The affirmative action decision by the Supreme Court presents two starkly different world views on the way forward for America on the subject of race. One view, the majority opinion, holds that any preference given on the basis of race is unconstitutional and unlawful, regardless of history, or the facts on the ground.
In the Harvard case, the beneficiaries of affirmative action were not Nth generation descendants of American slaves but by and far more likely to be first or second generation wealthier African immigrants. You cannot cite righting historical wrongs as your reasoning if you’re not actually benefiting anyone who was harmed by those wrongs.
Yes, but my focus was on the two vastly different approaches of the two Justices to race and affirmative action in a wider and general context than these two very specific cases.
There's an ambiguity here that I've run into before and I think deserves a bit of elucidation.
You quote Justice Thomas, fairly unfavorably:
'And he further alleges, “As [Jackson] sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today.”'
And yet, at the start, you make the case for affirmative action with:
"Let me state at the outset that I am in favor of affirmative action as a policy that attempts to help right the wrongs of American history. I believe that stewards of best-in-class institutions, whether universities or countries, have a moral responsibility to make amends for past sins."
Where do you see the dividing line between these? I mean, we're not running a cost-benefit analysis here, this is phrased strictly on moral terms, and fairly strict ones, and it's common on left-of-center discourse. Where do you see the dividing line between the moral case for affirmative actions vs the way Justice Thomas phrased it?
After having read three reactions to the Supreme Court decision regarding race preferences, I remain satisfied that this case was decided in the best possible way. By that I mean the result of the majority decision will most benefit the nation, and follows the Constitution better, than would have been the case with the opposite decision. Since that is not the subject of this column, and since I don't have a red pencil that was twitching as I read the opinion of Justice Thomas, I won't spend time agreeing or arguing with this column.
What I will do is share two thoughts: first, there is in our population a segment that is not unhappy with continued racial friction (all the while purporting to want to "level the playing field,") and second, there are far more important social injustices in our educational system, touching many more students, than who will be admitted to Harvard and UNC.
Not to tell you, Mr Roberts, how to manage your intellectual space. Rather, I'm thinking on paper about what I find more challenging and ultimately more socially and politically urgent than how Justices Jackson and Thomas see race in America. Just sayin'.
I get your question now. It's even harder to answer than my initial take on it. We can easily agree on your first scenario. I would disagree with the premise of your third scenario, although I'm well aware that others would agree with it.
So I find myself somewhere in the second scenario where it is a matter of balancing the moral and the material. And if I saw data that indicated that policies were doing a lot of material harm, however measured, with little to show for it, then yes I'd hope that I'd readily change my mind. The measurement would be really challenging!
I am not well versed or read in this topic. From what I think "I k ow" is that we spend more and more money on education in disadvantaged and poor socioeconomic areas and again it seems like this isn't changing things for the better. This could all be propagated lies of course.
I guess my only other curiosity in this ...what about the American Indian kids left behind? The Hispanic kids left behind? I again could be wrong but this seems like the focus of African American kids and Asian American kids...I feel like it's a turf war. It boggles my mind.
I recognize that where you live, your social circumstances, etc will affect your life. Maybe we should be looking farther upstream to how the family unit in certain groups is wholly broken? Maybe even white families as well. If we foster education as a goal from the whole family unit, would be get kids earlier into education avoiding the need for "special treatment" (affirmative action)?
Whatever the merits of “affirmation action”, whether through quotas or “plus factors”, did the court address the universities’ opinion that the racial diversity of a student body is something that they should be allowed to pursue?
My understanding is that many colleges and universities use race and a number of other demographic characteristics (eg gender; state and country of residence) to create a diverse student body that reflects different experiences and viewpoints. If these demographic goals are errant shortcuts to that objective then it seems that is the college’s business for better or for worse. It is not the court’s business unless such policies can be shown to be discriminatory in nature.
Does favoring a kid from Montana to make sure that all 50 states are represented “discriminate” against a kid from Massacheusetts? Etc.
Sorry for the delay, I just to reading this very interesting post. As is often the case, no one has it all right or all wrong. Let me start by saying we should not go on ignoring the horrific legacy of institutionalized slavery and discrimination. I applaud the intent behind affirmative action and we must find ways to help those whose lives today are still impacted by the long-term legacy of the nation's sins. I did, however, always think that affirmative action was flawed, because it is based on racism. It called for selecting students based on racial characteristics. If racism is wrong, it is wrong no matter who is practicing it. I feel the same way about the death penalty. If killing is wrong, it cannot be right just because it is sanctioned by the state. In both cases, we must seek out better solutions that are morally consistent with the notion that Racism/Murder are wrong.
Furthermore, there certainly are downsides to affirmative action as it has existed. A friend in high school was admitted to an Ivy League college solely because he is black, despite being woefully underqualified. He should have failed but Cornell somehow handed him a degree after 4 years. Armed with that degree, he applied to Georgetown Law and was accepted and later graduated on time. Of course, he was unable to pass the bar and finally took a position as a janitor in a public school system. I suspect he was not the only one to suffer harsh disillusionment at the hands of affirmative action, which failed him miserably. He was not stupid. He could have gone to another college and been trained for any number of other jobs, instead of being crushed by a well-intentioned but ill-planned system.
I think the recent ruling presents an opportunity for American institutions and society writ large. What we have now is a new blank slate, free of affirmative action, on which to design and implement new programs that look at the roots, not the buds. The roots are the elementary schools and neighborhoods that, left alone on their current course, will not improve lives. We must teach the children and, in doing so, seek out and support those who should be going to college and seek out and support those who should not. I live in a community full of NYC first responders and trades workers and they own their homes and many will be sending their kids to college. We should support those who can step into those roles as much as the college-bound. If the Harvards and UNCs of the world really want to do good, not just polish their images, invest in those communities that need help. Surely, there must be ways to do this without employing racism.
David, I just finished reading all the comments to date (and inserting my own). Bravo for putting this discussion out there. It needs to take place. Better solutions need to be found to some very, very deep problems.
Love the idea of taking a red pencil to Thomas! Would argue, though--against several of the comments here--that removing racial consideration via AA does NOT result in eliminating racial biases in deliberations. It leaves behind the biases that are “baked into” history, values, and consciousness. AA counterbalances those “invisible” biases, which actually operated as affirmative action for white males throughout history.
Yahoo News reposts a clarification of Justice Jackson's assertion regarding survival rates for black and white children treated by white physicians. The accuracy of the statistic is questionable.
In the Harvard case, the beneficiaries of affirmative action were not Nth generation descendants of American slaves but by and far more likely to be first or second generation wealthier African immigrants. You cannot cite righting historical wrongs as your reasoning if you’re not actually benefiting anyone who was harmed by those wrongs.
Lucid and helpful synthesis!
Yes, but my focus was on the two vastly different approaches of the two Justices to race and affirmative action in a wider and general context than these two very specific cases.
There's an ambiguity here that I've run into before and I think deserves a bit of elucidation.
You quote Justice Thomas, fairly unfavorably:
'And he further alleges, “As [Jackson] sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today.”'
And yet, at the start, you make the case for affirmative action with:
"Let me state at the outset that I am in favor of affirmative action as a policy that attempts to help right the wrongs of American history. I believe that stewards of best-in-class institutions, whether universities or countries, have a moral responsibility to make amends for past sins."
Where do you see the dividing line between these? I mean, we're not running a cost-benefit analysis here, this is phrased strictly on moral terms, and fairly strict ones, and it's common on left-of-center discourse. Where do you see the dividing line between the moral case for affirmative actions vs the way Justice Thomas phrased it?
After having read three reactions to the Supreme Court decision regarding race preferences, I remain satisfied that this case was decided in the best possible way. By that I mean the result of the majority decision will most benefit the nation, and follows the Constitution better, than would have been the case with the opposite decision. Since that is not the subject of this column, and since I don't have a red pencil that was twitching as I read the opinion of Justice Thomas, I won't spend time agreeing or arguing with this column.
What I will do is share two thoughts: first, there is in our population a segment that is not unhappy with continued racial friction (all the while purporting to want to "level the playing field,") and second, there are far more important social injustices in our educational system, touching many more students, than who will be admitted to Harvard and UNC.
Not to tell you, Mr Roberts, how to manage your intellectual space. Rather, I'm thinking on paper about what I find more challenging and ultimately more socially and politically urgent than how Justices Jackson and Thomas see race in America. Just sayin'.
I hope you are right that it will eventually be overturned! The Supreme Court is sick.
I get your question now. It's even harder to answer than my initial take on it. We can easily agree on your first scenario. I would disagree with the premise of your third scenario, although I'm well aware that others would agree with it.
So I find myself somewhere in the second scenario where it is a matter of balancing the moral and the material. And if I saw data that indicated that policies were doing a lot of material harm, however measured, with little to show for it, then yes I'd hope that I'd readily change my mind. The measurement would be really challenging!
Thanks for stretching my thinking!
I am not well versed or read in this topic. From what I think "I k ow" is that we spend more and more money on education in disadvantaged and poor socioeconomic areas and again it seems like this isn't changing things for the better. This could all be propagated lies of course.
I guess my only other curiosity in this ...what about the American Indian kids left behind? The Hispanic kids left behind? I again could be wrong but this seems like the focus of African American kids and Asian American kids...I feel like it's a turf war. It boggles my mind.
I recognize that where you live, your social circumstances, etc will affect your life. Maybe we should be looking farther upstream to how the family unit in certain groups is wholly broken? Maybe even white families as well. If we foster education as a goal from the whole family unit, would be get kids earlier into education avoiding the need for "special treatment" (affirmative action)?
Very well said.
Whatever the merits of “affirmation action”, whether through quotas or “plus factors”, did the court address the universities’ opinion that the racial diversity of a student body is something that they should be allowed to pursue?
My understanding is that many colleges and universities use race and a number of other demographic characteristics (eg gender; state and country of residence) to create a diverse student body that reflects different experiences and viewpoints. If these demographic goals are errant shortcuts to that objective then it seems that is the college’s business for better or for worse. It is not the court’s business unless such policies can be shown to be discriminatory in nature.
Does favoring a kid from Montana to make sure that all 50 states are represented “discriminate” against a kid from Massacheusetts? Etc.
Sorry for the delay, I just to reading this very interesting post. As is often the case, no one has it all right or all wrong. Let me start by saying we should not go on ignoring the horrific legacy of institutionalized slavery and discrimination. I applaud the intent behind affirmative action and we must find ways to help those whose lives today are still impacted by the long-term legacy of the nation's sins. I did, however, always think that affirmative action was flawed, because it is based on racism. It called for selecting students based on racial characteristics. If racism is wrong, it is wrong no matter who is practicing it. I feel the same way about the death penalty. If killing is wrong, it cannot be right just because it is sanctioned by the state. In both cases, we must seek out better solutions that are morally consistent with the notion that Racism/Murder are wrong.
Furthermore, there certainly are downsides to affirmative action as it has existed. A friend in high school was admitted to an Ivy League college solely because he is black, despite being woefully underqualified. He should have failed but Cornell somehow handed him a degree after 4 years. Armed with that degree, he applied to Georgetown Law and was accepted and later graduated on time. Of course, he was unable to pass the bar and finally took a position as a janitor in a public school system. I suspect he was not the only one to suffer harsh disillusionment at the hands of affirmative action, which failed him miserably. He was not stupid. He could have gone to another college and been trained for any number of other jobs, instead of being crushed by a well-intentioned but ill-planned system.
I think the recent ruling presents an opportunity for American institutions and society writ large. What we have now is a new blank slate, free of affirmative action, on which to design and implement new programs that look at the roots, not the buds. The roots are the elementary schools and neighborhoods that, left alone on their current course, will not improve lives. We must teach the children and, in doing so, seek out and support those who should be going to college and seek out and support those who should not. I live in a community full of NYC first responders and trades workers and they own their homes and many will be sending their kids to college. We should support those who can step into those roles as much as the college-bound. If the Harvards and UNCs of the world really want to do good, not just polish their images, invest in those communities that need help. Surely, there must be ways to do this without employing racism.
David, I just finished reading all the comments to date (and inserting my own). Bravo for putting this discussion out there. It needs to take place. Better solutions need to be found to some very, very deep problems.
Love the idea of taking a red pencil to Thomas! Would argue, though--against several of the comments here--that removing racial consideration via AA does NOT result in eliminating racial biases in deliberations. It leaves behind the biases that are “baked into” history, values, and consciousness. AA counterbalances those “invisible” biases, which actually operated as affirmative action for white males throughout history.
Yahoo News reposts a clarification of Justice Jackson's assertion regarding survival rates for black and white children treated by white physicians. The accuracy of the statistic is questionable.
<https://news.yahoo.com/justice-ketanji-jacksons-faulty-claim-215214348.html>