Americans seem to be notoriously bad at follow through. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. We can get one of the three major parts of how to green our world down (incidentally, it is the one that affects our routine the least), but the other two? Nah. We're already recycling.
That's kind of how I feel about the Affirmative Action fight, and the Race in 2028 editorial by Ross Douthat in Sunday's New York Times a friend of mine highlighted on his blog.
Affirmative Action is the slightly more arduous version of "recycle" in the whole "making America more equitable racially"...
The other steps, the ones we know about and the ones we haven't quite worked out yet, well, we can ignore those because we're already working on this Affirmative Action thing.
Because we've accepted that Affirmative Action has to happen, at least for a little while, we can ignore the fact that the world, our world, the world we live in and play in and work in and are entertained by, still remains pretty damn white - and male. We can talk about how "the senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama" without truly delving into the fact that there is one African American in the whole of the Senate, that he wasn't elected, and that he isn't going to run for an actual election (admittedly, for reasons not stemming from his race). We can ignore these facts:
Because we've accepted that Affirmative Action has to happen, at least for a little while, we can ignore the fact that the world, our world, the world we live in and play in and work in and are entertained by, still remains pretty damn white - and male. We can talk about how "the senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama" without truly delving into the fact that there is one African American in the whole of the Senate, that he wasn't elected, and that he isn't going to run for an actual election (admittedly, for reasons not stemming from his race). We can ignore these facts:
Women – Women of voting age represent 51.6 percent of the voting age population yet are 16.3% of the Congress, putting America below the global average of 17% female representation at parliamentary level. As of 2007, the US ranks 68th in terms of women holding office in the legislature — this puts the US just above Turkmenistan, and just below El Salvador and Panama.
Latinos – Hispanics represent over 14% of the U.S. population, while their Congress representation is 3% in the Senate and about 5% in the House.
African-Americans – The Senate is 1% African American and the House is roughly 9.2% African American compared to the 12.3 percent of American population that are of Black or African-American descent
This is the world in which, as Douthat notes, "The nation’s largest states, Texas and California, already have 'minority' majorities. By 2023, if current demographic trends continue, nonwhites — black, Hispanic and Asian — will constitute a majority of Americans under 18. By 2042, they’ll constitute a national majority." And it is a world in which racism, real and actual and deadly and debilitating and degrading, is still present. In this society, "where the quest for diversity is already as likely to benefit the children of high-achieving recent immigrants as the descendants of slaves", and where those children of the high-achieving recent immigrants are still considered less than, and are still likely to be discriminated against.
I'm not against class-based affirmative action, but I also don't think that we - those of us who have been privileged and still remain privileged - should necessarily be the ones to decide if and when Affirmative Action has done enough. I don't think one African-American elected president and one Hispanic on the Supreme Court is the ushering in of a world in which Affirmative Action is ultimately unnecessary. At some point, I hope that it will be. At some point, I hope that we as a nation learn the follow through. I hope that we as a nation learn to suck it up. I hope that when white America is truly a minority, we recognize that we should probably then be a less of a majority in a majority of the institutions we now, as a race, have a hold over.
But I can understand focusing on the selfish crap. I'm a selfish person. I like knowing how something will help ME. And in truth, Affirmative Action does help me - and not just because I'm a girl and girls are helped. It helps me, because it makes my country better. It gets more viewpoints out in the open. It helps tear down the false belief that there is such a thing as an objective viewpoint. It culls from a wider source. It forces new thoughts and new ways of thinking into spaces that would otherwise be bereft of them. It creates opportunities to interact with and learn from people who have had profoundly different life experiences. It creates different ways of thinking about the very people who have, through the history of our country, been oppressed and discriminated against. And, if we go into Affirmative Action mindful that we as white people were very often not the subjects of a meritocracy and instead had a leg up due to that whole being white thing, it helps reinforce different avenues of viewing fellow citizens.
