Tim Wise
You
know you’re in trouble when Ronald Reagan starts to sound progressive. And you
really know you’re in trouble when so-called progressives make him sound that
way, thanks to their own pathetic gesticulations on one or another issue. But
unfortunately, such is the case with regard to affirmative action. The old
saying, "with friends like these, who needs enemies," has never been
more appropriate than today, with ostensible defenders of affirmative action
beating a steady retreat from the principles justifying the concept for three
decades, replacing them instead with what many call the "diversity
defense" as a rationale for these programs continuation.
Remember,
it was Reagan, who, as Governor of California, signed into law the affirmative
action programs banned by Prop 209, and who said in 1974: "Time and
experience have shown that laws and edicts of non-discrimination are not enough.
Justice demands that each and every citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a
commitment to affirmative action, which will make equal opportunity a
reality."
How
nice it would be to hear anything that principled from today’s defenders of
affirmative action. But to listen to "mainstream" liberals tell it,
affirmative action was never about uprooting the vestiges of institutionalized
white male privilege, even in theory; nor was it about equity at all, but
rather, simply a mechanism whereby people from "different backgrounds"
can "learn from one another’s experiences," come to "appreciate
cultural differences," and "tap the full potential of all our nation’s
human resources."
To
that end we’ve been treated to books like The Shape of the River, written by
former Presidents of Harvard and Princeton, which argues that affirmative action
in college is needed, not because racism is still deeply embedded in the fabric
of educational institutions (least of all the ones they served over!), but
rather, so as to create a cadre of black and brown academic elites, capable of
"contributing more fully" to their society. This ponderous volume has
been hailed as the "ultimate" defense of affirmative action programs,
which, if that’s true, means the programs are in deep trouble. To the extent
colleges like the Universities of Michigan and Washington are defending their
own affirmative action programs in court on the basis of these "benefits of
diversity," it is not an exaggeration to say that this literary
contribution may single-handedly do more damage to the cause of racial justice
than Ward Connerly and Pete Wilson combined.
There
are a number of problems inherent to defending affirmative action on the basis
of the benefits of "diversity," all of which should be readily
apparent, but seem to have escaped consideration.
First,
the courts have begun to rule in most instances that diversity-whatever its
benefits-is not a "compelling state interest": the kind these same
courts say must exist in order for state actors to fashion any race-conscious
policy, like affirmative action. Although "diversity" boosters have
attempted to quantify the value of this otherwise abstract concept-by conducting
surveys with college graduates and asking them such methodologically rigid
questions as "do you think your educational experience was enhanced or
harmed by racial diversity?"-the fact remains: compared to the principled,
albeit flawed, reasoning of those attacking affirmative action (i.e., these
programs amount to "invidious reverse discrimination" and a violation
of "color-blind equal opportunity"), arguments about the importance of
"confronting stereotypes" and "learning to value difference"
seem weak and uncompelling by comparison.
Secondly,
the benefits of "diversity" appear to all who know the history of
affirmative action, to be an obvious retreat from the earlier rationales which
focused on institutional race and gender barriers to opportunity. This retreat
makes it easier for critics to claim that such barriers must no longer exist,
since if they did, surely the civil rights community would be talking about
them, and continuing to push for affirmative action on that basis. The diversity
defense, in this sense, has become like President Clinton’s "mend it, don’t
end it" mantra: tantamount to an apology for doing what needs to be done to
challenge a system of inequity which no one seems willing to acknowledge even
exists anymore. "Diversity" as rationale for affirmative action serves
in no small way then, as the partner of white denial regarding racism itself.
Third,
arguing that "diversity" on college campuses is beneficial because it
allows students to "learn from one another’s different experiences"
begs the obvious and critical question: Why are folks’ experiences so different
in the first place? Especially on the basis of race such that
"colorizing" the room would offer substantial new insight? The answer
is obvious: it is racism itself that causes Americans to have such radically
different experiences in this society; in which case the "benefits" of
diversity as learning opportunity cannot be abstracted from the reason why such
"diversity" is currently lacking-namely institutionalized inequity.
Better to just focus on the cause of the symptom known as white homogeneity and
dominance, than to offer to treat the symptom alone, as is done by the diversity
defense. If racism is what causes different experiences, then racism-and the
need to uproot it–should be sufficient rationale for things like affirmative
action.
But
of course, those institutions being sued over their "preferential"
policies have a hard time acknowledging this basic truth. For them to admit
their own complicity in the perpetuation of racism-through admissions criteria
which overemphasizes things like standardized tests or AP course credits-would
be embarrassing and open themselves to lawsuits from people of color.
Furthermore, it would put at risk their ability to use such
"selective" and elitist criteria, which, after all, is necessary to
keep up appearances that one is a "top-notch" institution as defined
by the U.S. News College rankings-itself a financial imperative in the eyes of
trustees and powerful alums. Thus, Universities being sued by groups like the
Center for Individual Rights, find themselves having to rely on obtuse, legally
suspect arguments like the diversity defense, even as they ignore the reasons
why their schools lack such diversity, and thus need to undertake race-conscious
recruitment and admissions in the first place.
And
finally, claiming that there is something inherently valuable about people from
different backgrounds learning and working together, allows the right to counter
with their own versions of pro-diversity arguments, such as "we need more
Christian conservatives among liberal arts faculty," or "we should
promote ideological diversity" in a presumably left-leaning academic
department (like Women’s Studies). Although most can see through these
arguments, the reason why the right is off-base with such positions is
important: namely, Christians and conservatives have never been the victims of
targeted, systemic oppression and exclusion. As such, to compare their
"plight" at finding jobs in the Berkeley English Lit department with
the exclusion of instructors of color, for example, is preposterous. But again,
the key issue is institutional discrimination. That is why racial diversity or
gender diversity is absent. And that is why affirmative action is still needed.
Unless
we reorient the discussion to issues of equity and justice, it will be just as
likely that historically Black colleges–none of which ever excluded anyone on
the basis of race, nor apply admissions criteria which have race-exclusive
impacts today–will be forced to "diversify" by dramatically expanding
slots for white students, as that predominantly white schools would have to
change. This is already happening at Tennessee State University, where a court
order is forcing TSU to become 50% white (it is now 85% black), while only
expecting historically-white University of Tennessee to become 11% African
American. The logic of "diversity" of course, compels this response,
absent a historically grounded institutional analysis of racism: including a
grasp of who are its victims, and who its beneficiaries.
The
only glimmer of good news is that recently the court overseeing the case against
the University of Michigan allowed a group of students of color to enter into
the case alongside the University. The students had argued, and the court agreed
that the University would not be likely to mount the kind of defense of their
own policies that would touch on ongoing institutional barriers to full access,
whereas this would be the core of the students’ case for affirmative action’s
continuation. Those seeking to protect affirmative action from further erosion
should copy a play from these students’ playbook, and stop relying on liberal
diversity-crats to fight for justice. Doing so is the last thing on most of
their minds. And the quicker we all realize that, and put Reagan back on the
right where he belongs, the better off we’ll all be.
Tim
Wise is a Nashville-based antiracist organizer and writer. He can be reached
