Page 1 of 1 pages
That really is the problem with affirmative action. It perpetuates the inequities of the system, perpetuates the illusion of a meritocracy, and just causes further resentment by masking the true problem: economic inequalities by social systems that foster them
Diversity is an important goal.
But, it’s much easier to achieve it in a culture and society that is not delusional about the very existence of inequality, both economically and socially.
Wonderful article.
Posted by K on Oct 9, 2006 at 6:36 AM
There will never be economic equality. If you could redistribute wealth so that every person in this entire country had the same net worth, in five years, you’d come back and see the same disparities.
Until people change the BEHAVIORS that make and keep themselves poor, you will always have poor people.
Posted by oleofritter on Oct 9, 2006 at 9:45 AM
I could not have said it better myself.
Posted by texasindependent on Oct 9, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Definitely gotta read Michaels’ book.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in ITT in a long time, I can only hope that Michaels’ views are able to stimulate some critical discussion in the academic and political arenas. It would be even better if they could trigger some level of national soul-searching where it really counts, out of the ivory towers and marble domes, in the living rooms and workplaces of the country, but that’s a further stretch.
Anyone who has the merest shred of acquaintance with my views knows I promote the abandonment of racial-ism as a basic human paradigm of thinking. It’s monkey-thinking, primate xenophobia. But historical crimes and modern discrimination, that’s a tougher nut to crack. They can’t be disregarded, but all of the proposed solutions to them seem to me to foster other problems and more disaffection among groups, maybe even feeding vengeful thinking and perpetuating the whole ugly shootin’ match.
The issue of equality is especially problematic, because people aren’t equal. I mean, they are of equal value in the great cosmic scheme of things, but they aren’t equally talented, or equally smart, or equally energetic, or equally able to reason things out, or equally able to understand anything beyond short-term wants. Some are better developed in those aspects than others. I don’t see much correlation with race, but race isn’t the point I’m responding to this time. The promotion of equality is.
Is it unjust if my own cognitive style leads me to squander any advantage or opportunity that might come my way? Does it matter where that cognitive style got its start? Even if it does, how well can self-defeating tendencies be counseled out? And if the highest value is equality, as opposed to the pursuit of excellence in some endeavor, why should it be?
And in response to “equality of opportunity” as opposed to “equality of value as a person”, if everyone had exactly the same chance of, say, getting into university as everyone else, I’d wager that you would not find everyone equally able to stick with it when it became challenging, or equally able to turn their education into gains in prosperity or personal fulfillment. Some would flunk out, if that was allowed. What would be the value of a diploma program from which no one could fail? Some would get the diploma but wouldn’t figure out a way to parlay it into “something better”, whatever that would mean to the individual. Would this mean that they had been victimized? By whom?
I am intrigued by the suggestion to get rid of private schools, having worked in them as well as having worked in public schools. I have to think about that a while. There’s no doubt that a level of elitism is central to nearly all of them, certainly one or two in particular I can recall from personal experience. But if you want public schools to produce the kind of active, nimble, insightful minds that more often come out of the more rigorous private schools (some are not academically rigorous at all; their basic value is only to shield themselves from the “masses”... whoever they are), that means you have to set higher standards for both students and for teachers, and still the possibility of flunking out, or losing your teaching job, ends up having to exist. The minute you have to qualify for something, rather than to just get it for free, there’s a form of “discrimination” at work.
Food for thought, this article…
Posted by Kuya on Oct 10, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Real Diversity…
Each individual is unique to a degree that real diversity comes with each of us. Categorizing is exactly opposite in that it groups people by their similarities.
The terms: race, diversity, affirmative action, define people by group. We are born and die as individuals. Most of our life experiences are as individuals. If Johnny falls and skins his knee, only Johnny truly feels the pain.
A local example: For many years our high schools had a
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2006 at 6:08 AM
I am not sure how “abolishing private schools” would benefit anyone. It would, however, certainly close the “education equality gap”, but only by lowering the ceiling, instead of raising the floor.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 10, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Economic equality is the goal of a socialist society not of capitalism. Race has always been used in America as a litmus test for entry into the capitalist class. This whole discussion is better suited for Cuba than the U S.
Posted by theloneous on Oct 10, 2006 at 12:30 PM
No, money is the litmus test, by definition.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 10, 2006 at 1:06 PM
By definition, money is a by-product of capitalistic endeavors.