In a world where a preeminent African-American scholar is arrested after breaking in to his own house and providing identification proving who he was and that the house he was found in was indeed the one he lived in, we as a nation haven't learned all the necessary lessons from Affirmative Action, and we certainly haven't done the necessary follow-through. In a world where latently racist assumptions are made about our president's birth place, in a world where Rosario Dawson - who was born in New York City - was disregarded as the main character in But I'm a Cheerleader because she was Puerto Rican, and thus not "All-American" enough, we haven't fully acknowledged that the only Americans worthy of that title are white Americans. We haven't fully accepted that we aren't the center of our nation's universe.
I agree with my friend's quoting of Andrew Sullivan's "The goal of the gay rights movement should be to cease to exist", and his assertion that should also be the goal of Affirmative Action programs. But I'm not the person who gets to tell the gay rights movement when it has done enough, and when it should declare the ultimate victory by ceasing to exist. And I'm not willing to declare that by 2028, Affirmative Action will have done enough and should cease to exist. White America may not get to be the most central voices in that conversation, and we probably shouldn't be.
15 comments:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument . . .
Are you saying that affirmative action programs should continue indefinitely until the people who directly benefit from them think it's time for them to end?
And that those who are potentially hurt by these programs should have little say in the matter because they are already 'privileged'?
Are you saying that affirmative action programs should continue indefinitely until the people who directly benefit from them think it's time for them to end?
And that those who are potentially hurt by these programs should have little say in the matter because they are already 'privileged'?
No, I'm saying that if Affirmative Action and other programs meant to bridge the racial gap in America work, then white voices won't be the predominant voices in the debate, and that they shouldn't be.
I don't think either side is objective, for the reasons you point out. I don't think minorities are more noble, and all will then just sort of be like, "Oh, that Affirmative Action program? Totally did the trick". Just like I don't think white men are all Pat Buchanans who are going to continually expound about how Affirmative Action victimizes them. And for that reason, I'm a little suspicious when we hear whites talk from a position of authority about Affirmative Action, just like I'm suspicious when I see two guys (also generally white) debating abortion rights. Totally cool for them to be doing so, but they're going to be missing a major part of the picture if they leave out that critical voice - the voices of the people most affected by the policy they are hinging their expertise upon.
I don't disagree with that. But I think the we should sort of generally acknowledge that we all have biases -- and that we speak from a certain perspective -- without let that undermine the individual speaker's voice.
I don't think this argument should be used to diminish any individual's position because it's extremely reductionist. It's basically an ad hominem attack -- and it's the opposite of what we should be trying to achieve as a society.
In other words, when this kind of reductionist argument is directed at individual speakers, it contradicts the explicit goal of affirmative action -- to produce a society in which individuals are seen as individuals, and not members of a group.
Abortion is a good example because men and women actually have very similar views on the subject -- so it’s kind of absurd to use ad hominem attacks against men who oppose abortion rights when they have just as many female counterparts.
Do you agree with that?
Abortion is a good example because men and women actually have very similar views on the subject -- so it’s kind of absurd to use ad hominem attacks against men who oppose abortion rights when they have just as many female counterparts.
I don't think saying that men may arrive at these thoughts differently, or that because of their position in society, both currently and historically, white men's opinions are seen as being not only more knowledgeable but more authoritative and more objective, is an ad hominem attack. I don't think saying that there should be a woman on most of these panels, not because women are inherently pro-choice but because women are the ones most directly affected and because women's viewpoints should be shown to be just as authoritative as men's, especially on matters that relate to their own body autonomy, and being suspicious of a panel that did not include women's voices, is an ad hominem attack.
In other words, when this kind of reductionist argument is directed at individual speakers, it contradicts the explicit goal of affirmative action -- to produce a society in which individuals are seen as individuals, and not members of a group.
I don't know if I agree with that. Nancy Giles, the woman who gave our commencement address, has been known to bring up something that happened in college, when this white guy she was friends with told her that he didn't see her as black, but just as "Nancy". And she had (has) a problem with that, because being a black woman is part of what makes her Nancy.
If the goal of Affirmative Action is to desolve memberships of groups, then I don't think it could ever succeed, because in a very real way who we are stems from what we are, and the circumstances surrounding how those two interplay.
