The University of Illinois at Chicago, a struggling but ambitious public university in the heart of the city, celebrates its ethnically diverse student body as a great achievement. But Walter Benn Michaels, chairman of the university’s English department, is unimpressed. The commitment of universities, corporations and other institutions to such diversity is “at best a distraction and at worst an… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (21)Page 1 of 1 pagesThat 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 7:36 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 winterchestnut on Oct 9, 2006 at 10:45 AM 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 1:52 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 Honors Program (college-level classes for those students capable of doing advanced work).
Following a discrimination lawsuit many changes were made. Students were bused from their neighborhoods to wherever needed to achieve racial balance. (There were obvious inequities teachers’ union seniority allowed teachers to choose where they worked, older buildings, etc.)
The curricula were modified to a common denominator, and the Honors Classes were diversified to the same racial balance.
Twenty five years have passed and now…
Many new schools were built, we are still busing, most schools are below acceptable state performance levels, many after school activities have been dropped so kids can catch their busses and there are no Honors Classes.
This is not to say that kids of any race are less intelligent, but picture yourself (an individual) placed in a difficult class, without sufficient past learning experience, with everyone (including you) knowing you are there simply to meet the numbers theory.
I dont know the solution, but as Thomas Edison would say, We now know one more thing which does not work.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 10, 2006 at 7:08 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 1:02 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 1:30 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 2:43 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 5:41 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 9:43 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 winterchestnut on Oct 11, 2006 at 1:53 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 2:24 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 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM theloneous, winterchestnut, Jay Cline, richard123,
Maybe its because the author is working from a misconception (IMO) that his thoughts have sort of fallen by the wayside.
He said, in the paragraph beginning,The question is...
...the sense that in American society, effort and hard work are rewarded, that theres a rough justice in the distribution of wealth, and that inherited inequality is not a fundamental problemare widely held views in American society.After having running my own business for forty years I can guaranty the idea that effort and hard work will bring their own reward is just plain stupid.
Widely held views? Maybe among academics and those wealthy enough to feel guilty for getting it too easily (Hollywood Limo Liberals), but not with people who had to work at making a business pay to support a family.Evenly distributing the wealth? Pure crap!
People wont buy what you have to offer just because you worked hard. They will buy only if it serves them in some way. If someone else does it better, faster or cheaper with one hand behind his back while lying on the beach, your sweat wont get you zip. Your color wont matter and a nice pair of legs and flappy eyelashes dont count either. (The oldest profession excluded, but even then quality trumps effort.)
I suggest both Michaels and Moberg go read the story of a true capitalist, The Little Red Hen.
Equal opportunity Yes!
Equal distribution Forget it!
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 13, 2006 at 3:31 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 5:47 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 7:47 PM Now Hear This! (Breaking News) Life is NOT fair.
Redistributing the wealth? Who is to decide how much goes to who? What criteria would be used? How would/could it be done fairly?
Whether people are rich or poor depends on many variables. Racial factors, geography, ancestry, intelligence, health the llist is long
.
The reality is the real market decides everything where economics is concerned. I am not saying this is the way it should be. Like gravity it is what it is. Eventually even the 70 year Soviet experiment discovered that. Passing a law wont change that look at the War on Drugs, Prohibition the black market flourishes as demand pushes up prices.My son was in the Soviet Union with his high school class in 1980. Westerners were put in hotels just for them. At great risk Russian kids would slip into the hotel to swap for Elvis records and Levis. All banned items were worth more than Soviet currency. The real economy was uncontrollable by central planning.
I wish I could remember the name of the U.S. company. The owner specified in his will that upon his death all shares would be divided between his employees. Within a relatively short time many people sold their shares to buy a car, take a vacation, or whatever. Others held theirs or bought more as they went up for grabs. Think about people you know and see which ones fit in which category.
We ARE diverse. We dont all want the same things. Wont all work as hard for things. Dont all save alike. And certainly even the few of us discussing this topic dont agree dividing the wealth equally is fair.
Sure there is discrimination and it works both ways. Some is justified from personal experience and some is just plain ignorance. Both are human traits which we all have to learn to live with.
Reparations? Apologies? How far back should we go? Everybody has some inequity in his ancestry. Check out Poland theyve overrun so many times the score sheet could never be figured out. I just dont feel any guilt or responsibility for what was done to anyone by someone other than me even as far back as this morning.How we each deal with the issues as individuals will determine not only the wellbeing of the masses, but our own as well. We can try to see that each persons basic needs are met to the best of our ability. Laws can try to prevent deliberate mistreatment, but there is no way to equalize wealth fairly any more than we can make everyone an athlete, a beauty or the same number of years to live.
I know I cant relate to the racial biases and discrimination, but neither can I stop it except in myself. Giving someone an advantage by taking from another just perpetuates the problem by transferring it.In my experience mass planning only works in theory One Size Fits All means no one gets what he needs.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 14, 2006 at 10:27 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 6:15 PM Richard123,
I wasnt specifically addressing your comments. I guess any disagreement I have is with the basic thrust of the book.
What the author sees as important…
As Michaels sees it, the social focus on achieving diversity diverts attention from the most fundamental injustice in our societyeconomic inequality. Moreover, the pursuit of diversity, especially in universities, gives legitimacy to the growing economic inequality of American society, because it protects the inheritance of economic privilege and does little to create opportunity for the poor, whether black or white.
I see this way:His lament about the ...most fundamental injustice of our societyeconomic inequality.
Except for very small groups and/or for very short periods, this is the normal state of human existence.
I will certainly agree that the rich are getting richer and our middle class is evaporating. CEOs are now making (I refuse to use the terrm “earning”.) incomes up to 500 times that of their lowest paid employees. This has nothing to do with the diversity issue, however, it is a function of the rush to and deifying of Globalization. If he thinks anything can be done to reverse it he is naive.
But the U.S. is one of the few countries where individuals have a better than average chance to improve their situation in life. It is also a place which is easy to leave if you see something you think is better.
The problem with the someplace better is they may not let you in. I read this morning that New Zealand is one of the best places to live. A year ago a friend from England went there just to work for a short time, but before they let him in he had to have a job and prove that job was not being taken away from a New Zealander. No border fences needed there and a rigidly enforced immigration policy.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 15, 2006 at 2:04 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 10:18 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Back for the Future
Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency - Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis - Our Imperfect Unions
- Dismantling the Myth of McCain
How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
