What is Ross Douthat talking about - Part 2
Ross is at it again.
He is continuing to run a column where he openly admits his ideas are bogus and really should not be taken seriously. Not sure why the "Failing New York Times", as Trump would say, insists on publishing this, but he has sunken to a new low by attacking minorities.
Let's be clear by what I mean by attack. This is not a racist screed about the failings of people of color, specifically African Americans. Instead, it is the carefully crafted Politically Correct attack that he believes the editors of the "Failing New York Times" would permit in the newspaper of record.
There is the subtle dig that white ancestors did not need affirmative action.
"After all, what are white Americans supposed to make of a system that offers Hispanic or Asian business owners an advantage never enjoyed by their own Irish or Polish or Scots-Irish forefathers, or boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery?"
But let's take a minute to admit the reality that makes this attack a sham. Descendants of the Scots and Irish were not denied the benefits of the G.I. Bill because of their race.
And, there are the housing benefits that were denied African Americans, by law, between the 20's through the 70's. This goes well beyond the segregation instilled in suburban communities based on a climate of fear to keep out blacks. There were laws in mortgage lending and housing association covenants that prevented people of color from living in areas designated as "white". These areas were welcome to the descendants of Scots and Irish. Not to mention fresh off the boat Scots and Irish.
I simply cannot let go unchallenged the sentence fragment "boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery". The Caribbean has a slave history the predates the continental US. It provided a good model that the colonies eventually "improved" upon.
The standard complaint of Affirmative Action.
"What are they supposed to think of a system that was established 50 years ago as a temporary experiment..."
Of course, Ross is off by 10 years. This is curious. Affirmative Action was created as a Department of Defense contractor program under Kennedy to promote blacks in the workforce. Perhaps it is because he is really referring to the Affirmative Actionthat helped companies avoid lawsuits. Affirmative Action was expanded in the early 1970's to help protect companies from discrimination lawsuits.
Here's the thing, just like the GI Bill, Affirmative Action has been very successful.
We know from the notes by Sandra Day O'Conner in the Supreme Court case "Bakke" that Affirmative Action was viewed as a temporary fix to assist with the longstanding segregation and racism in America. This Supreme Court case upheld Affirmative Action but also recognized it is temporary and the court was much more sympathetic to Affirmative Action in education than the workplace. In short, Ross is correct, it was temporary, and as O'Conner made clear shortly before retirement there is an end date for Affirmative Action , despite the silly argument by Ross that Affirmative Action "can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong".
In short, necessary, successful, and will be ended once the harm of preferences outweighs the gains.
The Modest Proposal
"So, this week’s immodest proposal: Abolish racial preferences in college admissions, phase out preferences in government hiring and contracting, eliminate the disparate-impact standard in the private sector"
What do "the blacks" get for such a proposal? Well, if they can prove they are direct descendants of slaves then $10,000. Not cash; an annuity. Apparently, racism is only against direct descendants of slavery? Not sure that was written into the red-lining mortgage limitations or covenants.
Also, his proposal uses this interesting language, "...eliminate the disparate-impact" argument. What does this mean? He does parse this to just "in the private sector" to avoid being too overtly racist. This legal argument is used extensively in voting rights and a quick google would reveal just how racist his suggestion is. So he was careful to limit his idea to just the workforce, which is harder to explain. He is suggesting we eliminate the possibility of suing a company practicing overtly racist hiring practices as long as they do not say they are practicing overtly racist policies.
For instance, having a policy against hiring people that take public transit to work. If your company is in suburbia, and there is a high degree of self-segregation (and lasting impact of redlining) where African Americans tend to live in the nearby city, then based on population patterns these minorities have a smaller chance of owning a car. Therefore, a much larger pool of white eligible applicants will probably lead to a whiter (or just white) employee base. Technically, not a racist policy, but the impact helps eliminate blacks.
Finally...
"There is no clear or easy path to becoming a multiracial nation that isn’t divided politically by race..."
I can't think of a clear and easy path. But not using racist language and ideas to kowtow to an ethnic group sounds like a good start.
Oh, I miss the New York Times before they were failing.
He is continuing to run a column where he openly admits his ideas are bogus and really should not be taken seriously. Not sure why the "Failing New York Times", as Trump would say, insists on publishing this, but he has sunken to a new low by attacking minorities.
Let's be clear by what I mean by attack. This is not a racist screed about the failings of people of color, specifically African Americans. Instead, it is the carefully crafted Politically Correct attack that he believes the editors of the "Failing New York Times" would permit in the newspaper of record.
There is the subtle dig that white ancestors did not need affirmative action.
"After all, what are white Americans supposed to make of a system that offers Hispanic or Asian business owners an advantage never enjoyed by their own Irish or Polish or Scots-Irish forefathers, or boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery?"
But let's take a minute to admit the reality that makes this attack a sham. Descendants of the Scots and Irish were not denied the benefits of the G.I. Bill because of their race.
And, there are the housing benefits that were denied African Americans, by law, between the 20's through the 70's. This goes well beyond the segregation instilled in suburban communities based on a climate of fear to keep out blacks. There were laws in mortgage lending and housing association covenants that prevented people of color from living in areas designated as "white". These areas were welcome to the descendants of Scots and Irish. Not to mention fresh off the boat Scots and Irish.
I simply cannot let go unchallenged the sentence fragment "boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery". The Caribbean has a slave history the predates the continental US. It provided a good model that the colonies eventually "improved" upon.
The standard complaint of Affirmative Action.
"What are they supposed to think of a system that was established 50 years ago as a temporary experiment..."
Of course, Ross is off by 10 years. This is curious. Affirmative Action was created as a Department of Defense contractor program under Kennedy to promote blacks in the workforce. Perhaps it is because he is really referring to the Affirmative Actionthat helped companies avoid lawsuits. Affirmative Action was expanded in the early 1970's to help protect companies from discrimination lawsuits.
Here's the thing, just like the GI Bill, Affirmative Action has been very successful.
- 20% of blacks 25+ have a college degree compared to 4% in 1970 and 30% for all Americans today.
- 84% of black 25+ have HS diploma compared to 31% in 1970 and 88% for all Americans today.
- All %'s of black employment have improved since 1970.
We know from the notes by Sandra Day O'Conner in the Supreme Court case "Bakke" that Affirmative Action was viewed as a temporary fix to assist with the longstanding segregation and racism in America. This Supreme Court case upheld Affirmative Action but also recognized it is temporary and the court was much more sympathetic to Affirmative Action in education than the workplace. In short, Ross is correct, it was temporary, and as O'Conner made clear shortly before retirement there is an end date for Affirmative Action , despite the silly argument by Ross that Affirmative Action "can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong".
In short, necessary, successful, and will be ended once the harm of preferences outweighs the gains.
The Modest Proposal
"So, this week’s immodest proposal: Abolish racial preferences in college admissions, phase out preferences in government hiring and contracting, eliminate the disparate-impact standard in the private sector"
What do "the blacks" get for such a proposal? Well, if they can prove they are direct descendants of slaves then $10,000. Not cash; an annuity. Apparently, racism is only against direct descendants of slavery? Not sure that was written into the red-lining mortgage limitations or covenants.
Being a "good conservative," Douthat (or whoever said it), claimed that AA made no discernible improvements in the lives of black Americans. Please see above.
Also, his proposal uses this interesting language, "...eliminate the disparate-impact" argument. What does this mean? He does parse this to just "in the private sector" to avoid being too overtly racist. This legal argument is used extensively in voting rights and a quick google would reveal just how racist his suggestion is. So he was careful to limit his idea to just the workforce, which is harder to explain. He is suggesting we eliminate the possibility of suing a company practicing overtly racist hiring practices as long as they do not say they are practicing overtly racist policies.
For instance, having a policy against hiring people that take public transit to work. If your company is in suburbia, and there is a high degree of self-segregation (and lasting impact of redlining) where African Americans tend to live in the nearby city, then based on population patterns these minorities have a smaller chance of owning a car. Therefore, a much larger pool of white eligible applicants will probably lead to a whiter (or just white) employee base. Technically, not a racist policy, but the impact helps eliminate blacks.
Finally...
"There is no clear or easy path to becoming a multiracial nation that isn’t divided politically by race..."
I can't think of a clear and easy path. But not using racist language and ideas to kowtow to an ethnic group sounds like a good start.
Oh, I miss the New York Times before they were failing.
Comments
Post a Comment