A left-winger's ranting on America, religion, capitalism and pie.

I was asked by the writer of Ideafication to respond to his post on “Reverse Racism”, as I’d responded to an earlier post of his responding to an earlier post of mine. Whew, that was a mouthful. I figure since I need to post here more often, I may as well make a post out of my response. Hurray. The post is an argument against affirmative action, and should itself be read.

The writer—Steve—starts off well by admitting that racism still exists. Good. It’s often easier for people arguing against affirmative action to simply deny that racism still exists. Steve has taken the honest and intelligent route, and wins my respect for this. So, onto the argument at hand. I need to address something immediately, which I’m aware of from a previous discussion with the writer. We disagree on whether or not people are capable of doing things for anything but selfish reasons. I don’t feel the need to mention all the things people do at costs to themselves—there are countless well-known examples. The issue is that while people may do charitable things at great costs to themselves, even risking their lives without a selfish thought, the reason these actions can be part of human nature is because they are, in general, helpful for passing on genes. So while the action may be selfish in the larger sense of gene transference, the person is not acting selfishly—and there are other influences on human behavior besides simply selfishness. With that said, let’s move on.

Racism isn’t beneficial to a business. A business that is open to minorities is much more likely to succeed. Some people just have the monetary padding to do such things. Sad, yes, but that’s all the potential that person has, unless they could have be changed on a personal level to be more accepting.

This statement is a gross simplification of the issue at hand. It assumes that the business owner, manager, whoever is doing the hiring is thinking clearly and objectively about how best to run the business. This could not be further from the truth. The power of racism is that it affects one’s thinking, drawing a person from objectivity and clear thinking. Racism overwrites the very reason Steve is counting on to counteract it. It is precisely it’s effect on reason that makes it so prevalent, that makes it so easy a method of destabilizing groups, that makes it so divisive. How many of us have prepared for an interview and read that the key is to get the interviewer to like you—especially by dressing like him/her—ie by making them feel like you are part of their “in” group and will “fit in”. Is it hard to see where racism might conflict? Whoever is hiring is not only affected by self-interest—to say otherwise is to assert that self-interest is the only driving factor in human psychology. Finally, Steve gives no basis for his statement that “a business open to minorities is much more likely to succeed”. While it opens the doors to a wider variety of talent, it also invites division within the ranks and the aversion of clients and allies. Even if it did, it has no bearing on the fact that the very existence of racism blinds the white hirer from any potential benefit a disliked ethnicity may have. The very nature of racism—and any in/out group discrimination—is that the hirer will focus on any faults of the discriminated group and any qualities of his/her own group.

Problems with something like a minorities-only college fund: This can let minorities get into a class that has a racist teacher, causing them to not pass, get a lower grade than they would have, or be in a generally bad environment (and maybe they decide college isn’t for them because of it). It teaches minorities how to be successful in the field of their choice, but once they get to that field, they might not be hired, or they might get hired but not get the same pay. It allows minorities to learn, but doesn’t guarantee comparably equal success.

I have to be honest, I’m really confused as to how this paragraph is meant to be an argument against affirmative action. It first claims that minority-only college funds can (might) let minorities into bad classes. I’m really not sure how a minority-only college fund is supposed to be worse for this than any other sort of college fund or even their own parent’s money, or how this is supposed to be different from the problems of every single college student (aside from minorities likely experiencing slightly more racism). It’s not really explained how this is at all a problem with affirmative action. The paragraph goes on to say that minority graduates may encounter the very problem he is arguing should be allowed—that minorities/women shouldn’t have a government guarantee of an equal amount of work provided they are qualified.

Problems with affirmative action driven job hiring: This can get a minority into a job despite the boss being a racist, but the boss is still a racist, and likely to look unfavorably on this person, especially now that the government forced them into their workplace. Some jobs may have openings but can’t accept “non-minorities”, which would fuel hate in the minds of some.

There are already programs in place to prevent and punish workplace discrimination, harassment, etc. No action will ever be perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. Things will very slowly head in the direction of more minority/female presence in the workplace either way, which will fuel hatred no matter what. Either way, empowering individuals to defy stereotypes will do more to undo the damage that racism has done and do away with the hatred, than allowing the racism to keep minorities in stereotypes and hated anyway will do. One path leads to the same old, the other will eventually repair some of the damage and stop most of the hate.

This is why minorities are frustrated with the current social structure, and why non-minorities are frustrated with these programs.

I don’t know whether Steve’s a minority or not, and I’m not, so I won’t speak for minorities. I have to doubt that affirmative action frustrates most members of a minority, however.

I think if a minorities-only small business investment fund had been started instead of a college fund, they would have been integrated into society much more. Minorities that operate businesses could compete with racist ones, beating them (as long as they provide a better product; not any government-aided way to shove inferior products into the market for the sake of “equality”). You don’t need to go to college to know how to run a business, and sometimes you don’t even need to get through high school (I’m not recommending these routes, just saying it’s possible).

And how are minorities ever supposed to compete if they can’t afford or get into college in the first place? The entire point is to allow minorities to compete fairly, by being a little unfair for a while. While college and high school aren’t total absolute must-haves, we’re talking about competition, which requires more than knowing how to run a business. Nevermind that laissez-faire is well, not fair. Minorities should have access to college and education—the access whites and males have unfairly thanks to white and male privilege—just like anybody else. That’s the access they would have if racism hadn’t stunted their family’s financial growth for generations upon generations.

Even if a business fund wasn’t the answer, whatever the answer would be should have been a change catalyst, not something that is supposed to last forever.

That is exactly what affirmative action is. It’s not supposed to last forever—it’s supposed to fix the problem racism and white privilege caused.

Lastly, imagine the following: A country where every race is treated equally. Actually equally, in the sense that some businesses may have more non-minorities, but that’s okay, because other businesses make up for it (though, not with the intention of doing so). Suddenly, the government decides to give non-minorities a tax break, and give minorities more vacation days mandated by law. Now, no example is perfect, and you may see this as biased one way or another, but replace those two things with two different things of your choosing. Is it equal? On base value, it may appear so, but it is unfair treatment for both parties. Maybe some people aren’t interested in more vacation days, and a tax break may be more beneficial to certain people. It is not equal.

I have to be honest, this is a silly thing the reader is asked to consider. It doesn’t really make sense, and if it’s supposed to be a metaphor for the current situation it makes even less sense. Affirmative action doesn’t work this way at all.

Minorities wanting equal rights and opportunities are legitimate, good concerns. Non-minorities wanting the same thing are, too. Treating either one of these wishes as inferior ones only brings us further from our goal.

This is, again, a simplification of the issue. Neither wish is inherently inferior, but one of these wishes is almost laughable. I say this as a white American. As a white American, I, and most white Americans, have a large number of advantages simply by virtue of my coming from a white American background. Minorities in this country have a large number of disadvantages because of their background. Neither of these advantages and disadvantages are genetic, they are historical and cultural. White American families have had, over the years, most of the opportunities and little of the discrimination or baggage that minorities have had to deal with.

When there’s a race between friends and one was beaten prior to the game, and the other given steroids prior to the game, it is absurd for the steroid-user to complain of unfairness if the beaten opponent is given a tiny head start. We, as white Americans, need to admit to what our in-group has done and continues to do to minorities. Racism directly causes poor performance in discriminated against groups. How can we combat these things if we insist on forcing minorities to compete with a broken leg, before they can get to the next round and compete on a more even playing field?

Sources

1. American Psychological Association: Racism and Psychology.
2. Expectation confirmation, About.com.
3. Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.
4. Thin Ice: “Stereotype Threat” and Black College Students.