QUERY: Anti-discrimination, affirmative action,

[Ilana Maymind <U7E07@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> writes:]

How do the anti-discrimination, affirmative action and multicultural diversity types of policy differ from each other? Can anyone refer me to some reading/discussion lists or *enlighten* me in any other way? Sorry for such an ignorant question.



Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 08:03:21 -0500

[John Radzilowski <JRadzilow@AOL.COM> writes:]

Ilana Maymind wrote:

>How do the anti-discrimination, affirmative action and multicultural diversity types of policy differ from each other? Can anyone refer me to some reading/discussion lists or *enlighten* me in any other way? Sorry for such an ignorant question.

Not an ignorant question at all. Affirmative action is a legal program set up by the government. It created a series of categories (black, white, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Aleut, Hispanic of any race). These categories, it must be admitted, had relatively little do with any specific culture, or even ethnic group. For example, there are many Asian cultures, nor is Asian an ethnic group, nor is it exactly a racial group. The categories were created for the sake of expediency. There were some challenges to this by groups that sought to be included in the "protected" categories, such as eastern and southern Europeans, but these were denied by the courts. What has happened since then has been particularly interesting and disturbing. People have begun to confuse these categories with actual ethnic groups or cultures. This has been particularly noticeable among those promoting "multiculturalism." Thus, we often see the odd spectacle of people who claim to love "diversity" reducing the vast array of world cultures into five simple categories. The affirmative action categories are not cultures and they certainly don't represent a "multiplicity" of anything. The term multiculturalism as used in Canada has a similar meaning to what the long-forgotten term "pluralism" once meant in the United States. In general, multiculturalism is supposed to imply appreciation and tolerance of other cultures, if not an attempt to gain an understanding of said cultures. Many people have come to believe that most "multicultural" programs in the United States do just the opposite.
Anti-discrimation is usually the stated goal of multiculturalism and affirmative action. Whether either actually achieve this goal is an open question.

John Radzilowski



Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 18:36:26 -0600

[Michael Lichter comments on John Radzilowski;

Radzilowski's text is in >>>> ed.]

> [John Radzilowski <JRadzilow@AOL.COM> writes:]

> What has happened since then has been particularly interesting and disturbing. People have begun to

confuse these categories with actual ethnic groups or cultures. This has been particularly noticeable among those promoting "multiculturalism." Thus, we often see the odd spectacle of people who claim to love "diversity" reducing the vast array of world cultures into five simple categories. The affirmative action categories are not cultures and they certainly don't represent a "multiplicity" of anything.

The creation of categories of people by the state is not something that originates with Affirmative Action. I'm no pomo, but I think it is a mistake to get caught up in contrasting "actual" ethnic groups with presumably "false" ones indicated by state policies. State policies create real communities of interest, regardless of traditional differences and antagonisms. Multiculturalists may, as a simplification, think of the world in the same categories as the state, but that's a cognitive rather than a normative phenomenon. In any case, the subject of multiculturalism is not world cultures, but the cultures practiced by actual people in this particular place, not elsewhere.

> The term multiculturalism as used in Canada has a similar meaning to what the long-forgotten term "pluralism" once meant in the United States. In general, multiculturalism is supposed to imply appreciation and tolerance of other cultures, if not an attempt to gain an understanding of said cultures. Many people have come to believe that most "multicultural" programs in the United States do just the opposite.

But Canada has both pluralism-in Quebec-and multiculturalism-in, say, the areas of BC that have been trying to attract Chinese immigration. The US is strongly opposed to ethnic pluralism in that sense, and only the relatively few proponents of a Black Nation in the South and Aztlan in the Southwest talk seriously about such things. Am I mistaken that Canadians expect new minorities to "assimilate" (aside from keeping their ethnic cuisines) just as much as Americans do?

>Anti-discrimation is usually the stated goal of multiculturalism and affirmative action. Whether either actually achieve this goal is an open question.

No, that is not so. Anti-discrmination legislation is aimed at stopping discrimination, and, because it has been for the most part limited (actively limited, that is) to prosecution of individual discriminatory acts, it is not under attack. The aim of affirmative action is the extension of opportunities to those traditionally denied access (to jobs, education, etc.), and this goes beyond the ideal of passively assuring that, e.g., individuals are not unfairly passed over for promotion. Active discriminatory behavior is not the only way to deny access to people. In fact it has been argued, rather persuasively in my opinion, that the historical exclusion of women and minorities from the social networks which convey both information and influence is one of the strongest reasons for supporting affirmative action. Special outreach programs to minority students to inform them about their opportunities for higher education are, for instance, affirmative action programs, and they are likely to be terminated at the University of California in the wake of the Regents' lamentable anti-Affirmative Action decisions.

There is an emerging consensus that the erosion of affirmative action programs under Reagan and Bush, and their limitation by the courts from Bakke onwards, has been an important factor in the plunging prospects of African American college graduates, who were at near earnings parity with white college graduates in the mid-1970s. Abandonment of affirmative action is either a statement that racial justice does not matter, or else an expression of willful ignorance about how people get jobs (education, etc.).

Multiculturalism is perhaps a bit more directly concerned with discrimination, but in the multicultural view discrimination (and this is even more true of "diversity") is the result of a failure in inter-ethnic understanding. "If you only understood why I talk the way I do, and respected my right to talk this way, then everything would be wonderful." It is based on the assumption that "we all" have a common interest in getting along and creating a harmonious and just society. It ignores things like the dominant group's self-interest in maintaining a monopoly over society's most desirable positions. This ignorance is generally willful-positive, utopian multiculturalists want to wish the good society into being, while negative, corporate multiculturalists want to deny dominant-culturalism by covering it with a multicultural mask. In any case, multiculturalism is a weak mish-mash of all kinds of different ideas, and to blame it for anything-I'm not sure you're doing that-is ridiculous.

Michael

--

Michael Lichter <lichter@ucla.edu>

UCLA Department of Sociology / Center for the Study of Urban Poverty











Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:15:43 -0400

From: JRadzilow@aol.com

To: H-ETHNIC@msu.edu

Michael Lichter writes:

>The creation of categories of people by the state is not >something that originates with Affirmative Action.

Correct. But never has the *state* possessed such an array of devices to push forward its view of

the divisions of the human race.

>I'm no pomo, but I think it is a mistake to get caught up in contrasting "actual" ethnic groups with presumably "false" ones indicated by state policies. State policies create real communities of interest, regardless of traditional differences and antagonisms. This is not something I addressed directly in my

original posting, so let me clarify. All modern identities are created to some extent (they are,

of course, no less real for all that). Clearly, the state may be creating new sets of identities-

real or imagined. The question is: should it be doing this? And whose interests are being

served? These are political questions, but important ones.

Regardless of whether the state has ever categorized people, it still does not answer the question of whether scholars-or anyone-should read those categories back onto the past.

>In any case, the subject of multiculturalism is not world cultures, but the cultures practiced by actual people in this particular place, not elsewhere.

That's the problem. These aren't cultures at all. Please point out instances of "Asian culture"

or "white culture" being practiced here or anywhere. This may be difficult since there are no such things. It strains the brain to think that a 5th generation Japanese American and a recent political emigre from Indonesia have something in common because they both come from-or had ancestors who came from-

an arbitrarily defined place called Asia. The term "white," in current useage, covers hundreds of separate and distinct cultural groups in the U.S. alone.

I wrote: "Anti-discrimation is usually the stated goal of multiculturalism and affirmative action. Whether either actually achieve this goal is an open question."

To which Michael Lichter replies:

>No, that is not so. Anti-discrmination legislation is aimed at stopping discrimination, and, because it has been for the most part limited (actively limited, that is) to prosecution of individual discriminatory acts, it is not under attack. The aim of affirmative action is the extension of opportunities to those traditionally denied access (to jobs, education, etc.), and this goes beyond the ideal of passively assuring that, e.g., individuals are not unfairly passed over for promotion. Active discriminatory behavior is not the only way to deny access to people. In fact it has been argued, rather persuasively in my opinion, that the historical exclusion of women and minorities from the social networks which convey both information and influence is one of the strongest reasons for supporting affirmative action. Special outreach programs to minority students to inform them about their opportunities for higher education are, for instance, affirmative action programs, and they are likely to be terminated at the University of California in the wake of the Regents' lamentable anti-Affirmative Action decisions.

There is an emerging consensus that the erosion of affirmative action programs under Reagan and Bush, and their limitation by the courts from Bakke onwards, has been an important factor in the plunging prospects of African American college graduates, who were at near earnings parity with white college graduates in the mid-1970s. Abandonment >of affirmative action is either a statement that racial justice does not matter, or else an expression of willful >ignorance about how people get jobs (education, etc.).

The original matter I was responding to was *not* about the merits or lack thereof of affirmative action.

First of all, I *refuse* to be placed into a position of defending the idiot policies of Reagan, Bush, Wilson,

or anyone else. Second of all, quite clearly multiculturalists have attempted to push their programs as measures to reduce discriminatory attitudes. (This is, in my mind, a laudable goal. They are going about it

in the wrong way.)

Now, about affirmative action... I'd like to know among whom this "consensus" is emerging, and how

such theories are being tested in a period of declining real wages, a factor that is most harmful to those in the lowest income brackets (in which African Americans are disproportionately represented). African Americans who receive advanced degrees and enter academe are in high demand. But-anyone who receives a college degree today has lesser job prospects than those who received them in the 1970s, since more and more people are getting such degrees. Jobs that once required only a high school education then

now demand a specialized 4-year degree.

The problem with affirmative action is its creation of protected categories that are totally at variance with any historical experience. Imagine! An old-money heiress, whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower,

who is on the social register, and who knows all the "right people" is one of the "wretched of the earth" and in need of society's help. On the other hand, the son of a Sicilian migrant laborer is one of the "oppressors." This "calculus of oppression" is seriously out of whack. (Just in passing it is worthwhile to mention that:

1. In very recent historical times [late 1960s] that Jewish Americans suffered systematic discrimination in many areas, while the last restrictive housing covenants on Poles and Italians fell only in my relatively short lifetime.

2. 2. A 1983 study of major corporations in Chicago showed that Hispanics and African, Polish, and

Italian Americans were represented in the board rooms at about the same low level. 3. Arab Americans,

who are currently "white," suffer a great deal of discrimination and yet we see no great outcry about this.)

A more equitable program would take into consideration something that most "neo-Marxists" and "liberals" in academe seem to have forgotten: class. (As a late, waggish friend once put it: "Tenure killed the Revolution.") Affirmative action has become a middle-class entitlement program and its supporters know on which side the bread is buttered. Support for a program based on income level is lamentably low because it would exclude those who support the current formula and would also exclude most of those "conservatives" who oppose the current program.

