Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Emendations Upon Clarifications (Of Obama on Affirmative Action)

Several posts below (here) I discussed Obama?s comments on affirmative action in the recent Philadelphia debate, finding them a continuation of the obfuscatory waffling I?d criticized in earlier posts cited there. Two close observers I highly respect, however, Mickey Kaus and Roger Clegg, were far more optimistic (I discussed their views in UPDATES to my recent post), as was Chet Zarko, a frequent commenter here whose views I also respect (in this comment to the above post).

So, I?ve continued to think about what he said, and continued to wonder what he meant, and I have the following additional thoughts.

First, let me quote exactly what Obama said in its entirety, since what he actually said may present a clue as to what his position is. (Or, in the alternative, he may have no position, or a position, or preference, completely at variance with what he said, but let?s worry about that later.)

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, last May we talked about affirmative action, ad you said at the time that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as pretty advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children -- kids -- should get special consideration, affirmative action.

So, as president, how specifically would you recommend changing affirmative action policies so that affluent African Americans are not given advantages, and poor, less affluent whites are?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I think that the basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we?re providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams?

And race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities and other institutions to say, you know, we?re going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they?re black or Latino or because they?re women --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they?re wealthy?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think that?s something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So if they look at my child and they say, you know, Malia and Sasha, they?ve had a pretty good deal, then that shouldn?t be factored in. On the other hand, if there?s a young white person who has been working hard, struggling, and has overcome great odds, that?s something that should be taken into account.

So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can?t be a quota system and it can?t be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.

What we want to do is make sure that people who have been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future.

The optimists read the above and see Obama moving away from an automatic rewarding of race to a revised kind of holistic affirmative action that looks at the whole person (of whatever color) and rewards overcoming hardship.

I?m still not persuaded. He notes that ?race is still a factor in our society? and concludes from that universities and other institutions should ?take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they?re black or Latino or because they?re women....? Thus the crucial question here is whether or not admissions officers, employers, contract officers, etc., are entitled to view race as a proxy for having endured hardship.

Obama tries to say no by saying ?it? (presumably the preferential treat afforded by affirmative action) ?can?t be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.? But is this position really credible, or even possible?

Let?s give Obama and this position the benefit of the doubt by agreeing that it would deprive most rich, privileged, ?pretty advantaged? blacks like his daughters from the race preferences they would otherwise surely receive. (Or would it? Don?t many rich blacks also claim that they too suffer slights, indignities, and even some hardships simply by virtue of being black? Would Obama deny those claims?)

But is it reasonable to expect admissions officers etc. to determine which blacks, Latinos, women, etc., have suffered ?hardship? because they are black, Latino, women? How would they do so? Wouldn?t a revised, holistic affirmative action of the sort Obama seems to propose inevitably invite the gatekeepers to, de facto, regard race and ethnicity as proxies for hardship? That?s certainly what the ?holistic? system at UCLA seems to be doing (see cites in previous post). Isn?t that in effect what the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions did, albeit in the name of promoting ?diversity,? when it automatically awarded 20 points to every black applicant? Does Obama think that was wrong? (Hillary certainly didn?t. She signed a brief with other Democratic senators supporting those automatic points.) Would he have thought it wrong if it had awarded only 10 points?

I believe, in short, that Obama?s plan (insofar as what he said in Philadelphia represents a plan) would encourage preferentialists to continue awarding preference points for race, and that the only ?change? this would represent would be that race would now be regarded as a proxy for ?enduring hardship? instead of ?providing ?diversity.??

In fact, Obama?s move away from ?diversity?-justified preferences would run into a serious legal obstacle, at least until he manages to appoint some justices and judges who, like him, do not believe in colorblind equal treatment. As Roger Clegg has noted recently on an email list I read, and in fact as all lawyers involved in affirmative action know (except, perhaps, former Harvard Law Review editor Obama), the courts have pretty much restricted the use of race preferences to the purpose of promoting ?diversity.? Thus, when Obama says affirmative action is still needed ?as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination,? he is advocating something that is not now currently permitted. And isn?t advocating special treatment as a presumed remedy for ?current discrimination? that has not actually occurred, that only ?potentially? may be occuring, isn?t that going a bit far for liberals who usually demand the occurrence of crime before imposing punishment?

Finally, one other large obstacle I see is not so much with Obama?s ?plan? as with Obama himself. Insofar as what he proposes would move any distance at all away from more or less automatic race preferences, it would to that degree reduce the number of minorities preferentially admitted to selective universities. Faced with that possibility, the civil rights establishment can be confidently predicted to object forcefully. What is the basis for believing that Obama will have the fortitude to stand up to the pressure he will receive from his most loyal supporters? On what other major issue has he gone against a major power center in his party, or even proposed doing so in the future?

In other words, I?m afraid I see Obama?s version affirmative action as just another rhetorical smokescreen of proposing that we mend it, not end it, with no real mending being offered. The Clinton?s should recognize this as a substance-less political feint worth of themselves.

Full post as published by Discriminations on April 19, 2008 (boomark / email).