Redstate

I still envision a future where all racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination will be unacceptable.

that so did Martin Luther King. Those that have claimed to carry Dr. King's banner have not behaved so admirably.

Skin color-based scholarship programs in public universities can't be defended legally or morally. If blacks advocate skin color preferences because they're afraid of getting left behind socially, educationally, and economically, they need to improve performance and generate opportunities for themselves rather than using public funds to "level the playing field," which is nothing more than a moronic baseball analogy that didn't make sense 40 years ago and makes less sense now.

If Ms. Barber thinks that "level the playing field" is "a moronic baseball analogy that didn't make sense 40 years ago and makes less sense now," she's living in some alternate reality.  As a threshold matter, the analogy is not to baseball, which is decidedly unlevel in its central field of conflict (batter v. pitcher).  More importantly, however, the argument that we should "level the playing field" is not something someone dreamed up one day in 1964.  It's based on the indisputable fact that for hundreds of years, American government, business, and society has practiced affirmative action for white folks.  As a result of the favoritism, handouts, and preferences given to whites, the field was decided "unlevel" when Black folks came to play:  every play they ran was uphill.  The notion is that affirmative action could cure the lack of a level field if it were run in reverse -- i.e., if government, society, and business favored Black folks for a change.

Now, I'm generally not in favor of affirmative action programs for anyone, and oppose affirmative action as currently practiced on the grounds that the evidence suggests that it's ineffective when it's race-based.*  (I'll ignore the constitutional arguments against it in this post.)  But let's not indulge in the fantasy -- implied by Ms. Barber -- that affirmative action is something new.  Or that Blacks have been its primary beneficiaries.

von

*There is some support, IIRC, for the proposition that class-based affirmative action programs can generate net positive results.  I'm not necessarily endorsing such programs, mind you: just reporting what I recall.

... so very often when I see these right-hearted, but ultimately ineffective attempts at "leveling the playing field".

Equality, and equality of opportunity, couldn't possibly be less effective than what we've seen from Affirmative Action initiatives.

I personally could figure out how to judge someone not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  How did we get from there to the point where honest criticism of anything black people think, say, or do is considered inherently racist?

I can't treat a person as an equal if I'm expected to walk on eggshells whenever they are in the room.  I have trouble believing that this is what Dr. King had in mind.

believe that Dr King genuinely sought a world in which the "content of ones character" would be the true determinant; that discrimination on character would be the way people would be measured. And I think that for the most part Americans generally do see things that way. But I also think that the actions of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Kweisi Mfume (Frizzell Gray ), et al have harmed race relations; it's tough to be colorblind when someone keeps reminding you that it's important to remember what color they are.

Thomas Sowell recently published a book (Affirmative Action Around the World) where he spins the usual perspective towards AA on its head.  He argues that, regardless of the merits and/or good intentions behind the policy decision, any objective scholar that examines the data on the results of AA programs is inexorably led to the conclusion that they are harmful to the very races which said programs are intended to benefit.  It's a refreshing take on the subject.  Ignore the arguments on the rationale of AA and focus instead on the end results.  It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could support AA after dispassionately examining the effects such programs have wrought on the peoples they were meant to assist.

Again, I think we'd all do well to remember that affirmative action did not simply appear in the 1960s, nor have black Americans been its primary beneficiaries.  Affirmative action has been practiced in the United States since its founding, and for 200+ years its primary beneficiaries were white Americans.  Now, I happen to oppose affirmative action -- regardless of the skin color of its beneficiary.  Still, I can't help but note the irony that affirmative action only became a problem when it switched from being a means to help white folks to a means to help black folks.  (That's a cheap shot; given that I just said that I generally oppose affirmative action, it's one directed in part at myself.)

We deserve an honest discussion of race in this country.  That's a pretty common request, though what comes next ain't nearly as common.  Having an honest discussion about race does not mean being honest with the "other".  It means first getting honest with yourself.  Everyone's gotta show that they understand the history of how the game has been played in America, or all these notions become code words to be deciphered and reciphered.  That means admitting that affirmative action has always been the regime in this country.  Otherwise, condemnations of affirmative action look like (and, for some, may be) a case of what's good for me and mine I won't give to you and yours.

Incidentally, a little walking on eggshells ain't necessarily a bad thing:  it'll keep all involved from saying something stupid.  Any my experience is that the feeling of being on eggshells disappears with time, maturity, and experience.  (Not saying that you lack any or all of the three; just noting my experience.)

outstanding post.

