Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

[audtatious]

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

How so?

Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.

The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.

The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."

The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.

Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

---Virginia Senator J. Webb

[HashiriyaS14]

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Which is funny, because Buchanan himself is anything but Protestant, not that it matters for him to make the observation.

[wingFeather]

White Privilege? You mean no free money, no free housing, no free education, no preference given when bidding for jobs or applying for a job... and growing up a real minority in LA & constantly getting beat up about the color of your skin? Yeah I love it!

[audtatious]

I thought this was a good article that needed to be posted. I'm waiting for the few here to call out the author as racist.

[stebo0728]

Any poster calling the author racist should first be able to define the word racist, and have a logical reason for why the word applies. Otherwise dont bother

[AZhitman]

Wonder what all the people who cry "racism" will do when Whites comprise the minority of the US population?

[Importroller]

as a black person in this country, i'm actually strongly against affirmative action. I feel that you should earn what you get. No one should get special treatment just because their skin is a certain color. I don't see this article as racist either, seems more like a recap of America's history

[audtatious]

as a black person in this country, i'm actually strongly against affirmative action. I feel that you should earn what you get. No one should get special treatment just because their skin is a certain color. I don't see this article as racist either, seems more like a recap of America's history

I don't know anyone, of any color, who really supports it.

[stebo0728]

I don't know anyone, of any color, who really supports it.

You must not know any deadbeats who couldnt get the job of their own merit. Unfortunately I know a few of those, LOL, a couple of em are white too, but Aff Act doesnt help them much.

[HashiriyaS14]

Webb's a smart cookie.

[audtatious]

Webb's a smart cookie.

Seems pretty accurate on this issue. I have not followed up on others but he gets a big double-thumb for this

[smockers83]

as a black person in this country, i'm actually strongly against affirmative action. I feel that you should earn what you get. No one should get special treatment just because their skin is a certain color. I don't see this article as racist either, seems more like a recap of America's history

I don't know anyone, of any color, who really supports it.

Apparently you guys haven't been to Detroit in awhile. BAMN would ship buses of kids to University of Michigan during election year 2008 when Michigan had on the ballot the elimination of affirmative action in the state. They were ruthless, obnoxious, uninformed, the kids were used, and almost violent (but that last one sums up Detroit).

[audtatious]

No, I usually associate with older people who have worked hard for a living to get where they are. I have no patience for those who have done nothing in life but go to school and decide their opinion is all that matters.

[C-Kwik]

I'd be much more suportive of eliminating affirmative action if the distribution of funding for schools were fair. MIght be different in other states, but here, funding is affected heavily by standardized test scores. As it stands there is a strong correllation between funding and the quality of education. Certainly there are other factors having to do with an area's morale when it comes to education, but the fix for this is long term. And this isn't necessarily tied to race, but there is also a strong correlation between ethnially diverse areas and poor funding for schools. Propose a good way to reduce/remove this kind of imbalance and I'm all for erradicating AA.

[IBCoupe]

MIght be different in other states, but here, funding is affected heavily by standardized test scores.

That was my big complaint about NCLB - funding was assigned on a Federal level according to standardized test scores, but the tests, at least from the Government's perspective, were anything but standard. A "proficient" score in Missouri would fail in Massachusetts.

Affirmative action is tricky. On the one hand, I think the better way to even the playing field (especially for past wrongs) is economic welfare and public education. I don't like giving individuals a leg up over other individuals. On the other hand (and I don't have statistics at the moment to back this up), I've heard and read that students admitted through affirmative action largely go on to lead highly successful lives. That and it works: ethnic and gender representation is far more proportional today than it used to be. Women, blacks, and hispanics make up 51.2%, 12.6%, and 10.2% respectively, and from '82 to '94, they went from 40.5 to 48.0%, 5.5 to 7.5%, and 5.2 to 7.6%, respectively in their representation at the managerial level.

[audtatious]

I'd be much more suportive of eliminating affirmative action if the distribution of funding for schools were fair. MIght be different in other states, but here, funding is affected heavily by standardized test scores. As it stands there is a strong correllation between funding and the quality of education. Certainly there are other factors having to do with an area's morale when it comes to education, but the fix for this is long term. And this isn't necessarily tied to race, but there is also a strong correlation between ethnially diverse areas and poor funding for schools. Propose a good way to reduce/remove this kind of imbalance and I'm all for erradicating AA.

