In the past year, as race-consciousness has risen to perhaps its highest level since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, those who blanch at the idea of heightened race awareness have been accused of fearing an open discussion of the issue. But these folks (I count myself a member of this group) are put off not by fear of an open forum, but rather by the character of the race discussion, which has demonstrated the depths to which political discourse in this country has sunken-where muddled contradictions parade as diversity and touchy-feely celebrations of ideas such as choice, understanding and open-mindedness masquerade as political analysis. If we are to make any racial progress, we must wipe away this veneer and delve into the difficult issues that define our most controversial national dilemma.
The issue that, in my mind, defines the race quandary is affirmative action. Like race itself, the term is used so frequently that everyone is sick of it. But think about it: Has there been a real debate over affirmative action on the national stage? It seems to be one of issues that nobody really wants to address-it has never been debated in Congress, and those whom it affects are either too ashamed, self-righteous or scared to question its morality or efficacy.
Luckily, the hush surrounding affirmative action is beginning to recede, and the tide has turned against the program-the majority of Americans oppose it and a tide of intellectuals and leaders have recently decried its abuses. A collection of commentaries from 20 prominent intellectual and political figures in the March '98 edition of Commentary provides fresh and probing insight into the issue. Their consensus is that affirmative action is broken beyond all repair.
As many of the essayists in Commentary note, affirmative action was, like New Coke or a foam party, a noble premise that has had disastrous results. According to political activist William Bennett, the current affirmative action regime is "a malignant mutation... the antithesis of the original civil rights movement in reasoning, rhetoric, and appeal to moral principle." Conceived in 1961 to "level the playing field," the program has resulted in replacing moral equality with numbers equality, creating resentment among whites, and placing on many blacks what author Shelby Steele calls the "stigma of questionable competence."
Not only do conservatives like Bennett feel this way, but also a diverse group representing various political affiliations. Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, feels that the system's effects are especially nefarious in higher education, where double standards based on race are so entrenched that they are no longer even questioned. The results are SAT scores an average of 230 points lower for blacks and Hispanics than for whites and Asians admitted to the same schools. Thus the GPAs of those minorities were a full half-point lower, leading to high minority failure rates and pervasive self-esteem and personal identity problems.
Chavez's argument makes sense when one imagines how distorted the views of young black students would become when they figure out that interest in them is based not on their ability, but their skin color. And because success for the beneficiaries of race preferences is not tied to performance, doesn't it follow that they will not be as driven to perform as their peers who must compete to succeed?
Even those such as historian James Wilson, who sees the need for limited affirmative action in "representative" jobs such as the police force or political office, find it groundless in more "achievement oriented" arenas such as higher education. And because public agencies should not be expected to make the subtle distinctions that he knows an effective affirmative action program requires, Wilson voted for California's Proposition 209, which eliminated affirmative action in that state.
Another problem with the discourse on affirmative action is its failure to address whether there is any legal or moral justification for preferences based on race. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that race is a "suspect classification," and any program that uses racial classification is subject to "strict scrutiny." The original affirmative action statute aimed to prevent discriminatory practices, and forbade any race preferences. Ironically, preference and affirmative action are now synonymous: When people say affirmative action, they mean the very idea of racial preference that the program was designed to eliminate.
The costs of affirmative action are simply to large to continue to ignore or avoid because they make us feel uncomfortable. Carl Cohen, a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, sums it up eloquently: "Citizens of the United States, black and white, in preponderant majority find skin-color preferences morally objectionable. Ours is a reasonably healthy democracy. I conclude that our bodies politic will tolerate public discrimination not much longer... Race preference will go. It needs to be replaced by its absence."
Parker Stanberry is a Trinity junior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.