Over the past week, the Cardinal Conservatives, a group I helped found, has been attacked without reprieve. Our opponents accuse us of supporting tacit, institutional racism, and of scapegoating minority students. Nothing could be further from the truth. We held our bake sale for one reason—stripped to its bare bones, affirmative action discriminates. And the Cardinal Conservatives deplore racism and discrimination.
Let’s start with the basics. Discrimination occurs when people are deliberately treated differently on a basis other than individual merit. Advocates of affirmative action, by artificially increasing representation of minorities in areas where they have been historically underrepresented, can only do so by deliberately discriminating solely on the basis of race.
By charging our customers disproportionately based on race, we employed the same dehumanizing logic as that of affirmative action policies. Instead of selling our goods to everyone who had the ability to pay the same, competitive market price, we distorted that market price on the basis of something which is (and ought to be) irrelevant to a meritocratic system: skin color.
In contrast with our critics’ claims that we did not research Wesleyan’s stances on affirmative action policies, we calculated these intentionally distorted and unfair prices based on Wesleyan’s admissions rates for minority and non-minority students.
The fact that this metaphorical pricing mirrors an actual policy that is employed nationwide, let alone with Wesleyan’s Office of Affirmative Action, is unacceptable. Abraham Lincoln spoke of America as a country “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned the day when his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” William Faulkner added a poetic spin to the matter: “To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow.” To all these voices, we add our wholehearted agreement.
But we also agree with Justice Powell, who, writing the opinion of the court in “Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,” stated, “If petitioner’s purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial but as facially invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.”
In every case of discrimination, someone loses. If an admissions policy favors certain races, then others—even if they are equally qualified—would be penalized for not being born into those groups. Our critics have argued that we did not provide evidence that Wesleyan has admitted undeserving students. This, too, was intentional. We did not ask for evidence of individual minority students’ qualifications because affirmative action asks for no proof that its beneficiaries are underprivileged, but assumes that they are because of their skin color.
Affirmative action is not limited to education: in the case “Ricci v. Destefano,” 19 firefighters brought charges against the New Haven Fire Department for rejecting the results of a promotions test, because only seven whites and two Hispanics would be eligible since no blacks made the cut. By throwing out the test entirely, the Fire Department indicated its willingness to sacrifice merit for political correctness. If you were trapped in a burning building, who would you rather come to your rescue: firefighters who had demonstrated their merit, or only the second best?
Also, must race be the only factor for diversity? Not according to Justice Powell, who cites the following as qualifications that could benefit the community: “exceptional personal talents, unique work or service experience, leadership potential, maturity, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming disadvantage, ability to communicate with the poor.” Are none of the above considered decent indicators of merit when compared with skin color?
Finally, we object to the practice of creating artificial proportions of races. We fear that groups benefiting from affirmative action will carry the stigma of being inherently inferior, for the policy implies that minorities are incapable of accomplishing goals on their own when they are clearly capable of doing so.
In short, nobody should be given an advantage, or put at a disadvantage, because of race. By charging different races different prices at the bake sale last Thursday, the Cardinal Conservatives demonstrated that affirmative action policies do just that: they treat different races differently, valuing some over others without regard for the individual merits of each of those people. Chief Justice Roberts once said, “The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.” Let’s give that a try, shall we?
Yeung is a member of the class of 2014 and tbe President of Cardinal Conservatives.
25 Comments
fellow freshman
a huge part of my frustration arises from the incredibly incorrect “working definition” of race.
a person’s race CANNOT be determined by the color of their skin.
not all black, brown, or peach people are of the same race.
your attempt to show affirmative action as discrimination actually showcased a major misconception of “race” and successfully perpetrated racism.
