WulfCry Weblog

There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. It’s all discrimination.

Last year I volunteered as juror in a litigation clinic. The defendant was a black woman. Her counsel was also a black woman. During voir dire, plaintiff’s counsel asked if anyone had experienced discrimination. I looked around and noticed that several women and minorities were raising their hands. Not to be left out, I raised my hand too.

After addressing everyone else, counsel turned to me and asked me to explain. I said, “When I was in college, I had a 4.0 GPA. I decided to apply for a scholarship. In meeting with a financial aid advisor, she said, ‘Your academic record is impressive. If you were a woman or a minority, I could probably get your whole tuition paid. As it is, I have no scholarships for you.’” I wasn’t making it up.

To her credit, defendants counsel did not strike me for any reason. After the jury was selected, the professor asked for comments from other members in the class. One student said, “I’d have struck the bigot in the corner.” (indicating me). Huh. None of the other people who had answered the question were bigots. How odd.

More recently, I was up for a position as Editor-in-Chief of the law journal. After losing the election, I applied for a position on the new Senior Board. After my interview, the new Editor-in-Chief, another white male, said this:

“You are definitely very qualified. But I’m in a tough position. Since the last two Editors-in-Chief have been women, I really need a woman on the Senior Board. Unfortunately, the only women who have applied are applying for the same position you’re applying for. I’ll let you know what I decide.”

Naturally, the Senior Board will now be made of three white males, and one woman–in the position for which I applied. I won’t even bother telling you about her resume.

It seems so strange. Having been raised to be color-blind, I don’t understand how one form of discrimination is acceptable, but another is not. One sees echoes of this in the early Democratic Primaries: Women seemed to break for Clinton, Blacks seemed to break for Obama, but White Males did not overwhelmingly support John Edwards. (Although white males do appear to see religion, if not color and gender).

It just seems that today, socio-economic distinctions seem to play a much bigger role than gender or ethnicity in determining a person’s success. Whatever demographic distinctions there are between ethnicities seems to be a product of cultural priorities or disparity in education. Doesn’t it make more sense to spend our efforts in ensuring that all ethnic groups receive the same primary education rather than governmentally sponsoring a different form of discrimination. I’ll grant that there are remnants of the Glass Ceiling, but is continued discrimination really the answer for that? Perhaps I’m just bitter.

“[R]acial preferences may reflect ‘a desire to foster equality in society,’ [b]ut there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called “benign” discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government’s use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority . . . .”
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S., at 241, 115 S.Ct. 2097 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

Update: A Wall Street Journal Article notes that some research shows that affirmative action in law schools is actually hurting black would-be lawyers. Some affirmative action proponents are both criticizing his study and stonewalling him from conducting supplemental research to address their critiques. Hmmmm . . . .