|
Eliminating race preferences will lead to worse substitutes
Conservatives excited about President Bush’s (qualified) stand against race preferences in college admissions in the University of Michigan case ought to realize that the abolition of race preferences would not be the end of the story. This is because the universities would undoubtedly resort to alternative methods to assure racial diversity that, while avoiding explicit mention of race, would be only marginally less egregious than outright race preferences. These include giving extra points for coming from a “hardship” background, or for having difficult life experiences, and so on. Shockingly, some leading critics of affirmative action have already indicated their support for such measures. Furthermore, if those alternative methods of diversity admissions are also shot down by the courts, we can expect that something even more damaging will occur. As it is now, the universities have a dual-level system whereby they admit whites and Asians on the basis of ability, and blacks and Hispanics on the basis of race. The current policy doesn’t completely destroy academic standards because the majority of students are still admitted for their capacity to do college work. But if the courts require that there be no difference in the academic standards applied to different races in admissions (which would mean, inter alia, that the elite universities would have virtually no black students), the universities would in desperation proceed to abandon all academic criteria and simply admit the number of students of each race that they desire. If there are no academic standards, there can be no double standards for constitutionalists and courts to object to. In other words, the partial racial socialism now in effect in the world of higher education will be replaced by total racial socialism.
Mainstream conservatives utterly fail to grasp the depth and determination of the forces pushing the diversity agenda in this country. Defeating racial preferences will not be the end, but the beginning of the race-induced ruin of our universities. Comments
Here is a conversation I had about this article with two conservatives. Conservative I: The way this is argued, Lawrence, we might as well just shoot ourselves. Of course the left never gives up and you have to beat it into the ground over and over again. But Bush’s statement was a huge victory for us—the first time a Republican leader has condemned racial preferences. LA: Sorry to rain on the conservative parade. I understand that what I said was the grimmest possible construction. But as I read through Bush’s whole statement yesterday, it became evident that he would continue to support every kind of socialistic diversity measure, so long as it did not EXPLICITLY mention race. You agreed with me earlier that “Terminator II” [with the liquid-metal assassin who reconstitutes himself every time he is destroyed] is a good metaphor for the left. Well, what I said about the left was an example of that. Conservative II: But this at least forces the issue into controversy and forces them to engage in constant catch-up against our efforts to demolish their works. Conservative I: Exactly. Politics is the art of the possible. The war with the left will never end. We win by taking one trench at a time. LA: I’m as happy as the next person to see the left disconcerted. But our side has no intention of taking any other trenches. Our side POSITIVELY SUPPORTS the idea of alternative socialistic measures to achieve racial diversity, so long as they don’t actually mention race. Also, the endless repeated statements, both by Bush and his unnamed spokesman in a background briefing, that “there is still a lot of discrimination” to be overcome were most disheartening. There is NO discrimination by the U of Michigan or other universities against minorities. That’s a lie. Yet Bush gave aid and comfort to the left by suggesting there is. In fact, he undermined the conservative position! He’s saying: “There’s a lot of discrimination against minorities because of their race, but that doesn’t mean we should fix it by discriminating in favor of minorities because of their race. Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Conservative II: This will change. We will change it. LA: Ok, but what that means is that the next trench we have to take is not against the left, but against the conservatives. THAT is a more realistic view of the situation. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 16, 2003 12:02 PMThere is a problem we face again and again. Republicans such as Bush agree with the left on “diversity issues.” Bush has all of the attitudes of the “Guilty White Liberal.” These racial preferences don’t affect him or his family. They can get into any school they want. As for the left, which includes the entire ruling establishment, they will counterattack with all available force. As Larry says, they will find a way to continue their style of discrimination. Posted by: David on January 16, 2003 2:15 PM“…what that means is that the next trench we have to take is not against the left, but against the conservatives.” Unfortunately true. Left liberals are willing to promote their aims by openly advancing individuals as part of a group, whereas right liberals want to preserve at least the appearance of individuals advancing as individuals. This means that right liberals usually reject official quotas for promotion demanded by the left (whether for women or racial minorities). However, they follow along in adopting more “voluntary” measures for achieving the same thing. I have seen little evidence of right liberal parties moving against “voluntary” measures. For instance, here in Australia the Liberal Party Government happily operates a system for the hiring of women in which all companies have to fill out a yearly questionnaire about their hiring practices, and those companies not showing an adequte improvement are “shamed” by being named in parliament and in the papers. Posted by: Mark Richardson on January 16, 2003 4:04 PM Here’s an article that says in much more detail the same thing that I say here, that Bush’s statement against preferences is a Trojan Horse: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_michigan.htm I agree one hundred percent with Lawrence Auster’s and Steve Sailer’s trenchant criticisms of the Bush administration’s position. In the following URL, Michelle Malkin also weighs in on this question with the wisdom and good judgement so typical of her (attributes glaringly lacking in IQ-challenged Pres. Bush and his pathetic advisor, Karl Rove): http://www.vdare.com/malkin/tiny_step.htm . Posted by: Unadorned on January 20, 2003 12:16 AM |