I do agree that quality of education needs to be equal across the board. The problem I see is how do you judge when low test scores are due to lack of funds, bad buildings, bad teachers. bad students, bad parenting, bad subject matter, etc etc. Nobody seems to agree and nothing implemented has fixed anything regardless of the amount of money thrown at bad school systems.

[audtatious]

That was my big complaint about NCLB - funding was assigned on a Federal level according to standardized test scores, but the tests, at least from the Government's perspective, were anything but standard. A "proficient" score in Missouri would fail in Massachusetts.

Total lack of consistency. School systems are also financially punished if they have a student who requires special needs, say someone who needs additional help due to ADD or dyslexia. Upon request they are supposed to give individual tests for these kids to help establish what they need, yet doing so means they are financially penalized. Instead they try and get the teachers to be easier on the kids or try to rely on school counselors. Alternatively they try and push the problem off on the parents instead of performing the testing. Sorry, but a parent who has not had training or does not understand the difficulties of dyslexia/ADD, etc. has no hope in hell of helping their child. NCLB gave a direction for schools but seemed to penalize them for using the path.

Affirmative action is tricky. On the one hand, I think the better way to even the playing field (especially for past wrongs) is economic welfare and public education. I don't like giving individuals a leg up over other individuals. On the other hand (and I don't have statistics at the moment to back this up), I've heard and read that students admitted through affirmative action largely go on to lead highly successful lives. That and it works: ethnic and gender representation is far more proportional today than it used to be. Women, blacks, and hispanics make up 51.2%, 12.6%, and 10.2% respectively, and from '82 to '94, they went from 40.5 to 48.0%, 5.5 to 7.5%, and 5.2 to 7.6%, respectively in their representation at the managerial level.

I'm sure there has been some success of AA. But with that success there was bound to be people, not just whites either, stepped over and marginalized along the way. I'm not talking about scholarship money for poor minorities who had the grades to make it into college or into a higher-end college. I'm talking about those with a higher GPA being passed up for minorities who have lower GPA's, in some cases much lower. Why should a kid today be penalized or punished for the "past wrongs" that he/she had nothing to do with? Then you have requirements in the workplace to have some set percent of minorities in both common positions and in management positions. When you are simply having to meet a percentage/quota then fairness to other employees goes out the door. Really sux when you bust your azz on the job only to have a minority the next cube over who does their nails and chats on the phone half the day because the company won't fire them because they are a minority. Don't think it happens all the time?

I think we are just all f*** and doomed at this point.

[stebo0728]

I will tell you how to improve education. Stop throwing money at it, and introduce some competition in the public education system. How so? As I have said before, we have this asinine notion in this country of forcing a child to follow the education money, rather than allowing the money to follow the child. This makes no sense, and is laughed at globally where other nations have figured it out. So what do I propose? Well, school choice no less. Figure out what amount is proportioned to each child, and then allow that amount to go to whatever school the parents choose to send them to. But where do these kinds of ideas go? No where, they are buried by the lobbyist working for the teachers unions. What do unions push? Less work for higher wages. We dont need that mentality driving our teachers. Make the be competitive, make a school earn the attendance of its students and see what kind of improvements that brings. But private schools are more expensive you say? I promise you, start handing out vouchers for $3000 per year, and you'll see schools structuring their tuition to match this $3000 (amount chosen here was quite arbitrary).

[audtatious]

When typing my reply I was thinking something similar as you always hear how much a school system has to spend "per child" or the cost they have "per child".

Unions are outdated and the amount of money they cause us to waste in every industry is retarded. Here's just one case of teachers unions gone bad: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... fact_brill

[wingFeather]

Unions are outdated and the amount of money they cause us to waste in every industry is retarded.

[audtatious]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/07 ... z0uy5mKsMo

Feds demand diversity on Wall Street

"A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities — an effort at promoting diversity that’s drawing fire from Republicans who say it could lead to de facto hiring quotas.

Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force."

...............................

blah blah blah

[stebo0728]

More women?!? Geez im dumping my stocks at lunch! ;-)

[AZhitman]

I used to believe that teachers were overworked and underpaid, as a rule. I no longer ascribe to that notion.

Granted, their job is NOT one I would choose, I don't have the patience for some people's offspring.

