Progressives Need to Think About a Post-Affirmative Action World

I note in my debut column at The Week, where I’ll be writing fortnightly starting today, that the Supreme Court might have tried to strike a Solomon-like middle ground in Schuette vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, but diversity.campusElim Photography / Foter / Creative Commonsthe fact of the matter is that the days of affirmative action are numbered. And this is not because evil, white, male Republicans in black robes occupy the high court.

 It is because the whole issue has become one big yawn for Americans. Indeed, to the extent that race-sensitive policies generate any momentum at all, it’s on the side of banning them. The column points out:

Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent in the Michigan ruling, such (race-neutral diversity) efforts have failed to boost minority numbers to desirable levels. Getting them to work would require redoubled commitment.

This, however, is going to be difficult to muster after the current crop of university presidents — such as U-Mich's 69-year-old Mary Sue Coleman, who authorized Descriptor Plus — retire. They grew up in the heyday of the Civil Rights Era, when the country was consumed with issues of racial justice. Their successors, however, will come of age around the presidency of Barack Obama, who is the fruit of that struggle. They might not share their predecessors' zeal for boosting diversity, especially since they'll confront a far more splintered minority community.

Asian Americans, diversity's big losers, are turning against affirmative action. Last month, they stopped California Democrats, who hold a legislative supermajority, from reinstating racial preferences. Justice Sotomayor's plaintive diversity defense obviously wasn't written with their interest at heart.

What's more, all these trends — grassroots apathy, decline of a committed university vanguard, and minority opposition — will be gathering steam just around the 2028 expiration date for racial preferences that Justice Sandra Day O' Connor set in her 2003 Grutter vs. Bollinger ruling.

So if progressives can get neither whites nor minorities excited about racial quotas, should they just pack up and go home?

Go here to find out.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Race baiting is one of their most powerful tools. They're not going to give it up easily.

  • KevinP||

    Exactly.

  • John||

    As long as Asians and Hispanics and other minorities are willing to vote Democrat even if doing so means getting screwed for the benefit of other more valued minorities, they can get away with it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    True--when you get right down to it, the Democrats are really nothing more than a bunch of competing interest groups striving for bigger GIMMEDATs than the others. But as long as the party leaders and their footsoldiers in academia and the media can keep these groups focused on Evil White Men as their primary enemy, that will prevent the coalition from splintering for a while.

  • John C. Randolph||

    "Progressives" need to fuck off and quit trying to rule us.

    -jcr

  • John||

    It is another in the long list of issues that Progressives need to understand it is not 1955 anymore. When the country was nearly all white and blacks were the only significant minority in most of the country, affirmative action right or wrong was at least workable. In 2012 when the country is only has a small majority of whites and has a variety of significant minorities who are not black, affirmative action is insane.

    I have no doubt Progs would love to divide the country into a racial spoils system where all minorities vote socialist as their way of getting their cut. With as many minorities as there are now, however, no party could keep such a coalition together since the various minorities will end up fighting over the spoils.

    Basically, the Progs got their wish, they no longer have white people to kick around anymore. Prayers answered I guess.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Basically, the Progs got their wish, they no longer have white people to kick around anymore. Prayers answered I guess.


    I do wonder the reason for this hostility for whites. It resembles the Nazis' hostility for the Jews.

  • John||

    The Nazis were leftists. Leftism is always about collective guilt and a designated enemy. The Communists went after the property owning class. The Nazis went after other races. American leftists have chosen whites as their designated enemy. The fact that many American leftists are themselves whites just means they are insane not that they haven't chosen whites as their designated enemy.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In doing so, they define the enemy too widely in more ways than one.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    American leftists have chosen whites as their designated enemy.

    I don't agree with that at all. First, they would gleefully push Thomas Sowell or Ben Carson in the ovens well before they would get around to you. Secondly, if you look at the policies they pursue, they, without fail, benefit the core Progressive demographic (urban,"creative class" Whites) at the cost of harming the upward economic and social mobility of minorities (except the token Capos of the modern-day ghettos).

  • John||

    Just because whites are the designated other doesn't mean that there are not other enemies. Clearly any black person who thinks for themselves is a big enemy. But Sowell and Carson are enemies because of what they think and the threat they create. Whites are enemies by virtue of their skin color.

  • Tony||

    Why don't you head over to Stormfront where this horseshit belongs.

  • ||

    Sounds like a great place for you, you brown person-hating piece of shit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You must be well acquanited with Stormfront. Is that where you got the idea that since my wife is Thai she must be a prostitute and desires to sell my daughter into sexual slavery? Go ahead and deny that you implied that you racist piece of shit.

  • Tony||

    Since we've already settled this misunderstanding, now you're just slandering me.

    Go pick on some of the overtly racist shitheads posting on this thread.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Have we? I just recall you getting all petulant when I asked you to apologize and you refused to do so. You claim you were misunderstood, I'm still not sure you're not changing your story when caught. Nevertheless, as you seem to be sincere this time, I'll just note that perhaps in the future you'll choose your words with more care; especially since, unlike others here, I haven't ever even breathed a homophobic word towards you.

  • ||

    Have pity on the poor idiot. He's completely unprepared to argue with someone who he can't plausibly call a racist.

  • ||

    The only racist here are you and Murcan.

  • waffles||

    But they're the right sort of white people. You know, the kind that wouldn't be caught dead at a tractor pull.

  • blcartwright||

    The Nazis used nationalism as their rally cry. Therefor the enemy was anyone inside the country who worked for foreign goals or powers, IOW were not sufficiently German. The target groups were Jews (Zionism), Communists (Moscow) and Gypsies (homeless). They were in Germany but not of Germany. The first laws banned them from jobs that influenced public opinion, such as arts and media, then in successively more stringent steps until the final solution, just kill them all.

  • Tony||

    “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

    “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

    --Cliven Bundy

    "the various minorities will end up fighting over the spoils."

    --John

    Nope, definitely not 1955 anymore

  • sarcasmic||

    Too many uncomfortable truths for you to handle, eh Tony?

  • John||

    So because there is some likely false Leftist meme going around that says some guy in Utah said something racist, it is totally okay to discriminate against Asians and whites in college admissions.

    I have to hand it to you Tony, that is some top notch facts and reasoning there.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Even if all that were true, affirmative action in university admissions would only be justified if those same universities themselves had engaged in unlawful discrimination, and only to the extent that affirmative action would remedy the precise discrimination done by that exact university.

  • John||

    Exactly. Liberals run college admissions. Affirmative action advocates are basically saying liberals are too racist to be trusted with discretion.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Affirmative action advocates are basically saying liberals are too racist to be trusted with discretion

    Point stipulated. I do, however, reject their solution.

  • MWG||

    Well, I guess that settles it. Based off one comment by an elderely rancher in rual Nevada we can clearly see that 1955 America is alive and well, right Tony?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How many universities does he run?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Would it kill you to provide a source to the quote you attribute to somebody?

  • John||

    Yes. Tony is a leftist troll. One of his jobs is to put up false and defaming quotes up on the internet so that they can be pointed to by other leftists.

  • Tony||

    It's all over the news. Rand Paul has walked back his support of the guy. You people really do live in caves don't you.

  • John||

    You read that in the "Washington Post" too, Tony? Regardless, even if your faked quote were true, it would have nothing to do with the thread. Sorry there are so many uncomfortable truths being presented here Tony.

  • Tony||

    Are you gonna admit you're mistaken, now that I've provided a link?

    I'm sorry your inbred moron hero-du-jour turns out to be just another racist shithead. But then... all of your politics come back to being racist shitheads, and this thread has already started to demonstrate that, and it's early.

  • John||

    I never said it was fake. I said it was probably fake because you didn't provide a link. Again, it still doesn't help your case.

    Why does this quote make it okay to discriminate against Asians? Why are you so racist against Asians Tony?

  • sarcasmic||

    Because the Bundy guy made that statement, any and all libertarian types are racist by association. The only way they can prove that they are not racist is to abandon their principles and back up the feds. Right Tony? Ad hominem plus a little guilt by association! Fallacies galore!

  • Tony||

    Well you said he told some "uncomfortable truths" so you've associated yourself.

  • John||

    How are any of us "associated" with Bundy? You really are a hateful and stupid person Tony. You are incapable of seeing anything but your side and the enemy. Everyone is either on your side or totally on the other.

  • sarcasmic||

    You support policy premised on the idea that blacks are inherently inferior, thus needing preferential treatment, and you call us racist?

  • Tony||

    I guess my point is you racist fuckstains are the last people to be making policy with respect to minority empowerment.

    FTR I think race-based affirmative action should be replaced by class-based affirmative action, which I believe ends up having the effect of increasing minority access at about the same levels.

  • ||

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    We're the racist fuckstains?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Go fuck yourself. I have better things to do than troll news for the latest outrage of the week. Unless you want to write up my IRB proposal and assist me in my research.

  • blcartwright||

    and maybe Bundy's presentation is a little crude, but is what he says in error? Has not the government subsidy become a new slavery which also destroys the family?

  • Tony||

    Washington Post

  • John||

    You just didn't put the link up because the Washington Post isn't on the internet or something.

    Provide a link or just admit it is a lie.

  • Tony||

  • John||

    Good for you Tony. Why did you think you could post something without a link?

    Beyond that, the fact that some guy in Nevada said something racist doesn't really have much to do with screwing Asians and whites in college admissions.

    Is it your opinion that the people making college admissions decisions agree with this sentiment?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Only the most disingenuous pieces of shit, like you, would twist his words from an observation that the destruction of the Black family through the culture of poverty and dependence created by the welfare state is even worse than outright slavery in its insidiousness to "Blacks should still be slaves".

    Now, go and tell me that I must be racist towards Blacks, you fucking piece of shit. I want to see you do it, Tony. Come on. I know the racial slurs on right on your tongue, tell us what you feel about me. Do it.

  • Tony||

    I didn't twist anything, I quoted. And he said, "I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

    By all means do carry on trying to defend this.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Right, to any honest person, he is saying that the conditions of poverty generated by the welfare/ghetto culture are worse than slavery, not that slavery was such a good thing. You know LBJ, the architect of the modern welfare/ghetto state was a notorious racist who beat the shit out of Mexican students who dared speak Spanish in his English classes when he was a schoolteacher in Texas, right? You know LBJ's privately-expressed views on Blacks weren't the most "enlightened", yes?

  • Tony||

    Anyone who says blacks were better off under slavery is a racist shithead, period. That is not a debatable point.

    I'm not going to bore myself trying to explain, yet again, that the narrative about how the welfare state is responsible for poverty among minorities is an inherently racist narrative, and that anyone who's not a racist shithead understands that poverty itself is the root cause of most of the problems we're talking about (meaning the safety net is not generous enough to end cycles of poverty).

    But I am going to repeat: anyone who says blacks were better off under slavery is saying basically the most racist thing anyone can possibly say short of "kill all the niggers." Seriously, fuck.

  • paranoid android||

    Oh, please, Tony, come now, we've all heard you say much worse.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Tony, this is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever written, and you have quite a body of works so far.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorty after the abolition of slavery, there were many former slaves longing for the good old days when they were provided with food, shelter and clothing! Those damn racist slaves! Fuck them!

  • blcartwright||

    Recently I was reading about the Osage tribe. They were driven off their land in Illinois and migrated to Kansas (by other Indians!). Even there, they survived well of the land, hunting, gathering and farming. Then the federal government sold them land in Oklahoma. These people who had no problem supporting themselves then starved once they were dependent on the government.

    "It was many years before the Osage recovered from the hardship suffered during their last years in Kansas and their early years on the reservation in Indian Territory. Although they had money held by the US government from the sale of their land, for nearly five years during the depression of the 1870s, the Osage did not receive their full annuity in cash; like other Native Americans, they suffered through the reduced rations that the government supplied during this period. Some people starved. Many adjustments had to be made to their new way of life.[25]"

  • ||

    Hear that, HM? You hate niggers.

  • paranoid android||

    It's also interesting in light of the fact that Tony is constantly harping that "freedom" is this terrible thing that nobody wants and which libertarian types want to "impose" on an unwilling populace. It makes his fetishizing of the idea here all the more bizarre.

  • Loki||

    So because some old codger may have said something racist university admissions should be based on racial preferences. OK, sure, got it.

  • Harun||

    Just to add some context, this is what was said immediately prior to that quote:

    "We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don't want to go back; we sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don't want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way."

    So its doubtful Bundy wants to return to slavery or 1955, since he stipulates progress has been made and we don't want to go back.

    Now...is he still a little racist? Was the "better off in slavery" comment dumb?

    Probably.

  • Adam330||

    While you are right it is not 1955, it also is not 2012.

  • John||

    Yeah but there were a lot of different minorities in 2012 too.

    Every year seems to go by quicker.

  • ||

    I wouldn't consider 70% a "small majority"

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The states where AA is a hot button issue have much smaller percentages. CA will be a majority latino state in my lifetime.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Latinos already outnumber "whites" in CA although presently no group has a clear-cut majority. In the most recent record year, the University of California system accepted more Asians and Latinos than whites, who only outnumbered African-Americans in total number of acceptances.

