Affirmative action challenge a threat to multicultural America

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | March 2, 2003 | BOB HERBERT

[sarcasm]

Sometimes it helps to take a look back and see just how far we've come.

In a response to the Brown v. Board of Education decision ordering the nation's public schools desegregated, William F. Buckley Jr.'s guidebook to conservative thought, National Review, declared the following in the summer of 1957:

"The central question that emerges -- and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of rights of American citizens, born equal -- is whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is yes -- the white community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race . . .

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened . . . Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom."

In those days blacks were frozen out of the mainstream of American life, routinely turned (or shoved) away not just from public schools, but from hotels, restaurants and movie theaters, from most trades and professions, from polling booths and hospitals, from even the semblance of a shot at equal opportunity.

To be black was to be condemned to an environment of perpetual humiliation. My father swallowed his journalistic aspirations and lived out his life as an upholsterer. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., cruelly harassed to the very end, was widely derided as "Martin Luther Coon."

That was not so long ago. So in some sense it's remarkable that by the end of the 20th century so many battles against racism had been won and a broad national consensus in favor of a more tolerant, more inclusive society had been reached.

The task in the 21st century is to build on those victories and that consensus. Which brings us to affirmative action.

A glance at the challenges to affirmative action in higher education would show little more than the fact that a number of white applicants have asserted in court that they were illegally denied admission to college or law school because of preferences given to racial or ethnic minorities.

That is their right, supported by many principled people.

A closer look at these challenges, however, would show that they are largely being driven by a huge, complex and extraordinarily well-financed web of conservative and right-wing organizations that in many cases are hostile not just to affirmative action but to the very idea of a multiracial, pluralistic America.

A new book by the Institute for Democracy Studies in New York -- "The Assault on Diversity: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," by Joe Cokorinos -- documents this effort to roll back a proud half-century of progress toward social justice and a more inclusive society.

The driving force behind the Michigan University cases, for example, is the Center for Individual Rights, a right-wing outfit that in its early years, as Cokorinos noted, received financial support from the Pioneer Fund, an organization that spent decades pushing the notion that whites are genetically superior to blacks.

We need to see this picture more clearly. There's a reason so many mainstream individuals and groups, and some of the nation's largest corporations, have filed briefs in support of Michigan's effort to save its affirmative action programs. The United States is a better place after a half-century of racial progress and improved educational opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities and women.

We have all benefited, and voluntary efforts to continue that progress, including the policies at Michigan, are in the interest of us all.

Justice Lewis Powell, who wrote the controlling opinion in the Bakke case in 1978, eloquently addressed the matter of campus diversity when he said "a robust exchange of ideas" is of "transcendent value to us all."

An unchallenged right-wing war against the very idea of diversity will turn us back in the direction of the noxious beliefs spewed out by National Review in 1957.

Bob Herbert is a columnist with The New York Times. Copyright 2003 New York Times News Service. E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

[ricpic]

Got it. There's bad discrimination. And then there's good discrimination. Depends on whose ox is being gored. Thanks Mr. H.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

That darned VRWC again....

[Rose in RoseBear]

Oh, barf. Another comment from the Jar-Jar Binks school of thought. Word for you, Mr. Herbert; 1957 was over 45 years ago! "Not all that long ago," my foot! The world has turned ... maybe you should, too?

Ping to you, mhking.

[A_perfect_lady]

social justice (noun) Phrase made up by liberals to justify social engineering intended to ensure they get the votes of all minorities and women.

[clockwork]

If "diversity" in the classroom is so darn important and imperative for anyone to receive a quality education then why do so many blacks choose to attend "historically black" universities. Those same corporations supporting affirmative action policies turn around and give large sums of money to "historically black" universities so blacks can attain an non-diverse education. I'm so confused.

[The Electrician]

"The central question that emerges -- and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of rights of American citizens, born equal -- is whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically?

If I am reading this correctly, the National Review article in question is supporting the idea of "minority rights", where in this case a white community is in the minority. So, Mr. Herbert, exactly what do you have against the concept of minority rights?

[THEUPMAN]

The United States is a better place after a half-century of racial progress and improved educational opportunities
Well I guess it all depends on what the definition of is ... is.

[randita]

A closer look at these challenges, however, would show that they are largely being driven by a huge, complex and extraordinarily well-financed web of conservative and right-wing organizations that in many cases are hostile not just to affirmative action but to the very idea of a multiracial, pluralistic America.

Mr. Herbert is entitled to his opinion, but that it's definitely a stretch to assert groups that support equal access are white supremacists.

On the other hand, many groups that support quotas are definitely black separatists.

But, who cares. Paramount should be the question of constitutionality. Does the Constitution defend and protect the rights of individuals or of groups? (rhetorical question)

Herbert, like so many liberal elitists, is stuck in the 1960's

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[sweetliberty]

"Affirmative action challenge a threat to multicultural America"

Boo friggin' Hoo!!!!!

[Teacher317]

Justice Lewis Powell, who wrote the controlling opinion in the Bakke case in 1978, eloquently addressed the matter of campus diversity when he said "a robust exchange of ideas" is of "transcendent value to us all."

And it was Justice Blackmun who wrote, in the same case (438 U.S. 265 at 407), that "to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently"

Here's the full paragraph:
"I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative-action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot -- we dare not -- let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial supremacy."

[Teacher317]

Reposting something I wrote a few days ago:

• Affirmative Action (AA) is explicit racially-preferential treatment, in violation of the 15th Amendment. AA proponents say that racial preferences are fine, as long as the proper race benefits. How is this any different than the thinking of the [vile] Jim Crow supporters?
• Discrimination undoubtedly exists today, on both sides of the aisle. However, those minorities who are victims of racial discrimination have legal recourse to address their loss. AA is done with the sanction of law, ie institutionalized racism, and leaves those who are discriminated against without any legal recourse.
• AA proponents say that, in school admissions, many other factors are used to make the class roster, including parentage (legacies), activities, memberships, etc., so why not race? Well, using race as a factor is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Parentage, membership, and activities are not. If you think they shouldn't be, then amend the Constitution. If you think race should be, then vote to repeal the 14th Amendment.
• "Protected classes" of individuals, who can legally be given preferential treatment, include all minorities, the handicapped, homosexuals, and women. They comprise 73% of the population, an overwhelming majority. Only people who, by the mere accident of their birth, are straight-white-males who are not handicapped get excluded. They comprise only 27% of the population... a distinct minority. How is this system of special treatment for the majority 73% and the lack of equal rules for a small minority 27% any different than the Jim Crow South?
• What ever happened to Dr. King's desire to be judged "by the content of [our] character, and not the color of [our] skin"?
• The interesting thing is that every time racially divisive rules are instituted, it leads to violence (Civil War, 60's race riots, etc), and every time the side favoring race-neutral rules has won. Let's pray it doesn't come to violence, and if it does, let's pray that the streak continues.
• While debating this issue before my Criminal Law (Professor Henry Karlson) classes one day, a black student said, "Any black who is against AA is shooting themselves in the foot." My reply was that many blacks don't need AA since they have the talent to succeed without it. My friend's reply was far better. He asked, "Does that mean that every white who was for repealing Jim Crow laws was shooting themselves in the foot?"
• What is it about Democrats that make them want to divide people by race? In days gone by, they were for keeping blacks down with these rules, today, they are for keeping whites down this way. Recall that slavery was ended by Republicans, Democrats vetoed Slavery Reparations back when they were relevant, Jim Crow Laws were passed by Democrats (including the first American gun control laws, passed so that blacks would not be able to defend themselves while they were being lynched), the Japanese internment camps in WWII were instituted by Democrats (they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House at the time), the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by a higher number and higher percentage of Republicans even though JFK’s Congress was Democrat-controlled.

[Teacher317]

Got it. There's bad discrimination. And then there's good discrimination. Depends on whose ox is being gored.

From the Civil War until the 1950's, blacks overwhelmingly voted for Republicans by about a 90-10 margin, because the GOP stood for race-neutral rules and equality. (Southern Democrats were the source of Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and segregation.) From the 1960's on, the Democrats switched gears, and decided that they would continue to support racially-divisive laws, but now only those that favored minorities. Now blacks vote for Democrats by a 90-10 margin.

Apparently, 80% of blacks have 'principles' that are easily bought, or are more interested in racial preferences that FAVOR them rather than in equlaity for all Americans, as they used to pretend.

[Teacher317]

conservative and right-wing organizations that in many cases are hostile not just to affirmative action but to the very idea of a multiracial, pluralistic America.

Conservatives want a strong Constitutional nation. If Liberals could show us just ONE pluralistic, multiracial nation that was NOT a mess of unequal treatment, poverty, divisiveness, warfare, jealousy, hate, and decay, then we might show some interest. Until then, let's just work on equal treatment for all Americans regardless of race, shall we? Please?

[Salman]

social justice (noun) Phrase made up by liberals to justify social engineering intended to ensure they get the votes of all minorities and women.

"Giustiza sociale" (social justice) was one of Mussolini's favorite slogans, but maybe he got it from the Socialists.

[KC_for_Freedom]

If Liberals could show us just ONE pluralistic, multiracial nation that was NOT a mess of unequal treatment

Good point, the greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, it is multiculturalism which is disguised socialism. Of course, multiculturalism does support terrorism by making it easy for terrorists to move into and about the country, making it difficult for the enforcers to do their job, and making it possible to hide terror money under the cover of various ethnic charities. (Refer to the case of the professor in Univ of Southern Florida and how much the left is characterizing his arrest as a racial hate crime.)

[demosthenes the elder]

Anyone have the FULL TEXT of the National Review item the author quoted? I cannot be sure, but given the proclivities of the Left and its adherents, I kinda suspect that these excerpts are taken out of context.
I would like to know.

[norton]

Even if the quote were shown to be a hundred percent accurate it only points to the fact that the left has no NEW arguements to present.

Just about everything I've heard, anti-Bush, anti-war, or anti-equality, is a repeat of forty and fifty year old rhetoric. Time for them to look for a new gimmick or get off the pot.

And, a note to post number sixteen - Benito WAS a socialist.

[demosthenes the elder]

well, yes, that is so.
I don't think the Left has enough wits to realize that their usual bag of tricks doesn't work as well as it used to.
and, yes, Il Duce most assuredly was.