Senator Webb in Wall Street Journal
Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) is both a student of history and an unapologetic free thinker -- two traits that immediately separate him from 90% of the people in elected office today.
As a Senator, he has been a leader on national issues such as the GI Bill for Iraq-Afghanistan vets and the reform of Federal criminal sentencing laws. In both cases, he took positions that were risky, even unpopular, for the sake of doing the right thing.
Yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal , he took on the ultimate verboten topic: Federal affirmative action programs, specifically those which require government contracts be given to "minority" (i.e. non-white) applicants. As a white man, he risked being called a "racist" by even addressing this subject. And surely some will misrepresent his message.
But he was right to do it. Because this discussion needs to be acknowledged (it's already happening) without the predictable name-calling which has already infected the illegal immigration debate.
Since the good Senator has raised this topic and I am now commenting upon it, I will confess the following: I am an ordinary white American male who was raised in a stable home by church-going and loving parents. I've had every advantage that comes with living in this great nation and am glad for it. Having said that, I note the following facts --
1. The Civil Rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's were passed to address a specific situation unique in American history, namely the enslavement of black Americans until the Civil War and the subsequent segregation laws which were used to treat them as second-class citizens. This situation is (and was) unique and there is no corollary to it -- although invariably other minority groups attempt to analogize themselves to that experience.
2. Because of slavery and segregation, there was a distinct impact on American society which has taken generations to unravel. That situation was recognized by laws passed in the latter 20th century which sought to remediate this discrimination by ensuring access to opportunities by the descendants of America's native African-American population.
3. Our world has changed radically (for the better) since those times. My parents grew up in a society that was still segregated. My mother attended an all-white high school in Alexandria in the late Fifties. By the time I entered the Fairfax City School system, we were fully integreated, although my high school was still 90% white. My children -- who are half-Korean by ethnicity -- now attend the City schools which are at least half minority. Their friends are of Asian, African and Middle Eastern descent. There is no connection with the segregated system of 50+ years ago.
4. The "minorities" that have come legally to the U.S. in the past generation from around the world are not poor and down-trodden. Nor are they victims of legal discrimination. In our area, they are highly-educated and motivated professionals who have sought the academic and career opportunities of America. (I say this being married to the daughter of such a family). It is an absurdity to conflate their legal situation with that of the Jim Crow era.
5. Thanks in part to this infusion of human capital, we increasingly achieve a "diversity" of outcome without any government manipulation. Look at our local schools: the valedictorian of the celebrated W.T. Woodson High School this year was of African descent -- and nobody noticed. Our magnet school (Thomas Jefferson) as well as the University of Virginia could have all their slots filled with qualified "minorities" without losing any academic ground. The U.S. Supreme Court is fully diverse, with the conspicuous exception of Protestants.
6. While America integreates, the whole concept of race is being changed before our eyes (See Obama, President Barack). Intermarriage among racial groups is not controversial -- it's not even noteworthy. In a mixed marriage, the concept of identifying yourself or your children as a "member" of one particular racial group becomes a case of self-selection -- nothing more. It should not form the basis of qualification for some government benefit.
Those are the positives. Now here are some realities from those of us (like me) who are not minorities:
1. Believe it or not, being "white" is not an automatic ticket to success (people of my age will remember the famous Eddie Murphy spoof on SNL years ago about the "white world" -- unfortunately it's not true). The majority of citizens on Medicaid and TANF are white. There are significant pockets of poverty in Virginia in communities which are completely white. Indeed, the lack of diversity is often a proxy for lack of jobs or investment. On average, white Virginians have average higher incomes than some minorities (blacks and Latins) and lower than others (Asians). It's a mix. (Okay, I will admit we dominate NASCAR).
2. As Senator Webb points out, the current contracting laws, which seek to benefit anyone who is "non-white" are built on a Civil Rights era platform where only blacks and whites existed in significant numbers -- and only whites had access to education or investment capital. The facts have changed but the laws have not. That has led led to bizarre outcomes where being a "Native Alaskan" is considered a great windfall (??), while working your way through school out of a trailer park means nothing. (side note -- I once had a client who could not bid on a Fed contract because he was "not a minority" -- he was an Afghani refugee who escaped the Communists and started his own successful business in Springfield).
3. The most statistically significant determinant of success in America is not race. It's the wealth and education of your parents, whether they are from Mumbai, Lagos or Peoria. Again, I say this being the product of a great parents, an advantage which I cannot duplicate except for my own kids.
Here, is my humble conclusion to all this ...
The Civil Rights laws had a distinct purpose which needs to be recovered -- the remediation of ills arising from America's history of slavery and segregation. The effects of that history is still apparent in this nation, yes in Virginia. That challenge is not over although this nation has made enormous strides. Separately, the use of Federal (and state) law to promote small business is critical, especially in Virginia which needs to open up its state contracting to more outside firms.
However, only favoring businesses which can prove they are "non-white" is simplistic and ultimately wrong. Similarly, there is no moral or historical reason to legally favor the children of immigrants over the children of existing residents --simply because the latter is white and the former is not. Again, that choice dilutes the moral clarity of the Civil Rights laws and ironically puts a burden on those who may need help the most.
We have seen two generations pass through without a serious discussion on the topic that Senator Webb has raised. It's going to happen very soon. When it does, I suggest that it occur without the inevitable cries of "racism" and with a clear eye towards the history of our people and the purposes for which these laws were intended.
"The most statistically significant determinant of success in America is not race. It's the wealth and education of your parents"
Chap, why do you imagine that parents' wealth and education have no statistical correlation to race?
BIH- Please think about that statement for a minute. If we made public policy on "statistical correlation" instead of actual need, imagine how much worse the government would be performing.
