Tag Archives: affirmative action

Michelle Obama Nails It

I’ve been following the Democratic convention, and I’ve been struck by several things: the high quality of the speeches; the impressive depth of the Democratic bench; the unusual unity on display; and especially the hopefulness (and yes, joy) that have been absent from our politics for a very long time.

I’m one of those old people who can’t stay awake for speeches that begin after ten (I rarely make it past nine…), so I’ve watched selected speeches on YouTube, and I was reminded why I–along with millions of other Americans–so admire Michelle Obama.

Despite her popularity, Michelle Obama has firmly rejected suggestions that she run for office. Instead, she has carved out a special niche in the political world: that of truth-teller. And in her convention speech, she didn’t hold back. She delivered one of the most succinct–and accurate–takedowns of Donald Trump, and she did so without resorting to the third-grade name-calling that characterizes virtually every speech and social media post from Trump.

Heather Cox Richardson quoted that take-down.

“No one has a monopoly on what it means to be an American,” she said. “No one.” “[M]ost of us will never be afforded the grace of failing forward,” she said. “We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth. If we bankrupt a business…or choke in a crisis, we don’t get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things don’t go our way, we don’t have the luxury of whining or cheating others to get further ahead…we don’t get to change the rules so we always win. If we see a mountain in front of us, we don’t expect there to be an escalator waiting to take us to the top. No, we put our heads down. We get to work. In America, we do something.”

And then Mrs. Obama took up the mantle of her mother, warning that demonizing others and taking away their rights, “only makes us small.” It “demeans and cheapens our politics. It only serves to further discourage good, big-hearted people from wanting to get involved at all. America, our parents taught us better than that.”

In a few short sentences, Obama described the Trump character flaws that distress normal people (flaws that especially annoy those of us who have produced and raised the children whose births are the evident obsession of JD Vance). I don’t know about billionaire parents, but the rest of us taught our children the difference between civility and nastiness, between arrogance and healthy self-regard. Bullying others, making fun of disabled people, and name-calling earned severe punishments in our homes, along with lectures on why such behaviors could not be tolerated, and why they were seen by well-balanced people as evidence of inadequacy and deep-seated feelings of inferiority.

And in my house, at least, there was a “no whining” rule. If things didn’t go your way, you dealt with it. You didn’t blame your mistakes on your siblings or on others–you owned them.

Trump’s behavior reminds me of the occasional “entitled” students who couldn’t accept a bad grade, the ones who were shocked–shocked!–by a B (or an incomprehensible C), and were certain it was attributable to professorial error or bad teaching, never to their own performance.

Actually, Trump’s rants on social media remind me of that Tom Lehrer song “Be Prepared,” in which he advises boy scouts not to write “naughty words on walls that you can’t spell.”

I especially loved Obama’s entirely accurate labeling of generational wealth as affirmative action. It is. Privileged White guys with inherited wealth who begrudge any effort to correct the systemic disadvantages other people face never seem to recognize the extent of their own unearned “edge.”

Philip Bump said it best in the Washington Post.

Obama used a phrase that succinctly and elegantly reframes the ongoing debate over inequality in the United States and how it might be addressed: “the affirmative action of generational wealth.”

It’s concise, centered on two familiar concepts. The first is “affirmative action,” the term used to describe programs generally focused on ensuring that non-White Americans have access to resources and institutions they might not otherwise have. And the second is “generational wealth,” the transition of economic (and social) power through families and, at times, communities….

Generational wealth really is a form of affirmative action.

Because generational wealth presents opportunities to people who might otherwise not have access to them: legacy admissions at Ivy League colleges, tutors and training, vehicles and housing that make entry-level jobs or internships more feasible. These are benefits that derive from social and economic class — a form of affirmative action. 

 It was a great speech.

Comments

Are Remedies Discriminatory?

If I started a nonprofit that provided wheelchairs only to crippled people, would I be discriminating against people who aren’t “mobility-challenged”? 

If I established a mentoring organization to assist kids who were failing math, would I be discriminating against kids who were doing well in math?

What if I started a foundation focused on–and limited to– helping Black women entrepreneurs? Would that amount to discrimination against Whites and men?

The courts are about to answer that last question.

Each of the efforts I’ve described center on helping a population that demonstrably needs a helping hand: people who cannot walk unaided, kids who struggle with math, Black businesswomen disadvantaged by years of discrimination. 

It turns out that the White Wing–aka the Right Wing–strongly objects to efforts to ameliorate that latter disadvantage, seeing such remedial efforts as discrimination against White folks. And our reactionary Supreme Court may well agree with them.

They might be courtroom adversaries, but Arian Simone swears she and the man suing her venture capital firm want the same thing: an America where race does not matter.

The difference is that Simone believes race-specific initiatives like the Fearless Fund are essential to achieving that ideal. Given that Black-owned start-ups secured less than 1 percent of the nation’s VC spending last year, she said, “I can’t stop.”

But the conservative activist driving the lawsuit, Edward Blum, says racial equity is not one-sided. That’s why he insists that the fund’s grant program for Black women is discriminatory, in one of the most-watched civil rights cases since he was on the winning side of the landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned race-conscious college admissions.

In the coming months, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Florida will decide whether to block the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund from awarding $20,000 grants to Black female-owned businesses while the case is litigated in trial court. The stakes could not be higher, as evidenced by the legal firepower lining up on both sides and the swarm of amicus briefs, illustrating the vastly different interpretations of the nature of discrimination, the role of history in shaping public policy and how civil rights should work in America.

Four years of Donald Trump’s Court appointments have distorted more than just the Supreme Court; two of the three judges on the 11th Circuit panel are Trump appointees, and according to the linked report, have appeared skeptical of the Fund’s argument that its targeted giving is “charitable giving” protected by the First Amendment.

Should Blum’s American Alliance for Equal Rights prevail, the case could have sweeping implications for any race-based initiative in the private sector, particularly grant programs, scholarships and other efforts with monetary benefits, according to observers on both sides of the issue. In less than a year, Blum’s legal nonprofit organization has reached settlements in about a half-dozen cases involving scholarships and fellowships at large law firms, as well as a Texas-based grant program for minority and women entrepreneurs. All agreed to drop racial criteria to resolve the discrimination claims.

The attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has accused the plaintiffs of “taking the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and trying to turn it on its head, so that it becomes weaponized and undermines efforts to do exactly what the Civil Rights Act was intended to do, which was be remedial and race-conscious.”

The lawsuit is an attack on efforts at remediation. Fearless Fund was established to address what it called “the chasm in venture capital for start-ups run by women of color.”  In 2018, the year the Fund was established, businesses headed by Black women received exactly 1 percent of the $131 billion invested that year. Conservatives argue that targeting investments in an effort to level the playing field is anti-business and–horrors!– meant to promote a “liberal agenda.” The lawsuit is part and parcel of the broader backlash against DEI efforts in higher education and the business world. Civil Rights organizations respond that the Fund’s grant program is a form of charitable giving —  much like organizations that support people of a certain heritage, such as the Sons and Daughters of Italy in America.

As one commentator has written, the case should trouble people who value the independence of American philanthropic institutions– even opponents of affirmative action and DEI. Fearless Fund grants are awarded by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation that should have the right to target its grant program as it chooses.

 Conservatives used to advocate for limits on government intrusion into private behaviors. I guess that was only so long as those private behaviors benefitted White men. 

Comments

They Aren’t Even Pretending Any More

Jim Banks and J.D. Vance–two MAGA Republicans–have introduced a new bill, “The College Admissions Accountability Act.” It would create “a dedicated office for investigating race discrimination in college admissions.” A rightwing publication calls it  “the most dramatic effort yet to enforce the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action.”

Wow…just wow.

As described in glowing terms by the Washington Free Beacon (the rightwing publication), the Act

would establish a special inspector general within the Education Department—separate from the Office of Civil Rights—to probe potential violations of the colorblind standard set forth in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that race-conscious admissions programs violate the 14th Amendment. The bill would also bar schools that flout the decision from receiving any form of federal aid…

The bill would create a new mechanism for applicants and university employees to file discrimination claims against admissions departments. Those claims would be investigated by the special inspector general—nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—who could then recommend enforcement actions, including the revocation of federal funds, to the secretary of education and attorney general.

The office would also submit quarterly reports to Congress on the allegations it has received and what corrective steps have been taken. That means the secretary of education and attorney general, while theoretically free to ignore the office’s recommendations, would face public pressure to lay down the law.

Universities, meanwhile, would be at constant risk of humiliation if they adopt the sort of race-based policies that have become de rigueur throughout higher education. Though focused on admissions, the bill also covers “financial aid determinations” and “academic programs,” empowering the inspector general to go after scholarships, fellowships, and research programs that exclude non-minorities.

“The federal government has given the universities free rein to discriminate against white and Asian students,” Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist behind numerous state laws banning critical race theory, said of the bill. “Senator Vance’s proposed legislation will put a stop to this.”

Rufo, you will recall, is Ron DeSantis’ go-to guy on education…

The questions just ask themselves…like, where were these proud opponents of racial discrimination when it was Black kids who were being discriminated against? (Answer: Nowhere to be found.) And what happened to those intrepid conservative warriors  who were battling big government and regulatory over-reach? (Answer: It doesn’t count as over-reach if government is imposing policies that benefit White Christian guys.)