    As was stated elsewhere in this thread, the Asian community in CA torpedoed efforts to bring back affirmative action, in that they feared it would impact them the most. As Latinos are already outnumbering whites, it is likely they soon will also have far less interest in race-based policies that would hurt their community.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Asians were 41% when I was at Berkeley, and I believe the numbers were similar at UCLA and UC San Diego.

  • sarcasmic||

    A post-progressive world would be grand!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Shikha Dalmia, just another white male flaunting his privilege.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Princeton sociologist Tom Espenshade found that nearly two-thirds of all these non-race-based preferences at elite universities benefited whites in 1997, even though whites made up less than half of all applicants.


    Is there an explanation as to why a non-race-based preference would benefit whites disproportinately?

  • John||

    The only two preferences I could think of are legacies and geographic and legacies. Legacies are going to be mostly white. Geographic probably are too. If you are Standford and you want students from all fifty states, the student you take out of Utah is probably going to be white.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The golf and squash teams probably vacuum up a lot of whites too.

  • Loki||

    I'd think that would be offset by the basketball and football teams.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I guess it depends on the school. There were a lot of white dudes on the field at the last Yale-Harvard game.

  • tarran||

    Progressive public schooling is especially harmful to minorities.

  • Rich||

    So if progressives can get neither whites nor minorities excited about racial quotas, should they just pack up and go home?

    They should, but they won't. And the LSM has been trotting out excited minorities since the ruling.

  • wareagle||

    if progs seriously considered such a world, then they wouldn't be progs, now would they? I'm sure they've "thought" about it and just as sure they see no benefit to themselves in such a world.

  • Rich||

    Progressives Need to Think About a Post-Affirmative Action World

    FTFY

  • WTF||

    Yeah, there's the problem in a nutshell.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    40% of black students at Ivy schools are African immigrants, not African-American. Harvard's 11.8% black student population for the class of 2015 is made up of 7% African immigrants.

    Is affirmative action correcting past or institutional racism when it's not serving the population it was designed to assist?

  • Adam330||

    What's your source for this?

  • waffles||

    Absolutely not. It's a shame that it's more about the color of your skin than anything else.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I won't believe it until the MWBE requirement goes out the window in State Procurement.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The rationale for affirmative action was to guarantee that minorities can have equal opportunities. However, I point out that this same rationale could have been used to justify racial segregation in public schools.

    After all, when minorities had their own schools, that meant there was a guarantee of a minority being a valedictorian or cheerleading captain. It could have been further argued that segregating minorities in their own schools protected them from racial discrimination. After all, as the argument would go, if there were no white students, then there is zero possibility of a minority being passed over for cheerleading captain for a less-qualified white candidate.

    If schools were integrated, the racist administrators would make sure that the valedictorians and cheerleading captains were white, even if they were not the most qualified. In fact, I would not be surprised if such arguments were used by the Brown v. Board of Education appellees and supporting amici.

    And yet, even though segregation guaranteed that minorities have a chance at being valedictorians, cheerleading captains, and other high status positions in schools, on the basis that there would be zero possibility that a less-qualified white person would be given these honors and stati, somehow the Supreme Court found that segregation stamps a badge of inferiority.

    I wonder why they thought that.

  • blcartwright||

    I believe one of the problems addressed by Brown was funding. I agree with your assessments of segregated schools, except that the white school district administrators would neglect to fund the black schools at the same level as white schools, denying them quality teachers and resources which were made available to the whites.

  • PRX||

    the really odd thing is that according to leftists there has only been one beneficiary of affirmative action ever, Clarence Thomas.

  • UnCivilServant||

    In that case, they should have no problem throwing it all out.

  • waffles||

    Not to stormfront it up in here, but I look forward to white genocide. It would quench this silly race business. We can all be sexy (or maybe unfortunate) hybrid peoples. And then there will be no more boxes to check.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Watching some DNA focused program I learned nearly all "white" people carry some African DNA, so let's just say we're all ethnically "mixed" and call it a day. Like Elizabeth Warren, if we claim we're something, then we are. ;-)

    More high school and college aged kids are refusing to check the race box on government forms.

  • Loki||

    Asian Americans, diversity's big losers, are turning against affirmative action.

    Well, maybe if they'd stop acting all "white" and shit... /sarc

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement