Does affirmative action divide us or unite us? — with Glenn Loury (1995) | THINK TANK

Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. Affirmative action has taken center stage
in the current political debate. Now, is affirmative action necessary to correct
historical wrongs against minorities and women, or is it a racial and gender spoils system
that is dividing America? Where do we go from here? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
consensus are Glenn Loury, professor of economics at Boston University and author of “One
by One from the Inside Out”; Ronald Walters, chairman of the Political Science Department
at Howard University; Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author
of “Out of the Barrio: Towards a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation”; and Christopher
Edley Jr., professor at Harvard University School of Law, who recently headed President
Clinton’s task force on affirmative action. The topic before this house: Does affirmative
action divide us or unite us? This week on “Think Tank.” Affirmative action as now practiced is under
assault. Several recent Supreme Court decisions have
limited the extent of affirmative action. But last week, President Clinton weighed in
in favor of affirmative action, albeit with some Clinton-esque caveats, which will be
discussed later. Bill Clinton [from videotape]: If affirmative
action has worked and if there is evidence that discrimination still exists on a wide
scale in ways that are conscious and unconscious, then why should we get rid of it, as many
people are urging? We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but
don’t end it. But let me be clear: Affirmative action has
been good for America. [Applause.] Ben Wattenberg: The president’s speech sparked
reactions, both positive and negative. First, the Democrats. Mr. Clinton was praised by District of Columbia
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and by Jesse Jackson, sort of. Eleanor Holmes Norton [from videotape]: Bill
Clinton showed that he had the guts to stand up and lead the American people out of their
polarization. Jesse Jackson [National Rainbow Coalition,
from videotape]: Today he stuck his finger in the dike, but the floodwaters are rising. Ben Wattenberg: As for the Republicans, presidential
candidates Senator Majority Leader Bob Dole and California Governor Pete Wilson were not
impressed. Bob Dole [from videotape]: You do not cure
the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Pete Wilson [from videotape]: He says that
he is opposed to quotas, but favors preferences. They are — that’s a distinction without
a difference. Ben Wattenberg: Led by Governor Wilson, the
California Board of Regents, which oversees California’s state universities, rolled
back racial preferences for college admissions. The vote was met with angry protests led by
Jesse Jackson. According to most projections, if academic
achievement were the sole criterion used for admission, the number of black and Hispanic
students at the University of California at Berkeley would drop sharply, white students
would increase a bit, and the number of Asian students would go up dramatically. Lady and gentlemen, let us begin with one
quick go-around on this sort of elemental question. President Clinton said that affirmative action
has been good for America. Linda Chavez, is he right? Linda Chavez: I think he’s wrong because
affirmative action means racial preferences today, and that most decidedly has been bad
for America. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Ron Walters. Ronald Walters: I think certainly affirmative
action has been good. You really have to ask the people who have
benefited from it, the millions of women, the millions of minorities, and I think that
they would give you a resounding yes. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Glenn Loury. Glenn Loury: What’s been good for America
is the concern about racial inequality. There was a time when affirmative action,
I think, necessarily advanced that concern, but that time has passed. Ben Wattenberg: And Chris Edley. Christopher Edley: Well, I agree with what
Glenn said except for the last phrase. I don’t think the time is over. We still do need affirmative action. But that doesn’t mean it should be immune
from reform or that we shouldn’t fight abuses. Ben Wattenberg: All right, to those of you
— Linda, I guess, particularly — was affirmative action important and useful when it was originally
conceived? Linda Chavez: Well, the original intent of
affirmative action was to cast a wider net and to provide skills and training in order
to allow those who had been kept out in the past to be able to compete, to bring them
up to speed so that they could compete under the same rules and standards as everyone else. And I think it was very necessary. I think it was part of the whole change and
shift that took place, beginning in the 1960s, when we passed our nondiscrimination laws. The problem was that it did in fact modify
over the years, and by the time that President Nixon was in office, you had affirmative action
being turned into problems that granted preference on the basis of race, and it employed numerical
— numbers in order to try and essentially force employers and other sectors of our public
institutions to hire people by the number, to select people by race. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Right, wrong, what Linda says? Ronald Walters: Yes, I think she certainly
is wrong. I knew Sam Jackson, who was the first director
of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, and I remember talking — Ben Wattenberg: Now, Linda, you were staff
director of the — Linda Chavez: I was director of the Civil
Rights Commission under President Reagan. Ben Wattenberg: — of the Civil Rights Commission. Linda Chavez: Mm-hmm. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, I’m sorry. Go ahead, Ron. Ronald Walters: And I remember talking to
Sam, and he was commiserating that this first commission had very few teeth to do anything
and that the first time he got a chance, he was going to go back to Congress to see if
they couldn’t get it. So I’m happy that a Republican president,
Nixon, came along and said, “Well, we have a principle in Title XII. What we need is an implementation mechanism.” And if you hadn’t had successive presidents
to issue executive orders and to do those kinds of things to actually make it work,
it would have been very similar to what we have in Brazil, a principle which really would
be meaningless. Ben Wattenberg: Glenn. Glenn Loury: Well, I think there are a couple
of things here. One is to distinguish between antidiscrimination
enforcement efforts, which sometimes of necessity, in my opinion, require attention to numerical
information, on the one hand, and “every group deserves their proportionate piece of
the pie” thinking, which is clearly what’s behind the set-aside of government procurement
to businesses identified by the color or the sex of the people who own a majority interest
in them. It has become quite divisive and costly — costly
politically, costly to the interests of African Americans, and I think costly to this Democratic
president, as he’s going to learn in due course. Ben Wattenberg: All right, speaking of this
Democratic president, he too has dealt with these criteria and the nuances. Let’s just cut for a moment to one more
bite of President Clinton’s recent speech, and then let’s talk about that. Bill Clinton [from videotape]: Today I am
directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision and
also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that
I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice. No illegal discrimination of any kind, including
reverse discrimination. No preference for people who are not qualified. Any program that doesn’t meet these four
principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them. Ben Wattenberg: Chris Edley, let me ask you
a question, because so much of this whole discussion and argument going on about affirmative
action in the country is in how you define various terms. Suppose this very speech was delivered by
Governor Wilson or by Bob Dole or by Pat Buchanan, the same speech. Would you fear for the continued use of affirmative
action? Christopher Edley: That’s a great question. Ben Wattenberg: Thank you. Thank you. Christopher Edley: No, really, it is. And I think — let me answer it this way. I’ve been asked by some reporters and talk
show callers in the days of this speech to try to elaborate some a little on at least
my understanding of what the president has in mind. When he says, for example, a program should
end or be reformed if it creates reverse discrimination, the question is: What does he mean by reverse
discrimination? Ben Wattenberg: And what does he mean by ending? Christopher Edley: Right. What he means by reverse discrimination is
essentially the same test that the Supreme Court discussed in the Adarand case, so that
there is built into that, sort of incorporated by reference, this issue of justification
— for example, is there a predicate of prior discrimination — as well as narrow tailoring. The difficulty with some of the harsh opponents
of affirmative action is that they are not where seven out of nine justices of the Supreme
Court are on the issue, but they are instead where Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia are
— namely, feeling that any kind of distinction based on race is constitutionally prohibited,
rather than recognizing that there are some distinctions that may be critical, at least
for remedial purposes, and possibly for purposes of inclusion as well. Linda Chavez: One of the things I find myself
frustrated about whenever these discussions begin is that we talk in very theoretical
terms. We have some real knowledge about how these
programs work in specific institutions. The University of California at Berkeley,
for example, has had an affirmative action program in place for many years. Now, the original University of California
system of quotas was in fact struck down by the Bakke decision back in the late 1970s. And since then, they’ve moved towards a
diversity standard, taking into account Bakke and saying that they could in fact make race
a factor in selection. How is that operated? Well, I’ll tell you how it’s operated. At Cal, you have students who are Asians who
are being admitted — Ben Wattenberg: At Cal meaning? Linda Chavez: University of California at
Berkeley. Ben Wattenberg: Right. Linda Chavez: — are admitted with SAT scores
that are 300 points higher than those black students who are admitted under affirmative
action programs. Moreover, the Asian students have to have
a grade point average which is half a point higher. They come in with a 3.9 average; black students
come in with a 3.4 average. And there are similar disparities between
whites and Hispanics. Hispanics are midway, sort of, between where
whites and blacks are on this scale. What that means is that we are applying double
standards, and those double standards are being applied on the basis of race. Ronald Walters: I think what you’ve got
here really, though, when you look at this at the end of the day, these four principles
when applied probably would mean that there would be very few of these programs eliminated
because there are no quotas, and on and on and on and on. Linda Chavez: That’s right. Ronald Walters: So I think that what the president
has done is to set out a standard which meets the public dialogue and the problems that
the public has with these programs. But at the end of the day, these programs
are going to stand. With respect to the California system, I think
what we — she talks about, this has created sort of a problem of double standard. There is no university in the United States
that admits strictly on the basis of these scores because universities have different
objectives. Ben Wattenberg: Neither would the University
of California under the Wilson standard. Ronald Walters: Absolutely. Ben Wattenberg: You’d still have about 50
percent of the people, 40 percent — Ronald Walters: Right, absolutely. Ben Wattenberg: Right. Ronald Walters: So this is not a situation
where the objectives of universities and looking at the diversity of their student bodies can
be achieved simply by reference to these scores. Linda Chavez: But, Ron — Ronald Walters: There are superordinate objectives
here in American higher education, and I think we ought to keep that in mind. Linda Chavez: But, Ron, let me just make one
more point. The distinction is that we ought to have one
set of rules, and it ought to apply to all persons without regard to their race, their
color, or their gender. And if the university wants to take into account
other things, including socioeconomic conditions — Ronald Walters: Which it does. Linda Chavez: — I think that’s fine. Ronald Walters: Which it does. Linda Chavez: But it ought to be the same
rules, and race and color and gender ought not to be the basis for different rules and
double standards. Ben Wattenberg: All right, let’s bring Boston
into it. Glenn Loury: I want to say something here. Ben Wattenberg: Let Boston give a shot here. Glenn Loury: I think the problem here is that
we’re not being entirely honest about what’s at stake. From my point of view, some concern for racial
diversity in a college class is a legitimate interest of the institution. Christopher Edley: Hallelujah. Glenn Loury: If they were going to have zero
black, Hispanic, or one-half of 1 percent at Berkeley if they went strictly by test
scores, so they said, “We can’t live with that because we’re really doing a disservice
to our students by constituting a community so unreflective of the world in which they’ll
have to function.” I would regard that as a reasonable statement. Now, the question becomes this: What price
will I pay to indulge my legitimate interest in diversity in terms of a disparity in the
measures of academic ability of the students that I admit? Fifty points on an SAT when the average score
is 1200 is a reasonable price to pay. That’s comparable to the price that universities
pay in order to indulge the sons and daughters of alumni in their admissions process, in
order to ensure that they get geographic diversity, that they recruit athletes and musically talented
youngsters into their communities. Why not also that degree of indulgence after
the legitimate interests of racial and ethnic diversity? Two hundred and fifty, 300 points, that’s
too big. Ben Wattenberg: And that’s what it is now,
according to — Glenn Loury: That’s what it is, and if you
indulged a 50-point difference, you might end up with 4 percent instead of 10 percent
minority in a class. We can live with that, and you’ve still
got some diversity. Ben Wattenberg: Let me be the skunk at the
garden party here, and bring up the “p” word, which is politics. Now, the president said in the middle of his
speech that it’s just dreadful to play politics with this, and one paragraph later, he was
there pounding on the Republicans for being bad guys and starving children and whatever. Ron Walters, you used to be an adviser to
Reverend Jesse Jackson. Now, inside this particular beltway, as people
look at the political spin of this particular speech, they are saying that what the president
really was doing politically was to freeze Jesse, which is to say, “I’m going to
come out with a speech that everybody is going to interpret to be very much pro–affirmative
action. That takes Jesse Jackson’s issue away from
him. He cannot — should not — would not start
a third party to run against me, which would ensure the election of Pete Wilson or Robert
Dole or whoever.” True or not true? Ronald Walters: Well, I think that Jesse may
be thawing, but he’s certainly not frozen. [Laughter.] I think — because when you look at some
of the problems, I think, that he has with the administration, I think they’re valid. As we sit, we are just about to go in the
1996 elections. We still don’t have an urban policy of any
dimension. When you look at the nature of his crime bill,
it’s still a “lock ’em up, throw ’em away, build prisons, a hundred thousand police
on the street, lock ’em up.” Ben Wattenberg: All things I approve of. Ronald Walters: All of the things that you
approve of, yes. Ben Wattenberg: Right. Ronald Walters: And so it really does sound
kind of “Republocrat.” And so I think that what we really do need
is a Democrat in the White House who respects the political coalition that elected him,
and I don’t think we’re quite there yet with this president. And so I think the viability of that party
option is still very real. Ben Wattenberg: I see Chris in Boston is smiling. Now, you wrote a piece in the Outlook section
that said heaven forfend that there was any politics whatsoever involved in the actual
creation of the report. And if you said it, I’m sure it’s true,
but would you say that, the report notwithstanding, this particular White House was particularly
attuned to the political impact? Christopher Edley: Not true. Well, what do you mean “attuned to the political
impact”? I mean, do people pay attention to politics? Of course. But do — were political calculations at
work in crafting the policy or the report? The answer to that is — Ben Wattenberg: Or the speech? Christopher Edley: Or the speech? The answer is no. What was at work, I think, was — I know
— was moral calculation, not political calculation. What was at work was a sense that unless the
president could speak clearly about this issue, it would be impossible to try to lead the
national conversation. Ben Wattenberg: Then why was he — Christopher Edley: I must say, Ben, you disappoint
me deeply. Ben Wattenberg: Well — Christopher Edley: I mean, I think — I know
inside the Beltway, I understand that it’s a one-industry town, but — but — and I
know it’s more difficult to talk about what’s right and wrong versus who’s up and who’s
down, but — Ben Wattenberg: Well, we just did talk about
what’s right and wrong. But — Christopher Edley: [Laughter.] Oh, we settled that. Ben Wattenberg: But a couple of months ago,
the spin coming from the White House is, boy, we are really going to reform affirmative
action, and the angry white male and all that kind of stuff. And then there were all the stories of the
Congressional Black Caucus and the civil rights community coming in and banging up on President
Clinton’s head. And then out comes his speech, and you’re
saying no relationship. Christopher Edley: No, look. What — first of all, the spin was misreported. None of the people, the handful of people
who were meeting week in and week out with the president and the vice president discussing
this policy, formulating the report, were sitting around in the Oval Office discussing
polls or focus groups or who the Republican nominee is going to be or what Jesse Jackson’s
reaction’s going to be. Ben Wattenberg: No, that’s what Richard
Morris was doing after you left — [laughter] — with the president. Christopher Edley: Look, it’s — the fact
of the matter is, for exactly the reason that you pundits like to talk about the politics
so much, the politics is indeterminate here. The arrows point in every direction. It’s a waste of time. Glenn Loury: Ben — Linda Chavez: Ben, I have to tell you, I think
that Chris Edley’s motives were absolutely pure. I think Bill Clinton played an almost Machiavellian
role here. I think the speech a couple months ago, basically
dangling out the prospect that he was going to take away these programs, was done to make
people nervous. And then he put Chris Edley in charge and
others in charge who were very much pro–affirmative action. He knew exactly where he wanted to end up. And what he did was he had all of the civil
rights community very nervous and now very beholden to him because he saved their program. Christopher Edley: But it was the right thing
to do. Everybody was nervous because we were asking
at the president’s insistence hard questions, and they were the right questions. Linda Chavez: A majority of Americans don’t
agree with you. Christopher Edley: But the answers are what
they are. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, hold on. Glenn Loury: The political problems that Jesse
Jackson has and that Ron Walters has with Bill Clinton are really not problems with
Bill Clinton. They’re problems with the American people. I think the president probably will pay a
political price for what he has done in the general election, although he probably got
some political benefit out of it in terms of shorter-term Democratic Party politics
calculation. But the bottom line here is that affirmative
action is unpopular. Pete Wilson has got an issue. I would much rather be in his position as
a political operative than in the position of trying to paint him as a demagogue for
using the issue, when in fact most people agree with him on the fundamentals here. Ben Wattenberg: Now, as the ranking Machiavellian
here, let me give you one more twist on this, which is as follows. Everything plays out as you all just said,
and then about a year from now or nine months from now or 13 months from now, when you get
into the general campaign, particularly if Reverend Jackson is not in the race, at that
point, President Clinton pulls out these four points. He says, “Remember, I was going to police
this stuff, and I have eliminated more phony-baloney affirmative action. You should have seen what Reagan and Bush
— when Linda Chavez was in the Civil Rights Office — you should see the abuses that
they allowed, and I am the guy who cleaned up affirmative action.” That — how does that ring for some politics? Ronald Walters: Well, I think one of the reasons
why some of us — Ben Wattenberg: And then you’re going to
cry betrayal. Ronald Walters: I am going to cry betrayal,