I note from the above description of the bill that these Paladins of Non-discrimination are also working hard to ensure that those greedy Black kids who somehow manage to get admitted don’t get any “extra” consideration when it comes to financial assistance. 

Given Banks hostility to LGBTQ Americans, I’m only surprised that he didn’t manage to work some homophobia into his new appreciation for having government oversight and “accountability.” (Of course, I haven’t read the entire bill…)

When the Supreme Court  handed down its decision on affirmative action, the Congressional Black Caucus warned that ending the consideration of race in admissions policies in higher education would have far-reaching, negative consequences. Even that Caucus, however, could not have foreseen the way White Supremicists have rushed to bully and threaten universities in order to ensure that Black applicants receive absolutely no “special” consideration. (And clearly, from the language of Banks’ bill, White guys hostile to Black kids will be the ones who get to decide what “special” consideration looks like.)

When I read the language of this bill, it prompted a twinge of nostalgia for the dear departed days of the “dog whistle.” MAGA Republicans like Banks have substituted a bugle for that whistle. 

Ohio is responsible for J.D. Vance (about whom Mitt Romney recently wrote, “I don’t know that I can disrespect someone more than JD Vance”), but voters in a Hoosier Congressional district are the ones who inflicted Jim Banks on the country. Now Banks wants to take his fetid brand of MAGA fundamentalism to the U.S. Senate. WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

As Brian Howey wrote when Banks was supporting Jim Jordan for speaker, “Indiana has a history of Senate lions; Banks is a House hyena.”

We have a chance to get rid of Banks in 2024. Democrat Marc Carmichael is the antithesis of Jim Banks; he would be a Senator Hoosiers could be proud of. He actually wants to be a Senator for ALL Indiana citizens.

Go to his website. Volunteer. Send him money. Tell your friends. 

Help him defeat the hyena.

Comments

Protecting Privilege

There is very little I can add to the mountains of commentary criticizing or defending the  Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action in University admissions. I do think it is important, however, to focus on its impact, which will be almost entirely limited to colleges and universities that are considered “elite.” As several analysts have pointed out, the U.S. has somewhere between 3,500 and 5,500 colleges and all but 100 of them admit more than 50% of the students who apply. There are only about 70 that admit fewer than a third of their applicants.

In other words, the schools most Americans attend admit most of the people who apply to them.

The fact that the Court’s ruling will have a limited effect does not, of course, excuse a decision that race cannot be considered, but legacy status, recruited athlete status, and financial aid eligibility—aka  “affirmative action for Whites”– can.

Americans make competing arguments about affirmative action in college admissions: defenders point to the undeniable educational benefits of diversity in the classroom and  the persistent effects of this country’s history of racial injustice; opponents point out that perceptions of favorable treatment diminish recognition of individuals’ accomplishments, and that race is no longer a clear proxy for disadvantage (should a Black doctor’s son who attended cushy private schools have a “leg up” over a poor White applicant?)

The fact that most perceptions about admissions aren’t accurate–I’ve served on admission committees–doesn’t mean they aren’t damaging.

The Court’s decision reminded me of a long-ago discussion with a relative. She was about my age, and we both had sons who were entering college. She was incensed that one of her sons had failed to gain admission to a particular, competitive school (I no longer remember which one), and attributed his rejection to affirmative action. If there wasn’t “favoritism for ‘those people,’ she was absolutely convinced her son (who was actually pretty unimpressive) would have been accepted.

I’ve read bits and pieces of the dissents, and–as a lawyer–find them persuasive. But as we’ve seen with other decisions of this radical Court, nuanced  legal arguments rarely translate accurately into the ensuing political and social debates.

As the months pass, I may revise my current assessment of the impact of this decision, but right now, here’s what I see:

  • People like my relative will be deprived of an argument that they use to justify their (already obvious) racial grievance.
  • America’s changing demographics–a change that has already triggered the nasty expression of overt bigotries–will ensure the continued diversity of the great majority of university classrooms–especially as so many colleges are seeing fewer applicants and experiencing fiscal challenges.
  • The impact of the decision will fall almost entirely on the elite institutions that produce the most privileged members of American society. The Chief Justice’s ruling (aptly described by Justice Jackson as a “let them eat cake” decision) will protect his alma mater and other elite universities from the equalizing effects of a more diverse student body.

The truth is, those elite universities are already experiencing what has been called the “gamification” of admissions. Families with the means to do so have engaged in multiple efforts to assure their offsprings’ success, from coaches to help with essays and SAT preparation, to actual bribes that led to jail terms for some celebrity parents.

What would a fair process look like? After all, the use of race–or legacy status, or athletic prowess, or wealth–is almost always applied to a pool of applicants all of whom are eligible for admission. Arguments about merit are beside the point–these schools get many more applicants who meet or exceed their criteria than they can admit. The issue is: when you have identified 200 students who can clearly do the work, and you have room for only 100, how do you decide which ones to admit?

One of the better suggestions would substitute socio-economic status for race; given the continued structural racism of American society, Blacks should be well represented in an underprivileged cohort. (Letting more poor kids of any color into Harvard and Yale would certainly increase diversity…)

According to survey research, a majority of Americans oppose affirmative action in higher education. Much of that opposition is because people don’t understand how it actually works, but there’s no denying that a lot of it is simple racism and a defense of privilege.

Meanwhile, a rogue Court continues to eviscerate legal precedent, with consequences that will likely extend far beyond the issues of the cases being decided…

Comments

Who Do You Debate?

In a recent column in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg raised a thorny but important issue: should liberal publications engage in affirmative action for conservatives?

The impetus for the question was a decision by The Atlantic to hire a conservative writer whose opinions would seem to place him outside the bounds of civil discourse.

The progressive objection to Williamson lies in the demeaning ways he’s written about poor people, black people, women, and trans people. He described an African-American boy in East St. Louis sticking out his elbows in “the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.” Defiantly using male pronouns in a piece about the trans actress Laverne Cox, Williamson wrote, “Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman.” Feminism, he wrote, is a “collection of appetites wriggling queasily together like a bag of snakes.” He tweeted that women who have abortions should be hanged, later clarifying that while he has doubts about the death penalty, “I believe that the law should treat abortion like any other homicide.”

The decision to bring a “conservative voice” in-house is understandable–even commendable. After all, progressives insist that dialogue is good, that minds must be open, that all ideas deserve to be considered. The term “liberal” once denoted open-mindedness and the willingness to engage people with whom one disagreed. But Goldberg’s question goes to the heart of our current political dilemma:

[Atlantic’s] hiring has set off the latest uproar over which conservatives belong in the opinion sections of elite mainstream publications, including, of course, The New York Times. These controversies are, naturally, of particular interest to people who write for opinion sections, and so receive disproportionate media coverage. But there’s a broader significance to these recurring fights, because they’re about how we decide which views are acceptable at a time of collapsing mainstream consensus. The intellectual implosion of the Republican Party, it turns out, creates challenges for liberals as well as conservatives, because suddenly it’s not clear which views a person who aspires to fair-mindedness needs to grapple with.

This issue isn’t limited to publications. Universities are constantly being criticized because a preponderance of faculty–especially at more rigorous institutions–lean left. The accusation is that conservative scholars are subjected to discrimination.

The reality is considerably different–academics are pathetically eager to demonstrate even-handedness, and most of us who participate in search committees would be deliriously happy to discover that a highly qualified candidate was politically conservative.  (In some schools, like business, that does happen.) But search committees look first and foremost for evidence of sound scholarship–and in many fields, the candidates with the impressive resumes tend to be liberal.

Just as the university isn’t going to hire a science professor who insists the earth is flat or evolution is a myth, a reputable opinion journal is courting disaster by failing to distinguish between a philosophical conservative and a purveyor of conspiracy theories and/or racial resentments. These days, it’s hard to find a conservative who hasn’t been co-opted by Trumpism.

As Goldberg notes, it used to be that in order to understand national politics, you had to understand certain conservative ideas.

Trump put an end to that. The field of ideas has gone from being the ground on which politics are fought to a side in politics, which is why it’s so difficult to find serious intellectual Trump defenders. Trump has resentments and interests, but not ideology; he governs more as a postmodern warlord than a traditional party leader. Few things signal the irrelevance of ideas to his presidency like the appointment of John Bolton as national security adviser. Bolton’s relentless advocacy of regime change contradicts the isolationism Trump touted during the campaign. Trump called the Iraq war a “disaster”; Bolton is one of few who continue to defend it. Yet Bolton’s appointment isn’t discordant, because he and Trump are both belligerent bullies, and in this administration stylistic similarities matter more than policy details.

Inasmuch as there are ideas bound up with Trumpism, they are considered too disreputable for most mainstream publications. An opinion section that truly captured the currents of thought shaping our politics today might include Alex Jones, the conspiracy-mad Sandy Hook truther; the white nationalist Richard Spencer; and CliffsNotes fascist Steve Bannon.

The problem is, liberals need to engage with genuine conservatism. Just as the absence of a reputable Republican Party allows Democrats to become fragmented and intellectually lazy, liberal ideas need to be sharpened (and sometimes defeated) by contrary insights.

Giving a platform to people based upon their self-identification rather than their ability to articulate and defend a genuinely conservative point of view does conservatives–not to mention Americans– no favor.

Comments