Affirmative Action

Briefs filed in two pivotal cases before the Supreme Court testify to how central affirmative action is to preserving diversity in American life.

This is a sweeping claim, and like most sweeping claims, it has very limited basis in fact.

In Vietnam, the military brief notes, many African-Americans served among the enlisted but few were officers, and the forces were racially polarized. It became so bad, the brief says, the leadership feared that the military was "on the verge of self-destruction." But race-based recruitment programs increased the percentage of minority officers and greatly improved race relations.

Somehow, I have a lot of trouble imagining that the lack of affirmative action in the military was the only reason the Vietnam war went badly. While it's certainly true that minority officers in the military at that time were few and far between, and that the roots of this may well have been racial bias, that doesn't justify a reverse bias in the present. The fact is, we need the best possible officers for our military, and those officers need to well-educated, well-trained, and intellectually capable. During the Vietnam war, well-educated and well-trained minority officers were simply not available -- and you can't wave the affirmative-action wand to produce them from scratch. Instead, you have to create them, which can take years.

Another important factor in the Vietnam war-era problems comes from having a conscript army; in other words, the draft. When your soldiers are drafted to serve in the military they are generally given minimal training, have almost no experience, and are in the military for a fairly short time. In the Vietnam war especially, none of the draftees wanted to be there. And that breeds powerful resentment. Worse, it means that none of the draftees are suitable for the officer corp; you have to make do with the officers you already have, whatever their racial makeup..

None of these factors are conducive to a harmonious military, and none of them are inherently race-based. In fact, I am not aware that relations between the minority draftees and the officer core were noticably worse than relations with the caucasian draftees.

In short, it's not race. There were lots of other problems.

The fact is, folks, special preferences breed resentment and perpetuate problems that we should put behind us. Wounds will never heal if they are constantly torn open again.

An especially challenging question concerning affirmative action was not addressed at all by the Supreme Court in the University of Michigan case in oral arguments last week. Indeed, most of the supporters of affirmative action have also evaded that question entirely.

Women today need to take control of their lives. But believing their own power is made more difficult by the type of feminism that celebrates "the victim" as a symbol of womanhood. Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values...everywhere and always women are painted as victims. This Great Lie stands as a barrier to women realizing their power in at least three ways.

Dr. Mike S. Adams, an associate professor of criminal justice at University of North Carolina's Wilmington campus, has given me an excellent idea for grading students, which appeared in his commentary in the web-based Agape Press newswire. For 35 years, I've taught economics and graded students on the racist, culturally biased standards of individual performance. In today's America, that's unfair and insensitive.

The recent scandals at the New York Times seem to be prompting some introspection at other newspapers. Last month John Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued a staff memo in which he faulted a story by reporter Scott Gold for liberal bias. Mr. Gold's article was about a law in Texas requiring that women seeking abortions receive counseling on the purported link between abortion and breast cancer. Mr. Carroll faulted Mr. Gold for using the slanted phrase "so-called counseling"; for failing to cite any scientist who believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer (a minority view, to be sure); and for describing a legislator who backed the law as having "a professional background in property management," while making no similarly disparaging characterizations of its opponents.

There is a great deal of irony in the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund's new slogan, "A Rich History. A Challenging Future." Despite its early landmark successes, the LDEF's increasingly left-wing agenda has alienated the organization from the history and original vision of the Civil Rights movement: equality. The early days of the Civil Rights movement have given way to polemical battles. Peter Kirsanow, a George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, has characterized today's racial dialogue as "infused with negativism, defeatism, and disillusionment." Ultimately, the pessimistic attitude adopted by the current incarnation of the LDEF does nothing to advance the cause of minorities. It does, however, supply plenty of ammunition with which to advance the organization?s political goals.

Southern Methodist University is drawing fire from conservative students for closing down a student bake sale intended to protest affirmative action.

The Young Conservatives of Texas sponsored the sale, which charged prices based on the customer's race or gender. White males paid $1 for a cookie, white woman 75 cents, Hispanics 50 cents, and blacks a quarter.

SMU officials closed the sale Tuesday after 45 minutes because they were concerned about shouting and students crowding the table. A black student also filed a discrimination complaint saying the sale was offensive.

I've seen reports of similar bale sales being held elsewhere. I think they are a WONDERFUL tactic and illustrate on a visceral, kick-in-the-gut sense exactly why discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. The typical reaction to that is also illustrative; young, idealistic left-leaning college students feel threatened and make absurd claims in trying to shut down the event; sometimes they grow sufficiently unruly as to require police intervention. It's not a pretty sight and it's not a polite tactic, but it will make anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty reconsider their position, and expose as hypocrites those who no longer care about the integrity of their positions.