I personally oppose Affirmative Action becuase I think it is counter-productive.  IMO, the negative impact it has on target groups(ie lower expecatations and creating a sense of inferiority) outweigh the potential gains.

But there is no question that field has been uneven throughout our history.  Personally I would like to see a stronger enforcement of anti-discrimination laws instead.  And the first place I would target is our educational system.

I don't know what Redstaters think about the plan GWB signed into law as governor of Texas, but it is worth seriously talking about as a way to level the playing field. In short, the plan guarantees admission to Texas A&M--College Station or U Texas Austin to anyone who finishes in the top 10% of their highschool class. This program benefits Blacks and Hispanics who attend largely homogeneous schools. It also happens to benefit rural white Texans, a groups that was not helped at all by conventional affirmative action plans and yet was also seriously under-represented at main campuses.

What is interesting is that is works to the disadvantage of those who attend top public high schools in generally affluent areas. And they are complaining loudly.

... of GWB's plan.  It's not without it's faults (e.g., some folks are admitted to college who haven't been adequately prepared) but it's one of the best plans that I've seen.

Incidentally, Republicans could get more of the black vote if they started talking about affirmative action as something that has been with us a long time, and not something that suddenly appeared with the Civil Rights movement.  

von

FWIW, I have three primary interests in participating in intraRepublican debates:  (1) defense (I belong to the intermittently realist school), (2) markets/trade (I belong to the Pat Cleary school), and (3) getting to a point where Republicans routinely get 40-50-60% of the black vote.  (I'd also like to dramatically reduce the number of abortions.)

Not all forms of discrimination can be characterized as "affirmative action."  The term should only be applied to so-called positive discrimination meant to redress supposed inequities resulting from racism.  While whites have been the beneficiaries of racism for most of America's history, it does violence to the concept to refer to that as affirmative action.

Otherwise, condemnations of affirmative action look like (and, for some, may be) a case of what's good for me and mine I won't give to you and yours.

That is true:  to most blacks, the proclamation that "We're all Americans," or similar statements about the desirability of a colorblind society, must sound like a fig leaf for white privilege.

Incidentally, a little walking on eggshells ain't necessarily a bad thing:  it'll keep all involved from saying something stupid.

It doesn't keep all involved from saying something stupid, as the eggshell requirement only applies in practice to whites.  As the kerfuffle over the remarks about Michael Steele, or a quick glance at the pronouncements of America's ethnic lobbies reveal, claims that white people not otherwise associated with some transgressive interest are prima facie wicked are positively encouraged.  

Not all forms of discrimination can be characterized as "affirmative action."  The term should only be applied to so-called positive discrimination meant to redress supposed inequities resulting from racism.  

As a matter of precision in language, I agree.  As a matter of functionality, there's nothing to disintinguish giving a black man a preference for being black from giving a white man a preference for being white -- except that the former is a relatively recent phenomenon.  My suggestion is that we that we stop pretending that the notion of giving someone a preference based on their skin color is somehow a radical notion in American society.  (Which I hear you to also say; I write further to clarify my position, not to disagree.)

That is true:  to most blacks, the proclamation that "We're all Americans," or similar statements about the desirability of a colorblind society, must sound like a fig leaf for white privilege.

I've been told that it sounds like something else as well:  a damnable lie.  Because the statement "we desire to be in a colorblind society" frequently skips into the assumption that we are in a colorblind society and that whole racism thing is behind us.  We ain't and it isn't.  

It doesn't keep all involved from saying something stupid, as the eggshell requirement only applies in practice to whites.  

Yup, that's exactly right:  the eggshell is, right now, one way.  The goal, however, isn't to make it two way.  It's to get rid of it entirely, so folks can feel free to just be themselves.  

I suppose an honest discussion of affirmative action needs to take those of us with a yellowish tint to our skin into account... except that the discussion rarely does.  The very fact of Asian-American success is a major threat to the whole edifice justifying affirmative action, and so it gets swept under the black-white rug.

To use von's formulation, Asian Americans were slammed when affirmative action favored whites, and we're slammed now when affirmative action favors blacks.  Seeing as how we had nothing to do with America's racist past, and had no gains from America's past racist practices, why are we now asked to sacrifice for the sake of black gains?

Any honest discussion of race in America has to take into consideration the cap that is put on Asian-Americans in things like college admissions.  People think we're over-represented; and yet, the number of Asian-Americans as a percentage of the population at some of the better schools has been capped at around 10% for well over a decade now.  Anecdotally, it is far more difficult for Asian-American students to get into the better schools than for any other racial group, period.

Yet, the race-based demagogues with their mantra of "people of color" have convinced entirely too many Asian-Americans to take it on the chin for the "good of the movement" or for the "sake of solidarity" for far, far too long.  The diversocrats on our university campuses constantly seek to make Asian-Americans feel guilty about overachieving and over-representing.  Both are just silliness.

Until we address the problem of discrimination against Asian-Americans as part of a discussion about race in America, there is very little that is honest about such a discussion, I'm afraid.

-TS

... should be the only bar.  Quotas fix nothing.  If Asian Americans become the vast majority of the population at certain schools -- so what?  It would benefit America if they had access to the education they've earnmed and deserve.

It's horrifying that we're undereducated our best and brightest based on race!!

That you don't have Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpton's among you whose main purpose in life is to keep reminding you how you don't have a chance, and if you did you couldn't make anything of it without their help, and if you still manage to make it you must be a traitor to your race.

The discrimination against Asians in college admissions is terrible. I'm surprised how little it is discussed.

Asian immigration from all nationalities and ethnicities is a great success story that isn't referenced enough. The melting pot is still very much at work there.

In what state(s) is there a cap on admissions of Asian students?  It seems like this would be as unconstitutional / illegal as a quota.

Check out the enrollment numbers before and after race was dropped as an admission criterion in the CA public universities.  There was no official quota, but the number of Asian-Americans jumped significantly after race was dropped.

Ah good work, Adam C. I love it. It's about time we stop discriminating against some in order to keep from discriminating against others. I wish we could all just be "Americans." I do feel an explanation is in order for my screenname. "Hispanic Republican" obviously draws attention to my ethnicity and heritage, but the point is not to label myself as something other than American, rather it is simply to point out that as an individual of Hispanic descent, I am a Republican. I just want to encourage other Conservatives that aside from polls about what direction this demographic is trending, there is at least one Hispanic who is solidly Republican. Ah anyway, I don't know if that makes sense.  

Asians weren't "capped" at all, just treated like caucasians.  When affirmative action was dropped, underrepresented minority enrollment decreased from 21% to 16% (from 1995-1998) in the UC system.  White and Asian enrollment therefore went from 79% to 84%.  It's hardly earth-shaking as far as whites and Asians are concerned.

It's hardly earth-shaking as far as whites and Asians are concerned.

I guess that would all depend on if you were one of the people who were not admitted because of your race. Also, the difference for individual schools (such as the elite schools I believe) was bigger than for the system overall.

Almost all of that increase was in Asian enrollment.   That probably (and I don't have the data in front of me) translates to a bounce from 30% to 35% for Asian students.  Furthermore, the numbers are not the big issue to me.  The basing of decisions on race is the problem at the root of all reverse discrimination programs.

And FWIW, I recall Berkeley and UCLA having very significant upswings in Asian enrollment to the point where Asians are now close to a majority at Berkeley.

We have a good number of RedStaters who have some form of Hispanic heritage.

I'm not suggesting that Asian Americans remain silent to "take it on the chin" in the face of discrimination.  Nor am I in favor of affirmative action for anyone based on race (re-read my post).  

I think you're reading too much into my post.

With all due respect, I don't think so, von.

Seems to me that your point is that affirmative action didn't become a problem until it was blacks instead of whites who were being favored.  The suggestion then is that we should support affirmative action for blacks, to "level the playing field."

The problem with this storyline is the Asian-American: we neither benefited from past discriminatory practices nor benefit now from current discriminatory practices.  The injustice that is done to us may not appear so dire, as Asian-Americans have on the whole overachieved, but let me assure you that unfair treatment and denial of equality are indeed injustices.  

By failing to consider the Asian-American story, the race dialogue in this country becomes extremely skewed and solutions become worse than the problem.  On the one hand, we tend to ignore how white supremacy almost always went hand in hand with xenophobia (see, Chinese Exclusion Act), and ignore the role of organized labor in racist practices of the past.  On the other hand, we tend to downplay individual and family responsibility, and indeed 'community' responsibility as well, choosing instead to foist all the blame and therefore all the solution on the government.

-TS

Seems to me that your point is that affirmative action didn't become a problem until it was blacks instead of whites who were being favored.

No; I noted in passing that it was seemingly ironic to blast affirmative action directed to help black Americans when white Americans had received the benefits of affirmative action for much of this nation's history.  Here's what I wrote:

Now, I happen to oppose affirmative action -- regardless of the skin color of its beneficiary.  Still, I can't help but note the irony that affirmative action only became a problem when it switched from being a means to help white folks to a means to help black folks.  (That's a cheap shot; given that I just said that I generally oppose affirmative action, it's one directed in part at myself.)