Capital is profit derived from the marketing of raw materials made more valuable by use of labor and equipment. With a few exceptions, white people control the delivery and distribution of value added raw materials (not to be confused with consumer goods) to the marketplace. It appears to me whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist.
Posted by theloneous on Oct 10, 2006 at 1:43 PM
By definition, money is the intent.
But, by your own implicit admission, you must be a racist. Ascribing racism to capitalism merely because whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist is more than a little like claiming being black as the cause of poverty merely because blackness is the most common trait among the poor
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 11, 2006 at 4:41 AM
Why would you draw a line from my thoughts on whiteness and capitalism to Blackness and poverty?
A more logical line of reasoning would be to question my assertion compared to how capital is acquired in a non-capitalist economy (China), an autocratic monarchy (Saudi Arabia) or a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural democracy (Brazil). Each of these economies avail value added raw materials to the marketplace.
To that I would argue that the primary difference between U S/European (read: white) capitalism and those examples previously listed is that from an historic perspective, the ultimate goal of white capitalism appears not to be just profit but absolute power, not only control over raw materials but cultural and political domination as well. As such, whiteness is the most common trait of the clique in pursuit of absolute power under the guise of capitalism (or democracy in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan).
If taking this position makes me a “racist” then so be it, fortunately for “non-racist” I’m in no position to impose my will on unsuspecting fellow human beings.
Posted by theloneous on Oct 11, 2006 at 8:43 AM
“the ultimate goal of white capitalism appears not to be just profit but absolute power, not only control over raw materials but cultural and political domination as well. As such, whiteness is the most common trait of the clique in pursuit of absolute power under the guise of capitalism (or democracy in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan).”
Actually the goal of capitalism - white or not - is the pursuit of self interest by providing something that someone else wants at a price they’re willing to pay. Sounds like a good deal to me.
And by the growth of minority-owned (and woman-owned) businesses in this country, and based on the whole supplier diversity movement, I would say it is incorrect in stating that capitalism is a “white” thing. Whites don’t give a rat’s a$$ if other whites are in power, or even the race of their competitors. Whites have no special affinity for other whites, believe it or not.
Every business owner or shareholder wants their biz to make a profit as much as possible. This profit allows for more investment, more jobs, and a better standard of living.
For minority- and woman-owned businesses (MBE’s and WBE’s), there are set-asides or preferences for government contracts, grants for financing, and special considerations (“diversity spend”) in private industry. If our capitalistic society is so controlled by whites, then why the growth with MBE’s and WBE’s? Is capitalism bad for them, too?
Posted by oleofritter on Oct 11, 2006 at 12:53 PM
theloneous,
You may make any argument you please, except you may not make my arguments, notwithstanding that you do it very poorly.
The argument stands. Your assertion that it is inherent to be racist if one is a capitalist merely because of skin color is no different than my facetious argument that poor people are poor “because” they are merely black.
Your “more logical line of reasoning” is only “more” so if you are attempting to reach a specific conclusion by defining the premise.
That is not logical.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 11, 2006 at 1:24 PM
winterchestnut,
1) If there was some social or economic law that ensured the current distribution of wealth would be attained within five years of redistribution, how do you explain the variations in distributions over the last century or so?
2) If the distribution was static, would this really mean that such a distribution was just or meritocratic?
Posted by richard123 on Oct 12, 2006 at 11:07 PM
theloneous, winterchestnut, Jay Cline, richard123,
Maybe it
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 13, 2006 at 2:31 PM
“But racism itself is still relevant, both the legacy effects and current practice outside of institutions like universities, making it politically unwise to drop all race-based policies before dealing with economic inequality. Indeed, Michaels is even somewhat sympathetic to reparations, which could provide money, not just apologies”
Who is going to provide this money. Who is going to apologize? What are we apologizing for? Being born white? I thought race did not matter…....
Posted by texasindependent on Oct 13, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Whattheheck,
even ability does not guarantee success. And I would hardly consider a system that distributed money based on ability to be just.
The point I was trying to make is that people often come up with some statement along these lines. Redistributeding the wealth is a waste of time. The poor are poor because they are feckless or otherwise deficient. Those who are wealthy now would return to the top in no time because they have special qualities. I do not believe this to be true.
