Nordlinger's naïvité on affirmative action

Nordlinger’s naïvité on affirmative action

Of course, mainstream conservatives are as blind about race differences as liberals are. Here’s NRO’s Jay Nordingler on affirmative action:

I think that affirmative action—a.k.a. race preferences, a.k.a. reverse discrimination—will come to an end when one of two things happens: 1) K through 12 education so improves as to make black and Hispanic students competitive for college, obviating the need for affirmative action (this is the Thernstrom/Kirsanow theme, and a true one), or 2) black Americans themselves become so disgusted that they demand an end to this racial favoritism….
I’m looking at a photo caption in the New York Times: It says, “Concepcion Escobar, 31, who just graduated from law school at the University of Michigan, said she thought she would probably not have gotten into the school had race not been a factor in the admissions process.” Why isn’t she embarrassed about this? Why isn’t she disgusted? How can she have stayed there comfortably, knowing that she had gotten in, not by the skin of her teeth, but just plain by her skin (or whatever)?

So, Nordlinger actually believes that blacks have exactly the same intellectual potential as whites, and that the only thing keeping them behind is poor K–12 schooling. He also believes that blacks and Hispanics have exactly the same moral and cultural standards as whites, and so he expects them to be mortified and disgusted at receiving unearned benefits based on race. The upshot is that he hopes that blacks and Hispanics will on their own intitiative reject affirmative action.

Two points for Mr. Nordlinger: First, while it’s true that blacks could do better academically than they are now doing, if mass illegitimacy and other cultural decay were ended, there is no reason to believe, given the significant inherited differences in average intelligence between the races, that as a group they will ever be academically competitive with whites. Second, blacks receive enormous material and (from their point of view, not the white point of view) psychological benefits from affirmative action, and would sooner kill than give them up. Therefore, there is only way that affirmative action can be ended, and that is that whites must end it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 27, 2003 08:22 AM | Send

Comments

Nordlinger’s colleague at NRO, the irrepressible John Derbyshire, understands.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_06_22_corner-archive.asp#010186

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 27, 2003 9:01 AM

Anyway, welfare benefits are not routinely rejected by ANYONE as an affront to honor. Embarrassment or humiliation has only very infrequently been an effective resister to the debasement of the welfare state.

Posted by: Paul Cella on June 27, 2003 10:32 AM

Mr. Cella writes: “…welfare benefits are not routinely rejected by ANYONE as an affront to honor. Embarrassment or humiliation has only very infrequently been an effective resister to the debasement of the welfare state.”

Comment: True, and it took time for that to happen. When federal “relief,” as it was called then, began during the Great Depression, most recipients kept it a secret, if possible. (I can’t cite sources for this assertion; I’m relying on my own memory.) They got off relief as soon as they could, because self-reliance continued to be a universal American value even though President Roosevelt was excoriating malefactors of great wealth.

And this despite the fact that unemployment reached over twenty-five percent and local resources couldn’t cope. What changed the perception of this practice was therefore not the enormous numbers on the federal dole. Probably it happened at about the time the name was changed from “relief” to “welfare.” The dole changed from a temporary help to people who needed it through no fault of their own, to an entitlement.

Posted by: frieda on June 27, 2003 2:20 PM

I wrote a post in reply that got lost in the bit bucket, so I’ll attempt a shorter version here. The basic issue is that there is no specific public stigma and no specific public duty associated with receiving assistance. No infinite supply of free resources will remain constrained without them, though. If I were unfortunate enough to be suddenly annointed king I would probably not eliminate public assistance entirely, but instead would consider something like the following:

1) Require a special uniform to be worn at all times by all but the most short-term recipients of welfare.
2) Require a different uniform for welfare recipients with illegitimate children (but not of course for the children themselves — it would be difficult for them nonetheless although perhaps on balance the behavior modifications in all but the most narcissistic parents would make it worth it).
3) For those parents and siblings of the adult mentally (or otherwise cronically) ill who abandon them or otherwise refuse to participate in their care, I would institute higher tax rates. I am not sure if I would include aunts/uncles/cousins here as well, but I think it is worth considering.
4) Require specific duties of the uniformed, for example making room on the bus for non-uniformed.

Government policy of course cannot fix everything that is bad in peoples’ lives. It can however defend and even strengthen institutions like the family that provide much of what constitutes a good life.

Posted by: Matt on June 27, 2003 3:26 PM