Affirmative Action and the Stalled Quest for Black Progress Book

When Stanford undergraduate Stephen L. Carter applied for admission to Harvard Law School, he was rejected. Some time later, he received an anguished call from the law school, which now wanted to admit him. The law school representative explained that based on Carter's record, the admissions committee had presumed he must be white. When the committee realized he was black, it reversed its decision.

Mr. Carter drew the obvious conclusion from this strange turn of events. In his own words: "Stephen Carter, the white male, was not good enough for the Harvard Law School; Stephen Carter, the black male, not only was good enough but rated agonized telephone calls urging him to attend. And Stephen Carter, color unknown, must have been white: How else could he have achieved what he did in college? Except that my college achievements were obviously not sufficiently spectacular to merit acceptance had I been white. In other words, my academic record was too good for a black Stanford University undergraduate, but not good enough for a white Harvard law student. Because I turned out to be black, however, Harvard was quite happy to scrape me from what it apparently considered somewhere near the bottom of the barrel."

Carter naturally was offended by these shenanigans, and chose to attend Yale instead. He realized that Yale no doubt had played the same racial games as Harvard; they simply executed their plan well enough to avoid making the racial double standard quite so obvious.

One of the absurdities of racial preferences - also known under the more benign-sounding euphemism of "affirmative action" - is that while advocates insist the regime of racial discrimination must be defended to the death, they also demand that no one ever acknowledge that those racial preferences even exist. In contemporary society, racial discrimination is absolutely verboten under the United States Constitution, state and federal laws, and widely held social mores. As a result, racial preferences can continue only under the cloak of darkness and denial.

As a black man who was willing to say the unsayable, Carter was viciously attacked from the left. He was called an Uncle Tom, a traitor to the race, and worse by many on the left, including, of course, white left-wingers who feel entitled to determine what a black person is allowed to say and think. At the same time, he won praise from conservatives, libertarians, moderates, classical liberals, and others who found the honesty in his acknowledgment of racial preferences to be refreshing.

The most disappointing aspect of Carter's book, therefore, is his refusal to carry through in this honest fashion to the end. Carter laments the burdens so-called "affirmative action" imposes even on its beneficiaries, among them the widespread suspicion that black students and graduates aren't really as good as their paper credentials would indicate, the burdens that come with being the representatives of the race, and the demand that they adhere to the party line on racial matters, and a wide variety of other questions as well. These are discomforts Carter no doubt has faced in his own life, and he does not like it.

The far greater problem with racial preferences, however, is the impact on their victims, in this case, white persons who often come from poor backgrounds yet are denied opportunities for advancement simply because of their race. The unfairness is magnified by the fact that most of the benefits of racial preferences accrue to blacks who already are privileged, and therefore are better placed to gather in those benefits. The central problem with racial preferences, as with all other forms of discrimination, is the unfairness for the victims of that discrimination.

It is at this point where Carter falters. He makes it uncomfortably clear that he isn't all that concerned with the victims of racial preferences. Indeed, it appears Carter would have no objection to these discriminatory policies if only one could eliminate the stigma and though restrictions it places on privileged blacks such as himself. Carter actually goes so far as to entitle one chapter "Racial Preferences? So What?"

Yes, so what? What is the justification for denying people with the "wrong" racial background equal standing under the law? A convincing argument is imperative to defend Carter's professed lack of concern for them. If such an argument exists, however, Carter does not even attempt to make it. Carter appears to realize that any attempt to justify racial discrimination because of the race of the victims rightly will be regarded as racist and repugnant. He attempts to resolve the problem by gliding over it.

Carter claims racial preferences are no different than ordinary taxes in that both require people to pay for services and benefits they will not receive in order to remedy a perceived problem they did not cause. Of course, that is not so. Racial discrimination is a unique social evil which has been prohibited by a whole host of laws and social mores. The same thing does not apply to taxation.

To put a sharper point on the issue, one might ask why it is acceptable to "tax" white people for their skin color, but not do the same for blacks (or Hispanics, or any of the myriad other groups who have a sought to share in the spoils). If it's acceptable to burden whites in this way, why would it not be acceptable to impose the same burdens on blacks? Indeed, why would it not be proper to re-institute Jim Crow and put blacks back at the bottom of the pile?

Jim Crow existed in the southern states for nearly 100 years. Reverse discrimination now has existed in all states for over 50. If it is allowed to continue, it will pass Jim Crow in longevity within the lifetime of many or most people who now are living. Clearly, we can do better.

The most disappointing thing about Carter's book is the selfishness he brings to the subject of racial discrimination. His primary, and perhaps even only, concern is to buttress the self-respect of privileged buppies (i.e. black yuppies) like himself. He's honest enough to forthrightly admit that racial preferences exist, and are the source of his despair. However, he denigrates the just concerns of the victims of those preferences and asserts this discrimination should be allowed to continue. At this point his argument collapses into a disjointed mess.

In the end, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby is interesting primarily for the psychological and sociological insight it provides into the mind of an American buppie. Although Mr. Carter is honest enough to acknowledge the existence of racial preferences, his failure to take that honesty to its logical conclusion irreparably mars his actual argument.