‘Affirmative action” was the logical sequel to the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s. The initial reasoning was attractive enough. New guarantees of equality of opportunity were insufficient to achieve the promised social parity, given the legacy of slavery and the existence of ongoing racial bias. Therefore, to counteract the effects of historical discrimination, the race of individuals must be weighed into contemporary hiring and admissions practices. The key was to avoid the word “quota.” That did not sound very “affirmative” for a program that supposedly was about growing (or “enriching”) the pie, not a crass zero-sum game of taking a college spot or a job from one person and giving it to another on the basis of race.
Second, although slavery was confined to the Confederacy, there was the general assumption that, as blacks in the postbellum era had migrated northward, they were subjected to all sorts of bias, and so the recompense was to be a national, not just a southern, obligation.
Advertisement
Third, it was soon clear that all sorts of groups other than blacks could lodge historical claims against the supposedly dominant “white” culture. Soon Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians likewise petitioned for inclusion in set-aside and compensatory programs. The subtext was that these groups, given racial bias, would not intermarry and assimilate as quickly or to the same degree, and would not do as well economically, as had other terribly persecuted minorities like Jews, Italians, and the Irish, who after decades of discrimination seemingly had morphed into the so-called white majority.
As these original victimized groups experienced success (though at differing rates), and as a legion of other cadres sought inclusion in the preference industries, “affirmative action” insidiously was replaced by a new euphemism, “diversity” — which apparently denoted that almost anyone who was not a white male heterosexual Christian could qualify for preference on the basis of “difference.”
A university, for example, might highlight its “rich diversity” by pointing to gay students, female students, Punjabi students, Arab students, Korean students, and disabled students — even should they all come from quite affluent families and backgrounds. Key here was that “diversity” was admittedly cosmetic, or at least mostly to be distinguishable by the eye — skin color, gender, etc. — rather than internal and predicated on differences in political ideology or values. A Brown or an Amherst worried not at all that its classes included very few Mormons, libertarians, or ROTC candidates; instead, if the students looked diverse, but held identical political and social views, then in fact they were diverse.
But as we near a half-century of racial preferences, the entire industry is now obsolete, as illiberal as it is counterproductive. Quite simply, there were inherent flaws in affirmative action/diversity that were never addressed. And they now have come back to haunt the entire experiment as something as corrupt and unworkable as our far briefer trial with Prohibition. Here are five good reasons to dismantle the Diversity Industry, and simply attempt to judge Americans on the “content of our character” rather than by the way we look.
1. Who is a minority? There were never clear, established rules for racial set-asides. To make such rules would by definition require some sort of racial-purity protocols, whose history, whether in the antebellum South or National Socialist Germany, has been frightening. But America is still the melting pot where intermarriage and assimilation continue — far more so than the during the 1960s, when quotas were being established. Thus, are Barack Obama’s children (of one-half African-American, one-fourth Kenyan, and one-fourth white heritage) “black”? Who is Mexican-American? Does one qualify by having a half-Mexican-American father, which ensures a one-quarter-Mexican racial line and a Hispanic last name?
4 "border states" kept slavery but did not secede. Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and one other...? Too lazy to look it up. Not only did they remain slave states, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in those states.
"4 "border states" kept slavery but did not secede. Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and one other...? "
Five, actually, or possibly six, depending on how you look at it. The one you're thinking of is DE. But WV split off during the war, and NJ still had a few dozen "sort-of slaves" in 1860.
While slaves in these states (and in some counties occupied by the Union forces in seceded states) were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, this statement is misleading.
MO (January '65), MD (November '64), WV (February '65) all freed their slaves by state action before the end of the war. Slave were actually freed by the 13th amendment only in KY (tens of thousands) and DE (a couple hundred).
'Affirmative Action' is a euphemistic term that hides the true intention of this program. It should be labeled 'entitlement action' since it confers special privileges on a group of people that has nothing to do with their skills and abilities to do the job in question. It confers a special privilege based solely on race, gender, ethnic or sexual preference. None of these factors have anything to do with the job. However, the special privileges are conferred upon an individual to pay off political groups that possess power. It receives political cover in the form of 'equality'. A concept that has nothing to do with its true intentions.
Can't wait to read the flame-outs over this. Liberals will freak, because THEY CARE! and you don't. Dr. Hanson makes fillet mignon of their pet sacred cow.
No one complained that the NBA and NFL employed blacks in vastly disproportionate fashion (79 percent and 65 percent, respectively), or suggested that each team should have quotas for whites and Asians commensurate with their numbers in the general population.
But ask any sports radio talk show host, ESPN talking head, or any of the "prominent sports writers; they'll tell you that "minorities" (they mean "blacks") are under represented in the owner's suite, management and coaching. Whitey still calls the shots and pockets the big bucks.
Mr. Hanson's previous description of the decline and likely fall of his corner of the state of California, which attracted such a large number of comments in response, and now this unflinching analysis of the corrosive effects of "affirmative action" with its effect of micro-Balkanizing our society, which I suspect will attract lots of attention as well, together suggest a rather bleak prospect for the likely future of America in the 21st century. Do you, gentle readers of NRO, think our country has a chance to root out the rot before the great tree falls?
The equal opportunity that always defined America transformed into an attempt to guarantee equal outcome, which has now become an effort to reward political blocs. It is no coincidence that "diversity" tends to reward mostly those who can reliably be counted on to vote for Democrats. Or do they vote for Democrats because they benefit most from the policies of inclusion the Democrats are always pushing? Either way, the "hope and change" that was recently so popular was never more than a means to reward political backers.
Oh, the horror of even suggesting that the Civil Rights Bill of 1965 should be repealed. No one has the courage to do so, but it would enormously improve economic mobility and cordiality. Everyone suspects "minorities" who succeed on their own.
I live in the "bigoted" South, where no one cares much about race anymore. They do care about government interference, and if it were removed, there would be some instances of bigotry, but many more of acceptance.
it is very refreshing that someone like VDH exists and has the career to publish these particular articles...i've made it a point to read the National Review Online daily...and while i don't wholeheartedly agree w/ everything written, 95% of everything makes sense to me and i can't say that about any other publication...
Unfortunately, Mr. Hanson, we are too far gone for sanity to return. “Diversity coordinators” are now in every HR Department promoting the “salad bowl” (i.e. Balkanization), not the “melting pot.” The English language is now permeated with politically correct euphemisms which are constantly replaced as even new terms become offensive to someone and therefore must be changed. Anyone charged with sexism or racism is considered guilty until proven innocent. Even our armed forces are infected by the diversity bug to the point of idiocy. Remember General Casey’s remark after the Fort Hood shooting stating it would be worse if the incident resulted in “our diversity” becoming a casualty. In our efforts to right past wrongs, we have gone overboard. Our good intentions have indeed led to our destruction.
I believe that the entire purpose of the diversity/affirmative action boondoggle has been to eliminate even the idea of an American people (e puribus unum) and divide, as much as is possible, the citizens into a myriad of self-centered pressure groups. If this is not the purpose, it certainly has been the result--we are a fractured nation that celebrates differences instead of similarities.
Those who would rule our lives are well versed in the tactic of "divide et impera." On November 9, 2008, Valerie Jarrett, one of our current Great Leader's mouthpieces, noted on Meet the Press that ". . .it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one. . ."
It’s amazing how the liberal agenda in action bears no resemblance to its name sake, the Western It’s amazing how the liberal agenda in action bears no resemblance to its name sake, the Western Liberal Tradition. In fact that Liberalism we now have to call Classical Liberalism to differentiate it from our new Social Liberalism.
Principles established through thousands of years of diverse reasoned thought and rich cultural traditions have been replaced by the faux social liberalism which beneath its shiny patina is merely a rotten decrepit pile of brushed aside ideas.
Thus in a few paragraphs Dr. Hanson merely nicks the surface and exposes the folly of the entire AA enterprise, a perfect example of the liberalism’s rotten byproducts.
But the question is not why it should be dismantled…that truth is self evident to any willing to look. The question we must answer is…how do we dismantle it?
Social liberalism and all its offshoots are supported in academia, media, entertainment, judgeships, entire branches of government, and even by the corporate world (i.e. President Obama’s biggest contributors). The average citizen and non-citizen alike are so indoctrinated with the social liberalism myth that even if they are moderate conservatives…they are easily persuaded to vote liberal or support liberal issues to in order to appease the noisy agitators. They are goaded to prove they are not small minded racist bible thumping (place pejorative here) individuals incessantly advertised in every corner of society.
This is the great challenge of our time, not just to expose liberalism for what it is but make the obvious visible to those who as of yet cannot or do not want to see.
I agree with your comments, particularly the statement that Dr. Hanson nicks the surface of the issues of AA.
What he doesn't mention, is the destructiveness of AA in that it tears at the fabric of society and the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution. Whilst we all acknowledge that blacks were discriminated against, and continue to be discriminated against in certain situations, AA utterly fails to provide a major uplift for qualified minorities--as borne out by statistics. Even those individuals who get a free ride on these mandates can hardly have the same feeling of achievement knowing that they did not reach their position based on merit alone. Conversely, the many qualified candidates who are rejected from jobs or various other institutions due to AA inevitably walk away frustrated, at the very least, with potential negative consequences regarding their views on minorities.
Whilst AA is not directly comparable to the planned economies of Communism (party affiliation trumps qualification), it definitely has similar aspects--we are all aware of how successful these economies were/are.
As with many of these government programs, it is well nigh impossible to dismantle them, short of a major revolution. Unfortunately, given the state of the global economy with its uncontrollable debt increases, changes of a proportion to make AA an insignificant issue, may be much closer than most people think.
Question 1 is a real kicker. After finding my grandfather's immigration card for my son's 5th grade school project, I learned that 3 of my 4 grandparents technically immigrated from Havana, Cuba in 1939. Both sets of grandparents were originally from Italy. What happened? Turns out they were illegal immigrants from Italy at the turn of hte 20th century. Because they had established businesses and families, the government sent them to Havana for 6 months for US citizenship training in lieu of deportation. THe US citizenship training permitted re-entry to the country legally. All records showed immigration from Cuba, and nothing earlier. As far as the government was concerned, they were Cuban.
To show you how things changed, my grandparents were deeply embarrassed in 1939 about being illegal immigrants and never shared their experience with their grandchildren because they considered it to be a shameful experience. My parents did not tell us out of consideration of their parents wishes.
Yet . . . during my son's sollege counseling night, an admissions counselor discussed "diversity" at length (always amazed me how little they discussed academics and how much they discussed diversity). I brought up the family history and asked whether my children could claim Latino status. To say this sparked a lengthy discussion on Who Is A Minority is an understatement. After an hour of discussion, they all agreed that my children should claim the status but we should disclose its basis. We are still debating what to do as a family. But the fact that a quirk of family history can decisvely affect which colleges my children gain admittance, and the amount of scholarship money available (which I understand is the REAL area of affirmative action) is a good reflection of the current state of affirmative action.
By the way, the date of my grnadparents immigration to the US from Cuba was September 1, 1939. I could not find a single Hispanic sounding name on the ship manifest but boy did I see a a lot of Germans, Austrians, French, British, and Polish nationals.
"United we stand, divided we fall." I savored every word of this courageous article, but I don't know why I call it "courageous" when it merely states facts. But it shakes the very foundation of the diversity hoax, and says exactly what liberals don't want to hear. Anything even named "Affirmative Action" is loaded with prejudice and propaganda of the very kind this country is supposed to eschew. It has always been clear, to me at least, that Affirmative Action was never a policy of inclusion, but a policy of exclusion, in particular, the exclusion of the aforementioned white, male, heterosexual Christians.
It all started with the hyphen. The proliferation of this insidious little tic in the 1970s not only sought to bestow a finer identification on certain "minority" groups, but it also symbolically drew a gulf between the minority identity and the word "American." The minority got top billing while "American" came in second, representing exactly where loyalties lay, except when it comes to benefits. The hyphen didn't stop there. It abounds in American surnames, created by people who will not assimilate, even with their spouses. To test our obsession with hypens, think of a white couple who emigrate from Johannesburg to take their place among other "African-Americans." Absurd.
What do liberals hate most? Racial profiling. What are liberals most guilty of? Racial profiling. What is it, if not profiling, that determines who gets in and who does not? Liberal "solutions" are not solutions. They are feel-good salves applied to manufactured wounds in search of votes and the perpetuation of their species. Liberal "solutions" can never be fully realized. They are stopped in their tracks by what's left of American common sense, and not yet allowed to infect brain surgeons, airline pilots and sports teams. That should be proof enough of their insufficiency. Liberal "solutions" carried out to their extreme can only result in death and destruction disguised as Utopia. Haven't we been down this road before?
But still we wail about "disproportionality" in our prisons, and still we strive to appoint "fair" juries, as though justice comes in many colors, which it does not. And don't get me started on "hate crimes."
Thanks for the ray of truth on the topic. I'll pass it on to my liberal friends and watch their heads explode. Just kidding. I don't have any liberal friends.
I have been asked to "find" black students for photo shoots and to attend events to "show" diversity.
I have been asked to find other ethnicities as well. I always refuse, and if pressed, ask them to put their request in writing. That quickly ends the request.
The worst example I ever saw was a girl who was a very active student leader on campus. She was constantly asked to be a part of publicity shoots and other PR efforts. After a few years, she realized she was being asked b/c she was of Korean descent.
Of course, she had been adopted at birth and been raised in a strong Irish Catholic family in New York and was the least "Korean" person around. But she was a good prop.
The soul-crushing effect this had on her was terrible. She thought she had been asked b/c of who she was and what she accomplished.
They just wanted someone with slanted eyes.
We need to fight the dignity-destroying do-gooders before they hurt more people and rip our society apart.
We can only do it at the grassroots level in our day to day lives, and be willing to sacrifice to win.
