In order for there to be affirmative action without racism, it must be possible to have in any way “affirmative action” without it by definition discriminating on the basis of race against the people who benefit from it. There are a finite number of elite college slots - anything that “prefers” people of a given race by definition also makes it harder for people of other races to get into that school.
So, tell me about this non racist affirmative action. I posit that it doesn’t exist - anything that fits the commonly understood definition of the words “affirmative action” is definitely racism.
An argument could plausibly be made that it’s not necessarily bad - that a little racism is ok, especially if it is making up for a past wrong - but it’s dishonest to claim it is something other than what it is.
For what it’s worth, I think you’re right. It’s an uncomfortable thing that anybody on my side of this has to address (in some way other than by saying “you’re totally wrong about that”) – the language of the desegregation era does seem very much to support the notion of colorblindness and neutrality, and not an aggressive campaign of what its opponents would call benevolent discrimination.
I think I can address it, though. First of all, like I said before, “colorblindness” at the time the idea was invented would have had exactly the same function as pro-black discrimination efforts. What would you have done if you were charged with being super-favorable to black people right after Jim Crow? You would have stripped away all the incredibly racist state policies that were oppressing blacks, which would have looked exactly like forcing color-blindness on everyone. Color-blindness and “strong” affirmative action are identical when society is that racist.
Second of all, and probably more persuasive: the same people who made the argument for aggressive anti-discrimination measures specifically supported the active, remedial and color-conscious models. King was one, as you discussed above, but if you take the time to review what the big players of the era had to say about this stuff, they remarkably consistently do NOT say that what they want is to eliminate all race consciousness and just let things play out with some sort of notion of equality of opportunity. What they wanted to do was fix the problem. Modern conservatives are fond of quoting bits of Brown v. Board of Education and other cases, and MLK’s speeches, and snippets of statements and oral arguments made by the NAACP and various people, in support of the idea that the goal all along has been true neutrality. But really that was never the goal of any of those people. The goal was always to eradicate the vestiges of racial discrimination, particularly against blacks. The means, at the time, was to stop categorizing people based on race, and so there were lots of arguments and admonitions to the effect of “stop categorizing people based on race!”. But it was always the case, and most of the time it was made explicit but it just went without saying, really, that the reason they wanted that to stop happening, the ends of those arguments and admonitions, was to achieve the purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was to right the wrongs of slavery. So I mean, what I would say is: we started with color-blindness as the first try, and it didn’t get us all the way there. And it’s not a betrayal of what those people were after to keep trying. It’s actually very much what their enemies would want us to do to say that we’re color blind now, so that’s the end of that era.
And since i have noted that Affirmative Action is not limited to simply college admissions and have also noted that I do not support quotas, your straw man is of no interest to me.
Posters have now come forward to say that, (despite the lack of previous statements to that effect), they were discussing college admissions. I will accept their declarations. However, I have explicitly noted a different view of Affirmative Action that requires no preferences for any specific group. I have already told you about the non-racist Affirmative Action and if you insist on proclaiming that it must be racist, you simply indicate that you are more interested in polemics than facts.
Sheesh, I used to consider myself a liberal but will have to rethink that definition cause there’s no way I want to be in the same camp as the likes of Robert163.
I have to unfortunately agree with Richard Parker. I am very disappointed in how the left are embracing a bully mentality which isn’t helping anyone, really.
Here is Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 that includes several statements beyond “not discriminating.” The one to which I referred is in boldface. It was recognized in the manner I described. As an example, when Richard Gerstenberg became chairman of General Motors, pointing to the Executive Orders, he declared that corporate policy was to include a demonstration by any manager seeking to hire that he (pretty much all “he” at that time), had sought candidates outside traditional channels and had taken affirmative action to seek minority or women applicants. The manager was not required to hire any of those applicants, but he had to demonstrate that he had sought them.
[QUOTE=Martin Luther King]
I am positive, moreover, that the money spent would be more than amply justified by the benefits that would accrue to the nation through a spectacular decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls, rioting and other social evils.
[/QUOTE]
He may have been positive, but he was wrong nonetheless. The major urban riots happened after the Civil Rights bill was passed, black illegitimacy is over 75%, and crime rates shot up during the sixties.
I don’t understand. What was he wrong about (and what “money spent” was he referring to)? Are you saying that MLK Jr.'s political-economic preferences and philosophy was instituted?
It would indeed. This is the kind of moderate suggestion that tends to be ignored by bomb thrower types, though, not to mention the sensationalist media. For my part, I am unaware of affirmative action supporters that oppose institutions taking income or other standards into account when attempting outreach.
Not only did his economic program not come to pass, we also continued for another couple of decades brutal housing discrimination about which he was largely unaware (that, among other things, de facto segregated many schools nearly as harshly as de jure segregation did).
Oh, and then we embarked on a program to lock up one in three black men while simultaneously making the punishments more harsh during and after confinement. I doubt King anticipated Lee Atwater.
Still don’t understand. MLK Jr. says that “the money spent” on something (apparently you don’t know what) would be worth it by reducing dropouts, crime, illegitimacy, etc. How can you say that he was wrong if you don’t know what “money spent” he was talking about (and if it was actually spent)?
After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided to toss you a note here for the use of ‘deliberately distorted’. Please don’t question another poster’s truthfulness and intent in the future.