FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Affirmative Action Silo

Photo by hollow sidewalks | CC BY 2.0

One of the hidden sources of division in the United States is the conceptual silo: the habits of thought, jurisprudence and reporting that segregates issues that feed on each other into separate debates, news reports and court cases. The segregation of debates and decisions about affirmative action, on the one hand, and about mass incarceration, on the other, is exemplary in this regard and worth digging into, as I do below.

Both phenomena are rooted in America’s tortured racial history. But affirmative action has been firmly placed by the Supreme Court in the diversity silo: Enhancing education and research by diversifying college campuses (the focus of the most celebrated of the affirmative action cases that have reached the Supreme Court) has been the only consistent justification for affirmative action that have survived continuous court battles against the policy.

Those battles have been regularly in the headlines since the 1978 decision in the case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.  Justice Lewis Powell, writing the plurality opinion, declared quotas unconstitutional over the objection of civil rights lion Thurgood Marshall. But Powell created a silo for affirmative action by (correctly)identifying diverse student bodies as a boon to education and a “compelling state interest.”

Meanwhile, the war on drugs  that would flood American prisons with brown and black young men was ramping up in a separate silo, with a nakedly racial justification spelled out by Nixon retainer John Ehrlichman: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. … We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.” Over in the affirmative action silo, the Nixon administration actually expanded on affirmative action measures that had been first given teeth by Lyndon Johnson Executive Order 11246. But the war on drugs, which ramped up dramatically in subsequent years and criminalized countless teenagers, overwhelmed whatever progress was made opening educational doors. But siloing made this reality invisible.

The assault on affirmative action that began in earnest with Bakke continues to this day, with an in-progress case charging Harvard with discriminating against Asian Americans. Meanwhile, as Michelle Alexander has so eloquently chronicled, the war on drugs has succeeded in creating a new Jim Crow in which much of poor Black America is trapped.

And the siloing of the two phenomena obscures the much of the rhetoric of the attacks on affirmative action (rhetoric that comes sometimes from Supreme Court Justices like the late Antonin Scalia) and much of the rhetoric that drove the war on drugs, feeds on centuries of stereotypes about Black intellectual and emotional inferiority that can be traced all the way back to the troubled mind of Thomas Jefferson.

In fact, the winding up of the war on drugs and the unwinding of affirmative action have worked in concert to reinforce stereotypes and to minimize the number of black and brown people who are able to escape from the remnants of the old Jim Crow and the upsurge of the New Jim Crow.  But all this is obscured by the separate conceptual silos in which affirmative action and mass incarceration are debated.

The siloing was in full force on July 3, when Jeff Sessions rescinded two dozen guidance documents issued by pre-Trump administrations. Seven of the 24 recessions concerned affirmative-action. But media and public discussion focused predictably on them. Affirmative action, plumed with decades of headlines about wounded white (and, now, Asian lives) is a sexy subject, almost as sexy as the missing white woman story that scholars called a syndrome. This is in part because the division of labor in society, newsrooms and in our own limited working memories actually require some conceptual siloing. And the demographics of TV audiences demand even more siloing. But the siloing in the case of the Sessions announcement needs to be called out and, if possible, reversed.

For, left largely unmentioned in the coverage was the rescinding by Sessions of the fourth edition of the Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, issued by Sessions’ predecessor and GOP bogeyman Eric Holder. A key goal of this crushingly boring-sounding manual is to reduce, with the help of a “new and improved method to calculate and analyze disproportionality,” the rate of incarceration of minority youth in America.

The relationship between these incarcerations and affirmative action is straightforward: Youth caught in the coils of the criminal justice system are less likely to complete their K-12 educations, much less benefit from race-conscious efforts to diversify competitive campuses.

Indeed, the correlation between the spike in Black and Hispanic incarceration during the war on drugs and the failure of affirmative action to cure the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in higher education (reported upon in The New York Times in 2017) is unmistakable. Is this correlation causation? It’s worth finding out.

But to do so,we have to undo the conceptual segregation that keeps the decades-long effort to destroy affirmative action and the Obama-era effort to reform the criminal justice system in parallel but in separate silos, even as Sessions, who has expressed support for the suit against affirmative action at Harvard, washes the government’s hands of support for race-conscious admissions.

A great irony here is that no amount of siloing could stop Donald Trump, building his political brand in 2011 by sucking from the sewer of stereotypes, from not only asking if Barak Obama was illegally occupying the White House (thereby checking the Black criminalization box) but also asking how the then President could have gotten into Columbia and Harvard when “I heard he was a terrible student….I have friends who have smart sons with great marks, great boards, great everything, and they can’t get into Harvard.”

Though there is no Trumpian demagoguery and perhaps no deep racial animus in the current suit against Harvard, the subtext of stereotypes—which can be traced, as suggested above, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on Blacks in his Notes on the State of Virginia—clings to it in the form of a sort of static electricity picked up by anyone who uses America’s stereotype-saturated terminology of race. It is no accident, either, that Harvard, which Justice Powell pointed to as an example of the responsible pursuit of diversity, is in the crosshairs.

Part of the evidence provided by the plaintiffs are statistics (siloed away from important contextualizing information and statistics) that suggests that Asian applicants would have a steeply increasing chance of admission if they were white or Hispanic or, most of all, Black.  Ignored in their filings are the findings of Goodwin Liu, now a California judge, and other scholars, who have demonstrated that eliminating all Black and Latino applicants from a pool does not significantly increase the chances of admission of non-Black or Latino applicants.

Of course, if there really is discrimination against Asian applicants to today’s Harvard, the university should suffer consequences. But it is important to remember that discrimination against Asians is not what the lawsuit is ultimately about. Destroying affirmative action is what the suit is about. It is something that Edward Blum, founder and president of the organization behind the suit, has been trying to do for decades. And by making Asians the face of his latest effort, he is taking advantage of the siloing of affirmative action not only with regard to the effects of mass incarceration but also with regard to itself.

For Asians (and white women like the one featured in his previous major case) have and continue to benefit from affirmative action in employment. The aforementioned London Johnson executive orders that put teeth into affirmative action is still used to open doors for people of all races and genders at major companies. It and a successor LBJ order were leveraged by white women decades ago to increase their ranks in academia.

And, what is more, the Small Business Administration for decades has run programs designed to boost minority (including Asian) entrepreneurs.

Affirmative action may, in the end, not be worth the price paid for it in resentment, stereotyping and the sewing of division between minorities who should be natural allies. But there is no way to determine that without taking it out of the conceptual silo in which it is debated and judged.

More articles by:

Michael Collins has written for Harper’s and the Oxford American. He is the author of Understanding Etheridge Knight

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail