I disagree with this statement vehemently. When I look at the world around me I would say: If affirmative action was designed as a form of redress for historical and contemporary racism, the evidence for its massive failure is unfortunately all around us. We have had 50 years of affirmative action, and poverty among minorities is increasing recently. I think some new solution should be implemented. We need some proactive solutions to poverty among all people, but I think empirically, affirmative action doesn't seem to be a good solution. The fact that blacks and Latinos have high rates of poverty is coincidence; the two have very different root causes. Latinos are poor, because they are immigrants from poor countries. Blacks are poor, because they were slaves and then had to face 100 years of laws that ensured they stayed poor and uneducated. I'm not sure why the two get talked about as if they are a monolithic group ("people of color"). Call me a racist, but I don't see why anyone who isn't a descendant of slaves (or, say, a Native American) should benefit from an affirmative action type program. But that's beside the point. The real question is why have blacks on the whole not been able to benefit from several generations of affirmative action? As someone who lives in a very poor, mostly black neighborhood, it seems to me that there is a terrible cultural problem in the inner city. There seems to be a lack of self respect among the citizens. I see it every day in everything from violence to littering. I'm not sure the government can do anything about this, but until there is a collective consciousness among the urban black community that through education and hard work you can have a better life, they will continue to struggle. Newt Gingrich was widely ridiculed for suggesting that kids be given jobs at school in the inner city, but for once I found myself agreeing with him. Self respect is a powerful force.If affirmative action was designed as a form of redress for historical and contemporary racism, the evidence for its ongoing demand is unfortunately all around us.
There are a number of points you address in your argument and I would like to address them step by step: 1. "We have had 50 years of affirmative action, and poverty among minorities is increasing recently." (I don't know how to make the cool gray text appear?)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this statement. Poverty is increasing amongst EVERYONE recently, due to the economic environment we are currently facing. Obviously the nature of this recession is such that it hits the most vulnerable populations the hardest which are sadly disproportionally made up of minorities. But to then imply that increased economic disparities is the result of affirmative action seems like an unsubstantiated claim. 2. "Call me a racist..."
I hate this saying! In my opinion, people constantly misuse this term in both contexts, either by saying "X is so racist" or as you just did, "Call me a racist but..." I feel like it is so often misplaced, and used in an antagonistic manner. To call someone or something racist is an extremely loaded and charged term; using the word in such a flippant manner often, in my opinion, makes the rest of the conversation unproductive. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points you have made above, but to "call you a racist" would be outlandish, and I think it's important to really consider the impact of such language before we say it. 3. "That there is a terrible cultural problem in the inner city. There seems to be a lack of self respect among the citizens."
Interestedly, a few years back, Bill Crosby received a lot of backlash from the black community in regards to statements he made, saying to the effect that some black parents are shirking their responsibility to their children due to the lack of value they put into education. Similarly, after the election of President Barack Obama, many well-educated members of the black community said statements to the effect that (regardless of politics) it was refreshing to have such a well-spoken, intelligent black man in a prominent position that their children could inspire to be like, particularly because black men are so rarely shown in that light (which in and of itself is extremely problematic, particularly because there are SO MANY well-educated, intelligent black professionals out there, but they are so rarely even talked about!). That being said, it is an indisputable fact that regardless of educational attainment or economic status, POC will be denied jobs, promotions, racially profiled etc, based solely on the color of their skin. Today it is often done in more subtle ways- say in the anxiety of a manager to hire a POC of color even though they have the proper qualifications. The question then becomes, why and to what degree is this occurring? Yes, there is a problem in a POC automatically assuming that X Y or Z happened to them solely because they are a POC (because that is not always true), but the fact that there is still a necessity for such thoughts speaks to the larger problem within our society. We cannot close our eyes to the existence of 'white privilege' (which in my personal opinion, is the real problem in society today); how by virtue of being white one is presented with a security that no other racial group in this country- black, hispanic/latino, asian, native america etc has. Thus to imply that all a POC has to do is 'work harder' and they will suddenly be considered as 'equal' as their white counterparts is both naive and destructive. By the same token, to stake all of the problems of one life on the color of their skin tone is retroactive, non-productive, and equally destructive. Every community must look inward and see how their actions are contributing to the problem; pointing the finger at one community is ridiculous and frustrating. Therefore, as you note the 'terrible cultural problem and lack of self-respect' that exists, it is important to also remember that if one is told through subtle, cultural cues every day that they are somehow of less worth than others based on their skin-color, after awhile they will begin to believe that, and it will of course affect both their performance and their expectations for themselves. Those cultural cues need to stop, and the only way that can even begin to happen is if we acknowledge their existence!!! (I wish I could underline that sentence, because honestly it is the most important thing I have said in this whole argument) It's crucial you don't take that as an excuse however, but rather as an additional layer to consider, to help you reconsider your argument, because I do agree that within the black community (and I can only speak in regards to the black community personally), we need to redefine our definition of success, and stop aiding in the perpetuation of these negative stereotypes (such as, say calling another black person an 'Oreo' for speaking properly). A very simple example of this actually takes us back to the argument of affirmative action. One glaring criticism of the system is that it actually doesn't truly help the people it seeks most to help and there is some truth to this; if one takes a brief look at many elite institutions, a sizable percentage of their black students are not african americans but rather African immigrants and first-generation Africans; children who have not been affected by the legacy of slavery in the same way. A simple reason for that discrepancy is this; such students fulfill the diversity quotient while being, in their own right and regardless of their race, good candidates for the school. The question then becomes why? One interesting explanation for this is that, while there are many many many problems in many African countries (because honestly, way less people immigrate just for the hell of it) racism has never been one of them; while the thief is black so is the politician (often times that can be the same thing... :) but I digress); the driver is black but so is his client, the wealthy doctor. There are many determinants for success in such countries, but race is not one of them. Thus, such children grow up in an environment where they aren't conscious of their race because it has never been a factor, and many studies show this has a positive psychological affect. With all that said, the question then becomes how does affirmative action fit into this discussion? As a POC, I myself have always struggled with my feelings towards it; one subtle negative result of affirmative action is that people like Abigail Fisher can go around and make the implication that a black student did not get into the school based on their merit; that the only reason they got into the school was because of their race. That argument is extremely insulting, because it constantly calls into question the intelligence of the student, and such arguments perpetuate the necessity of students of color to prove that they deserve to go to their school. Personally, I am not going to speculate as to the amount that my race played a factor in my admission to my university, but I do know that, had I not been a student of color, my academic and extra-curricular qualifications would still have made me a good candidate for the institutions I applied to, and it is exhausting and frustrating to have to constantly feel the need to prove that to others. Secondly, I do firmly believe that diversity should be a factor in admissions, because multiple studies have shown time and time again that interacting with different viewpoints makes one a better, more open-minded person. However, the way affirmative action is currently constructed, it turns this into a dirty thing, and that in itself is no longer productive; the general perception is that one is let in on the basis of their race NOT their qualifications, and this is a very destructive idea. Nevertheless, I believe it should be considered within admissions, just as socioeconomic status should be considered in admissions, or athletic prowess, or geographic diversity, or sexual diversity. A university has the responsibility to insure that each incoming class is made up a diverse group of people who will challenge other's viewpoints--> we need to go back to viewing that as a positive thing. Also, it is just practical. The fact of the matter is, is that every year the number of academically qualified candidates for an institution goes up, while the amount of spots available stays the same. This necessitates the use of more arbitrary measures in filling up those spots and I think that a commitment to diversity is as good of a measure as any and a better measure than most. The ironic thing about this whole argument is that while we debate the impact of affirmative action in institutions of higher learning, the majority of those said institutions have student bodies where over half of the population is white.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Firstly, you make the cool gray text appear by surrounding it in | . Second, since the late 60s, the overall poverty rate in the US has been flat, while its fallen slightly for blacks, leaving still at about twice the poverty rate among whites. I didn't imply or even entertain that poverty has been exacerbated by AA, just that it hasn't been the fix that it was designed to be, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn't created a much more equal society, nor, according to all the evidence, a more peaceful and just society. There are a lot of complex reasons for economic disparity, none of which has been caused by AA, but that doesn't mean AA has been a net benefit to most people. Is it an indisputable fact? You should provide evidence that this occurs today. Young blacks are definitely stopped by the police far too often without cause. And I have read that resumes with names that sound black are less likely to be considered by hiring managers, but I don't know anyone in a power position that would take skin color into consideration when dealing with employees. The whole skin color argument doesn't really pass muster in a lot of ways, even in the most superficial read. Take Asians and Indians, for example. They are the two richest demographics in the US, and they are often darker than a many blacks. What we really mean by "being judged by the color of your skin" is "being judged to have an acute association with black culture", which has some negative connotations to some individuals, such as poverty and crime. Unfortunately, we use this language and it teaches young people explicitly and implicitly that something as superficial as the color of their skin matters to white people, and it doesn't. What matters are the differences in urban and suburban culture. It sucks for the vast majority of black people, but unfortunately a small minority of blacks commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. And until this changes, they will always be looked on with suspicion by some other racial groups (I know we always say whites, but some Asians I know are the most fearful of blacks of anyone I've ever met). In the 2000 census, it was estimated that the murder rate was 15 times higher and the sexual assault rate was 6 times higher among blacks than whites. We can't blame this totally on society at large. There is a violent culture in the inner city that can only be dealt with internally. I have lived in my current house for 1 year, and there have been two stabbings (literally) on my front yard. One only sees that in places like Detroit. Listening to a teenage mother call her young son every swear word in the book (including the N word) while talking to her friend about who she fucked last night isn't a subtle cultural clue. Or seeing a girl so young and small that her pregnancy caused her to walk with a cane: also not subtle. These are obviously anecdotal, but they're both things I've witnessed first hand, among lots of other incidents that would be unfathomable where I grew up. You should spend some time deep in the ghetto. Its eye opening, much moreso than a classroom. There are so many awesome people, and that's why I choose to live here, but there are some bad seeds, too. The people who were offended when Bill Cosby made those statements were probably the people who are trying hard and doing the right things feeling disparaged. The people whom he was speaking about probably didn't give a shit. Lastly, for the record, I think that a university has a responsibility to its academic mission and nothing more. If that means racial (or any other type of) diversity, so be it. If that means test scores and grades only, so be it. There should be a lot of autonomy in public and private institutions, IMO, and there shouldn't be a one size fits all policy. My point was that diversity wasn't really the point of AA in the first place, so why hold onto that as an argument now. Say you want diversity for diversity's sake, not as part of an AA program. It belittles both programs to conflate them. Fixing the problems in America's ghettos go well beyond letting person A over person B into Harvard. It happens to be my opinion that the status quo has failed. Some new, radical solution is needed, and whatever it looks like, it needs support from the government and the citizenry, both black and white, for it to work....it is an indisputable fact that regardless of educational attainment or economic status, POC will be denied jobs, promotions, racially profiled etc, based solely on the color of their skin.
...it is important to also remember that if one is told through subtle, cultural cues every day that they are somehow of less worth than others based on their skin-color, after awhile they will begin to believe that, and it will of course affect both their performance and their expectations for themselves.