>Multiculturalism is perhaps a bit more directly concerned with discrimination, but in the multicultural view discrimination (and this is even more true of "diversity") is the result of a failure in inter-ethnic understanding. "If you only understood why I talk the way I do, and respected my right to talk this way, then everything would be wonderful." It is based on the assumption that "we all" have a common interest in getting along and creating a harmonious and just society. It ignores things like the dominant group's self-interest in maintaining a monopoly over society's most desirable positions. This ignorance is generally willful- positive, utopian multiculturalists want to wish the good society into being, while negative, corporate multiculturalists want to deny dominant-culturalism by covering it with a multicultural mask. In any case, multiculturalism is a weak mish-mash of all kinds of different ideas, and to blame it for anything-I'm not sure you're doing that-is ridiculous.

I like the notion of multiculturism as "affirmative action light," but I suspect we'd disagree over what constitutes the "dominant" culture. ("Dominant-culturalism"??) Nor am I at all certain that discrimination is always the result of willful ignorance.

I would like to think that multiculturalism is as hapless as Michael Lichter, either in its "positive" form, or in its corporate "we-all-eat-at-McDonalds-together" form. Unfortunately, multiculturism is taking away scarce resources from our schools while giving back nothing-or worse than nothing-in return. Furthermore, it promotes a dangerously simplistic view of some very complex and difficult problems.

This is what is so disturbing about the multiculties appropriating affirmative-action definitions of the divisions of the human race. From a strategic point of view, if one is committed to fighting "white racism" and opposes the growth of White Supremicist ideas, it makes no sense to promote "white" as an identity group. One should, by contrast, encourage French Canadians, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, etc., etc., to develop a fuller appreciation of their hybrid identities. (That fact that multiculties often oppose such groups leads me to believe that they are either incredibly naive or unbelievably cynical.) I've tried to point this out to some proponents of multiculturalism and have received, in return, only blank, ncomprehending stares.

Sincerely,

John Radzilowski







Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:15:09 -0600

From: IN%"mn53@columbia.edu" "Mae M. Ngai" 26-AUG-1996 14:11:17.42

Some comments on the exchange between Michael Lichter and John Radzilowski on affirmative action:

Notwithstanding the growth of the administrative state during this century (hence what Radzilowski refers to as the state's "array of devices to push forward its view of the divisions of the human race"), state-created categories of race date back to the colonial period and the early republic, in laws codifying and constituting racial discrimination and oppression-for example, colonial and state slave codes and the 1790 Nationality Act which provided naturalized citizenship only to "free white persons"-and continued, of course, throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century (Dred Scott, jim crow segregation, and Chinese exclusion being among the more infamous instances). The U.S. Census has a very interesting history because its racial categories have changed many times, showing the instability and contingent nature of those categories.

Affirmative action policies legislated in the 1960s were, I believe, the first instance of the government using race to *combat*--as opposed to practice and enforce, or negatively legislate-discrimination against non-whites. As Licther correctly points out, laws that "passively" combat discrimination, while obviously important, have not eliminated discrimination. Other strategies such as reliance on the free market and "education" have also not eliminated racial discrimination. Affirmative action was born out of the recognition that we need some kind of *affirmative* public policy to redress literally centuries of discrimination practiced by social and economic institutions as well as that enacted and perpetuated by law. True enough, not every critic of affirmative action is a racist. The burden the critics must bear, however, is to come up with a viable alternative.

I agree with Radzilowski that there are many problems in how groups become delineated. "Asian American" is a good case in point. But, that concept was created not by the state, but by second and third generation Chinese and Japanese Americans in the 1960s as an instrument of building political influence. And, more recently as anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. has grown, immigrants who have historically not identified as "Asian" are increasingly seeking to build Asian American coalitions and the greater political clout that comes with that solidarity. Asian Americans have also struggled, for example, to redefine and refine state-created categories. Owing to their efforts the Census now provides various nationally-specific categories (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) under the general "Asian Pacific American" category, suggesting complimentary, not mutually exclusive, categories of identity.

The more fundamental issue that's been raised, of whether any of us should be engaged in the business of drawing-and thereby perpetuating-racial distinctions seems compelling on the surface. But oppressed peoples have long used what we now call "identity politics" to assert their rights to equality; I don't know of more effective strategy that's been found. As long as identity politics is not a politic of superiority, I think it has been to positive effect. I think it's also important to distinguish between "race" and "ethnicity"-both are "inventions" but only the former is predicated on the notion that people can be differentiated and ranked on the basis of immutable physical characteristics. Ethnicity as a social concept has usually implied a measure of contingency and, even, individual choice.

Radzilowski offers economic class as a better measure of discrimination and corrective action. I agree that class should be taken into account. But it doesn't obviate the need for measures to correct discrimination based on race. Yes, affirmative action in business promotions and college admissions have benefited mostly minorities of the "middle class". But the problem is not that they are middle class per se, the problem is that they are not on an even playing field with middle class whites. Affirmative action based on class would not solve that problem. Why must "class" supplant "race" (or, for that matter, gender)? The Mayflower heiress in Radzilowski's example may not be "the wretched of the earth," but until recently would have had a very difficult time getting into, say, law school. Surely Radzilowski does not mean to say that gender discrimination is justified. Shouldn't we try to redress *all* forms of discrimination? Do we need to have a hierarchy of discriminations?

By the way, many people impute to "class" a more "objective" basis than "race" and "gender," which we all recognize are socially constructed categories of difference. But, is "class" really any less socially constructed? How do we define it? What criteria do we use to determine class oppression or disadvantage? Income level? Relationship to the means of production? Other indices of social status? Is a factory worker with a good union wage and overtime who makes $60,000 a year (admittedly a declining population) more or less "oppressed" than a college professor who earns $50,000? What about a "businessman"-say, an immigrant entrepreneur whose small business earns less than $20,000 a year? Under a class-based affirmative action policy, whose child gets preference in college admissions?

Mae M. Ngai

Dept of History

Colubmia Univ.

mn53@columbia.edu







Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:37:43 -0600

From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 27-AUG-1996 05:05:56.49

Mae N. Ngai offers an intelligent and spirited defense of affirmative action. Nevertheless, certain problems remain. Whether or human beings can ever be true freed of prejudice and whether a prejudice-free humanity can be achieve by means of legislation may be a question for theologians. I do agree that some measures are clearly needed to reduce discrimination of all types, but disagree on whether the current plan actually works. It certainly does nothing to reduce economic injustices that cut across racial

lines.

Class and income level are not immutable characteristics. They can be changed. When poor are no longer they will no longer face the stigma of being poor. Race is of course another matter. If I wake up tomorrow and find that I'm caucasian, chances are pretty good that when I wake up next Monday, I'll still be caucasian. Since we humans are tragically flawed, imperfect, and generally, well, human, I suspect that prejudice based on immutable characteristics will always be with us. We can and should take measures to minimize the effects of such prejudice, but to assume we can do away with it is to assume that human perfectability is achievable.

Mae Ngai writes:

>True enough, not every critic of affirmative action is a racist.

Thanks and how generous. It seems to have taken a while for some to recognize this. Unfortunately,

"whites" are assumed to have no economic, social, or political interests. Therefore their actions are

judged entirely on the basis of their supposedly innate racism.

I cannot speak for all peoples who fall under the specious category "white" since most of them are

culturally alien to me. However, let me offer one example that may illustrate how affirmative action can create resentment and opposition. Although not treated as badly as African Americans, immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, arriving in 1880-1920 period, faced systematic discrimination and were clearly second-class citizens. To overcome these barriers, they had to pay an enormous price, and make great sometimes bloody sacrifices. Finally, when they had begun to break through the social barriers by transforming themselves into "patriotic," "law-abiding" citizens (in their perception, but perhaps accurate for all that) whose sons went off to Vietnam in large numbers, the elites changed the rules on them. No longer was advancement to be based on the previous standards of "merit," but on race and and gender. All that sacrifice, then, was for nothing. This creates a great deal of understandable resentment, which at it's base has nothing to do with race, since it was focused on a conflict of longstanding between the old elites and children of the "new" immigrants. That it became overlaid with racism after the fact is undeniable. However, the immigrants who took part in the early labor movement were well aware that the bosses often exploited racial tensions for their own ends. In many Polish neighborhoods in the 1960s it was a common

belief that the "English" (i.e., all native-born non-Poles) were using blacks to "get back" at the Poles

for supporting the unions. (At the very least, this should illustrate the gulf in perception between this group and the mainstream and should give pause to those who still think all "white" people think and act alike.)

>The burden the critics must bear, however, is to come up with a viable alternative.

This I can't accept. The present system is bad, but is the suggestion here that no one can critique or disagree with it without proposing a better plan? If we applied this standard to all questions, we'd have a lot less debate. If there is no good solution we are stuck with the current one, since we cannot even enter into discussions.

>The more fundamental issue that's been raised, of whether any of us should be engaged in the business of drawing-and thereby perpetuating-racial distinctions seems compelling on the surface. But oppressed peoples have long used what we now call "identity politics" to assert their rights to equality; I don't know of more effective strategy that's been found. As long as identity politics is not a politic of superiority, I think it has been to positive effect. I think it's also important to distinguish between "race" and "ethnicity"-both are "inventions" but only the former is predicated on the notion that people can be differentiated and ranked on the basis of immutable physical characteristics. Ethnicity as a social concept has usually implied a measure of contingency and, even, individual choice.

Are we politicians first or scholars first? Identity politics are fine, but, unfortunately, the identity politics of some groups are seen as intrisically superior to those of others. When eastern and southern Europeans sought to use such politics in the 1970s to fight the continuing prejudice they faced, they were tabbed as being "racists." Interesting.

I'm not sure about "race" being always based on immutable characteristics in as far as "race" is defined by the state and by academicians. After all, the definition of "white" has been all over the map in the last 200 years, and I suspect it has a lot more to do with the thickness of one's wallet than with the lightness of one's skin.

>Why must "class" supplant "race" (or, for that matter, gender)?

As Mae Ngai correctly points out later in her remarks, class can be very difficult to define. But, so can race. Why must "class" be excluded? Since I'm in a paranoid and socialistic frame of mind tonight, let me such one possible answer: the ruling elites find "class" far more frightening than "race" or "gender."

>The Mayflower heiress in Radzilowski's example may not be "the wretched of the earth," but until recently would have had a very difficult time getting into, say, law school.

True, but Mayflower heiresses had far, far better access to higher education than the sons of the

Sicilian migrant laborers. We feel concern for the heiress, but why not for the son of the migrant laborer?

