Race

Jared Ganley

I. The Problem
Anna Stubblefield, in her “Racial Identity and Non-Essesntialism About Race”
describes Essentialist and Non-Essentialist philosophies in clear, radically
opposed terms. For Stubblefield the Essentialism might best be summed up as the
belief that, “characteristics of physical appearance refereed to by racial terms
are indicative of more profound characteristics.” In turn Non-Essentialism is
described as a belief that, “similarities and differences in physical appearance
do not entail further similarities and differences.”
In reading about the act of “essentializing” I was reminded of a conversation I
once had with my grandfather as we watched some PBS special on World War II and
the Battle for the Philippines. During a station break I turned and asked my
grandfather whether he thought use of the atomic bomb was justified as a means to
end the war in the Pacific. He thought about his answer very carefully before he
replied, “Well, back then they was Japs, and they deserved what they got. Now
they might be different, but then I think they were Japs and they got what they
asked for.” At first I was quite confused by this statement. I asked my dad
about it later and he told me that during the time when my grandfather had trained
and lived as a GI, he had been taught to ignore the idea that the Japanese were
people, were even remotely human. My dad said that it was a common practice of
the U.S. propaganda machine to paint the Japanese community as a collection of
evil, underhanded, mindless, enemies of the State. The propaganda machine
presented the Japanese with the broad brush of the “yellow menace” that threatened
mom and apple pie. For my grandfather to believe that essentially every “Jap” in
the world was single-minded zealot of his emperor bent on the destruction of
everything he held sacred was easy enough. The Japanese culture was in many ways
foreign to him and the alien qualities it possessed seemed to only support that
the idea that these people, so different in appearance and custom, were some how
so thoroughly foreign to him that in all likelihood they were truly essentially
different. Because of this difference my grandfather could see no wrong in the
destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
In creating the propaganda that allowed my grandfather to see the Japanese culture
as essentially evil the American government was guilty of essentialism of the same
sort that allowed the Nazi Party in Germany to play off the cultural stereotype of
the Jew. Just as the Nazi Party pointed to those of Jewish descent as being
essentially greedy, shiftless, dirty, inferior, the US painted the Japanese as the
“Yellow Menace”. It was a fairly easy task for both groups. In both cases the
powers that were found a culture clearly and distinctly removed from that of the
majority of their populace, and took certain aspects of those cultures that were
ingrained by their historic social roles and made these aspects of cultural
relationship essential to the nature of the foreign race. In Germany the fact
that the Jew was “greedy” came from the fact that in old times it was
traditionally frowned upon for the a Christian to act as a moneylender or
moneychanger, so because the Jewish community had no doctrines intended to deter
such profitable behavior, they as a people were able to make great deal of profit
and breed a great deal of resentment from the Christian community. It is all
dramatized in the Merchant of Venice. In a speech he delivered in the waning days
of WWII Heinrich Himmler encouraged the implementation of the Nazi “final
solution” by admonishing the German people not to give into the temptation to
sympathize with the Jewish people as he said, “Everyone has their one ‘good
Jew’...but we cannot allow this to sway us from our purpose...and history will
thank us for ridding the world f this plague.”
I think in these two examples it becomes fairly evident that oppressors
essentialize the oppressed. The question now falls to us who will determine how
we can best end the practice of essentialization and better secure the rights and
freedoms of all within American society.
II. My (Partial) Solution
The American Revolution, begun more than two centuries ago, continues today. Our
revolution was, and is, an attempt to create an environment where equality of
rights and opportunity allows each individual to achieve his or her full
potential. Our governments, our laws, even our free enterprise system of
economics, have all undergone significant change since the birth of our republic.
In spite of the changes, we have, in general, remained true to the ideals held
dear by our founders. We have, for the most part, moved in the direction of
securing equality of rights and increased economic opportunity for an ever
increasing fraction of the population.
In the decade of the 1960's, wide ranging civil protests made it clear that
the goal of "equal opportunity for all" was not being achieved. During those
turbulent years it became clear that large segments of our society were being
denied equal access to health care, housing, jobs, and education. In response to
the protests - and in support of a generally held belief that the nation could
prosper only by using the skills and energies of all citizens - a series of laws,
collectively referred to as civil rights legislation, was passed. These laws made
discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, or religion, illegal. The
direct result of these legislative efforts has been to eliminate many of the more
offensive examples of discrimination. As a result of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, black Americans can now attend the same public schools as whites. They can
sit at the same lunch counters, ride the same buses, go to the same theaters, and
work at the same jobs. Most important of all, their right to vote can not be
taken away by laws intended to penalize them because of their race.
Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led to the elimination of many flagrant
cases of intentional discrimination, more covert patterns of discrimination
continued to result in unequal opportunities for black Americans and other
minorities. In 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released data
collected over a period of several years which showed that in all major cities,
blacks bore a disproportionate burden of unemployment and were underrepresented in
white-collar positions. In addition, disproportionately fewer blacks were
enrolled in universities. The problem was not confined to the South, it existed
throughout the country. In New York, for instance, of 4,249 firms reporting
statistics in 1966, fewer than 2,000 had any black employees at all. (1).
Clearly, the Civil Rights Act was inadequate in assuring equal opportunity for
blacks. Affirmative Action was the tool used to attack the more stubborn forms of
discrimination still plaguing black Americans.
Affirmative action actually had its beginning during the Second World War, when
President Franklin Roosevelt ordered defense contractors to end discriminatory
hiring practices. In 1961, President John Kennedy first used the phrase
“affirmative action” in Executive Order 10925, where he stated that “all federal
contractors must take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,
and employees are treated during employment, without regard to race, creed, color,
or national origin.” In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson ordered federal
contractors to develop written plans detailing how they would overcome ingrained
recruitment practices and create equal job opportunities for blacks and women. He
justified his actions as an attempt to eliminate inequities created by previous
patterns of discrimination. In this way, businesses were given the responsibility
for eliminating patterns of employment discrimination, even though they may not
have been responsible for creating those patterns.(2) At about this same time,
many universities voluntarily accepted the responsibility for increasing minority
enrollment, especially enrollment of blacks, by selectively softening traditional
entrance requirements.(1) The most demanding, and perhaps most controversial
piece of the nation’s affirmative action program was laid in place by President
Richard Nixon in 1969. Nixon revived a dormant piece of paperwork called the
“Philadelphia Plan.” This plan requested that federal contractors make a good
faith effort to hire numbers of minority workers proportional to their percentages
of the population as a whole. The word “quota” was not used, but the intent of
the plan was clearly spelled out.(3)
The affirmative action policies set in place by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and
Nixon were generally supported during the1970’s by Congress, by the Supreme Court,
and by the majority of citizens. During the 1980’s, under the conservative
leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, enforcement of affirmative action
policies was weakened. In spite of this decreased support, the overall effect of
affirmative action policies from 1970 to 1990 was positive. During this period,
black workers increased their share of the Southern labor force from 15 percent to
20 percent. Their share of white collar jobs more than doubled to 10 percent.
The number of women on private industry payrolls increased during this same period
from 36 percent to 46 percent.(2) These successes, however, have made affirmative
action programs the subject of heated debate. In some cases, minority gains
provided by affirmative action have been accomplished at the expense of whites,
especially white males, who traditionally held many of the jobs taken by
minorities. The controversies generated by these changes in patterns of
employment have led to a re-examination of the legality, the necessity, and the
usefulness of affirmative action.
One argument against affirmative action is summarized by G. Gordon Liddy in the
following quotation:

" ...the government gives an unfair advantage to minorities in the work place by
enforcing affirmative action laws. The government has no right to selectively
assist certain portions of a population. All social and affirmative action
programs should be eliminated and the tax dollars saved...used to decrease tax
rates for the upper economic groups." (3)

The heart of this argument is the statement that the government has no right to
selectively assist a certain portion of the population. But is this really true?
It should be pointed out that it is literally impossible for any government action
or program to affect every individual in an identical way. The federal
government’s construction of the interstate highway system is a good example.
This project benefited those who had invested in the trucking industry at the
expense of those involved with the railroad industry. In addition, tax dollars to
finance the original construction of the system came in part from individuals who
did not own cars and would never travel out of their own neighborhoods. Also,
many established businesses lost revenue because of changing traffic patterns,
while some travel related industries flourished. But few people would question
the federal government’s right to build the system. The common good of society
was advanced. The strength of our position among the industrialized nations of
the world depends in part on our interstate highway system and for most of our
citizens, the quality of life is improved by the system.
One can cite any number of similar examples of government actions that benefit
some groups while providing less of a benefit or even a hardship for other groups.
The government can never take an action which assists everyone equally, or even
assists some without disturbing others. Does this mean that the government should
never act? Certainly not. The government has the right to take actions that
serve the common good of society, or in the words of the Preamble of the
Constitution, “to promote the general welfare.” Negative impact on any portion of
the population should, of course, be avoided if possible. In any major action
taken by the federal government, however, it is probably impossible to create a
situation where all members of society are equally affected. Liddy’s argument is
seen to have no real basis.
There are, however, more compelling arguments against affirmative action. One is
the suggestion that in making it easier for minorities to get jobs, affirmative
action programs eliminate competition for positions within the workforce. This
lack of competition may mean that an inferior workforce will evolve. This argument
is sometimes referred to as “Social Darwinism.” In the global marketplace the
evolution of an inferior workforce would place us at a competitive disadvantage
and the entire society would suffer.
This is a valid argument against affirmative action if, and only if, minority
workers really are inferior. If, on the other hand, minority workers possess the
same innate skills and trainability as other workers, any negative impact they
have on the productivity of the workforce is temporary. Also, as equal
educational opportunities are made available to younger members of minority
groups, a situation should eventually arise where affirmative action will be
unnecessary. Members of minority groups will enter the workforce with the same
abilities as other workers. If we believe in equality of ability across race and
gender lines, we must reject this argument.
Perhaps the most compelling argument against affirmative action is the assertion
that it is a form of reverse discrimination. The argument is especially strong if
one considers situations where racial or gender quotas are imposed. The concept
of quotas seems to conflict directly with the “equal protection” clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment
It should be pointed out that the concept of “quotas” was rejected in the early
days of the civil rights era. In 1962, President Kennedy wrote, “We are too
mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide as a nation. It is a mistake to
assign quotas on the basis of religion, race, color, or nationality.”(5)
Kennedy’s ideas were reflected in the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title 7 of this act states: “Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to require
any employer to grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of race,
color, sex, or national origin.” At the same time, Section 706g of Title 7 states
that “courts may order such affirmative action as may be appropriate.”(2)
Interpretation of these two somewhat contradictory statements has fueled debate of
affirmative action policy for the last three decades. Over the years, the Supreme
Court has provided varying interpretations. In 1971 (Griggs vs. Duke Power
Company) the Supreme Court ruled that under-representation of any group in the
workplace was evidence of discrimination against that group even if no intent to
discriminate were found. This decision supported quotas as a means of redressing
problems created by past instances of discrimination.(6) The court reversed its
position on quotas in a 1978 decision in the case of the Regents of the University
of California vs. Bakke. In this decision the court ruled that the university’s
quota system violated a prohibition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act , namely, that it
is unlawful to exclude anyone on the basis of race from any program receiving
federal funds.(6)
The issue of reverse discrimination may be brought into focus by asking two
questions. First, is it appropriate for the federal government, in its attempts
to promote the common good, to advance the interests of one group at the expense
of others? The answer to this question is “yes.” In promoting the common good,
it is appropriate for the government to take actions which assist some groups more
than, or even at the expense of, other individuals or groups. In fact, such
results of government action are probably unavoidable. The second question to be
answered is similar to the first. Is it appropriate for the federal government to
use race, color, creed, sex, or national origin as a basis for selecting groups
whose interests would be advanced or inhibited by a particular action? The answer
to this question is “no.” Such action would violate the intention of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as well as our generally held belief
that all should be considered as equals, regardless of differences of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.
The government and the citizenry face a dilemma. We do know that nearly a century
of government inactivity in the period between Reconstruction and the civil rights
protests of the sixties brought no improvement in conditions resulting from racial
discrimination. We also know that 30 years of affirmative action has resulted in
modest economic gains for blacks and striking gains for women and other
minorities, but the programs responsible for these gains are, in some cases, a
contradiction of our fundamental belief that “all men are created equal.” Should
the government stop all affirmative action programs? No, but the programs may
have to be modified in some respects to eliminate reverse discrimination and
instances of conflict with the Constitution. The government must not put itself
in the position of trying to legislate morality - something it can never do. In
the final analysis, only the people can solve these problems, because
discrimination exists in the hearts of the people. Unfortunately, “the people”
have had a bad record of solving the problem of discrimination.
During the last century our nation became involved in a bloody struggle
which eventually resulted in the elimination of the institution of slavery.
Today, in the early years of the 21st century we are involved in a similar
struggle. The slave holders of today are not the wealthy plantation owners of the
last century, but rather poverty, ignorance, disease, and disillusionment. As
Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divide against itself cannot stand...This
nation cannot exist half slave and half free..."(7) Lincoln's statement might
well be applied to the slavery now creating huge social and economic divisions
within our country. We cannot continue to expand the gulf between the "haves"
and the "have nots" in our society. The stresses created by these divisions will
eventuality destroy the nation. It is the right and the duty of our society to
eliminate the situations leading to these divisions. If we cannot eliminate
inequities of opportunity, we will become a nation whose energies are focused on
efforts to protect itself from itself.
As citizens we must be willing to make short term sacrifices to achieve the
long term goals of equality for all. We can not rely solely on government
policies to solve problems associated with discrimination. As judge Learned Hand
wrote more than half a century ago, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men. If it
dies there, no constitution, no law, no court, can save it…While it lies there, it
needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”(6)

Sources:

1) Hamner, Trudy J. 1993. Affirmative Action - Opportunity for All? New York:
Enslow Publishers Inc.
2) Institute for Southern Study. Spring 1992. Does Affirmative Action Work?
Southern Exposure. Atlanta: 8-13.
3) Graham, H. D. 1990. The Civil Rights Era. London, U. K. Oxford University
Press.
4) G. Gordon Liddy Home Web Site (official)
5) Kennedy, J. F. 1964. Public Papers of the Presidents. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 633.
6) The Center for Civic Education. 1995. We the People; the Citizen and the
Constitution. Washington, D. C. :The Center for Civic Education.
7) Hertz, E. 1986. Lincoln Talks; An Oral Biography. Los Angeles, CA: Bran
Hall House