But if the goal of Affirmative Action is to combat privileging one group over another, if it is to combat the view that some viewpoints are objective and others are subjective - and therefore less - and if the goal of Affirmative Action is to allow for the greatest pool of talent to be considered and accepted, then what we are plays a role in that.
I think the best thing we can do is to move beyond the idea of a color blind society, because seeing color isn't really the issue and color blindness is really just a way of saying, "Let's not talk about race anymore". A color conscious society, one that recognizes race and the effects of race and yet doesn't privilege one race above another, is kind of where I think we should be heading.
But furthermore, if we accept that there is no unbiased position, then it is up to us to parse those biases or possible biases that lend to the conclusion presented. Does Douthat have a different perspective that stems in part because he's white? I'm going to go with 'yes'. Does that mean we shouldn't take his opinion into account? No. But it does color it, and we should be able to recognize that and look at that coloring versus the overall facts, facts that include how African Americans and Latinos are still being paid much less on the dollar than even white women, that the poorest communities tend to be communities of color, and that things like police brutality still affect minority communities in disproportionate rates. Which all lends to the idea that until we can be sure that most of the old white senators are, in point of fact, "yesterday's men", Affirmative Action hasn't become a redundant policy.
You said, "I don't think saying that men may arrive at these thoughts differently, or that because of their position in society, both currently and historically, white men's opinions are seen as being not only more knowledgeable but more authoritative and more objective, is an ad hominem attack . . . ."
If it's directed at an individual during a debate over affirmative action, it is an ad hominem. It's a way to undermine that person's argument without addressing the argument itself.
Like I said, I think we should "generally acknowledge that we all have biases -- and that we speak from a certain perspective -- without let that undermine the individual speaker's voice."
I don't think you really answered my question. Do you disagree with that?
There's a big problem with these kinds of discussions. It's important to talk about affirmative action and society in general terms. It's important for everyone to have a seat at the table. But when the discussion becomes so personalized ("society privileges you over me"), there's no way to move forward. Everyone drops into a defensive stance.
I realize that it's hard to talk about these issues without attacking individuals and personalizing our arguments, but I think it's something that we need to do if we're going to move toward a society that's less focused on group identity and more focused on individual experience.
You said, "But if the goal of Affirmative Action is to combat privileging one group over another, if it is to combat the view that some viewpoints are objective and others are subjective . . . ."
My problem with your approach is that it redirects 'privilege' in an effort to overcome priviege. Like the Christian concept of original sin, it obviates individual choice and experience. It divides people into social groups ('privileged' versus 'non-privileged') without reflecting on individual circumstances.
It also offers no clear benchmark to measure social progress, and often fails to appropriately acknowledge when social progress has been made.
If it's directed at an individual during a debate over affirmative action, it is an ad hominem.
Explain to me how an empirical fact like, "You will never personally be in the position to physically need an abortion yourself" is an ad hominem attack, or how saying that we continue to privilege male voices in these debates - even when the policies in question only indirectly affect them - is an ad hominem attack. Because honestly, I don't see it. It doesn't take anything away from their argument, but it does suggest that a piece to the overall debate may be missing if these debates on the national stage continually contain only men or are made up mostly by men.
Like I said, I think we should "generally acknowledge that we all have biases -- and that we speak from a certain perspective -- without let that undermine the individual speaker's voice."
I don't think you really answered my question. Do you disagree with that?
I can't answer that, because it depends on each individual speaker. Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion. But not everyone's opinion should be weighted equally, and not everyone's opinion should count. Whether that opinion should or shouldn't count may depend upon the opinion in and of itself, or it may be less entitled because of the speaker's biases. For instance, Bill O'Reilly at a rape victims' rally. His voice would be one, due to his biases, I would be less likely to privilege. He may stumble onto a good point or two, but overall his biases on the subject should undermine his voice.
My problem with your approach is that it redirects 'privilege' in an effort to overcome priviege. Like the Christian concept of original sin, it obviates individual choice and experience. It divides people into social groups ('privileged' versus 'non-privileged') without reflecting on individual circumstances.