In fact, some affirmative action proponents have been quite gleeful ("white people haven't suffered

enough") in pretending to rip the silver spoon of privledge from the mouth of the migrant laborer's

son. And yet, they seem mystified that the migrant laborer's son might get a bit resentful at this after seeing his father come home from work each day, dirty and exhausted. Sorry, migrant laborer's son, they

say, you and your family have had it too good. Not enough of you Slovak miners have died from black-lung disease. Not enough of you Poles and Lithuanians have been shot down by sheriffs' posses while on the picket line.

>Surely Radzilowski does not mean to say that gender discrimination is justified.

How could any of my remarks possibly be construed this way??!

>Shouldn't we try to redress *all* forms of discrimination?

Yes! I'm sure my attitudes on affirmative action could be altered if it included Polish Americans. (On a personal note, I would have a lot less problem with the proponents of affirmative action if they came

right out and said the program was based on political interests, and they had the power to enact and

enforce it. Instead, as I hear it, the whole program is meant to improve my moral hygiene.)

>Do we need to have a hierarchy of discriminations?

No. But that's precisely what affirmative action does. Some discrimination, some prejudices are okay,

others are not. It is not okay to make racist remarks to African Americans, but it's still perfectly acceptible for people to walk up to me and tell me "Polack" jokes. I've seen some very shocking incidents of anti-Semitism in this country downplayed or ignored by the media. The kinds of stereotypes perpetrated by the media about Poles and Italians have changed little in the past 25 years, and I don't see the "tolerant"

"anti-racist" crowd getting too upset about it.

With it's "protected classes" affirmative action is a ready-made hierarchy of victims.

(There is a very important work on this subject that is well worth reading: Joseph A. Amato, *Victims and Values: A History and Theory of Suffering* (NY: Praeger, 1990).)

Best wishes,

John Radzilowski







Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:44:30 -0600

From: IN%"mn53@columbia.edu" "Mae M. Ngai" 28-AUG-1996 05:10:06.06

[Radzilowski's lines are set off by single >>> ed.]

* From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 27-AUG-1996 05:05:56.49

>Whether or human beings can ever be true freed of prejudice and whether a prejudice-free humanity can be achieve by means of legislation may be a question for theologians. I do agree that some measures are clearly needed to reduce discrimination of all types, but disagree on whether the current plan actually works. It certainly does nothing to reduce economic injustices that cut across racial lines.

affirmative action and other civil rights legislation never presumed to attempt to eliminate individual prejudice, but discrimination by social institutions.

> let me offer one example that may illustrate how affirmative action can create resentment and opposition. Although not treated as badly as African Americans, immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, arriving in 1880-1920 period, faced systematic discrimination and were clearly second-class citizens. To overcome these barriers, they had to pay an enormous price, and make great sometimes bloody sacrifices. Finally, when they had begun to break through the social barriers by transforming

themselves into "patriotic," "law-abiding" citizens (in their perception, but perhaps accurate for all that)

whose sons went off to Vietnam in large numbers, the elites changed the rules on them. No longer was advancement to be based on the previous standards of "merit," but on race and and gender. All that sacrifice, then, was for nothing. This creates a great deal of understandable resentment, which at it's base has nothing to do with race, since it was focused on a conflict of longstanding between the old elites and children of the "new" immigrants. That it became overlaid with racism after the fact is undeniable. However, the immigrants who took part in the early labor movement were well aware that the bosses often exploited racial tensions for their own ends. In many Polish neighborhoods in the 1960s it was a common

belief that the "English" (i.e., all native-born non-Poles) were using blacks to "get back" at the Poles

for supporting the unions. (At the very least, this should illustrate the gulf in perception between this group and the mainstream and should give pause to those who still think all "white" people think and act alike.)

i respect the struggles and sacrifices that immigrants made to overcome social barriers they faced. but certainly there is more to the history than suggested above. racial resentments didn't start in the 1960s. what happened between 1920 and 1960? the "social barriers" Radzilowski refers began to fall in the 1920s and 1930s also because of changes in the demographics of the workforce (the cutoff of euro. immigration and the migration of african americans and mexicans to northern cities, forming a new, racially marked, stratuum of unskilled labor); changes in intellectual thought (a very interesting decline in the influence of scientific racism as it related to europeans but not to african americans and other 'non-whites'); changes in the subject identity of second generation european immigrants (the evolution of "ethnic americans", aka "white" people). See among others Omi and Winant; Lizabeth Cohen; David Roediger; James Grossman; for various angles on this historical process. "Whiteness" is not a fiction invented by non-whites to attack the descendents of european immigrants; it is a subject identity adopted by some people to distinguish themselves from the "non-white;" a subject identity even codified by law (see on this point the US Supreme Court's decision in US v. Thind [1923]).

>>The burden the critics must bear, however, is to come up with a viable alternative.

> This I can't accept. The present system is bad, but is the suggestion here that no one can critique

or disagree with it without proposing a better plan? If we applied this standard to all questions,

we'd have a lot less debate. If there is no good solution we are stuck with the current one, since we cannot even enter into discussions.

this is an interesting problem. yes, we can (and do) debate and critique the issues; solutions are not easy to come by, and sometimes criticism is the first step to finding a solution. but i think that if academics wish to discuss public policy and be taken seriously, they should try to come up with some suggestions-or at least acknowledge that our lack of solutions is a problem, not a virtue. that doesn't make us "politicians," it makes us credible. the most common complaint about academics is that we engage in "abstract debate" and don't live in the "real world."

>>The Mayflower heiress in Radzilowski's example may not be "the wretched of the earth," but until recently would have had a very difficult time getting into, say, law school.

> True, but Mayflower heiresses had far, far better access to higher education than the sons of the

Sicilian migrant laborers. We feel concern for the heiress, but why not for the son of the migrant laborer?

In fact, some affirmative action proponents have been quite gleeful ("white people haven't suffered

enough") in pretending to rip the silver spoon of privledge from the mouth of the migrant laborer's

son. And yet, they seem mystified that the migrant laborer's son might get a bit resentful at this after seeing his father come home from work each day, dirty and exhausted. Sorry, migrant laborer's son, they

say, you and your family have had it too good. Not enough of you Slovak miners have died from black-

lung disease. Not enough of you Poles and Lithuanians have been shot down by sheriffs' posses while on

the picket line.

>>Surely Radzilowski does not mean to say that gender discrimination is justified.

> How could any of my remarks possibly be construed this way??!

well, you continue to knock my mayflower sister. why isn't the gender discrimnation she faces legitimate? why does she have to be compared to the son of a poor italian migrant? why does sympathy for her mean a lack of sympathy for others? i never said the migrant's son or slovack miner or anyone should be denied; why should any woman (even a rich woman) be denied solely on the basis of gender? (and, by the way, until the 1970s our mayflower heiress was officially barred from the ivy league; while our migrant's son could have gone to harvard) It does seem to me that Radzilowski is suggesting that racial and gender discrimination are only worth our condemnation if it involves poor african americans or poor women; not those of the middle class or, heaven forbid, those who are wealthy. There are two problems: one, it misses the entire point about what is discrimination based on race and gender; and two, it pushes us into a needless and divisive exercise comparing (and thus inevitably ranking) different people's oppressions.

Since people of color are disportionately workers and poor people, we tend to understand all too well "class" oppression as well as race, and understand that policies that open up more access to people of the "lower classes" (however defined) would benefit our communities. But that does not mean race discriminatin doesn't exist-or that we don't need public policy to fight it; or that a "class-based" policy will somehow automatically do away with race and gender discrimination. Precisely for that reason, many people of color are suspicious of promises that "all will be made right" by the "universality" or colorblindedness of "class."

>I'm sure my attitudes on affirmative action could be altered if it included Polish Americans. (On a personal note, I would have a lot less problem with the proponents of affirmative action if they came

right out and said the program was based on political interests, and they had the power to enact and

enforce it. Instead, as I hear it, the whole program is meant to improve my moral hygiene.)

>>Do we need to have a hierarchy of discriminations?

> No. But that's precisely what affirmative action does. Some discrimination, some prejudices are okay,

others are not. It is not okay to make racist remarks to African Americans, but it's still perfectly acceptible for people to walk up to me and tell me "Polack" jokes. I've seen some very shocking incidents of anti-Semitism in this country downplayed or ignored by the media. The kinds of stereotypes perpetrated by the media about Poles and Italians have changed little in the past 25 years, and I don't see the tolerant"

"anti-racist" crowd getting too upset about it.

i think it is a challenge for ALL people who consider themselves tolerant and anti-racist to oppose ALL forms of racism and discrimination. and, just as not all white people are racists, neither are all non-white people "anti-white", as Radzilowski suggests... i certainly do not engage in, or condone, ethnic jokes or anti-semitism. but, i don't see how any of that can be put at the doorstep of affirmative action policy. nor can i imagine that ethnic jokes would be eliminated by putting polish americans under affirmative action policy.

sincerely,

mae m. ngai









Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:57:14 -0600

From: IN%"Robert_Lee@brown.edu" 28-AUG-1996 09:03:06.95

On the matter of race and ethnicity as two quite different, though historically related categories of stratification one might consider the following two statements:

Justice Sutherland in US v. Bhagat Thind:t we now hold is that the words "free white person" are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word "Caucasian" only as that word is popularly understood. ...The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European paretage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parentage would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestory. ..What we suggest is merely racial difference, [not superiority or inferiority] and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation.

A dozen years later Benjamin Cardozo in Morrison v. US

Men are not white if the strain of colored blood in them is a half or a a quarter, or, not improbably even less, the governing test always ... being that of common undertanding."

It seems to me that the considerable ethnic discrimination face by European immigrants, from the mid-19th century Irish to the contemporary Central and East European immigration has too often been accomplish through there incorporation into privileged "whiteness". The abolition of race means ultimately to use David Roediger's memorable phrase the "abolition of whiteness" and its inherited privileges.

Robert G. Lee

Assistant Professor

Department of American Civilization

Brown Unversity, Providence, RI 02912

Office 401 863 -1693 Fax 401 863-1385









Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:56:40 -0600

From: IN%"nadels@swosu.edu" 28-AUG-1996 16:08:56.95

I have a certain sympathy with John Radzilowski's position because I was subject to discriminatory racial/religious/ethnic/geographical quotas as a New York Jew when I applied for admission to college, but got redefined as a member of the white male fraternity and suffered from questionable (or even clearly illegal) applications of affirmative action guidelines by the time I hit the job market with a PhD. He is right that millions of others caught by those sorts of redefinitions are resentful and vulnerable to cooptation by their natural class and ethnic enemies associated with the Republican Party. this is clearly a major political problem. On the other hand, ever since the Irish-American campaigns to get treated as "white men" in the mid-19th century we have seen various working class groups at least try to negotiate the transition to Herrenvolk status, and one of the major routes to that status was to join in excluding African-Americans and Asian-Americans from jobs, housing, equal rights and the other goodies associated with being white and male. Sometimes African American spokesmen have tried the same tactics, appealing to antiCatholic & anti-immigrant themes to win semi-equality as native born Americans White elite (& sometimes not so elite) women also played on racial, religious and ethnic prejudices to try to advance to equality with white men (remember racist suffragist arguments, segregation in the Woman Rights and Women's Club movements, the bigotry appealled to by the National Women's Party and the National Birth Control League). No group can claim entirely clean hands in these conflicts.

On the other hand, it seems clear that there are some groups who have fared worse than others recently and who need more than just anti-discrimination laws to protect them from the effects of prjudice and discrimination. Affirmative action policies are intended to do just that (and sometimes they succeed in doing so). That their application and mis-application has not always worked out as intended is a strong argument for revision and refeinment of the policies, but it is far too soon to conclude that the policies are wrong in principle and need to be eliminated. John is right that this doesn't preclude criticism, but Mae has a point too when she calls for critics like John (who understand and join in the critique of White male supremacy) to make substative suggestions rather than join in a reactionary critique of the current dweply flawed programs.

1)>Identity politics are fine, but, unfortunately, the identity politics of some groups are seenas intrisically superior to those of others.

2)>When eastern and southern Europeans sought to use such politics in the 1970s to fight the >continuing prejudice they faced, they were tabbed as being "racists." Interesting.

John is right about point 1, but on point 2 there was plenty of racism in many of the organizations John refers to here. That doesn't mean that their attempted use of identity politics was illegitimate and inherently racist, but it does complicate the picture. There are real dangers in identity politics and racism and sexism are high on the list (remember the Million Man March?), but as the conversation between Mae and John (& others) has shown idntity politics taps into deep wells of social reality which can't simply be ignored in favor of the class dimensions of inequality-which also need to be addressed.

>As Mae Ngai correctly points out later in her remarks, class can be very difficult to define. But, so can race. Why must "class" be excluded? Since I'm in a paranoid and socialistic frame of mind tonight, let me such one possible answer: the ruling elites find "class" far more frightening than "race" or "gender."

Perhaps it is not that the elites are more frightened by class, but that they are much more fractured by gender (so they or their loved ones have a stake in redressing these inequalities) and they find race less threatening because the main thrust of racial equality would occur at a class level which would leave them largely excluded from its consequences (we'll see what happens when significant numbers of rich non-whites try to break into elite clubs, neighborhoods, schools & familes--they didn't handle it very well when Jews first began to make such demands and elite antisemitism is far from gone even now). Various elites are threatened by gender issues and others by racial ones, but virtually all elites in American society are by definition threatened by class challenges--so class is a unifying issue for them while the others are divisive.

Best wishes,

Stan Nadel

==============================================

# Dr. Stanley Nadel, Chair #

# Department of Social Sciences #

# Southwestern Oklahoma State U. #

# Weatherford, OK 73096 #

# Email: Nadels@swosu.edu #

# Phones: (405) 774-7097 (office) #

# (405) 774-3795 (fax) #

# (405) 774-0644 (home) #











Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:09:57 -0600

From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 29-AUG-1996 05:47:18.77

[Ngai's posting marked with > > > ed.] Mae Ngai writes:

>i respect the struggles and sacrifices that immigrants made to overcome social barriers they faced. but certainly there is more to the history than suggested above. racial resentments didn't start in the 1960s. what happened between 1920 and 1960? the "social barriers" Radzilowski refers began to fall in the 1920s and 1930s also because of changes in the demographics of the workforce (the cutoff of euro. [sic] immigration and the migration of african americans and mexicans to northern cities, forming a new, racially marked, stratuum of unskilled labor); changes in intellectual thought (a very interesting decline in the influence of scientific racism as it related to europeans but not to african americans and other 'non-whites'); changes in the subject identity of second generation european immigrants (the evolution of "ethnic americans", aka "white" people). See among others Omi and Winant;

Lizabeth Cohen; David Roediger; James Grossman; for various angles on this historical process. "Whiteness" is not a fiction invented by non-whites to attack the descendents of european immigrants; it is a subject identity adopted by some people to distinguish themselves from the "non-white;" a subject identity even codified by law (see on this point the US Supreme Court's decision in US v. Thind [1923]).

It is true that racial resentments did not begin in the 1960s, nor I did I ever suggest that they did. There

was certainly an undercurrent (at least) of this throughout the history of all ethnic groups. The causes and sources of this are varied and complex, and are not simply a case of immigrants adopting the attitudes of the host society lock, stock and barrel. The most significant and divisive battles over race, however, occurred after World War II and not before, which coincided with the largest wave of African American migration to northern cities.

"Ethnic American" is not "aka" "white." (Rudolph Vecoli has written a very interesting essay titled

"Are Italian Americans Just White Folks?" which appeared earlier this year in Italian Americana which addresses this issue.) It is certainly true that eastern and southern European Americans adopted an idea of "whiteness" as a means of economic and social betterment. However, the "whiteness" they ended up with wasn't the same "whiteness" as that of Anglo Saxon Protestants. Since the 1960s, historians and social scientists have been trying to apply the Southern racial model to ethnically complex and diverse cities

like Chicago (or the North as whole), and it has has proven a failure.

Scientific racism directed against European immigrants did continue up through World War II (and probably would have continued further had it not been discredited by its association with Nazism). Good examples of this are Harry A. Laughlin, Immigration and Conquest (A report of the Special Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, 15 May 1939); and Clifford Kirkpatrick, Intelligence and Immigration (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1926; reprint 1970). (It is also significant that Madison Grant's Passing of the Great Race was reprinted in 1944.) Even if this type of "scientific" prejudice directed against eastern and southern Europeans was declining among academics, it was in full flower in the world of literature and film. See, for example, the works of Edna Ferber esp. American Beauty (New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1931); Tennesee Williams' Stanley Kowalski character; the novels of Nelson Algren (such as Never Come Morning, etc.); films like "Black Fury" etc. (These are discussed in Stanislaus A. Blejwas, "Puritans and Poles: The New England Literary Image of the Polish Peasant Immigrant," Polish American Studies 42, no. 2 (Autumn 1985), 46-88; Caroline Golab, "Stellaaaaaa. . . . . . . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !: The Slavic Stereotype in American Film," in The Kaleidoscopic Lens: How Hollywood Views Ethnic Groups, Randall M. Miller, Ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Jerome S. Ozer, Publisher, 1980), 135-155; and Thomas J. Napierkowski, "The Image of Polish Americans in American Literature," Polish American Studies 40, no. 1 (Spring 1983), 5-44.) These images continued to be heavily reinforced in media throughout the 1950s-1970s, and are now being revived in the 1990s. And this relates only to Poles, I'm sure other readers of this list could

provide some examples of this as it relates to Italians and other groups.

I never suggested that "white" was a categorymade up by "non-whites" to attack European

immigrants. That's just silly.

It is also worth noting here that the whole idea of treating all "Euro-Americans" as a single group

is inaccurate and reductive. It seems to go against the whole notion of ethnic history.

>the most common complaint about academics is that we engage in "abstract debate" and don't live in the "real world."

And it's an unfair complaint, as I'm sure Mae Ngai would agree.

>well, you continue to knock my mayflower sister. why isn't the gender discrimnation she faces egitimate?

Where did I ever say gender discrimination wasn't a legitimate concern? I refer the readers back to all

of my original statements and move on to the heart of the issue.

>why does she have to be compared to the son of a poor italian migrant? why does sympathy for her mean a lack of sympathy for others?

Why indeed? If we oppose this unfair comparison, then we should all join together in opposing

"protected categories," since that is precisely the competition for the martyr's crown of victimhood

that they set up. (I refer the reader again to Amato's book as previously cited.)

>i never said the migrant's son or slovack [sic!] miner or anyone should be denied; why should any woman (even a rich woman) be denied solely on the basis of gender? (and, by the way, until the 1970s our mayflower heiress was officially barred from the ivy league; while our migrant's son could have gone to harvard)

(I refer the reader back to my previous message on the matter whether I even *suggested* that women should be denied on the basis of gender. Since this seems to be an issue let me state here for the record that I do not think women should be denied on the basis of gender.)

It is undeniable that Sicilian migrants and their children historically had far fewer educational opportunities than wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants, men or women. (And not just because they were

poor, but because they were Sicilian.) Mae Ngai's Mayflower heiress "sister" [sic!] may have been

unfairly deprived of an *Ivy League* education, but the children of Sicilian migrant laborers were denied *any* higher education, and they lived a lifestyle far, far removed from that of the wealthy elite. I'd love to see some statistics on how many Italians, or Poles, or Slovaks got into Harvard prior to the 1950s. Or 1960s. Or 1970s.

>It does seem to me that Radzilowski is suggesting that racial and gender discrimination are only worth our condemnation if it involves *poor* african americans or *poor* women; not those of the middle class or, heaven forbid, those who are wealthy.

(Again, I refer the reader back to my original messages, in which said nothing of the kind. It always ends up this way. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest must be a sexist and a racist. No wonder Americans never get anywhere on this issue.)

I did suggest, and do so here again, that in terms of types of discrimination that can be redressed by law, it is far easier to redress discrimination based on poverty than on immutable characteristics like skin color or gender. Just give the poor money and they aren't poor anymore. This does not, *obviously,* mean that I Think racial or gender discrimination is okay if directed at middle class or wealthy people!

>There are two problems . . . two, it pushes us into a needless and divisive exercise comparing (and thus inevitably ranking) different people's oppressions.

Which is precisely what affirmative action does, and which is why I oppose it.

>Since people of color are disportionately workers and poor people, we tend to understand all too well "class" oppression as well as race, and understand that policies that open up more access to people of the "lower classes" (however defined) would benefit our communities. But that does not mean race discriminatin doesn't exist-or that we don't need public policy to fight it; or that a "class-based" policy will somehow automatically do away with race and gender discrimination. Precisely for that reason, many people of color are suspicious of promises that "all will be made right" by the "universality" or colorblindedness of "class."

Since I didn't say race or gender discrimination are non-existent and since I never suggested that a

class-based affirmative action program would do away with racial and gender discrimination, there

is really nothing to say here.

>i think it is a challenge for ALL people who consider themselves tolerant and anti-racist to oppose ALL forms of racism and discrimination. and, just as not all white people are racists, neither are all non-white people "anti-white", as Radzilowski suggests...

I simply ask Mae Ngai to point out one instance in any of my writings where I suggested all "non-whites" are "anti-white."

It is precisely the moral arrogance of people who believe themselves to be free of all predjudice that

makes debate on these questions difficult. (And, no, I am not suggesting Mae Ngai falls into this category. Since I do not know her personally ICannot say one way or the other.) It is hard enough to discuss these things calmly and respectfully without some self-appointed crusaders, who act little different than the folks on the 700 Club, trying to cleanse the rest of us of our sins. In my own subjective personal experience most of those who claim to free of prejudice ("born-again" liberals!) have simply shifted their

prejudices onto less popular groups. (Catholics, Arabs, eastern and southern Europeans, etc.)

>i certainly do not engage in, or condone, ethnic jokes or anti-semitism. but, i don't see how any of that can be put at the doorstep of affirmative action policy. nor can i imagine that ethnic jokes would be eliminated by putting polish americans under affirmative action policy.

The discussion was on how we should oppose all discrimination, not just discrimination against our pet groups. (And, okay, I was being slightly facetious about making Polish American a protected category! However, the current level of prejudice against eastern and southern European Americans is a little more serious than just a few ethnic jokes.)

The point was, of course, that affirmative action redresses some forms of discrimation and not others.

If Arab Americans suffer discrimination in the workplace based on ethnic origin, skin color, or religion, should they not be included? )But wait, they're white folks!) Forms of discrimination and the groups that suffer from them which are not judged worthy under the law are therefore ignored. This has broad implications that go beyond affirmative action. (I do not suggest, however, that this was the goal of affirmative action or that all of its supporters are in favor of or even aware of the broader effects of the program.)

In this country we have a sad but not surprising history of economic and social competition among ethnic and racial groups on the lower rungs of the social ladder. This competition was often encouraged by factory owners and other economic leaders (with Henry Ford having only the most aggregious record), for their own ends. (Such as, for example, using strikebreakers of a different race or ethnicity than those on strike.)

For anyone aware of this history it is just cynical to create and support a program that rewards one group on the lower rungs of the social ladder and not another. That creates a hierarchy of victims- some rewarded and others not. We should ask ourselves whose interests such a program really supports.

Sincerely,

John Radzilowski







Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:18:45 -0600

From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 29-AUG-1996 21:10:50.77

Stan Nadel writes:

>No group can claim entirely clean hands in these conflicts.

Good point!

>On the other hand, it seems clear that there are some groups who have fared worse than others recently and who need more than just anti-discrimination laws to protect them from the effects of prjudice and discrimination. Affirmative action policies are intended to do just that (and sometimes they succeed in doing so). That their application and mis-application has not always worked out as intended is a strong argument for revision and refeinment of the policies, but it is far too soon to conclude that the policies are wrong in principle and need to be eliminated.

Clearly some groups have suffered far more than others. That is undeniable. However, we should ask ourselves whether it is possible to adequately compensate people who have suffered terrible crimes in the past (such as slavery). If we do think it possible to provide such recompense, we should think very carefully about who it is who must bear the burden of repayment. The grandchild of the slave owner? The grandchild of a recent immigrant from Russia? The burdens ought to be distributed fairly. But this raises many additional problems.

>>1) Identity politics are fine, but, unfortunately, the identity politics of some groups are seen as intrinsically superior to those of others.

>>2) When eastern and southern Europeans sought to use such politics in the 1970s to fight the continuing prejudice they faced, they were tabbed as being "racists." Interesting.

> John is right about point 1, but on point 2 there was plenty of racism in many of the organizations John refers to here.

Obviously, racism was a facet. But not the only facet, not the overriding feature, and not even the initial

motivating factor.

One particular problem here is lack of good research on these questions for the 1960s and 1970s. (Many

researchers who came of age during that tense period tend to have rather set views on this question and

have not been overly interested in looked at closed community, with complex histories whose main language is something other that English.) It is very easy to cry racism since it requires no further enquiry. Everytime we look for racism, chances are if we look hard enough we will find it. But I would

suggest that often people are actually motivated by something other than racism or sexism. I realize this is a heretical view, but humans are very complex and human actions cannot be explained by resort to a single cause no matter how politically fashionable that cause may be. (For example, the history of Polish-black relations is especially complex and full of pitfalls for the mono-causalists. It includes both instances of cooperation and conflict, with neither side playing the role of innocent victim.)

>There are real dangers in identity politics and racism and sexism are high on the list (remember the Million Man March?), but as the conversation between Mae and John (& others) has shown idntity politics taps into deep wells of social reality which can't simply be ignored in favor of the class dimensions of inequality-which also need to be addressed.

This is an important point. Ethnic and other group identities call forth powerful emotions. Class, for a variety of reasons, doesn't have the same power in this country. To return to the original topic of discussion-multiculturalism-this is one reason why programs like multiculturalism cause such resentment among excluded groups. And it also suggests why affirmative action also calls forth such resentment. I would suggest that this resentment is not always due to opposition to the "other" but might also be due

to a group's own internal calculus and history, which would not be apparent to the outsider.

>Perhaps it is not that the elites are more frightened by class, but that they are much more fractured by gender (so they or their loved ones have a stake in redressing these inequalities) and they find race less threatening because the main thrust of racial equality would occur at a class level which would leave them largely excluded from its consequences (we'll see what happens when significant numbers of rich non-whites try to break into elite clubs, neighborhoods, schools & familes-they didn't handle it very well when Jews first began to make such demands and elite antisemitism is far from gone even now). Various elites are threatened by gender issues and others by racial ones, but virtually all elites in American society are by definition threatened by class challenges-so class is a unifying issue for them while the others are divisive.

More good points here. But let me also suggest another heretical idea (as if my future career prospects weren't bad enough already ;-) ). Anglo-Saxon Protestants have more in common with African Americans, religiously, culturally, and even in some cases, genetically, than either group does with East European Jews (or gentiles for that matter). Colin Powell and Bill Clinton have a lot more in common with each other than either does with my grandmother. Despite the terrible history of Slavery and Jim Crow Anglo-Saxons and African Americans have more of shared past than either does with more recent immigrants. After all, aside from Anglo-Saxons, no other group has contributed more to American culture than African Americans.

Sincerely,

John Radzilowski







Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:03:18 -0600

by Michael Lichter [lichter@ucla.edu]

UCLA Department of Sociology /

Center for the Study of Urban Poverty

Having reviewed some materials and thought about this a bit more, I realize that the distinctions I drew earlier between affirmative action policies and anti-discrimination policies were a bit too stark. It is reasonable that people would be somewhat confused about the difference between the two, as they are tightly linked, and often the officials involved in proposing and implementing them use the terms interchangeably.

Let me clarify. Individual anti-discrimination laws and policies cover most aspects of social life, from lodging and housing to education, employment, and so on, and these concern discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation (sometimes), marital status, etc. Implementation of the laws, and enactment of the policies, frequently means no more than responding to complaints about violations. In some cases, the responding to gross abuses has led to "affirmative action" (apparently coined by JFK in 1961) to both reform the discriminatory agency and to remedy some of the effects of past discrimination. [For a quick (and cheap!) review of the history and some of the implementation of affirmative action as concerns the Federal government, I recommend a look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html,the report from a study commissioned by President Clinton.] These generally took the form of court or executive orders including specific "goals and timetables" for recruitment, desegregation, etc. For example, In July 1970, a federal district court enjoined the State of Alabama from continuing to discriminate against blacks in the hiring of state troopers. The court found that "in the thirty-seven year history of the patrol there has never been a black trooper." The order included detailed, non-numerical provisions for assuring an end to discrimination, such as stringent controls on the civil service certification procedure and an extensive program of recruitment of minority job applicants. Eighteen months later, not a single black had been hired as a state trooper or into a civilian position connected with the troopers. The district court then entered a further order requiring the hiring of one qualified black trooper or support person applicant for each white hired until 25 percent of the force was comprised of blacks. By the time the case reached the Court of Appeals

in 1974, 25 black troopers and 80 black support personnel had been hired. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the orders. [1] Note that what is being redressed here is not a particular person's claim of discrimination, but a clear pattern of discriminatory behavior. Affirmative action addresses patterns of discrimination (or exclusion), where anti-discrimination policies that do not involve affirmative action only deal with individual cases. Note also that the sort of "hard" requirements this court was able to place on the state of Alabama are unlikely to be used today, having been essentially outlawed by the 1978 Bakke decision [1a]. Although there have been many cases like Alabama's, many affirmative action programs were not enacted to rememdy blatant acts of discrimination. LBJ justified taking positive steps to integrate (in particular) African Americans into all levels of the society, saying You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. [2]many educational and corporate affirmative action programs have been based less on the presumption that these institutions had discriminated in the past, than on the grounds that access to education and quality employment for women and minorities were important for creating a more equal and equitable society. (Besides, adoption of voluntary affirmative action programs saved institutions from being investigated and having plans imposed on them from without.) Critics of affirmative action have not generally cared about this distinction I am making between responses to demonstrated patterns of discrimination and efforts to more broadly promote social equality. As far as they are concerned, any effort to promote the interests of one group at the expense of another is discriminatory-it is either "positive

discrimination" (to some proponents) or "reverse discrimination" (to most critics). Nathan Glazer addresses this on the level of political principle, arguing that the implementation of affirmative action

has meant that we abandon the first principle of a liberal society, that the individual's interests and good and welfare are the test of a good society, for now we attach benefits and penalties to individuals

simply on the basis of their race, color, and national origins. [3] Now, Glazer knows as well as we do that "race, color, and" to a lesser extent "national origins" had, since the beginnings of the republic, had "benefits and penalties to individuals" attached to them. And I'm not just talking about the "biggies" like slavery and Jim Crow, but also more recent examples like the exclusion of African American veterans from the housing benefits of the GI Bill

[3a]. Hundreds of laws and policies continued to promote inequality by race and sex even after their being banned by the courts and the 1964 Civil Rights act (I understand that the last case ofexplicit racial covenants in housing was dealt with in the early 1970s, here in Southern California, for instance). And let's not forget the many laws codifying the unequal status of women, laws which did not suddenly disappear with the 20th Amendment and women's suffrage.

Perhaps most importantly, the elimination of laws guaranteeing unequal benefits and penalties has not by any means actually eliminated unequal benefits and penalties. Glazer was quite aware of all this, but for him, and for many who agree with him, it is the formal elimination of discrimination and inequality that is important, and attacking substantive inequality or exclusion is illiberal and undesirable. If deliberately discriminatory policies persist, let's get rid of them, but the government should be color-blind, and its interest in discrimination is only seeing that individuals, and not groups, have remedies for unfair treatment in housing, employment, education, etc.

In this view, legally mandated "positive" discrimination in the name of social equality is on the same moral level as "negative" discrimination in the name of white supremacy. Yet, many proponents of affirmative action are liberal, in the classical sense Glazer refers to, and considerations of individual opportunity are also primary for them. Radzilowski brings up the question of "merit", which is key here. In general, affirmative action preferences only apply to minorities and women who are as or more qualified for positions as are their majority/male competition. There is no such thing as an objective scale of merit or qualification, which both makes it easy for employers (or whoever) to claim they weren't discriminating in not hiring a woman/minority, and for critics to claim that the woman/minority hired was "not qualified". In any case, successive court rulings and policy changes have considerably narrowed the lattitude of affirmative action programs, and cases of preference for a demonstrably "unqualified" woman or minority over a "meritorious" male or white candidate are likely to be very rare [4].Opinions diverge at this point. For some, automatic preference for a minority person or white woman, even if they must be at least as well qualified as their competition, is still discrimination. It is from this viewpoint, I think, that Arthur Hu accuses affirmative action supporters of being hypocritical-they support discrimination. For others, this standard of individual merit makes affirmative action uselessly narrow. For one thing, there truth behind the commonplace that a woman has to be twice as good as a man to be considered as equally qualified. But more to the point, racism (or sexism/patriarchy) is a social system of domination that is not reducible to individual acts of discrimination. Taken to the extreme, the view is that affirmative action is a sop to the upwardly mobile segments of subordianted groups, and as such should be viewed as a barrier to more thoroughgoing and meaningful social change. (My own view is towards the left edge of the "pro" crowd; it's not very good, but it's better than nothing.)

One of the difficulties in addressing Radzilowski's comments-which is what I'm trying to build up to here-is that he seems to be putting out all of these criticisms at once, contradictory though they may be. For example: affirmative action is bad because it ignores merit, and it is also bad because merit is beside the point-we need to think about things like class. He also says that affirmative action is bad because it creates protected categories,and it is also bad because it doesn't protect white ethnics, a point I will return to below.

Both class and ethnicity become intertwined in his plea for better understanding towards white working class white ethnics. He talks about the the long struggles of Southern and Eastern European immigrants for acceptance and mobility in American society. And in this passage, he talks about affirmative action as an abrogation of a social contract between the descendants of immigrants and America's "old elites":

Finally, when they had begun to break through the social barriers by transforming themselves into "patriotic," "law-abiding" citizens (in their perception, but perhaps accurate for all that) whose sons went off to Vietnam in large numbers, the elites changed the rules on them. No longer was advancement to be based on the previous standards of "merit," but on race and and gender. All that sacrifice, then, was for nothing. This creates a great deal of understandable resentment, which at it's base has nothing to do with race, since it was focused on a conflict of longstanding between the old elites and children of the "new" immigrants.

While I'm sure that many of these second, third, and fourth generation male white ethnics saw the situation in this light, in what sense was "advancement" *not* based on race and gender before the 1960s? In fact minorities and women historically have been ignored or dismissed in spite of their "merit. Certainly to the extent that the Civil Rights act and so on brought women and minorities into the picture, this "changed the rules", but *away* from the consideration of "merit"? (Who are these "elites" anyway? Wasn't the state just knuckling under in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement to keep the situation from getting too far out of hand? [5]) Did these white ethnics really see themselves as, in the past, lagging behind the WASP establishment because they were insufficiently meritorious?

My understanding of the politics of resentment of which Radzilowski speaks has much more to do with a sense of entitlement than with a committment to the abstract principle of merit. It's about property rights in jobs, not about "may the best (wo)man win." Affirmative action programs in the Northern cities Radzilowski is concerned with attempted to break the stranglehold of white ethnics over the better-compensated craft and protective service jobs which were the mainstay of their prosperity. Only in municipal jobs, and particularly in the lower ranks of police forces, was there much success; surely it's clear how little progress was made in areas like construction, for either women or blacks.

Despite the relatively meager progress in integrating these jobs, each inroad by a minority or woman is regarded as an offense against the order of things, where father passed job to son over the course of generations. Even where jobs do not appear as a birthright, and this is a much wider phenomenon than just among white working class ethnics (like, think about resentment on the academic job market), there is a sense that when a black person or white woman is hired "instead", that that person does not deserve the job. This is often put into the language of "qualifications", but it is the fact that the person is presumptively unqualified (a: "they hired a black guy for *my* job" b: "damn that affirmative action!") which underscores the nature of the expectations.

Still, the question about qualifications leads many to say "get rid of affirmative action and we won't have to wonder about whether that person really deserved the job." This is the position of many successful women and African Americans who are uncomfortable with the stigma attached to being a "token" and an "affirmative action hire" (or school admission, etc.), and who feel that their obvious qualifications would have gotten them to where they are today, regardless. This presumes that the "most qualified" applicant will be hired under any circumstances. The evidence overwhelmingly points in the other direction, however [5a]. In highly discriminatory environments like among the aforementioned craft jobs, we can be fairly certain that the question about qualifications would disappear, were affirmative action to disappear, only because the former subjects of affirmative action wouldn't get hired or promoted at all.

Getting back to those "good jobs", it wasn't affirmative action, but industrial decentralization (including the international mobility of capital), deconcentration, deindustrialization that displaced the urban white ethnics. Even President Clinton understands this: "That explanation, the affirmative action explanation for the fix we're in is just wrong."

If you say now you're against affirmative action because the government is using its power or the private sector is using its power to help minorities at the expense of the majority, that gives you a way of explaining away the economic distress that a majority of Americans honestly feel. It gives you a way of turning their resentment against the minorities or against a particular government program, instead of having an honest debate about how we all got into the fix we're in and what we're all going to do together to get out of it.

[It] is wrong to use the anxieties of the middle class to divert the

American people from the real causes of their economic distress the

sweeping historic changes taking all the globe in its path, and the

specific policies or lack of them in our own country which have

aggravated those challenges. [6]That Clinton has done his best to make these "challenges" worse is a whole different discussion :). Anyway, my point is not that the white working class is composed of racists and otherwise bad people, but rather that (a) in opposing affirmative action they have been fighting for their collective livelihoods and not for some abstract principle (even when it is expressed that way), and (b) whatever damage has actually been done due to affirmative action/ anti-discrimination policies is dwarfed by the damage done by capital flight and the war against labor.

I should qualify here that Radzilowski never said that affirmative action was, in reality, a bigger threat to the livelihoods of working class white ethnics than deindustrialization, etc., has been. Further, he never said that affirmative action had any effect at all beyond its specifically psychological ando/or ideological impact. In arguing that these white ethnics' perceptions-if they are represented properly by Radzilowski- are at variance with "reality", I am not suggesting that these perceptions are uninteresting or irrelevant. I am, however, suggesting that the direction of these resentments against affirmative action is not an especially good justification for eliminating affirmative action programs [6a]. Moving on, in his first response to me, Radzilowski remarked that "the

problem" with affirmative action is that it imposes false group definitions

on us. He refers to the category of "Asian", which Mae Ngai points out was

constructed by incipient Asian Americans as part of a strategy for

political empowerment. His real concern, however, appears to be with the

category of "white". He says

It is also worth noting here that the whole idea of treating all "Euro-Americans" as a single group is inaccurate and reductive. It seems to go against the whole notion of ethnic history.

Nobody here has argued that the history of individual European immigrant groups or their descendants is irrelevant. Recognizing the diversity of origins within the European-origin population not contradictory to recognizing the importance of white racial (*not* ethnic) identity. Futher, the study of ethnic history means acknowleging the erosion of ethnic differences over time. He may disagree that this has, indeed, happened, and almost certainly geography partly affects our relative judgements (as he suggests). Here in LA, the "prismatic metropolis" [7], it is difficult to see that white ethnicity has any more salience than a person's choice of shampoos [8]. Interestingly, it is in the Southwest, where white ethnicity is generally not very important, that whites are most likely to be saddled with a label not of their own choosing: "Anglo" [8a]. In any case, why is it particularly important to Radzilowski that the individuality of particular European-ancestry groups not be denied? The answer seems to be embedded in his example of the "Mayflower heiresses" who benefit from affirmative action where the "sons of Sicilian migrant laborers" do not. If this were just a class issue, ethnic identies would be irrelevant. Rather, Radzilowski wants to bring in group history as a measure of entitlement. If anyone among the European-origin population deserves special benefits from the state, the SE European immigrants' descendants, male or female, do. The lumping together of all "whites" under that presumptively priviliged banner obscures this difference, linguistically turning the oppressed into oppressors.

I can see that. I know many Jews who argue that they are not "white" for the same reasons. I personally used to check "other" on the racial classification thing they used to pass out in elementary school [9]. There are certainly reasons to reject "whiteness", but to reject the historical baggage (and culpability) that goes with whiteness without rejecting the privliges that accrue to that status is somehwat hypocritical. SE Europeans may not have invented whiteness, and they may not have embraced it without reservations, but embrace it they did, along with the rest of the American racial hierarchy, and it didn't take Roediger to figure this out.

This brings us back to multiculturalism, and the reluctance of its proponents to embrace European ethnicity. I think that multiculturalists rightly distrust attempts by whites to break themselves down into little groups which, apart from the nasty English, were all oppressed and bear no collective responsibility for the historical or present subordination of racial minorities. Yet, and I think that Radzilowski is right about this, multiculturalism means cultural pluralism, means a search for etnic/cultural roots and distinctiveness, and, in effect *pushes* whites to *be* ethnic. At the same time, multiculturalists do not, for the very reasons Radzilowski cites, want to push "white" as a cultural/ethnic identity, because that's KKK territory. Can we have a multiculturalism which denies whites, either as specific origin groups or as a collectivity, a culture? The stock answer is that the dominant culture *is* white culture, but that says (a) that there is a *white* culture, and (b) deemphasizes or eliminates the role of non-whites in creating it; both problematic statements. I think that this is a real dilemma for multiculturalism, but that is very different from saying that "white" is a meaningless category.

Relatedly, Radzilowski asks, as I have heard so many white (primarily male) students ask in the past: why should I pay for the sins of my fathers, or especially for sins that were committed before I had a single relative in this country? Why am I responsible for making things right, when these are things that I had no part in? Some people argue that African Americans are owed the forty acres and a mule, plus interest, that they were promised with Reconstruction, as redress and reparations for slavery, just as the surviving interned Japanese Americans were recompensed for their ordeal. That's not what we're talking about here. Compensation is an entirely different agenda from affirmative action, which is about access and ending patterns of discrimination. Affirmative action is about what kind of society you want to live in right now, one where historical abuses are compounded daily [10], or one where inequality becomes a non-issue (as if! I'm not saying that affirmative action can achieve this, but only that it is part of such a program).

And I thought I could avoid making normative statements! Oh, well.

Michael

[11][1] "Affirmative Action: History and Rationale".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html

[1a] (I don't feel like renumbering at this point.) Medical school applicant Bakke charged that black students with lower qualifications (grades, MCAT scores) were admitted ahead of him because of UC Davis'practice of setting aside a certain number of places for minority students. The ruling was that although the school could set recruiting goals, that this sort of "quota" was illegal. What the court didn't address was that a number of white students were also admitted with lower grades and scores than Bakke's, most of them under other protected classes, such as the children of alumni, which is a form ofaffirmative action for (generally) whites. This is a widespread practice which the critics of affirmative action rarely address.

[2] HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology, entry on "positive discrimination" (blech!), 1991, p. 373. (I couldn't find the nice AAPSS volume on affirmative action, unfortunately.)

[3] Cited in the HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology, entry on "positive discrimination", 1991, p. 373. (They give a year -- 1975 -- for the source for the quote, but Glazer doesn't appear in their bibliography.)

[3a] See, e.g., Massey & Denton, AMERICAN APARTHEID, for a discussion of how African Americans were for the most part denied access to the single most important wealth-building program of this century (see also Oliver & Shapiro, BLACK WEALTH/WHITE WEALTH).

[4] In his speech of July 19, 1995, President Clinton said "Last year alone the federal government received more than 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination based on race, ethnicity or gender. Less than three percent were for reverse discrimination." This at least partly supports what I am arguing. My excuse for citing Clinton, by the way, is that I only have a limited amount of time to devote to this and I had previous familiarity with the http://www.whitehouse.govmaterials.

That charges of "reverse discrimination" appear ubiquitous because of their relatively much greater press coverage relative to "standard" complaints of discrimination is less a testament to their prevlance than to the "man bites dog" nature of the story (not to mention the economics of the media).

[5] I don't really think it's that simple, of course.

[5a] The Urban Institute's audit studies are one of the most important sources of direct evidence.

[6] "Remarks By The President on Affirmative Action", July 19, 1995.

"http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/book4.html"

[6a] Radzilowski does make an argument for class-based common cause, which I don't really have time to address. Mae Ngai did deal with part of the question-the problems that minorities, and especially women, face in the labor market (and elsewhere) do not readily reduce to class. On the other hand, our discussion of "good" working class jobs notwithstanding, affirmative action has relatively minor relevance to "the truly disadvantaged". Edna Bonacich brings this out in a recent article (1987. "The Limited Social Philosopy of Affirmative Action." Insurgent Sociologist 14 :99-116). I think that the historical record, though, shows a tendency for racial or gender issues to be wholly buried when people unite under a class-only banner.

[7] C. Zubrinsky & L. Bobo. 1996. "Prismatic Metropolis: Race and Residential Segregation in the City of the Angels".

[8] Except for Jewish ethnicity-and you can "get" me here for ethnocentrism if you like :). Jews have played and continue to play an important and distinctive role in the city. Also, LA has had white ethnic neighborhoods in the past, though not on an East Coast scale, so I wouldn't argue that it has never mattered. Further, the importance of Jewish ethnicity was, according to Mike Davis in CITY OF QUARTZ, accentuated by Jews' exclusion from a specifically WASP elite that ruled the city for many years, something which, I think, has some resonance with Radzilowski's concerns.

[8a] I think, by the way, that a discussion of the contemporary geography of white ethnicity might be very interesting. Where does it matter, how, and for what?

[9] There was a good "Northern Exposure" episode on this topic. On Thanksgiving, the Native American population of Sisley (sp?), rather than celebrating the Europeans' arrival, would throw tomatoes at all the white people on the street. The main thread of the episode was Joel arguing that he was Jewish, not white, and finally being convinced otherwise.

[10] See M. Oliver & T. Shapiro. 1996. BLACK WEALTH/WHITE WEALTH for a discussion of just how much inequality compounds over time.

[11] Thanks to Mae Ngai for corrections & suggestions. Don't hold her responsible for anything here, though.

--

Michael Lichter <lichter@ucla.edu>

UCLA Department of Sociology / Center for the Study of Urban Poverty











Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 02:53:04 -0600

From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 2-SEP-1996 02:00:40.77

[text with > > > = Radzilowski's critics] Michael Lichter writes:

>One of the difficulties in addressing Radzilowski's comments -- which is what I'm trying to build up to here-is that he seems to be putting out all of these criticisms at once, contradictory though they may be. For example: affirmative action is bad because it ignores merit, and it is also bad because merit is beside the point-we need to think about things like class. He also says that affirmative action is bad because it creates protected categories,and it is also >bad because it doesn't protect white ethnics, a point I will return to below.

I should clarify, since the discussion diverged. I oppose AA, personally, because it ignores merit. Indeed, it makes impossible any coherent standard of merit, which in the long run is bad for all groups. The question of Eastern and Southern European Americans and their relationship to affirmative action (which is especially problematic) was something I discussed in detail to try to explain how people could be

motivated by something other than racism in opposing AA. My remark that if Polish Americans were included in affirmative action my view might be different was offered in jest, but I think it indicates how much positions on AA are a function of political interests rather than the altruism claimed by some of its supporters. (The former being, in my opinion, a more honest defense of AA.)

Michael Lichter puts his finger right on the problem of these groups' opposition to AA when he writes:

>My understanding of the politics of resentment of which Radzilowski speaks has much more to do with a sense of entitlement than with a committment to the abstract principle of merit. It's about property rights in jobs, not about "may the best (wo)man win." Affirmative action programs in the Northern cities Radzilowski is concerned with attempted to break the stranglehold of white ethnics over the better-compensated craft and protective service jobs which were the mainstay of their prosperity. Only in municipal jobs, and particularly in the lower ranks of police forces, was there much success; surely it's clear how little progress was made in areas like construction, for either women or blacks.

>Despite the relatively meager progress in integrating these jobs, each inroad by a minority or woman is regarded as an offense against the order of things, where father passed job to son over the course of generations.

For a long period in US history these were *precisely* the jobs systematically denied to the "new" immigrants by craft unions controlled by native-born Americans and Northern and Western European immigrants. These jobs were the "birthright" that Eastern and Southern Europeans fought for in bloody struggle for decades in the labor movement. It is a basic human instinct to want to help your children. By asking "white ethnics" to not pass these jobs onto their children we are asking them to suspend this instinct. And for what? The upper middle-class Americans whose grand- parents and great grandparents had used these jobs as stepping stones by excluding the "new" immigrants were not being asked to give up

anything. I am certainly not claiming that East and South European Americans are free of racism, but it seems to me that their motivation in wanting to preserve their jobs and neighborhoods is based on something more than blind prejudice.

Michael Lichter is a little too quick to dismiss the historical consciousness of 3d or 4th generation immigrants. My research and that of others has shown that these "white ethnic" (again that term)

communities do indeed have a strong sense of history, although perhaps not articulated in the

way intellectuals would. (On this, see for example, Paul Wrobel, OUR WAY: FAMILY, PARISH, AND

NEIGHBORHOOD IN A POLISH-AMERICAN COMMUNITY [Notre Dame, 1979]; Thaddeus C. Radzialowski, "The View from a Polish Ghetto: Some Observations on the First One Hundred Years in Detroit," ETHNICITY 1, no. 2 (July 1974): 25-50; Idem, "Competition for Jobs and Racial Stereotypes: Poles and Blacks in Chicago," POLISH AMERICAN STUDIES 33, no. 2 (Autumn 1976): 5-18. See also the literature on the struggle with GM over Detroit's Poletown neighborhood.)

Obviously, the problem of economic competition has been worsened by the contraction in the number of high-wage semi-skilled work. I didn't mention this earlier since it seemed so obvious.

>Here in LA, the "prismatic metropolis" [7], it is difficult

to see that white ethnicity has any more salience than a person's choice of shampoos [8]. Interestingly, it is in the Southwest, where white ethnicity is generally not very important, that whites are most likely to be saddled with a label not of their own choosing: "Anglo" [8a].

I would argue that ethnicity in that region has changed form, not disappeared or become only as pertinent as a choice of shampoos. (On this see my "'The Other Side of Chicago':

The Poles of Arizona," POLISH AMERICAN STUDIES 52, no. 2 [Autumn 1995]: 5-20; and Phylis Cancilla Martinelli, ETHNICITY IN THE SUNBELT: ITALIAN AMERICAN MIGRANTS IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA [New York, 1989].)

>In any case, why is it particularly important to Radzilowski that the individuality of particular European-ancestry groups not be denied?

Aside from genocide, being consigned to oblivion is the worst fate that can befall any group. Oblivion seems to be in store for us should the multiculties have their way.

Human beings are collections of stories. Individuals make themselves out of the stories they themselves

and others. Families and personal relationships can be seen as shared sets of stories, renewed at each

gathering, meeting, or reunion. Certainly groups (nations, ethnic groups, etc.) are collections of shared stories (or myths or histories if you prefer). Amato points out quite rightly that stories of suffering and sacrifice are among the most important stories possessed by any group. Thus, to deny these stories their validity is to attack the group at it very core. As experiment some time, try mentioning to a Jewish American who lost family to the Nazis that learning about the Holocaust isn't really all that important

and that we should let the past go!

This is precisely the problem with AA and multi- culturalism. AA is to some degree less of a problem,

since it largely passive. Multiculturalism, however, by denying group existence, by denying that the

group's suffering and sacrifices have any meaning attacks the very heart of the group. It is very similar

to unearthing and defiling the bodies of the dead.

>If this were just a class issue, ethnic identies would be irrelevant.

Most East & South Europeans developed their senses of ethnic identity at a time when they were

consigned largely to the working class. Their developing sense of Italianess or Croatianness was intertwined with the creation a form of working class consciousness. (There are further levels of complexity to this, of course.)

>There are certainly reasons to reject "whiteness", but to reject the historical baggage (and culpability) that goes with whiteness without rejecting the privliges that accrue to that status is somehwat hypocritical. SE Europeans may not have invented whiteness, and they may not have embraced it without reservations, but embrace it they did, along with the rest of the American racial hierarchy, and it didn't take Roediger to figure this out.

It is obvious that they did embrace whiteness of some kind, as I've noted earlier. As I've indicated, they had little choice if they wanted to advance their children. Perhaps becoming "white" was proto-affirmative action. Perhaps, affirmative action is just new and more codified way to become "white" (which, after all,

has as much to do with income as skin color). ;-)

>This brings us back to multiculturalism, and the reluctance of its proponents to embrace European ethnicity. I think that multiculturalists rightly distrust attempts by whites to break themselves down into little groups which, apart from the nasty English, were all oppressed and bear no collective responsibility for the historical or present subordination of racial minorities.

And why shouldn't we attempt to do so? It is good, however, that people are starting to recognize that

multiculturalism is a political exercize and not about learning from and about other peoples. As

practiced on most college campuses, it isn't "multi" and it has nothing to do with culture.

>At the same time, multiculturalists do not, for the very reasons Radzilowski cites, want to push "white" as a cultural/ethnic identity, because that's KKK territory.

I wish this were the case. But I never heard of "white culture" until multiculturists starting using the term.

Language has power, right?

>I think that this is a real dilemma for multiculturalism, but that is very different from saying that "white" is a meaningless category.

White has little meaning because it cannot be defined in any coherent way that I'm aware of, certainly

not vis-a-vis the programs for which its use is so important.

>Relatedly, Radzilowski asks, as I have heard so many white (primarily male) students ask in the past: why should I pay for the sins of my fathers, or especially for sins that were committed before I had a single relative in this country? Why am I responsible for making things right, when these are things that I had no part in?

Not valid. I've heard plenty of female Eastern and Southern European voice the same concerns.

We are not asking to escape payment for the sins of our mothers and fathers. Or to avoid obligations

while taking advantage of the all "goodies." We just do not feel that we should pay for the sins of everyone else's mothers and fathers. Why should the grandchildren of the slave owners get off free to enjoy their

"ill-gotten gains" and leave us to foot the bill? We're still waiting for an answer.

John Radzilowski







Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 16:44:13 -0600

From: IN%"skjain@server.uwindsor.ca" "S Jain" 2-SEP-1996 10:15:08.95

Sub-subject: AA, Multiculturalism, etc.

In response to, and in support of Radzilowski's arguments, may I suggest the following two publications:

1. The History of U.S. Ethnic Policy and its Impact on European Ethnics by John Lescott-Leszczynski (Westview, 1984); and

2. Integration or Disintegration: Towards a Non-racist society by Ray Honeyford (The Claridge Press, 1988).

Both of these, in my opinion, are worth reading to undertsand the concerns of 'white' ethnics coming from the States and Britain respectively.

Sushil Jain







Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:15:13 -0600

From: IN%"mn53@columbia.edu" "Mae M. Ngai" 4-SEP-1996 22:10:42.26

John Radzilowski writes:

>I oppose AA, personally, because it ignores merit. Indeed, it makes impossible any coherent standard of merit, which in the long run is bad for all groups.

He goes on to elaborate why, in his opinion, the descendents of eastern and southern European immigrants "resent" affirmative action policies:

When eastern and southern European immigrants fought for access to better paying skilled jobs, then held exclusively by native-born Americans and northern and western Europeans, were they not asking the latter to "give up" their group, ethnic-based claims to those jobs? According to arguments made by critics of affirmative action for a "class approach," perhaps eastern and southern Europeans seeking justice should have targetted contemporary "elites," and not, say, Irish workers who, after all, came to this country in poverty and acted to protect their children's interest.

More to the point, I find troubling the notion that affiramative action demands that some people must "give up" jobs which are rightfully (through their history of struggle) and naturally (through human instinct) theirs, so that other people may have them (and undeservedly, because it is not based on merit). Let us examine this claim more closely. Exactly who is being asked to give up what? Affirmative action hiring/admissions policies do not require any white/male employee, college student, corporate manager, or law partner to *relinquish* their position so that position may be given to a person of color or a woman. That would be asking someone to give up something. Affirmative action says that preference should be given to certain populations in hiring, promotions, admissions, etc., in order to increase their representation in those fields. The positions targetted by affirmative action hiring policies are *vacant*, not yet filled, and therefore they do not belong to *anyone*, until they are filled.

That white ethnics presume these yet-to-be filled jobs "belong" to them is exactly the problem. The presumption (and practice) of *group* ownership to jobs that have not yet been created or filled constitutes hiring discrmination against all those outside the group. It is that pattern of ethnic, racial, and gender exclusivity in the building trades (which means that black people, latinos, women, etc. *no matter how qualified,* are kept out of those positions, so they may be reserved for the sons and other relatives of white ethnics, irrespective of qualification,) that affirmative action aims to break down. Affirmative action does not ignore merit; as Michael Lichter pointed out, the overwhelming majority of affirmative action placements are *qualified* candidates who would otherwise not be placed due to race and gender discrimination.

As Licther also noted, some people oppose preferential hiring and placement because "positive" discrimination is still discrimination. I don't agree with that view, but at least its logic is consistent. I do not understand, however, how one can oppose affirmative action because it is based on group claims and not on merit, yet, at the same time, defend racial and ethnic exclusivity in the crafts, a system of preferential hiring clearly based on group claims, not merit. It is suggested that to appreciate and respect the experience of oppression and struggle of eastern and southern European immigrants we should accept the discriminatory practices of their descendents. I'm sorry, past suffering and the future well-being of children don't make it any less discriminatory.

I agree that motivations are complex and are not due merely to "blind prejudice." That is the difficult thing about race. Whiteness is not a bad set of ideas that occasionally infect some people; it is rooted in, and perpetuates, material privilege. It does not preclude people from also having discrete ethnic identities, nor does it preclude their own histories of struggle. It also does not preclude people from being decent individuals. [Hey, some of my best friends... :)] And of course people want to help their chidlren-we all do.

Might we consider for a moment that many people of color would prefer that we not have affirmative action-because we would rather eliminate institutional discrimination and see everyone judged on merit-but, we often "feel we have little choice" if we "want to help our children," because even all the years of "bloody struggle" waged by our forbears have still not eradicated race discrimination.

I would suggest that it is precisely "whiteness" that generates the resentment felt by "white ethnics" toward affirmative action, as it is the presumption of entitlement to the privileges of whiteness that leads people to think that they are being asked to "give up" positions that they in fact do not have.

Sincerely,

Mae Ngai

Dept of History

Columbia Univ.

[note: there are some situations of downsizing and layoffs when affirmative action rules are used to supercede seniority. that is done because otherwise most, if not all, minorities/women, as the "last hired,"

would be let go. some might argue that in these situations, white/male workers are being asked to give up their positions. my remarks above are not intended to address AA in layoffs, but, rather, the main thrust of affirmative action-hiring, promotions, and admissions-which has been the focus of this thread. the issue of AA in layoffs is another matter which can be debated on its own terms. some proponents of AA in hiring do not support 'super-seniority' in layoffs because it does 'punish' individual white/male workers; others argue seniority is not sacrosanct but a socially constructed concept and system that is flawed by race.-mn]









Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:11:52 -0600

Re: Discussion on AA

It seems that the discussion so far (and I have missed some of it) fails to deal with the fact that AA is not only an issue for the working class, or public sector union employees, but also concerns the white upper class (or professional class) often self described as "middle-class" who have protected their business, law, medical, and other "fields" from the entry of those lacking "merit", or the monies to buy merit via suburban schools, college testing courses (ACT,SAT), private school tuition costs, LSAT,MCAT,GMAT,GRE exam prep courses, and the substantial cost of professional training. These upper class bastions of set asides based on the "ability to pay" have not been given the attention they deserve. Perhaps, reactionary populism is at root in the current debate over AA, but who are the leaders of the new anti-AA movement?

No one can doubt that the rich, and the professional classes protect class"positions" for their children and they do so via interconnected networks of elite educational and social institutions, and raw financial power. What of the upper class in this whole debate?

* Marc Simon Rodriguez Dept of History Northwestern University













Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:13:00 -0600

From: IN%"JRadzilow@aol.com" 6-SEP-1996 19:41:28.89

Marc Rodriguez wrote:

>No one can doubt that the rich, and the professional classes protect class "positions" for their children and they do so via interconnected networks of elite educational and social institutions, and raw financial power. What of the upper class in this whole debate?

This network of *private* institutions constitutes what Hunter S. Thompson once correctly described

as the second wing of segregation. It allows the wealthy to evade AA entirely. Why should they

fear what does not affect them?

Mae Ngai wrote:

>When eastern and southern European immigrants fought for access to better paying skilled jobs, then held exclusively by native-born Americans and northern and western Europeans, were they not asking the latter to "give up" their group, ethnic-based claims to those jobs?

Ethnic job competition is nothing new. The state's involvement in the competition is. The difference

made by the power of the state should be fairly obvious.

>More to the point, I find troubling the notion that affiramative action demands that some people must "give up" jobs which are rightfully (through their history of struggle) and naturally (through human instinct) theirs, so that other people may have them (and undeservedly, because it is not based on merit). Let us examine this claim more closely. Exactly who is being asked to give up what? Affirmative action hiring/admissions policies do not require any white/male employee, college student, corporate manager, or law partner to *relinquish* their position so that position may be given to a person of color or a woman. That would be asking someone to give up something. Affirmative action says that preference should be given to certain populations in hiring, promotions, admissions, etc., in order to increase their representation in those fields. The positions targetted by affirmative action hiring policies are *vacant*, not yet filled, and therefore they do not belong to *anyone*, until they are filled.

If we have two working class groups, one of which sees its interest in moving into a particular field or set (as groups clearly have done), and sacrifices to achieve that interest only to see the state intervene and give "preference" to the second group, the first group is clearly the loser.

>That white ethnics presume these yet-to-be filled jobs "belong" to them is exactly the problem. The presumption (and practice) of *group* ownership to jobs that have not yet been created or filled constitutes hiring discrmination against all those outside the group. It is that pattern of ethnic, racial, and gender exclusivity in the building trades (which means that black people, latinos, women, etc. *no matter how qualified,* are kept out of those positions, so they may be reserved for the sons and other relatives of white ethnics, irrespective of qualification,) that affirmative action aims to break down. Affirmative action does not ignore merit; as Michael Lichter pointed out, the overwhelming majority of affirmative action placements are *qualified* candidates who would otherwise not be placed due to race and gender discrimination.

But AA creates a "preference." Isn't that a form of discrimination?

>As Licther also noted, some people oppose preferential hiring and placement because "positive" discrimination is still discrimination. I don't agree with that view, but at least its logic is consistent. I do not understand, however, how one can oppose affirmative action because it is based on group claims and not on merit, yet, at the same time, defend racial and ethnic exclusivity in the crafts, a system of preferential hiring clearly based on group claims, not merit. It is suggested that to appreciate and respect the experience of oppression and struggle of eastern and southern European immigrants we should accept the discriminatory practices of their descendents.

I suggested nothing of the kind. This is a misreading of the discussion thread which was about whether or not eastern and southern European American workers are racist because they oppose affirmative action. As I've pointed out, this is not the case. They oppose AA for reasons other than racism. (Which is, of

course, not to say that they are free of racism, although I don't believe they are necessarily any less prejudiced than tenured college professors, just less adept at hiding it.)

I oppose preferences toward any group, even my own, since in the long run such programs harm

the "protected" group as much as the groups that are shut out.

>I'm sorry, past suffering and the future well-being of children don't make it any less discriminatory.

But does it make there actions more understandable as something other than racism?

It is interesting to see how perturbed some affirmative action supporters get when a comparison is made

between the informal system of preferences that benefitted working class groups in times past and the formal system of preferences established and enforced by the state for the benefit their pet groups.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for gander. Affirmative action supporters should explain why affirmative action, established to formally discriminate (or "prefer") in favor of some groups, is "positive," while an informal system occasionally used by eastern and southern Europeans to do exactly the same thing is "racist."

John Radzilowski