heyhey
Martin Luther King on affirmative action:
““Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
anon
First, I am incredibly annoyed at the insinuation that all minorities are given preferential treatment based on their race. Instead of the way that it, at least for the majority of ANYONE who goes to Wes, actually is: people in the minority works their tales off. We work just as hard, but are fighting against a system that, no matter how good we are, no matter how smart and educated we prove ourselves to be, is incredibly biased against us. How, then, do you win? Affirmative action is not a program that demonstrates preferential treatment, as though minority students do not have to do anything and then get into school because of their race. It does not even completely affect minority students. It affects all people who live their lives in a system that, despite all of their efforts, will not work for them. Until that system is gone, how can anyone win?
define 'minority'
* In 2005 the median gross income for an American in the labor force with earnings and above the age of 25 was $32,140 per year.[7]
* The mean and median income for White American males over the age of 25 with earnings was $54,365 and $40,479 respectively.[8]
* When White Hispanic males are excluded, the mean and median income of White males rises significantly to $58,215 and $42,399 respectively.[9]
* The mean and median income for Asian American males, age 25+ with earnings was $58,266 and $42,359 respectively.[5] This is slightly higher than White males 25+, and very close to non-Hispanic White males 25+.
* Both groups outperformed Black American males, age 25+ with earnings, whose mean and median income was only $37,586 and $30,539 respectively.[10]
* All three groups (White, Asian, and Black males) outperformed White American females, age 25+ with earnings, with mean and median incomes of $32,878 and $26,661.[11]
Well Done!
Affirmative Action=Racism!
Who for One Sale?
To me, author Yeung is spot on.
Thinking back to childish spats … who hit whom … who did it first, most recently, etc. The real answer is just to stop.
This includes not trying to recoup the last 300 years of various inequities … Instead try by being equal NOW with your contemporaries. Just that.
Are you an individual of merit? Or do you feel your merit is based on your racial/skin type?. That is, do you SELF-DEFINE as a racial/skin type?
If so, then you may well be perpetuating your expectations and pre-judging your responses.
So, the “adjusted price sale” seems to me a parody well designed to show the inverted logic of preferential treatment based on this kind of basis.
response to who for one sale?
yeah, I’ll try to be equal in a society that only sees the color of my skin. I’ll try to be equal with everyone here who is simply taking classes or doing what they want to, while I HAVE to work so that I don’t become a part of the cycle of poverty and racism that I have been working my entire life trying to get out of. This is how I have spent my last 19 years. And, despite all this, I will continue to have to prove myself my entire life to people who see only my skin color and my gender AND I will not be paid equally or respected equally, no matter how I bust my ass. Thanks, I guess I’ll try to “just BE equal” a little bit harder.
BOOM
BOOM. affirmative action roasted.
Who for One Sale?
To Response to Who for One Sale:
So —
1) You have to work so as not to be poor, and you have for years and years, and,
2) You have to prove yourself your entire life, and,
3) You feel you are not paid/treated what you are worth.
You have just described the majority of all folks (excluding those that do not work — the exceedingly rich or those on the dole.)
As I see it, we all have a couple of choices.
Define ourselves as equal and proud and live that way OR consider ourselves as unequal (that is, as victims) and wallow in our self pity.
I prefer the former approach.
Student
I’m sorry, but this is the stupidest thing ever. I don’t care if you label something racism because it treats people of different races differently. I honestly don’t even care if you treat people of different races differently – it’s being done to compensate for all the ways we treat minorities differently (worse) without even thinking about it. Take a fucking soc course. This article thinks it’s clever by making the observation that affirmative action treats people of different races differently, but it doesn’t acknowledge how terribly differently minorities have been treated for decades (and currently), and how we need to correct that. This is so moronic – your use of buzzwords isn’t fooling anyone.
If “political diversity” means going to a school with ignorant assholes, I’d like homogeneity, please.
10
@Student
You offer absolutely no arguments in your post other than the non sequitur that because minorities have been treated differently in the past, that somehow means we have to treat them differently now. Your appeal to sociology is not going to cut it – sociology isn’t a scientific discipline, and Wesleyan’s sociology department is colored by a huge bias.
2012
Two questions for the CC about this protest:
Yeung writes,
“Instead of selling our goods to everyone who had the ability to pay the same, competitive market price, we distorted that market price on the basis of something which is (and ought to be) irrelevant to a meritocratic system: skin color.”
Putting aside whether or not your complaint about AA is legitimate, couldn’t you have held this same event in a way less likely to offend people? For example, have the prices at your bake sale be defined by class year, height, t-shirt color, etc?
Secondly, you assert, “If an admissions policy favors certain races, then others—even if they are equally qualified—would be penalized for not being born into those groups.”
The premise of your argument, therefore, seems to assume that being qualified for Wesleyan is something quantifiable–Student A is level 7 qualified, but Student B is only level 6. How is this a workable paradigm for enrollment at a university?
Student
@10:
Since when are things only good if they are “scientific”? Again, please stop with the buzzwords and say something of substance.
The “appeal to sociology” wasn’t an essential part of my argument anyway, though. Ignore it, if it makes you happy.
(Also, unrelated, but if a top university’s sociology department is “colored by a bias,” maybe you need to rethink your political views. Truth has a liberal bias.)
Finally, yes, since minorities have been historically marginalized (and, as I said in my original post but you ignored, continue to be discriminated against in many more subtle ways today), it is our moral responsibility to rectify this and make sure everyone is treated fairly. I don’t see the jump you seem to see in my argument. If people are treated unfairly, we must instead treat them fairly, yes.
10
Yeah, um, there are other sociologists at equally good universities and well-respected think tanks who disagree with you. (Berkeley, Harvard, etc.) And quoting Colbert? So original. Buzzwords are cute.
You said minorities are historically marginalized, but provide no evidence at all of how this has colored their actions in the present day, nor any moral arguments for why it’s “our” moral responsibility to rectify this. (Who is “us?” Why do we have any “moral responsibility” here at all for something done in the past? You need to answer these question, not just take them for granted.) Moreover, who’s to say that all that marginalization has been unfair? At a certain point, couldn’t you make the argument that some behaviors might be destructive both to minority communities and to those around them?
Come ON. You should do better than this. And as for “scientific,” I’m just pointing out that it’s not like sociology is some undisputable set of facts. It’s ideologically motivated, much like a lot of other soft “sciences.” Citing it as “truth” is equivalent to citing supply-side economics as unquestioned “truth” because some economists at top universities agree with it. You’re being lazy.
Who for One Sale?
Ok.
Lets assume you are stranded on a deserted island, not alone, but instead with a person of another racial/ethnic background. For this discussion, it matters not whether you are of the presumptively more fortunate background.
But to start off, let’s assume you are. So you and your neighbor are fishing together and have agreed to share the catch. Are you obligated to donate more than 50%, because of historical past conditions? Why? Why not?
Or if you are from the presumptively less fortunate background, are you entitled to demand a greater share of the catch, based on historical past conditions? Why? Why not?
response to who for one sale?
You don’t see: the reason I have been working so hard my WHOLE life is because I DO believe that we should be equal. But the fact that I have watched relatives do the same thing (work hard their entire lives and still struggle to be seen as equal to others without dark skin), clued me in to the fact that, maybe (although HOPEFULLY not) I will inevitably get stuck underneath a glass ceiling. I can’t help but think about the many scholarships and grants that have allowed me to be here today, but those did not come without me working incredibly hard and proving myself time and time again, even while watching friends from more privileged backgrounds simply sail through school, not needing to worry about money or responsibility to family. I am not at all saying that I have just given up on equality, all I am saying is that, even as I and millions of other people struggle to be seen as equal, there are sociological factors that have and probably will (for a long time, although I certainly hope not forever), get in the way. And as someone who is continually exhausted after proving to the world EVERYDAY that I am JUST as good as everyone else, I would challenge you to look at just how easy you feel it is to survive as a legitimate person, without being viewed as “one of those kids” who probably just got into school here because of their race and because Affirmative Action “favors” me.
Jimbo
“If an admissions policy favors certain races, then others—even if they are equally qualified—would be penalized for not being born into those groups.”
Your point?
The admissions office already discriminates against different groups by admitting whites who–knowing or otherwise–have benefited from generations of suffering inflicted upon others. This is what we nominally call white privilege, but in more specific terms we can just call a number of unfair advantage theoretically thought to be inexplicably conferred upon by whites by society through any number of means.
Looking at racial preference studies in employment and other such important settings, we find that, as expected, the heaviest burden of negative attitudes with regard to race happens to fall upon blacks. Conversely, more positive views are almost unanimously attributed to whites and Asians.
Thus, we find objective support for the assertion that blacks are more disadvantaged than both whites and Asians–based purely on SKIN COLOR.
“In short, nobody should be given an advantage, or put at a disadvantage, because of race.”
Yes, but as extricated above, whites are.
Two wrongs don’t make a right? White privilege vs affirmative action?
Well, when you get rid of white privilege, or in other words quantify the positive effects upon Tim Johnson’s development when his grandparents were handed Native land that blacks were forbidden to tread on much less own, then you give me a call.
Until then, conservatives can eat shit.
Student
You are such a moron it’s difficult to even argue with you.
I actually didn’t realize I was quoting Colbert, I had just heard the phrase around, but it was applicable in this scenario to illustrate a point, unlike the meaningless buzzwords that you throw around. Not every commonly-used term/phrase is a buzzword.
You can’t pick and choose when support is needed! You say there are sociologists who disagree, but don’t provide any evidence for that. Yet, you say I need to provide evidence for the fact that the racial inequalities today are a result of historic marginalization… which seems like the most obviously true fact in the world. Really? You think Blacks are just genetically dumber? Even people who disagree with AA usually agree that this is true.
Each of us, as human beings and citizens of the world, has a moral responsibility (why did you put this in quotes?) to ensure that our society allows people to succeed based on merit, not on things as arbitrary as the color of their skin.
What do you think sociology is? It *does* measure the real-world achievement levels of various minorities, and we can say indisputably that there is a racial achievement gap.
Your condescending tone just makes you look like a dick, btw.
To Student...
Are you aware that the blacks who benefit from Affirmative Action ARE ALREADY RICH AND DO NOT NEED THE HELP IN THE FIRST PLACE? Huh?
Are you aware that even though a poor white or Asian does twice as better as a rich black (And this does happen a lot), the rich black would still be favored over the former two?
No, of course not. You’re just a partisan, liberal hack.
To Student...
Oh yeah, and non of your argument holds any water. It’s funny how white liberals always try to speak in the name of the poor, while they’re off living in their huge house and driving their 2 benz. Stop bugging us, you hypocrites.
You keep saying blacks are oppressed, blah blah blah. Yeah right. I LIVE in these poor areas and none of what you rich liberals think about the poor is true. You have these ‘gangstas’ playing ‘bball’, getting free med care, subsidized housing, etc. The schools give out free As just for coming in, and colleges don’t care about what school you got an A from, just so long as your standardized test score reinforces the adcom’s belief that your school’s education is strong.
Suffering my ass…
When I needed to study, I headed off to my local library and borrowed a SAT book. Unfortunately, these poor people you libs so love aren’t what you think they are. Most of them don’t give a crap about education.
Has it ever crossed your mind that rich kids are just plain smarter than poor kids? I’m a poor kid, and even I admit that this is true.
When people ask me how hard my life is, I just laugh and say, “Not very hard at all”.
Almost everyone in this country can meet the basic necessities of life. EVERYONE in this country has the opportunity to attend an elite college if they tried hard enough. Sadly, most of the poor people DON’T try. The only thing that separates the rich and the poor is that the rich guy can buy a lot of luxuries. But neither the rich guy or the poor guy can buy opportunity because opportunity is granted to all of us the moment we were born in this country.
Student
Umm you didn’t read any of what I said. I never said that each individual black person is oppressed (in fact, I specifically said this wasn’t true), but that it is important to get more people of color in positions of power to give younger people of color someone to look up to.
If you think that people who are poor don’t try, you are clearly not even worth arguing with. I know many working-class families of single parents who work 2 jobs or 24 hour shifts and still can’t afford to eat out, much less attend college. Your justifying your fortunate position in society by telling yourself that you deserve it is a classic sign of someone who feels guilty about being so fortunate. You need to spend some time outside of your bubble and see how impossible it is for many people to attend college – it’s not just based on how hard you work/how much you want it.
working-class white student
Re: “To student”
Almost everyone in this country can meet the basic necessities of life. EVERYONE in this country has the opportunity to attend an elite college if they tried hard enough. Sadly, most of the poor people DON’T try.
May I ask what world you live in? I’m a first generation college student. My older brothers? Didn’t go to college because they entered the workforce even before graduation and had to work to support themselves and other people. My step-brother, however smart he is, supports his mother and brother through what he does.
How many working-class families can afford to send all their children, even on scholarships, to college? Regardless of race. Older siblings work so that younger siblings can go to school. Some people don’t think it’s even possible to go to college because they’re poor and couldn’t afford it–and maybe don’t have the grades to get into the kind of school that has need-blind admissions and covers 100% of financial need. Those grades? Can suffer because of trying to hold a job and be a student at the same time.
There’s also the fact that poorer communities have poorer schools that can’t support students to their full potential. Have you ever seen the difference between richer and poorer schools? I have, since I briefly lived in a community that did have the money to have a full staff of great teachers and have all kinds of things other schools can’t afford. (No, I wasn’t briefly wealthy; we were living in the basement of a friend’s house who was fairly wealthy.) This inequality between school systems gives students with better schools a competitive advantage on standardized testing. IF the students have the energy left to do extra studying outside of class and work, great. But how many, in reality, can do that?
So there ARE additional barriers to college admissions for working-class students, whether people want to admit it or not. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be working class and minority both.
To student
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, you definitely did take those left-wing propaganda Sociology courses at Wesleyan.
When did I ever say poor people don’t want to work? I said poor people don’t want to ACHIEVE.
Why don’t YOU step outside your privileged circle and take a look around you? And I’m talking about the world outside the highly liberal academia that you and your ilk choose to hide in.
You claim you know some poor people. Well guess what? I’M POOR AND I KNOW MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!
Just because you know a few poor people in your life doesn’t mean shit. It is statistically proven that poorer people are on average less intelligent than richer people. It is also statistically proven that poor people DON’T want to study or achieve as much as rich people. Even you admit it.
“…but that it is important to get more people of color in positions of power to give younger people of color someone to look up to.”
Are you saying people of color don’t have someone to look up to, thus they never want to achieve? Yeah, thanks for agreeing with me.
And me, guilty? Oh god, you’re killing me. The only one feeling guilty about his own privileged upbringing is you. Why else would you bring that up? My family earns a mere 20,000 a year and we live in NYC. I worked at my parent’s laundromat every single day. On weekdays, I went straight to my parent’s laundromat to help them after school ended. I came home at 11 PM every single day.
Don’t give me this bull shit that you don’t find enough time to study. That’s just an excuse a lot of poor people make. If you need to study to maintain an A average AT A CRAPPY HIGH SCHOOL, then you seriously are not ready for college. I didn’t need to lift any lousy textbook to score 100s on my exams.
The only exam I needed to study for was the SAT and the SAT IIs. I didn’t attend any prep course. Just borrowed 3 books for 2 weeks and scored a 2210 on the SAT I and 800 on both SAT II exams.
These school exams and the national exams are all child’s play and anyone who struggles with them do not belong in any elite college.
Being poor is no excuse that you did poorly.
Anonymous
To To Student:
“Yeah, you definitely did take those left-wing propaganda Sociology courses at Wesleyan.”
If you have no respect for the courses here at Wesleyan, or think the school is too biased for you, what are you even doing here? Do not attend schools you don’t have respect for.
To Anonymous
I didn’t come here to major in sociology, bud.