1. When a Negro man impregnates a White woman, and then, as is typical, leaves the poor wretch, the offspring are always SELF-identified as NEGRO, not White. These mulattoes, associate with Negroes, they talk in the Negro dialect, and they always go on to affiliate with the Negro community, economically and socially. In fact, aside from knocking-up another White woman, the mulatto male offspring, will generally have little contact with White society.
2. At several sites on the web it is reported that about forty-four million U.S. Whites live in poverty. This is bigger than the whole black or Hispanic populations. American blacks are now so prosperous that they would rank as the twentieth most wealthy nation on the planet. So Mr. Webb is dead wrong when he says that quota programs should be reserved for the so-called, "African Americans."
We need to tell the truth about race and not provide favoritism for anyone based on the arrangement of their chromosomes, or genes.
Every American can sense that our current system of race and gender-based quotas is flat-out wrong. Why doesn't Mr. Webb understand this fundamental concept of fairness?
How can anyone be so sure that their Dad or their Granddad did not get a job or go to a school that his black counterpart was prevented from?
So your Granddad send your Dad to college because he had that job that the black fellow could not get, in part, because he did not get a decent education because his school while separate was not equal?
The wealth of a family in this regard may not be a statistical "coincidence".
If your family ancestors benefited from racial discrimination then it's not unlikely that you also benefited.
Having said that - I support Webb's sentiments - it's time to move on.
I do not think it's the affirmative action folks that are holding us back - as much as it is the folks who continue to insist that this President is a racist.
and they were saying this before he was elected and right now - continue McCarthy style tactics to "ferret out" the "racists" he has supposedly hired and put into government.
Do we think this kind of thing is related to the affirmative action deal and that doing away with affirmative action will quell the perceptions that this President is a racist?
I am a vet with 5 degrees and over 30 years in the federal gov, I can attest that being an african-american or a woman is an advantage in the government. When my multi-racial children apply for jobs or college I will tell them to leave out that they are part white, just like our President.
just to be clear what Webb actually said:
" Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end."
" Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites."
Jim Webb differentiates those of color who are descendants of slaves and just those of 'color'.
He's dead on but we have a sound-bite culture now days that skips over the relevant parts of statements.
I disagree with your statements and Webb's. I find both opinions to be devoid of the reality that truly exists. I also believe that poor whites are still left out of the equation in Webb's rendition of how things should be, and that's because he mentioned zero specifics as to what he would do to assist poor whites, especially those in rural communities.
http://www.theloop21.com/politics/sen-jim-webb-preaching-civil-rights-dont-sound-right
I thought Webb was pretty specific:
" Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes."
Are we supposed to launch into studies to determine why we have poor whites, poor Hispanics and poor Asians, etc.. ??? and "adjust" with unique affirmative action policies for each group?
I think Webb was pretty clear in fact.
He weighed in on affirmative action for those who were not victims of slavery.
The stuff that is brought up in "The Loop" goes much further to ask, in fact, what about folks who live in poor rural circumstances and what the govt policies ought to be with them but that's a totally different, very real, but totally different issue and just because people live in economically depressed rural circumstances is not necessarily because of any overt policies of the government that provides more/better resources to those who do not live in economically poor rural circumstances.
If the idea is that because people of all stripes including whites who live in poor circumstances ..is the fault of govt and govt needs to fix it....
this would be legitimately debated in my view.
there is no law or even ethics that says that others who are not poor should be mandated to insure that the poor succeed.
That's a tall order.. and completely unrelated to what Webb was talking about in my view.
Hi Larry G,
I don't think poor whites living in rural areas is a different topic at all. Here in Virginia I would say it's a significant population and an example of one that Webb was referring to.
Furthermore, it's not about what government did to cause harm, it's about easing the overwhelming burden this population faces. Again, this is Webb's argument, not mine. However I do think that if Webb wants to help this population he can do so without dismantling diversity programs, but by focusing on increasing the resources in these rural areas.
since the affirmative action programs do not "help" poor whites to start with, why is removing these programs and more or less harmful to poor whites now than before?
I'm not suggesting that removing these diversity programs will hurt poor whites. I'm suggesting that focusing on the diversity programs and claiming they are the culprit is (1) ridiculous because it isn't the culprit; and (2) the focus should be on serving these poor white communities better. And the latter point is what Webb or Peterson never addressed.
Webb postulated that affirmative action was only appropriate for those who were victims of slavery and not any and all of "color" and that whites of all stripes may have been unfairly penalized when competing against people of 'color' without slave ancestry.
He did not address poor whites at all.
He did not intend to.
I don't think you can say that he erred in what he was trying to accomplish .. he did not intend for it to apply to particular groups of whites - just that whites in general should not be treated unfairly when competing against people of color - in general.
For you to say that he was wrong because he did not address poor whites.. doesn't make any sense any more or less than one might have claimed he should have focused on other 'poor' people - white or of color (as long as they were not slave descendants).
you're essentially criticizing web for not dealing with what you think should be the priorities but he did speak quite clearly on what he thought the priorities should be.
All I'm saying here is that he did do what he said and that you want him to address other issues that he did not.
I think you're wrong on a few accounts. Sure Webb didn't specifically say poor whites; he didn't have to. We all know high income or highly college-educated whites weren't the focus of his piece. Lower middle class and poor whites were. These are the populations that are seemingly disaffected by diversity programs.
What I'm criticizing Webb for is (1) reducing this issue to whites vs. non-whites; (2) offering zero way forward to actually add teeth to his argument; and (3) being plain wrong about what has caused the the circumstances of hardworking white Americans that haven't gotten their due.