February 2010

What more needs to be said about this Newsweek article on racial preferences that John Rosenberg hasn’t said?

But I think I can manage a few comments.

In Newsweek, writer Raina Kelley makes a valiant attempt to re-frame the “affirmative action” debate to give it what she apparently believes is a much-needed makeover. What Kelley and others refer to when they use the term actually are racial preferences, which she contends are a “crucial tool in the fight for equal opportunity and access for all.”

First, Kelley seems believes affirmative action is not about preferential treatment and lowered standards, although the evidence says otherwise. “Opponents of affirmative action have succeeded in associating the phrase with unfair advantages for undeserving minorities and women.”

If a preferred racial minority is admitted with lower grades and scores than a white student, or a lesser qualified preferred minority is hired over a more qualified white person, the advantage is unfair. And no one deserves a college placement or a job. He earns it, based on qualifications. The only thing we come close to deserving — and that might not be the right word — is the chance to compete for placement or employment.

Kelley ironically cites a Stanford Magazine article in which the writers assert unequivocally that Stanford University discriminates and prefers certain racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting, and financial aid. The writers state the obvious: racial preferences are divisive. “In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.”

Kelly disagrees, but it’s difficult to know if she disagrees that preferences are divisive or that there isn’t a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and reality.

“Stanford has every right to compose a student body based on the qualifications it thinks will maintain its status as an elite university. If one of those qualifications is a diversity of background, so be it. Any guidance counselor will tell you: it takes more than good SAT scores to get into college. Affirmative action isn’t around to play favorites—nor is it supposed to prefer people of color over white ones. It is a system designed to make sure that everybody is getting into college through their qualifications whether you are a poor kid from East L.A. or a fourth-generation legacy.”

So much to parse here. First, as a private university, Stanford may have more leeway in discriminating against and preferring certain groups. Publicly funded colleges and universities do not, although many of them do lower admissions standards for certain groups. I assume Kelley supports affirmative action at state colleges and universities. If that’s the case, it’s dead wrong. Using public funds to discriminate against and prefer people based on race is exactly what the Civil Rights Act was created to prevent. Good intentions don’t render racial discrimination and preferential treatment lawful.

Second, affirmative action does play favorites and does prefer “people of color” over whites. More than that, the practice discriminates against people of Asian descent. Ironically (or perhaps not), Asians also faced discrimination. Because they manage to excel in spite of past treatment, however, no one considers lowering standards for them.

The bottom line is that preferences exist, because for various reasons, certain racial minority groups don’t perform as well as whites or certain Asians. Consequently, some institutions have developed elaborate evaluation methods designed to mask different standards of review. The solution to the racial disparity “problem” isn’t giving college placements and jobs to lesser qualified people. Solving the problem is a far-reaching and deep-rooted challenge that does not fall within the authority of the government to fix, but to individuals themselves.

The quick fix of lowering standards based on race has to be one of the most condescending and anti-American practices ever conceived. Yet, blacks who criticize the practice are the Uncle Toms and self-haters. The world really has gone mad.

Third, affirmative action is not designed so that “everybody is getting into college through their qualifications.” If that were the case, why use affirmative action in the first place? Qualifications would speak for themselves, regardless whether the student is poor.

Read John Rosenberg’s post to understand why Kelley’s characterization of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Howard University commencement speech in 1965 as supporting preferences is off the mark.

Kelley makes the same benefits-of-diversity assertion as other preference proponents. “Diversity challenges assumptions and forces people to rely on personal experience instead of stereotype. It’s hard to think black people are inferior if they’re sitting next to you in freshman English or in a conference room.”

What if personal experience confirms stereotypes? And why would it be difficult for a white person to conclude a black person is inferior because he’s sitting next to said black person? Familiarity may breed contempt and confirmation. That’s totally beside the point in any case. Who cares what someone thinks? The law is not designed to change the way people think; it’s designed to regulate how they behave. People can hold all kind of stereotypes. The government’s role is to make sure the law is applied consistently and equally, not to make sure white people don’t think bad thoughts about black people.

There is nothing new under the sun. Raina Kelley attempts to do what other racial preference proponents have done and will continue to do: offer impassioned rhetoric to convince those who support racial equality that blacks and other preferred minorities deserve unearned benefits at the expense of the majority because of America’s treatment of their ancestors.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }