The Ugly Side Of Racial Preferences
In the WSJ, Theodore H. Johnson writes about his experience -- being assumed that his achievements are due to the color of his skin:
"You probably got it because you're black."I heard those words two years ago when I had the honor of being selected as a White House Fellow. It wasn't the first time that at a moment of proud accomplishment I had heard skeptical comments. It happened when I was promoted a year ahead of my military peers. Earning a graduate degree from Harvard University prompted a dismissive remark about admission quotas. Most troubling of all was that, each time, I wondered: "What if it's true?"
This is the ugly side of racial preferences that gets little attention. No matter what one may think of the policy, the truth is that with it comes an undercurrent of implied inferiority. Even in instances when a black or Hispanic is the best qualified and well-matched for a particular career or academic opportunity, the perception of unfair favoritism follows the person, hovering in the ether. The same suspicion often follows women who succeed.
The "affirmative action" measures that were supposed to provide new opportunities for underrepresented groups also prematurely and unfairly burdened them with the presumption that they're undeserving.
As I've said many times, we don't fight racism with a "nicer" form of racism, which isn't nice at all to accomplished black people who get dinged with the notion that they aren't deserving of their position.
If there should be any "consideration" given, it should be to poor people of any race.
I still remember when I caught the end of a news piece where an interview was going on about Affirmative Action. To this day I still don't know the name of the guy who did this but...
There was a man, a black man, who was absolutely pissed off. I figured he was on the approval side until I started listening in. He was actually pissed that the AA was enacted because he felt the same way as Johnson, it was a setback because his accomplishments and accomplishments of other groups needed to "fill a quota" would be taken less seriously. The other white people basically looked at him in a "shut up you are getting a freebie" way.
NakkiNyan at June 25, 2013 12:02 AM
Annnd cue Elbert Guillory.
Radwaste at June 25, 2013 2:32 AM
Elbert Guillory is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. So it only makes sense that 'Waste would adore him.
Guillory is under the ridiculous notion that the Republican Party that formed as an abolitionist movement bears any resemblance to the Republican Party of today.
Precisely because they absorbed the pro-slavery contingent of the Democratic party, the Dixiecrats. When Civil Rights law came about, the Dixiecrats quit the Democratic party and became Republicans.
Patrick at June 25, 2013 6:02 AM
"Precisely because they absorbed the pro-slavery contingent of the Democratic party, the Dixiecrats. When Civil Rights law came about, the Dixiecrats quit the Democratic party and became Republicans."
You've got your history wrong. George Wallace, Lester Maddux, and Robert Byrd, to name three, were Democrats until the day they died. Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972, and he won several primaries before the assassination attempt. Further, he ran for governor of Alabama in 1982 as a Democrat, and won, with the full support of black Democrafts in the state.
Yes, Strom Thurmond switched parties in 1964, and backed Barry Goldwater. The GOP should not have permitted that to happen. No excuses.
But you've got to get off of the party thing, Patrick. Libertarians, some of them, have attached themselves to the Republican Party because it appeared to be a vehicle that would be easier to take control of than the Democratic Party (which is all in for authoritarian government) would be. As I wrote in another thread recently, it isn't working, but that hardly makes the people who tried it evil people.
Further, Patrick, do you dispute that AA has been mostly a negative for the intended beneficiaries? Has it really helped to achieve racial harmony? Do we now live in a color-blind society? Are people being actively discouraged (by either party) from voting their race or their gender?
Cousin Dave at June 25, 2013 7:16 AM
Putting aside the value -- or lack of value -- of AA, "I bet you succeeded because you're black" is a bitch thing to say. Those are the words of a failure who can't own up to why he failed, so blames it on some outside force.
That's the sort of thing someone says whether AA exists or not.
MonicaP at June 25, 2013 7:28 AM
Nope, I have quite right, Cousin Dave. Does the name Strom Thurmond mean anything to you?
How about Jesse Helms? Mills E. Godwind, Jr.?
Patrick at June 25, 2013 7:39 AM
Patrick, I already discussed Thurmond. Further, I notice you had no response to my comments on Wallace, Maddux, or Helms. I have no idea who Godwind is.
Cousin Dave at June 25, 2013 8:14 AM
And no offense, Cousin Dave, but seriously, you tell me I have to get off the party thing, but you complain that the Democrats are for an authoritarian government. Really?
You don't consider that to be blatant party bias (and hypocritical on your part), especially since Republicans claim to be so anti-big government, but they want to regulate everyone's sex life and reproductive rights?
Moreover, you attempt to support to your argument by referencing the leaders of the Dixiecrat party. Nice one. I almost missed that.
Voting race or gender? Well, since we've had no women succeed in the Presidential primaries, I don't know why you think people are voting their gender. And I recently asked someone in another thread, when he claimed that blacks were voting for their race when they voted for Obama, if this person truly thought that these same voters would choose Herman Cain over Hillary Clinton. I got no answer, so I'm assuming he doesn't think so.
And Clarence Thomas, although he serves no publicly elected post, is almost universally despised by blacks in this country. I doubt he'd get the black vote.
There are simply not enough women candidates or black candidates for us to determine if people truly would vote their own gender/race.
Patrick at June 25, 2013 8:22 AM
"Putting aside the value -- or lack of value -- of AA, 'I bet you succeeded because you're black' is a bitch thing to say. "
Well yeah. That's that basic civility thing. But you can't stop people from thinking it. Including, as the article shows, the people who are or might have been the beneficiaries of it.
We have in general gotten so far away from being merit-based in how we choose people for trusted and leadership positons, in general. These days, it seems to be all about political power and patronage, who you're friends with, who you sleep with, who you suck up to. It taints all successful people, whether they deserve it or not, because we have no way of telling who got successful due to their own ingenuity and effort, and who got successful because of their connections and lust for power. It's killing our society, because it kills the incentives to pursue success, and it gives justification to the slackers and backbiters. AA is a part of that, but only part.
Cousin Dave at June 25, 2013 8:57 AM
Sure the majority of the Dixiecrat leaders returned to the Dem party but:
"The Dixiecrats had little short-run impact on politics. However, they did have a long-term impact. The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the "Solid South" (the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the South).[3]"
Moreover then Nixon came along and saw the disenfranchisement of the white southern conservative and sealed the deal.
Ppen at June 25, 2013 8:59 AM
"These days, it seems to be all about political power and patronage, who you're friends with, who you sleep with, who you suck up to."
It's always been like that. That's why AA doesn't work, you can't artificially give people an upper hand in society.
Ppen at June 25, 2013 9:05 AM
"but you complain that the Democrats are for an authoritarian government."
Name three who aren't.
"Republicans claim to be so anti-big government, but they want to regulate everyone's sex life and reproductive rights?"
Yep, becuase not giving women free birth control is the exact same thing as locking them all up in nunneries. Look, you're missing the point. The GOP leadership is no less in the tank for authoritarian government than the Democrat leadership is -- and it's pretty much the exact same kind of authoritarian government. The only difference is that the Republican leadership hasn't (yet) been as successful at purging dissent as the Democrat leadership has. If the opposite was true, then likely the Tea Party would have attached itself to the Democrats.
It's just trying to find a channel, and the Republicans appeared to be the channel that was easier to hack, so to speak. Buckley did the ground work decades ago when he convinced some of the soc-cons that there is no morality without liberty, and some of the libertarians that there is no liberty without morality. Now, we can argue about what those terms actually mean. But there has to be a place where the argument can take place. I don't see that room anywhere in the Democratic Party.
Cousin Dave at June 25, 2013 9:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/06/25/the_ugly_side_o.html#comment-3767390">comment from Cousin DaveBut you can't stop people from thinking it.
