Affirmative action is a withering cause. Since the late 1970s, state referendums and court rulings have given the program a slow but steady beating — a bruising that must give comfort to opponents of racial equality everywhere.
In a country with striking racial disparities, one would think the momentum would be in the other direction. But this is not an era of idealism like Dr. King's — that time passed more than thirty years ago. Ours is an age where even a mention of the need for more diversity is met with a muffled groan at best, resounding contempt at worst.
And yet, by every meaningful measurement, minorities lag far, far behind their white counterparts. So, why the opposition to a program designed to overcome such a stark reality? Conservatives allege it's not fair. Why should whites be penalized? Affirmative action is just reverse-racism!
This would all make for an amusing adult temper tantrum if the consequences weren't so devastating. Their argument purports logical validity, but ignores the reason why there is racial disparity in the first place — a knockout punch against their concern with fairness.
To put it mildly, America is less than fair to its minority population. But conservatives place the blame on minorities themselves, complaining about single-parent households, gang culture and exploitation of the welfare system. Unlike 19th-century social Darwinism, contemporary right-wing thought does not assert a genetic difference between races. Modern-day racism is more refined. The implication is that a cultural (rather than biological) inferiority among blacks and Hispanics accounts for the all-too-obvious discrepancies. This notion gives ideological justification for the curtailment of affirmative action.
The recent Bill O'Reilly controversy gives some insight into this type of thinking. On his radio show, the right-wing pundit went on for some time about how he "couldn't get over" the civility of the mostly black patrons at a Harlem restaurant named Sylvia's. Much to his surprise, "There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'" His apparent expectation — that black people in restaurants behave like buffoons — demonstrates an ignorance that even Don Imus would have to laugh at.
Mr. O'Reilly tried to clarify later, stating, "I think that black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. … 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.'" To people like Mr. O'Reilly, blacks will only succeed if they abandon their gangsta' culture and frankly, act more like white people. Any inequality is their fault.
The truth is something else entirely. Any casual investigation into racism today reveals that it is more than just a languishing idea in the minds of a few rednecks. It is a force of primary importance.
A 2003 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study, for example, found that even whites with prison records were more likely to land an interview than blacks without a criminal background. A University of Chicago study conducted the same year found that applicants with "black sounding" names were twice as likely not to
be called back for an interview as applicants with "white sounding" names. Similar studies about racism in housing, the loan industry, health care and the criminal (in)justice system have all attained similar conclusions.
Might affirmative action be a necessary tool in overcoming this systematic racism? Wouldn't that be "fair?" Liberals often do a disservice to the cause of affirmative action by instead emphasizing the legacy of state-sponsored discrimination; this gives credence to the "get over it" bellowing of the right. Affirmative action is necessary because of real, immediate prejudice.
Admittedly, however, minority students are unlikely to face discrimination from UW college admissions. Nor do most minority youth encounter a racist loan application process. So, opponents might ask where the merit is in UW's holistic admissions policy?
The nearly omnipresent racism in American society may not have as direct an effect on youth as adults, but both must live with the consequences. To borrow a phrase of arch-racist Ronald Reagan, racism has a "trickle-down" effect in minority communities. As Stephen Steinberg notes in his seminal study, "The Ethnic Myth," the economic effects of racism create impoverished communities of despair and helplessness. Such a climate does not align itself with popular 19th-century author Horatio Alger's "rags to riches" model of success.
This principle exists for all oppressed communities. In the earlier part of the 20th century, persecuted groups like Italians, Jews and Irish mostly lived in ethnic ghettos, where crime — not college — became the major outlet for disenfranchised youth. Unemployment, media stereotyping and general social misery were lived with every day. In such an environment, would it really be realistic to expect a kid to yearn for the Ivy League? Could you really expect his credentials to be to be as good as a Rockefeller?
The well-meaning critic will ask: Why not socioeconomic affirmative action? Wouldn't this disproportionately benefit minorities anyway? This approach has been tried in states like Texas, but the results have not been encouraging. Among the nation's underclass, whites still tend to have better test scores and higher class ranks. Given the above analysis about the primacy of race in America, this finding should come as no surprise.
The skeptic should remember that the abolition of affirmative action would effectively amount to giving up on the struggle for racial equality. Without it, the unacceptable status quo must be swallowed as just fine.
Nor should we forget that race is the only element of holistic admissions that the right never stops screaming about. The fact that addressing racial inequality at a university with so few minorities earns such vitriol — even as the legacy bonus goes unmentioned — justifies a serious examination into the motives of those who insist on raising the standard of "color-blind" admissions.
In 1903, W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, "The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line." Unless our nation accounts for its racist character, the rest of the 21st century will be burdened with the same dilemma.
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
