\doc\web\99\04\equally.txt
Date sent:      	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:13:21 -0800
To:             	sdurlauf@ssc.wisc.edu
From:           	John McWhorter <johnmcw@socrates.berkeley.edu>
@Subject:        	Affirmative Action is about PEOPLE
Copies to:      	"Derbyshire, John" <john.derbyshire@csfb.com>, SteveSlr@aol.com,


All defenses of Affirmative Action dwelling upon the likes of "economic
efficiency" and tentative, nimble arguments about role models are,
unintentionally but perniciously, dehmanizing.


Anyone making these kinds of birds-eye view arguments is neglecting things
which seem somehow too "squishy" or "personal" to matter, but which in
fact are crucial to any evaluation of the issue.


Contrary to what Dr. Kissane proposes, we all know that as often as not,
if not more, Affirmative Action is NOT about choosing between equally
qualified candidates. Discussions of Affirmative Action that proceed upon
a pretense otherwise are evading the real issue; it's like talking about
the history of Communism without bringing up Lenin or Stalin.


The real problem is that societal conditions leave minorities visibly LESS
qualified, and that as often as not, Affirmative Action means choosing
them over better qualified whites. For all of the grace and gravitas of
Bowen and Bok's THE SHAPE OF THE RIVER, for example, this remains fact,
whether we are dealing with school or hirings.


Given this reality, the fact is that minorities who are underqualified
generally do not do as well as those who are (I presume we on this list
know that the occasional exception has no bearing upon my general point).
This 1) nurtures an inferiority complex in minorities, 2) reinforces
whites in supposing that minorities are inferior and 3) keeps minorities
from getting any better (at school, work, or running a business) because
they are never introduced to true competition.


That third point is vital and unacknowledged. The way a fledgling learns
to fly is, eventually, to be pushed out into the air. There would simply
be no other way.


Thus Affirmative Action preserves insecurity, racism, and incompetence. Do
any of us really think this is okay all in the name of "efficiency"?


Very nice to philosophically play with the notion of what "merit" and its
ontogeny are. But how would you feel to have not black people and their
kids, but YOUR siblings and children, be evaluated on the basis of their
contribution to headcounts and their "spunk"? How would you feel if one of
YOUR children got accepted to a top school with a mediocre record because
of their "promise" while all their peers got in because they had great
records? What would be the point of opening up the bottle of champagne at
your house?


I am not making any "racist" charges here. But we often forget that
minorities (particularly blacks and Latinos) are PEOPLE. We do not shuffle
people around in little guilt-relieving social experiments all in the name
of "economic efficiency". We wouldn't dream of doing this to white kids of
any stripe, but somehow it seems appropriate with brown people. Sadly
enough most brown Americans are now too brainwashed by this reigning
climate to realize how deeply they are being insulted by the eternal
preservation of Affirmative Action.


Let me close by repeating two points:


1. Affirmative Action is almost never a matter of choosing among equal
candidates, and cannot be discussed as if it were.


2. How do we propose minorities will ever get up to speed if they are
never given conditions in which doing so is necessary?


Or is it that we don't WANT them to get better? Now I'm being coy, but
really, where is this issue amidst all the post-hoc concern with
efficiency and "fairness to the past" and "diversity"?


>From a PERSON -- John McWhorter