I don't think Affirmative Action, when applied correctly, redirects privilege. I think it corrects the pool of the 'deserving'. The issue with Affirmative Action is that two deserving subjects could come up for the same position. And no matter what, both "deserve" the job, by meeting certain requirements, being personable, etc. What Affirmative Action should do is push for the one who would historically not get the job due to a bias. The other guy may be put out, may rail against Affirmative Action for 'stealing' his spot - but it wasn't his spot to steal, and that ignores that there was an unnamed 'affirmative action' type program that was much stricter and went on for much, much longer - and that the effects of that program continue through to today with who are legacies and who has money and who has power.
And yes, there are individual circumstances. I could have chosen to do something else, and thus not ended up at the college I did or the job I have. But I also acknowledge that individual circumstances are more than partially driven by the opportunities presented, and I got to go to college because of not only who I am as an individual but what my family did for me as a unit, and how the world at large has treated my family.
The issue is that individual choice and circumstance and opportunity only goes so far, and that much of life is not only how you react to it, but how people react to you.
It also offers no clear benchmark to measure social progress, and often fails to appropriately acknowledge when social progress has been made.
There were news reports after Obama's election that detailed the differences in white reaction and African American reaction. In general, the white reaction was "look how far we've come" and the African American reaction was "look how far we've yet to go".
The reason I bring this up is because how much social progress has been made is also not normally an objective event. Depending from where you started out, it is highly subjective.
If the goal of Affirmative Action is to desolve memberships of groups, then I don't think it could ever succeed, because in a very real way who we are stems from what we are, and the circumstances surrounding how those two interplay.
This reminded me of a passage in the interview Justice Ginsberg gave a few weeks ago. Because while I understand what she’s saying, niche groups—whether for women, gays, children—will always exist, and I think it’s important to have organizations and groups where like-minded people can convene, whether for a particular cause or just out of interest, even if it is based on gender or race, and we shouldn’t try to abolish those. Gay organizations can still exist without having gay rights be an objective.
My problem with your approach is that it redirects 'privilege' in an effort to overcome priviege. Like the Christian concept of original sin, it obviates individual choice and experience. It divides people into social groups ('privileged' versus 'non-privileged') without reflecting on individual circumstances.
I am all for more blacks, Asians, women, etc. to be represented in company board room, at the highest levels of government, to be visible leaders, but it's hard to separate out that there are a lot of barriers to being at the top--and at a certain level, many people "opt out". It goes back to individual choice--and for a lot of women, they just don't a way to do everything if they don't have the institutional support for them to effectively run for office, for example. Sonia Sotomayor--divorced and childless--has been routinely characterized as being extremely hardworking, spending long hours at work, and she has even said that that is why her personal life is the way it is. This is not meant to dimish her accomplishments, but for a lot of people (especially our generation), at some point they may realize that if they have to choose between potentially being a Supreme Court justice or having a life outside of their job, they may go for the middle ground, not willing to work themselves to the bone. Minorities might find certain workplaces to be alienating, and decide that they don't want to spend all their time trying to change the system--a sad, but truthful response--and move on, or take themselves out of the pool of applicants. Individual choices, in the aggregate, do add up.
In general, the white reaction was "look how far we've come" and the African American reaction was "look how far we've yet to go".
Somehow I missed this defeatest attitude in the reports I read. I kept hearing about crying and elation, not merely a shrugging of the shoulders. There have been accounts whenever Michelle Obama was criticized for being outspoken, or for her body, or any other nitpicky thing, but overall, I didn't see this.
You said, "Explain to me how an empirical fact like, 'You will never personally be in the position to physically need an abortion yourself' is an ad hominem attack."
That's practically the definition of an ad hominem. It's focusing on the characteristics of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
You said, "The issue with Affirmative Action is that two deserving subjects could come up for the same position. And no matter what, both 'deserve' the job, by meeting certain requirements, being personable, etc. What Affirmative Action should do is push for the one who would historically not get the job due to a bias. The other guy may be put out, may rail against Affirmative Action for 'stealing' his spot - but it wasn't his spot to steal . . . ."
This is the standard progressive argument in favor of affirmative action, but I don't think it holds up to reality. You very rarely see candidates who are completely equal, save for racial identity.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, there was no evidence that the University of Michigan Law School was choosing from among equals -- rather, they were seeking to gather a "critical mass" of minority students. The school never even argued that they were selecting from equally qualified candidates.
I'm all right with that, mind you, but I agree with the Court's majority that there should be a limited time horizon for this kind of racial preference.
This is the standard progressive argument in favor of affirmative action, but I don't think it holds up to reality. You very rarely see candidates who are completely equal, save for racial identity.
I don't care about completely equal, nor did I say completely equal; I said met the requirements. As long as both candidates met the requirements, and may have met different requirements (one went to a better college, one had a more impressive internship), then I think what it comes down to is recognizing that there are different strengths and weakness - and that bringing diversity into an organization that is not diversified may be one of the pluses rather than merely a middling ground.
That's practically the definition of an ad hominem. It's focusing on the characteristics of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
I think we're talking past one another here. I think the arguments many men make when they're discussing abortion are different than the arguments women - even pro-life women - would make. I think they would come up with "solutions" that seem fair to them, but - having never been pregnant - may not translate as being fair for women. I'm thinking specifically about Steven Waldman and William Saletan here.
But beyond that, one of the other issues is that this is something that directly affects women, and if women are continually absent from its debate and its discussion, then I am suspicious of the arrangement from the get-go. Not because the arguments may be any better or worse, but because it once again goes to the idea of male=authority, and because women - especially since this uniquely affects women - deserve to be part of the conversation.
Minorities might find certain workplaces to be alienating, and decide that they don't want to spend all their time trying to change the system--a sad, but truthful response--and move on, or take themselves out of the pool of applicants. Individual choices, in the aggregate, do add up.
In this case especially though, isn't it the system that helps inform individual decisions? If the workplace wasn't alienating, if it wasn't one person fighting the system, the individual choice would be different. And so we should work to make workplaces less alienating and work to make sure one person doesn't have to fight the system in order to feel accepted and able to work within that place.
It goes back to individual choice--and for a lot of women, they just don't a way to do everything if they don't have the institutional support for them to effectively run for office, for example.
These two issues - the alienating workplace, the fact that most women work the "second shift" of housework and childcare and etc. - would be those other parts of making the world a more equitable place. I don't think it is necessarily Affirmative Action's job to tackle all of these things. I would think that these two aspects would be more akin to the "reduce" and "reuse" parts of the Green program we don't normally wrap our hands around.
Somehow I missed this defeatest attitude in the reports I read.
I don't think it's defeatist. I think that for a lot of whites, we want to get to that post-racial world, and because we don't deal with racism on a daily basis, it becomes easier and easier to believe that we have achieved MLK Jr's dream. So we see sunny optimism. But for the guy who is stopped for driving while black, for the woman who is followed around the department store, there is no way we're in a post-racial America. And they can celebrate Obama's win and still not see it as a hallmark that we've reached that promised land of racial equity.
In this case especially though, isn't it the system that helps inform individual decisions? If the workplace wasn't alienating, if it wasn't one person fighting the system, the individual choice would be different. And so we should work to make workplaces less alienating and work to make sure one person doesn't have to fight the system in order to feel accepted and able to work within that place.
Oh, absolutely. I agree with you; I'm just pointing out that a lot of these gaps are the result of institutional structures put in place that make individuals lean toward one choice rather than another just because it is easier than to go against the grain, if not impossible or extremely daunting. (Two things I read recently made the point that one of the reasons women didn't work in the 1950s was because there was a lot of pressure--not just by society, but by the government, in the form of taxes--for them not to.)
"Defeatist" wasn't the right word, but I needed an adjective in my sentence. I'm just confused where you got that narrative from, as you would say; I haven't seen Obama's win characterized predominately by blacks that way.
You said, "I think the arguments many men make when they're discussing abortion are different than the arguments women - even pro-life women - would make. I think they would come up with 'solutions' that seem fair to them, but - having never been pregnant - may not translate as being fair for women."
Maybe that's generally true. But it's necessarily universally true.
We may indeed be talking past each other. I don't think there's anything wrong with you making a general statement about how men and women may -- in the aggregate -- approach these questions from different perspectives. But if you tried to use that point against a particular man in a debate about abortion, that would be an ad hominem.
And that, I think, is the problem with debating these kinds of issues. They're so fundamentally personal -- so dependent on individual circumstances -- that discussions about race or gender often degenerate into debates about you and me.
I think terms like 'privilege' get tossed around too easily. That's not to say that they don't apply to someone like me. I am extremely privileged.
But there are lots of white men who have struggled with poverty and adversity all their lives who are understandably offended when urban liberals tell them that they're privileged.
*It's NOT necessarily universally true. : )
But there are lots of white men who have struggled with poverty and adversity all their lives who are understandably offended when urban liberals tell them that they're privileged.
See, I see them being offended, but I don't think it is necessarily understandable. Racial privilege isn't something that can be stripped off, and even those white men who have struggled with poverty still - in general - have it better than a black guy who is in the exact same situation. Or, in some circumstances, a black Harvard professor. That isn't something we automatically think of as privilege, because not being followed around in stores, not being arrested on the porch of your own home after you've proven its yours, that just seems like a right. But it is a right that isn't afforded to others based solely on what they are and not who - and that's the issue.
I happen to like the word privilege for that reason. It is a bit academic, but unless we developed a new word to focus on unearned privilege, every word we chose would have someone looking at the common meaning and saying, "I don't have that". Especially since we as creatures tend to be myopic. And creating a new word employs its own issues and hassles.
"Defeatist" wasn't the right word, but I needed an adjective in my sentence. I'm just confused where you got that narrative from, as you would say; I haven't seen Obama's win characterized predominately by blacks that way.
I'll try to dig up some of the articles, but part of the problem is that I mischaracterized what happened. It wasn't like right after Obama won in Nov., as the immediate emotion. It was when they put the Obama win in the context of the racial world. Whites thought Obama's win proved a lot more about how equal our world had become than African Americans did.
You said, "I happen to like the word privilege for that reason. It is a bit academic, but unless we developed a new word to focus on unearned privilege, every word we chose would have someone looking at the common meaning and saying, 'I don't have that.' Especially since we as creatures tend to be myopic. And creating a new word employs its own issues and hassles."
You're right, we do tend to be mypoic, and we do tend to focus on ourselves.
I think you can easily point out disadvantage without turning it around and insisting that certain groups are "privileged." I understand what the term means academically, but even its academic use is far too generalized.
This kind of language causes a lot of racial resentment. It's counterproductive, and it's really unnecessary. What's the point of telling someone that he's privileged? It's the kind of statement that automatically puts people -- especially lower-income white males -- on the defensive.
And it's particularly absurd when people who have no concept of what it's like to struggle financially employ this term. I think this is the root of many white blue-collar workers' hostility toward the academy.
The way you frame a discussion matters immensely, and I think that telling people who don't feel particularly "privileged" -- and never have -- that they're privileged is the wrong way to address racial issues in America.
The way you frame a discussion matters immensely, and I think that telling people who don't feel particularly "privileged" -- and never have -- that they're privileged is the wrong way to address racial issues in America.
I agree that the way one frames a discussion matters immensely, but I'm not sure it matters if people don't feel particularly privileged. There are guys who have about the same level of privilege as you and women who have the same level of privilege as me who also don't feel particularly privileged - and never have.
But that doesn't change the fact that, in general and on average, a poor white man still has more privilege than if he were black or Asian or whathaveyou. They may think their lot in life sucks pretty bad - and it probably does. They may think that being white gets them nothing - and in financial matters, it may not, at least not overtly. But in a lot of ways they can't physically cash in on, being white, in general, helps.
It isn't as good a privilege in general as having lots of money or being in academia, but, hey, the perks it provides are perks that are often denied to those who have lots of money or are in academia and happen to be a minority.
Post a Comment