If the very wealthy, and those who identify with them, really believed this to be true, it would be a cinch to sell estate taxes and supertaxes. After all they are so wonderful at attracting money that it would barely check their strides. And as the sycophants so often say, after a time its not about the money itself but becomes a sort of game where the very wealthy try to accumulate ever larger sums. Installing the taxes would just make the playing field more interesting. It would be a kindness really - you could even call it charity.
Posted by richard123 on Oct 13, 2006 at 6:47 PM
Now Hear This! (Breaking News)
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 14, 2006 at 9:27 AM
Whattheheck, I guess that I am being unclear.
I wasn’t really wanting to get into any sort of discussion advocating a mass redistribution of wealth: in the sense of dividing the world up and apportioning it out. I don’t even want to get into a detailed discussion of garden variety redistribution - you know taxes, government spending etc.
I wasn’t really wanting to get into a discussion of how the world is - I mean we both live here don’t we. Its just that I have often heard people say that if there was a redistribution, the current distribution would return after a few years, and that this proves that the poor are poor because of some failing or other: in this case behaviour.
I was seeking to challenge this on two grounds. First, it is unproven that the distribution would be the same. I do not doubt that the distribution would be uneven - I am not even against that - but I doubt that the distribution would be the same. This particular distribution - with these particular people in those particular positions, is the product of our particular history, not the inevitable result of nature.
The second, is that it is not clear that a “natural” distribution would be just. To my mind it is obvious that people do not play on a “level playing ground.” In theory, when simply considering the justice of the situation, it does not really matter to me if biases of a particular ground are inherited wealth, inherited ability or something much more complex. The biases are inequalities in opportunity. It does not really matter if the biases are natural or not. I am at home with living in an artificial world.
I really do think that people should intercede to make the world as just as possible. (And no this does not mean that I advocate a completely planned or free economy: both extremes are problematic.)
I also wanted to do this without writing an essay.
If we go back to the topic of the essay. I do think that politics of identity are important. I also think that inequality is important, and am not really convinced that a commitment to both is either impossible or undesirable.
Posted by richard123 on Oct 14, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Richard123,
I wasn
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 15, 2006 at 1:04 PM
colleges recently have been handing out billions scholarships most of which are not need based. I.e., middle and upper income kids get lots of money. Now I’m not rich, and I would love a college to pay for my kids’ education(they are not A students, and they dont’ do anything brilliantly!).
shouldn’t money be doled out by colleges primarily on financial aid? That ‘s how it used to be, and it allowed some social mobiltiy in America. As I understand it, the gap between the highest earners and the rest of us in America is greater than ever.
Posted by edith on Oct 22, 2006 at 9:18 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
That really is the problem with affirmative action. It perpetuates the inequities of the system, perpetuates the illusion of a meritocracy, and just causes further resentment by masking the true problem: economic inequalities by social systems that foster them
Diversity is an important goal.
But, it’s much easier to achieve it in a culture and society that is not delusional about the very existence of inequality, both economically and socially.
Wonderful article.
There will never be economic equality. If you could redistribute wealth so that every person in this entire country had the same net worth, in five years, you’d come back and see the same disparities.
Until people change the BEHAVIORS that make and keep themselves poor, you will always have poor people.
I could not have said it better myself.
Definitely gotta read Michaels’ book.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in ITT in a long time, I can only hope that Michaels’ views are able to stimulate some critical discussion in the academic and political arenas. It would be even better if they could trigger some level of national soul-searching where it really counts, out of the ivory towers and marble domes, in the living rooms and workplaces of the country, but that’s a further stretch.
Anyone who has the merest shred of acquaintance with my views knows I promote the abandonment of racial-ism as a basic human paradigm of thinking. It’s monkey-thinking, primate xenophobia. But historical crimes and modern discrimination, that’s a tougher nut to crack. They can’t be disregarded, but all of the proposed solutions to them seem to me to foster other problems and more disaffection among groups, maybe even feeding vengeful thinking and perpetuating the whole ugly shootin’ match.
The issue of equality is especially problematic, because people aren’t equal. I mean, they are of equal value in the great cosmic scheme of things, but they aren’t equally talented, or equally smart, or equally energetic, or equally able to reason things out, or equally able to understand anything beyond short-term wants. Some are better developed in those aspects than others. I don’t see much correlation with race, but race isn’t the point I’m responding to this time. The promotion of equality is.