As for my point:  

Despite its noble roots, the Republican party has had tremendous difficulty making inroads in the African American community.  Some of this is because black Americans don't think that the Republican party's policies favor them, but a great deal of it is because Republican politicians have been absolute idiots when talking about race.  

In other words, the substance is generally sound but the style sucks.  

Now, Republicans can argue the policy points all day long and, because many of the arguments are fundamentally good, lots of folks (of any skin tone) will agree with them.  But Republicans will never have mass appeal in the African American community until they correct the style.  Part of that means acknowledging that white Americans were the first and greatest beneficiaries of the largest affirmative action program this nation has ever seen.  

Mehlman's speech to the NAACP was a good start.

von

Affirmative action is implemented in favor of recently arrived Latin American immigrants, who should have no historic claim on the white people of the United States, either, given that neither they nor their ancestors were here to suffer under slavery or Jim Crow.  But yes, you have a good point: the success of Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, and Jews in the face of racism and legal discrimination should serve to undermine the rationale for affirmative action (though as a white, I'm probably not supposed to say this) but doesn't.  

To use von's formulation, Asian Americans were slammed when affirmative action favored whites, and we're slammed now when affirmative action favors blacks.  Seeing as how we had nothing to do with America's racist past, and had no gains from America's past racist practices, why are we now asked to sacrifice for the sake of black gains?

I've already registered my disagreement with von's formulation.  To liberals, America is axiomatically a society dominated and defined by white racism, and the fact that most Asian groups do well while blacks and most Latin Americans do poorly proves, not that racism is not the obstacle, but that they are not the victims of racism.  If they are not the victims of racism, it follows that they must be beneficiaries of it, and therefore ought to pony up.  This belief system is not one susceptible to disproof.  Like Communism, everything fits the theory.  

More cynically, affirmative action policies can be classified as a kind of protection racket - such is the obvious subtext of discussions of "positive discrimination" in France subsequent to the recent riots - or as a tax that one collects because one can, and for which principles are merely post hoc rationalizations.

just makes the Republicans look weak.  Anyone who feels compelled to apologize so effusively must feel guilty about something, after all.  Why trust him now?  That it is accompanied by and depends on the adoption of a tendentiously left-wing view of history, and that it insults the largest group of people who actually vote for the GOP, that is southern whites, makes it all the more dubious.  Telling the Democrats that yes, they're right, and we really are all a bunch of crypto-racist crackers, just like they've been saying since the 1960s, is not a path to victory or respect.

The foregoing post makes no sense, because the sentence "In other words, the substance is generally sound but the style sucks" should be at the end of the paragraph that follows it.  My apologies for the confusion.

I'm not asking for self-flagellation.  Nor am I asking for some admission of crypto-racism.  

I simply think it wise to admit simple truths so that a real conversation can begin.  

Incidentally, I can't tell you how little I care that a statement of historical fact might offend a couple of racists who happen to vote Republican.  (I dispute that this groups encompasses "southern whites.")  

One more thing:  I don't buy the argument that going after black votes means that Republicans lose white votes.  This ain't a zero-sum game, and the policies and principles don't change based on skin color.  The goal of any outreach program is to strip away the confusion and lay those policies and principles bare.

Incidentally, I can't tell you how little I care that a statement of historical fact might offend a couple of racists who happen to vote Republican.  (I dispute that this groups encompasses "southern whites.")

I didn't say it did.  Democrats do, and apparently Ken Mehlman does, too, since he in essence apologized for his party gradually locking up the South beginning with Nixon and culminating in the 1990s.

I don't buy the argument that going after black votes means that Republicans lose white votes.

No, but presumably there is a better way of doing the former than by insulting your base.

But I am sick and tired of admitting to and apologizing for crimes I didn't commit. I didn't own any slaves and I didn't spray any civil rights demonstrators with fire hoses. I didn't bar the doors to any public schools or throw any people in jail for using the wrong water fountain.

As we both oppose affirmative action.  If there is a difference, it appears to be at the margins -- perhaps regarding style and such.

Perhaps my grievance is a larger one: race talk in America has always been black-and-white, which doesn't illuminate the reality of the situation.

As to style, I get the feeling that it isn't the style of rhetoric one way or the other that's going to do it.  I think it may be the changing self-understanding going on within the black community itself that might turn the tide eventually.  I might point to several Chris Rock routines -- as well as other black comedians inspired by him -- as examples.  (Why comedians?  I find that they often end up speaking uncomfortable truths disguised as jokes.)  Bill Cosby's recent positions that have him a persona non grata amongst the race-grievance clubs such as the NAACP and the Urban League are nonetheless resonating with large swaths of the African American community.

Mehlman does do a credible job, but what sets Republicans and conservatives apart from the race grievance clubs is, imho, our refusal to play the victim game.  I don't know if that's a style thing or a substance thing, but it is something we need to remember and hold on to.

-TS

Don't lump them together.  The Urban League does high quality research on inner-city issues.  It has very little in common with the current version of the NAACP.  President Bush's choice to speak at the Urban League each year instead of the the NAACP is a good way of signalling that the NAACP leadership does not represent all black voices.  The Urban League does some outstanding work and they deserve any notice they get.

Adam, if I accept the premise that colorblind governance is the only method to promote a non-discriminatory society, how does that break the cycle of race-related poverty and other forms of racial discrimination?  Unless you assume away the accretion of white advantage over years and years of access to white privilege, whites have a structural advantage that will allow them to consistently achieve at higher rates than other minorities not similarly situated.  

We're pretty close; a couple additional thoughts:

1.  I'd say that Mehlman has been doing an excellent job in this area, but that he's still hampered in some particulars.  
   
2.  I don't think that the problem is self-understanding among African Americans:  black folks understand themselves as well as anyone.  The problem is that Republicans frequently paint themselves as folks who are hostile to their interests.  Most of the time it's inadvertent.  But it still occurs, and it serves as a signal.  Given that we receive only limited information regarding any given candidate, it's rational for African Americans to reach conclusions based on the signal that, no matter how much they may agree with the policies this guy advocates, he fundamentally ain't on their side.  (Granted, signalling effects can be unfair; nonetheless, they're present in nearly everything we do.)
   
3.  I agree that any discussion of race in America can't focus exclusively on the black-white dynamic.  

To liberals, America is axiomatically a society dominated and defined by white racism, and the fact that most Asian groups do well while blacks and most Latin Americans do poorly proves, not that racism is not the obstacle, but that they are not the victims of racism.

I can't speak about liberals -- trust me on this:  I blog at a very left-leaning website, and you should the reaction my posts generate.  To the extent that you think that the above assumptions undergirds my posts, however:  don't.  

I thought ObiWi was a bastion of moderation; a place where liberals and conservatives could engage in thoughtful conversations, with no one side or the other dominating the place.

Snicker.

did you come up for a breathe of fresh air?  Give my best to the intellects at obwi, do they still have posts about liberals being stuffed into boxcars and the possibility of arming themselves ?  johnt

in  their world it's all true.  I speak as one who was banned from that site,but only after I insulted someone who repeatedly insulted me, fairness you know.  i would regard the ban as an honor but honors like insults depend on who's giving them.

In fairness, ObWi has three main-page posters who are routinely identified as "conservative": Charles Bird, Sebastian Holsclaw, and me*, which is more than half.  Those on the left -- mostly, Edward_ and Hilzoy -- are supportive of what Moe Lane was trying to do when he set the place up.**  It's only the commentariat that tends to the left.

And, yes, there have been periods in which I felt that folks were unfairly banned, but I tend to take a pretty lassaiz-faire approach to such things.  (Indeed, I can't recall ever being in favor of a banning.)

von

*It's inaccurate in my case:  I seem to have gotten the label because I support the Iraq War, am insufficiently supportive of gay marriage (I want it voted in, not adjudicated in), and was an early proponent of Bush's plan to privatize SS.

**The other main-page posters are Slartibartfast, a moderate [read: sane] libertarian who seldom posts on political issues, and Katherine, who tends to the left but restricts her posting to torture-related issues.

and edified.  Thank you Adam.  I was indeed lumping them together, which isn't fair.

-TS

It's my impression that Charles and Sebastian are infrequent contributors, compared to hilzoy and Edward. I always took you for the more or less true moderate in the group.

Personally, I think policy should focus on increasing opportunities to everyone who needs it regardless of race.  I support school vouchers (to bridge the education gap), personal accounts (to bridge the wealth gap), and things like faith-based initiatives to help civil society help those in need.  None of those proposals are race-based.

I have not seen much evidence that shows race-based promotion or admission has lead to substaintial gains in outcomes over time.  But they do feed into a race-based mentality that I think is very bad for the country in the long run.