The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
National Review's Rich Lowry and Washington Post's Megan McCardle on American Racial Classifications
It's not just that colleges and universities discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. They do it badly.
This is one of the themes that emerged in the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the Harvard and University of North Carolina affirmative-action cases last week.
The racial categories that the schools use are completely bonkers, an arbitrary mess mostly left over from the work of federal bureaucrats in the 1970s that can't withstand the slightest scrutiny.The administrators who rely on these categories are beholden to senseless and unscientific distinctions — they aren't even competent or rational racialists.
Justice Samuel Alito raised this issue in the arguments, pretty clearly relying on the work of George Mason University professor David Bernstein, who eviscerated the categories in an amicus brief and has written a book on their origin and implications, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.
The categories throw together a kaleidoscope of races and ethnicities in six neat categories: Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, White, African American, and Native American. Created for federal bookkeeping purposes 50 years ago, they long ago hardened into orthodoxy, with some adjustments here or there. ….
As legal scholar David Bernstein points out in "Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America," "Experience around the world shows that affirmative action categories almost always expand rather than contract, as more and more groups lobby to get affirmative action preferences and then lobby to protect those preferences." A system that drew its political support from our desire to eradicate Jim Crow ended up covering a number of protected classes, though along somewhat arbitrary lines that were driven as much by political maneuvering as by any rational criteria. This created various ad hoc absurdities — a Pakistani is "Asian," but an Afghan born a few miles across the border might be coded "White"; the daughter of a Spanish doctor is Hispanic, eligible for various private and government-sponsored affirmative action programs, while the child of an Italian janitor, who might be visually indistinguishable from the doctor's child, is presumably in no need of help.
The more immigrants who arrived, the more these complications multiplied, even among Black Americans. American descendants of enslaved people are our most disadvantaged citizens, with enduring gaps in education, income and wealth, but African immigrants are much better educated than average. The old system assumed a large White majority that was self-contained and thoroughly dominant; it was simply not built for a world where "biracial" was a meaningful category, or where some minority groups were more successful than the (rapidly shrinking) White majority….
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lowry's piece is behind the NRO paywall.
I was able to read the Lowery piece free, but hit a paywall on the McCardle article.
Opposite for me. Go figure.
If you are a Hispanic gay married to a Black you get to pick your identity. Maybe go trans and add some oomph. But what gets me is the % ratings. Are you really 1/4 Black if your paternal grandmother was Black. Doesn’t that — mustn’t that — make all 4 pure representatives of race, which of course can never be the case.
Look up Mother Henriette Delisle soon to be canonized and officially Black in her day. She is more white than most people on here.
...as was Sally Hemmings.
Progressives intend to be unfair and very clearly don’t care about the harm they cause to their victims. Sometimes they gleefully celebrate that harm.
Fixating on the details of the mechanism of such harm seems to be a peculiar species of missing the point. Like how do the tumblers in the Soviet gulag cell door locks function? Hmm. They could have used a design with fewer parts…
From the end of the McCardle:
In the name of making its elite institutions fully representative, America can ask some members of the White majority to step aside in favor of underrepresented minorities with lower grades and test scores. And in the name of procedural fairness, America can ask disappointed White applicants to suck it up when they were outcompeted for university places by overperforming minority groups. But America cannot ask both those things at once — not when the numbers get so big and the stakes so high.
This, of course, is the real problem.
If y'all really cared about unfairness, you would be just as concerned about the women, urbanites, and other kids who don't get in because of other kinds of diversity.
If you were really "colorblind," you wouldn't make up and then complain about "replacement theory," or get all animated about the southern border when most illegal immigrants enter legally (and overstay their visa), and most aren't even from Mexico.
No, it's all just White Grievance.
“White grievance”. Cool. Now do Asians.
Ok then, answer my question. If you feel bad for the Asians, why don't you feel bad for the women or the urbanites?