Is it unjust if my own cognitive style leads me to squander any advantage or opportunity that might come my way? Does it matter where that cognitive style got its start? Even if it does, how well can self-defeating tendencies be counseled out? And if the highest value is equality, as opposed to the pursuit of excellence in some endeavor, why should it be?
And in response to “equality of opportunity” as opposed to “equality of value as a person”, if everyone had exactly the same chance of, say, getting into university as everyone else, I’d wager that you would not find everyone equally able to stick with it when it became challenging, or equally able to turn their education into gains in prosperity or personal fulfillment. Some would flunk out, if that was allowed. What would be the value of a diploma program from which no one could fail? Some would get the diploma but wouldn’t figure out a way to parlay it into “something better”, whatever that would mean to the individual. Would this mean that they had been victimized? By whom?
I am intrigued by the suggestion to get rid of private schools, having worked in them as well as having worked in public schools. I have to think about that a while. There’s no doubt that a level of elitism is central to nearly all of them, certainly one or two in particular I can recall from personal experience. But if you want public schools to produce the kind of active, nimble, insightful minds that more often come out of the more rigorous private schools (some are not academically rigorous at all; their basic value is only to shield themselves from the “masses”... whoever they are), that means you have to set higher standards for both students and for teachers, and still the possibility of flunking out, or losing your teaching job, ends up having to exist. The minute you have to qualify for something, rather than to just get it for free, there’s a form of “discrimination” at work.
Food for thought, this article…
Real Diversity…
Each individual is unique to a degree that real diversity comes with each of us. Categorizing is exactly opposite in that it groups people by their similarities.
The terms: race, diversity, affirmative action, define people by group. We are born and die as individuals. Most of our life experiences are as individuals. If Johnny falls and skins his knee, only Johnny truly feels the pain.
A local example: For many years our high schools had a
I am not sure how “abolishing private schools” would benefit anyone. It would, however, certainly close the “education equality gap”, but only by lowering the ceiling, instead of raising the floor.
Economic equality is the goal of a socialist society not of capitalism. Race has always been used in America as a litmus test for entry into the capitalist class. This whole discussion is better suited for Cuba than the U S.
No, money is the litmus test, by definition.
By definition, money is a by-product of capitalistic endeavors.
Capital is profit derived from the marketing of raw materials made more valuable by use of labor and equipment. With a few exceptions, white people control the delivery and distribution of value added raw materials (not to be confused with consumer goods) to the marketplace. It appears to me whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist.
By definition, money is the intent.
But, by your own implicit admission, you must be a racist. Ascribing racism to capitalism merely because whiteness is the most common trait among capitalist is more than a little like claiming being black as the cause of poverty merely because blackness is the most common trait among the poor
Why would you draw a line from my thoughts on whiteness and capitalism to Blackness and poverty?
A more logical line of reasoning would be to question my assertion compared to how capital is acquired in a non-capitalist economy (China), an autocratic monarchy (Saudi Arabia) or a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural democracy (Brazil). Each of these economies avail value added raw materials to the marketplace.
To that I would argue that the primary difference between U S/European (read: white) capitalism and those examples previously listed is that from an historic perspective, the ultimate goal of white capitalism appears not to be just profit but absolute power, not only control over raw materials but cultural and political domination as well. As such, whiteness is the most common trait of the clique in pursuit of absolute power under the guise of capitalism (or democracy in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan).
If taking this position makes me a “racist” then so be it, fortunately for “non-racist” I’m in no position to impose my will on unsuspecting fellow human beings.
“the ultimate goal of white capitalism appears not to be just profit but absolute power, not only control over raw materials but cultural and political domination as well. As such, whiteness is the most common trait of the clique in pursuit of absolute power under the guise of capitalism (or democracy in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan).”
Actually the goal of capitalism - white or not - is the pursuit of self interest by providing something that someone else wants at a price they’re willing to pay. Sounds like a good deal to me.
And by the growth of minority-owned (and woman-owned) businesses in this country, and based on the whole supplier diversity movement, I would say it is incorrect in stating that capitalism is a “white” thing. Whites don’t give a rat’s a$$ if other whites are in power, or even the race of their competitors. Whites have no special affinity for other whites, believe it or not.
