no really good reason (aside from its content) to suspect that this one is a spoof.
“And then another question: ‘In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity.’
“First, this questions assumes — all the rapidly accumulating ‘mismatch’ evidence to the contrary — that the ‘benefits of racial diversity’ outweigh the damage done not to ‘equal opportunity’ but to the preferred themselves.”
Damage done to the preferred? Like what? Getting degrees, jobs, contracts and pay they don’t deserve?
You might try reading some, any, of the mismatch evidence — such as the Sander/Taylor book, their Fisher brief, several other Fisher briefs — before making in effect accusations of racism.
I cannot understand this article. Why is it that the people with very little to say, take the longest to say it? This article was probably written by a career academic.
What’s with the ‘in the South particularly’ comment? It’s a matter of public record that the South is more ‘integrated’ (for better and/or worse) than the North. Was this article written by a recent high school graduate from the ‘burbs of Connecticut or something? Sheesh.
John,
Your 10:43 p.m. comment follows mine, but I don’t see the connection. Were you replying to someone else, who has since disappeared? Not that I’m denying that AA is racist, but it’s racist towards those whom it intentionally injures, not towards those whom it intentionally benefits.
And yes, I’ve read several of the Fisher briefs, and tons about “mismatching” since the 1990s, and even wrote articles then that dealt with mismatching (though I probably didn’t use the term), though even then I was first and foremost concerned with the harm done to AA’s intended victims.
Nicholas, Perhaps I misread you. I took your comment that I objected to the “beneficiaries” of AA “Getting degrees, jobs, contracts and pay they don’t deserve” as an accusation of vague racism or at least mean-spriritedness on my part.
This is not the place for me to try to restate the “mismatch” argument, but it seems to me that now the evidence is overwhelming, and growing, that lowering admissions standards for blacks and Hispanics by the amount they are lowered at most selective institutions does in fact do great damage to them: it reinforces stereotypes that they are dumb; it undermines respect for minorities who didn’t need the preference; the “preferred” cluster in the bottom of their classes; disproportionately drop out of hard majors (see the Duke study); fail to graduate in disproportionate numbers; fail post-graduate exams in disproportionate numbers; etc. etc. None of these is true when they attend schools where their qualifications are on a par with their non-minority peers. If you haven’t read Sander and Taylor’s MISMATCH and their Fisher brief, I encourage you to do so. If you have, I invite you to tell me where and why you reject their findings.
The intent of “diversity”-justified racial preference is to admit blacks and Hispanics who would not be admitted but for the preference so that whites and a few Asians can receive the benefits, whatever they are, of being exposed to them. The “preferred” do not need the preferential treatment in order to receive whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer them, since they would receive those same benefits at less selective institutions. In addition, they would be more successful there, and no discrimination against anyone would be required for their admission.
If an education from a “less selective” school carried the exact same implied value in the workforce in regards to hiring and promotion, then why would anti-affirmative action types have such a problem with Whites and Asians (the “favored” minority) attending them?
–Cobra