This is the thing. I feel bad for accomplished black friends of mine who I'm sure have had people assume that of them.
Amy Alkon at June 25, 2013 9:06 AM
Isn't that what a lot of people think of Obama? He won cuz he's black.
Ppen at June 25, 2013 9:17 AM
Regulating everyone's reproductive rights does not equal refusing to give out free birth control. Who is it that tries to block access to abortion, Cousin Dave? I'll give you a hint; it's not the Democrats.
And you failed to address that they want to regulate everyone's sex life.
The Tea Party would have attached itself to the Democrats had the Republicans been as successful in purging dissent? In a pig's eye.
The original premise of the Tea Party was noble: balanced budget. Great idea. Till they became a magnet for the overly-religious nutjobs and the lunatic birthers.
Patrick at June 25, 2013 9:31 AM
Patrick,
Don't fall for the Democratic Party's con job that only they supported civil rights.
In 1948, Harry Truman desegregated the military and proposed civil rights legislation. Many Southern Democrats in Congress opposed this move and hid behind state's rights to defend Jim Crow.
In the 1948 election, segregation supporters broke off to form a quasi-political party, colloquially known as the "Dixiecrats." South Carolina governor, J. Strom Thurmond, was put up as their presidential candidate. The goal was to get Thurmond listed as the official Democratic candidate in Southern States and force the election to the House of Representatives, where the Southern Democrats had enough power to put Thurmond in office.
Both Republican, Thomas Dewey, and Democrat, Harry Truman, supported expanding civil rights legislation and that support was written into both party's platforms.
The Dixiecrats failed. Thurman appeared as the official Democratic candidate in only two states. Truman was re-elected.
The Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic Party. However, Truman never forgot the slight and made sure the "states rights" Democrats lost any power they had in the party. Eventually, this would lead to many of them, Thurmond included, to switch to the Republican Party. The more liberal (or politically connected), but still racist, Southern Democrats, like Robert Byrd, George Wallace, Lyndon Johnson, and Lester Maddux, stayed in the party. Later, many of them would disavow their racist past (up to you whether they meant it or did it out of political expediency). The 1948 dust-up and resulting schism also had the long-term effect of leading the Democratic Party to its current highly-liberal orthodoxy.
Wikipedia on the Dixiecrats:
The Democrats want everyone to believe they alone passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The truth, however, is that it was a bi-partisan effort.
Johnson wanted the bill passed as quickly as possible in the wake of Kennedy's assassination (it originated under Kennedy).
Normally, the bill would have been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review. That committee was headed by a Democrat who opposed the bill and would have stalled it in committee so it never reached the floor for a vote.
The Senate Majority Leader, another Democrat, delayed the second reading and managed to bypass the committee review. When the bill came to the floor 18 Democrats (including Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond) and 1 Republican filibustered to keep it from being considered.
After 54 days of Senate filibuster, two Republicans (including Everett Dirksen) and two Democrats (including Hubert Humphrey) drafted a compromise Civil Rights Bill and mustered enough votes to end the filibuster and pass the compromise bill. That bill was approved by the House and became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 80% of Republicans in the House (63% of Democrats) and 82% of Republicans in the Senate (69% of Democrats) voted for the final bill.
The bill was passed in July 1964. Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in September 1964.
Thurmond's switch to the Republican Party can also be viewed as a self-serving move, rather than one of principal. His opposition to the civil rights bill was, in reality, Thurmond's last hurrah. In his schism with the Democrats he had lost much of his national political power (he retained his SC political capital) and was generally not an influential Senator by the 1960s. In switching to the Republicans, he helped them with Southern voters and got a chance to revive a moribund political career.
His close ties to Richard Nixon and ability to deliver Southern votes for the party in the 1970s once again made him a powerful figure in American politics.
Wikipedia on Strom Thurmond:
Conan the Grammarian at June 25, 2013 9:33 AM
"But you can't stop people from thinking it."
And they will think it.
Example 1: If you were seriously ill, would you go to a black doctor? Consider: the odds are very good that a black doctor was admitted to medical school under affirmative action. The medical school will not have dared fail many blacks. Would you care to bet your life on a black doctor's qualifications?
Example 2: I went to school with a hispanic woman; this was in a technical field. She flat-out stated that she intended to play her double-minority status for all it was worth, both in getting into graduate school and later in pushing her career. This pretty much guarantees that she will fulfill the Peter Principle in record time. What a great advertisement for other hispanics and other women in technical fields.
Affirmative action is the most counterproductive idea ever conceived.
a_random_guy at June 25, 2013 10:05 AM
Isn't that what a lot of people think of Obama? He won cuz he's black.
Doesn't mean it's true. I bet just as many -- or more -- people didn't vote for him because he's black.
But what you said is evidence that, with or without affirmative action, people will play that card. It's difficult for a lot of people to believe that Obama won because he managed to convince more Americans that he was the best candidate for the job.
MonicaP at June 25, 2013 10:37 AM
"This pretty much guarantees that she will fulfill the Peter Principle in record time. "
I saw this in action at my tech company - Hispanic woman pulled into a Director's position after the 'inclusiveness initiative' went into effect.
When asked to stand at a division meeting for congratulations on her advancement, she stated that this was the beginning of the end for the "old white men" in the company.
She made it another couple of months and she was gone.
In retrospect, she may not actually have been smart enough to be a director ...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 25, 2013 11:53 AM
a_random_guy,
There are a whole slew of doctors I wouldn't see if I could help it. I've had many a bad experience with doctors. So now, I go based on personal recommendation. It might be a friend, but most often it is another doctor. My dermatologist recommended an ENT that was superb and happened to be black. My pediatrician recommended the dermatologist (who is excellent and pasty-colored).
Frankly, if you need a doctor, your best bet is to find one you trust in ANY field, and ask for recommendations. They go to conferences, have patients with other issues, etc. They'll usually know who in the area is good.
I will say that all the doctors I avoid are white women. About 2/3 of them are blond too.
Shannon M. Howell at June 25, 2013 6:14 PM
I'm truly at the point I don't care what anyone looks like or has between their legs. I want you to do your job. And I will advocate for canning your ass if you don't.
<really long vent discarded because it is really irrelevant>
But if you were to come into my company and act like your <status> grants you the right not to do your best, I'll do my best to let you hang yourself.
After the day I've had and a nominally <protected class> employee didn't do shit all day I really just don't give a fuck. I've had enough.
Jim P. at June 25, 2013 7:01 PM
Thanks very much for an informative post, Conan. And I will certainly look into the things you wrote. Some of the claims are seem a little doubtful to me, but I will have to look them up.
But I must say this: I never said, nor implied that Democrats were solely responsible for the Civil Rights Act. The politics of segregation were less divided among party lines than regional lines. Slavery was a Southern thing, and not even the Northern Democrats were wild about it.
Regarding the tendency to credit Democrats, I would say that it's typical that the guy in the White House is the one that gets the credit for everything for bills that are successfully passed, even though everyone should know that laws are not passed solely by the President, nor is his veto power absolute. LBJ signed it into law (and famously, accurately declared, "We've lost the South for a generation.") and so, he gets the credit for it, even it was originated under Kennedy.
Patrick at June 25, 2013 8:42 PM
"Elbert Guillory is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. So it only makes sense that 'Waste would adore him."
Wow, there are factual errors in Guillory's recent video? And of course, this absolves the Democrat Party of all wrongdoing?
I don't know Elbert Guillory, Patrick. Your response, typical of the knee-jerk any socialist idiot displays when their policies are challenged, is seen any time it is publicly suggested that those poor blackamoors be responsible for themselves.
Did you boo Bill Cosby, too?
Radwaste at June 26, 2013 6:11 AM
Leave a comment