Every business owner or shareholder wants their biz to make a profit as much as possible. This profit allows for more investment, more jobs, and a better standard of living.
For minority- and woman-owned businesses (MBE’s and WBE’s), there are set-asides or preferences for government contracts, grants for financing, and special considerations (“diversity spend”) in private industry. If our capitalistic society is so controlled by whites, then why the growth with MBE’s and WBE’s? Is capitalism bad for them, too?
theloneous,
You may make any argument you please, except you may not make my arguments, notwithstanding that you do it very poorly.
The argument stands. Your assertion that it is inherent to be racist if one is a capitalist merely because of skin color is no different than my facetious argument that poor people are poor “because” they are merely black.
Your “more logical line of reasoning” is only “more” so if you are attempting to reach a specific conclusion by defining the premise.
That is not logical.
winterchestnut,
1) If there was some social or economic law that ensured the current distribution of wealth would be attained within five years of redistribution, how do you explain the variations in distributions over the last century or so?
2) If the distribution was static, would this really mean that such a distribution was just or meritocratic?
theloneous, winterchestnut, Jay Cline, richard123,
Maybe it
“But racism itself is still relevant, both the legacy effects and current practice outside of institutions like universities, making it politically unwise to drop all race-based policies before dealing with economic inequality. Indeed, Michaels is even somewhat sympathetic to reparations, which could provide money, not just apologies”
Who is going to provide this money. Who is going to apologize? What are we apologizing for? Being born white? I thought race did not matter…....
Whattheheck,
even ability does not guarantee success. And I would hardly consider a system that distributed money based on ability to be just.
The point I was trying to make is that people often come up with some statement along these lines. Redistributeding the wealth is a waste of time. The poor are poor because they are feckless or otherwise deficient. Those who are wealthy now would return to the top in no time because they have special qualities. I do not believe this to be true.
If the very wealthy, and those who identify with them, really believed this to be true, it would be a cinch to sell estate taxes and supertaxes. After all they are so wonderful at attracting money that it would barely check their strides. And as the sycophants so often say, after a time its not about the money itself but becomes a sort of game where the very wealthy try to accumulate ever larger sums. Installing the taxes would just make the playing field more interesting. It would be a kindness really - you could even call it charity.
Now Hear This! (Breaking News)
Whattheheck, I guess that I am being unclear.
I wasn’t really wanting to get into any sort of discussion advocating a mass redistribution of wealth: in the sense of dividing the world up and apportioning it out. I don’t even want to get into a detailed discussion of garden variety redistribution - you know taxes, government spending etc.
I wasn’t really wanting to get into a discussion of how the world is - I mean we both live here don’t we. Its just that I have often heard people say that if there was a redistribution, the current distribution would return after a few years, and that this proves that the poor are poor because of some failing or other: in this case behaviour.
I was seeking to challenge this on two grounds. First, it is unproven that the distribution would be the same. I do not doubt that the distribution would be uneven - I am not even against that - but I doubt that the distribution would be the same. This particular distribution - with these particular people in those particular positions, is the product of our particular history, not the inevitable result of nature.
The second, is that it is not clear that a “natural” distribution would be just. To my mind it is obvious that people do not play on a “level playing ground.” In theory, when simply considering the justice of the situation, it does not really matter to me if biases of a particular ground are inherited wealth, inherited ability or something much more complex. The biases are inequalities in opportunity. It does not really matter if the biases are natural or not. I am at home with living in an artificial world.
I really do think that people should intercede to make the world as just as possible. (And no this does not mean that I advocate a completely planned or free economy: both extremes are problematic.)
I also wanted to do this without writing an essay.
If we go back to the topic of the essay. I do think that politics of identity are important. I also think that inequality is important, and am not really convinced that a commitment to both is either impossible or undesirable.
Richard123,
I wasn
colleges recently have been handing out billions scholarships most of which are not need based. I.e., middle and upper income kids get lots of money. Now I’m not rich, and I would love a college to pay for my kids’ education(they are not A students, and they dont’ do anything brilliantly!).
shouldn’t money be doled out by colleges primarily on financial aid? That ‘s how it used to be, and it allowed some social mobiltiy in America. As I understand it, the gap between the highest earners and the rest of us in America is greater than ever.
register a new account »Posting Security