By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Sometime in the first years of the new millennium,
“global warming” evolved into “climate change.” Amid growing controversies over
the planet’s past temperatures, Al Gore and other activists understood that
human-induced “climate change” could explain almost any weather extremity —
droughts or floods, temperatures too hot or too cold, hurricanes and tornadoes
— better than “global warming” could.
Similar verbal gymnastics have gradually turned
“affirmative action” into “diversity” — a word ambiguous enough to avoid the
innate contradictions of a liberal society affirming the illiberal granting of
racial preferences.
In an increasingly multiracial society, it has grown hard
to determine the racial ancestry of millions of Americans. Is someone who is
ostensibly one-half Native American or African-American classified as a
minority eligible for special consideration in hiring or college admissions, while
someone one-quarter or one-eighth is not? How exactly does affirmative action
adjudicate our precise ethnic identities these days? These are not illiberal
questions — given, for example, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren’s past
claims of being Native American to gain advantage in her academic career.
Aside from the increasing difficulty of determining the
ancestry of multiracial, multiethnic, and intermarried Americans, what exactly
is the justification for affirmative action’s ethnic preferences in hiring or
admissions — historical grievance, current underrepresentation due to
discrimination, or both?
Are the children of President Barack Obama or Attorney
General Eric Holder more in need of help than the offspring of immigrants from
the Punjab or Cambodia? If non-white ancestry is no longer an accurate
indicator of ongoing discrimination, can affirmative action be justified by a
legacy of historical bias or current ethnic underrepresentation?
Does a recent arrival from Oaxaca who fled the racism and
poverty of Mexico warrant special compensation upon arrival in the United
States? And if so, when? A day, a month, a year, or a decade after crossing the
border? How about a Chilean, Korean, or Iraqi immigrant? Should particular
lines of employment match the nation’s racial composition — jobs on the
faculty, but not jobs in the NBA, or in the Postal Service?
How do we fairly allocate compensation for collective
sins against a bygone generation? Slavery, Jim Crow, internment of
Japanese-Americans, racially exclusionary immigration laws, the denial of U.S.
admission to Jews fleeing the Holocaust: All were reprehensible, but it is
difficult to know the degree to which these injustices still distort the career
paths of individual Americans, or who still alive is to blame.
In 2009, the University of California system changed its
admissions policy allegedly to curtail the number of Asian-Americans on its
campuses. Such anti-affirmative action arose not because UC was a racist
institution, but because, as an applicant group, Asian-Americans were
outperforming most other ethnic groups, in numbers disproportionate to the
general population.
In other words, just as the Ivy League turned away
qualified Jews in the 1920s and ’30s, so some UC administrators apparently
thought that engineering a campus “to look like America” was more important
than simply admitting those with the strongest academic achievement.
Affirmative action — fossilized for a half-century — also
made few allowances for class. Asian-Americans, for example, have higher per
capita incomes than Americans as a whole. Were affluent minority individuals
eligible for affirmative action?
Will the children of multimillionaire Tiger Woods — or of
Jay-Z and Beyoncé — qualify for special consideration on the theory that their
racial pedigrees or statistical underrepresentation in some fields will make
their lives more challenging than the lives of poor white children in rural
Pennsylvania or second-generation Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich.?
If ossified racial preferences don’t work in 21st-century
multiracial America, then the generalized idea of “diversity” — just picking
and choosing people without any rationale other than ensuring lots of different
races and ethnic groups — seems a more defensible reason for extending
preferences in lieu of using strictly meritocratic criteria.
Yet “diversity” no more alleviates the problem of bias
than “climate change” ends controversy over global warming. And we really do
not mean “diversity” in the widest sense of the word. No Ivy League law school
is worried that its faculty is disproportionately 90 percent liberal, or that
it lacks a contingent of fundamentalist Christians commensurate with their
numbers in the general population.
The idea of diversity, racial and otherwise, is deeply
embedded in our politics, but not consistently applied. President George H. W.
Bush was not especially lauded for appointing an African-American Supreme Court
justice, Clarence Thomas — apparently because Thomas was considered conservative.
Liberal attorney general Eric Holder was seen by the media as a genuinely
diverse appointment in a way that a conservative predecessor, Alberto Gonzales,
was not.
Like Prohibition, affirmative action and then diversity
were originally noble efforts that were doomed — largely by their own illiberal
contradiction of using present and future racial discrimination to atone for
past racial discrimination.
It is well past time to move on and to see people as just
people.
No comments:
Post a Comment