I've observed, first-hand, the stranglehold the teachers' unions have on the administration, the school board, the PTA, and other well-meaning groups. It's absurd, bordering on mafia-style control.

Teachers who "think outside the box" and have great results are penalized and threatened. Teachers whose students don't do well on standardized testing are blamed, yet no one looks at external factors. Some ride the "gravy train" all school year, putting forth the bare minimum effort, burying kids in useless, rote "busywork" while they do unrelated tasks - yet they whine about their salary at every turn. The requirements are NOT very stringent, and teachers (at least in AZ) are fairly well-compensated when compared to other, equivalently-educated professions... The state is in a budget crisis, yet when the school district tries to "pare down" full-time positions to maintain acceptable class sizes, the union strong-arms the district into retaining these teachers (even though they have no students). Disciplinary action against teachers is notoriously difficult unless it's a case of abuse or something high-profile, and many feel "entitled" to behave as if they're not employed by the taxpayer.

[audtatious]

http://www.blackatlas.com/

Diversify

[stebo0728]

I forget the quote source, but I love this one ...

Those who cant DO teach, and those who cant TEACH administrate.

[audtatious]

Ebonics was a great success, wasn't it?

[wingFeather]

I used to believe that teachers were overworked and underpaid, as a rule. I no longer ascribe to that notion.

Bravo! All it takes is knowing one... My downstairs neighbor is a teacher. She works about 8 months out of the year, and each day is home 2 full hours before me. She doesn't leave home when the weather is at all questionable. For such lax hours I would expect half my current pay, too.

[IBCoupe]

I will tell you how to improve education. Stop throwing money at it, and introduce some competition in the public education system. How so? As I have said before, we have this asinine notion in this country of forcing a child to follow the education money, rather than allowing the money to follow the child. This makes no sense, and is laughed at globally where other nations have figured it out. So what do I propose? Well, school choice no less. Figure out what amount is proportioned to each child, and then allow that amount to go to whatever school the parents choose to send them to. But where do these kinds of ideas go? No where, they are buried by the lobbyist working for the teachers unions. What do unions push? Less work for higher wages. We dont need that mentality driving our teachers. Make the be competitive, make a school earn the attendance of its students and see what kind of improvements that brings. But private schools are more expensive you say? I promise you, start handing out vouchers for $3000 per year, and you'll see schools structuring their tuition to match this $3000 (amount chosen here was quite arbitrary).

The only thing I see as a flaw in the theory is that, in practice, there is no indication that there's any benefit to private schools. Yes, test scores are significantly higher coming from private schools but this is probably due to two factors: First, the types of parents who'd put their child into a private school are probably the same type of parent who would push their child to study hard even in a public school. Second, private schools get to choose who is accepted and who is kept as a student, whereas a public school must take all and keep all comers (absent those students who pose a threat to others, I suppose). It's skewed sampling all around, which is what makes the data that shows there's no difference so believable, when we take into account socioeconomic factors.

[stebo0728]

The only thing I see as a flaw in the theory is that, in practice, there is no indication that there's any benefit to private schools. Yes, test scores are significantly higher coming from private schools but this is probably due to two factors: First, the types of parents who'd put their child into a private school are probably the same type of parent who would push their child to study hard even in a public school. Second, private schools get to choose who is accepted and who is kept as a student, whereas a public school must take all and keep all comers (absent those students who pose a threat to others, I suppose). It's skewed sampling all around, which is what makes the data that shows there's no difference so believable, when we take into account socioeconomic factors.

Excellent point! And you have highlighted a portion of my plan that I failed to specify. Public schools will not go away. If anything they will get better, they will now have to compete to get the tuition now out on the table. Fire sh*ty teachers, hire better ones, do whatever is necessary to get some kind of competitive edge. If a parent sees a decent, now competitive public school that they can get their child into, and not have to subsidize the tuition out of their own pocket, they may be inclined to do so. Win-win all the way around, competition cleans the rifraff outta the system, and it keeps people honest.

[IBCoupe]

While that's an interesting theory, part of the appeal of a public system that doesn't have to compete for funding is that it's guaranteed to be there. If we're going to say that everyone should be given an equal opportunity and we don't mean that to be affirmative action, don't we owe it to have these systems available? Is a public school going to be able to compete with a private school? Should it be required to, when it's going to be forced to play by drastically different rules?