and that’s one of the reasons why I’m not dancing in the street — [laughter] — because
this is more than a one-issue proposition. It’s beyond one speech. I want to look and see what the White House
does with these four principles. I want to see what the agencies do at his
direction with these programs, so we’ve got a long way to go before even the affirmative
action chapter is over. Linda Chavez: If Bill Clinton — Glenn Loury: Can I make a point here, Ben? Ben Wattenberg: Wait one second. Let Linda go. Linda Chavez: If Bill Clinton wants to move
to my right on this issue, I will move over and give him room. [Laughter.] I’d be happy to have him there. Glenn Loury: We’re talking only about the
presidential politics. What about the politics of the interests of
poor black people? I think those interests have been very poorly
served by what amounts to deal-making on behalf of an elite black business class who want
to keep their sine cure with the federal government’s trough, and who in doing so are alienating
the possibility of any kind of cooperation on behalf of issues that affect the basic
livelihood and lives of work-a-day black folk. Christopher Edley: Well, you know, that analysis
is a little bit stale for two reasons. Number one, with regard to the contracting
and minority businesses and so forth, the Supreme Court has spoken. It is now constitutionally impermissible for
these programs, if they ever were racial spoils, proportionality — if they ever were that,
you know, which can be sharply disputed, that is now constitutionally impermissible. These programs must meet a constitutional
test that requires that they can only exist where there has been and where there continues
to be discrimination and that the programs have to be narrowly tailored. Those programs are remedial; they are not
racial spoils. Ben Wattenberg: Let’s just stay in Boston
because I don’t — Glenn Loury: That’s double talk because
when that — Christopher Edley: No, it is not double talk,
Glenn. [inaudible] Glenn Loury: — because when that Richmond
decision came down, every town that wanted to give business to black people went out
and hired a consulting firm, sometimes the same firm in Atlanta, Georgia, to prove that
they had been discriminating all along so that now they could hand out their sine cure
to the people that they wanted to give it to. Christopher Edley: But, Glenn — Glenn Loury: That’s hokum. It’s a shell game. Christopher Edley: No, Glenn — Ben Wattenberg: Glenn, let him — Christopher Edley: — that’s embarrassing. You’re a social scientist. They hired social scientists, like Ray Marshall,
like Andy Brimmer, who went out and did studies that are as thick as telephone books, that
did the econometrics, that did the statistics, that did depositions, to try to create a factual
predicate that could be examined by — Ben Wattenberg: All right, all right. Glenn Loury: But they knew the answer they
wanted to get before they started. Ben Wattenberg: Hold on for one minute. Christopher Edley: — that could be examined
by a federal jury. Glenn Loury: They knew the answer they wanted
to get before they started. Ben Wattenberg: Hang on, guys up in Boston. Christopher Edley: But that’s tested in
court. Ben Wattenberg: Hold on one minute. I have just appointed each of you president,
Congress, and Supreme Court. It’s your call. You are dictator for the next 10 years. What would you do about this situation, Chris
Edley? Christopher Edley: I think the president has
charted the right course. It’s a course that says we have to continue
to make progress, use race, ethnicity, gender where needed, use it carefully. But most importantly, I think the need is
to try to have a discussion that grapples with the heart of the issues, that focuses
on the facts, not on the politics, that recognizes that there are moral conflicts here that have
to be balanced delicately. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, President Loury, your
turn. Glenn Loury: Well, we get rid of the preferences
in the main, with very few exceptions. Christopher Edley: What’s a preference? Ben Wattenberg: Now, let him finish. Glenn Loury: We focus attention on the development
of basic skills and human capacities in the disadvantaged population. We end this stuff about immigrants. Immigrants are not eligible for affirmative
action. We kill off the preferential treatment for
women — makes no sense in the contemporary social context. We invest in K–12 education. We invest in community colleges. And we enforce the antidiscrimination laws
vigorously. But we back way off. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, President Chavez, yeah. Linda Chavez: First of all, I would go back
to the original language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says, “It will be illegal
to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex.” And it also said, “Nothing in this act shall
require preference on those bases either.” That would be my nondiscrimination policy. Then I would spend a lot of money and a lot
of effort to try to improve education K–12, so the kids who go to school in barrios and
inner cities across America have a chance to compete on the same standards as everyone
else. Ben Wattenberg: President Walters — how
does that sound, “President Walters”? It’s got a nice ring to it. Ronald Walters: It does have a very good ring
to it. I would not confuse the things that have gone
wrong with affirmative action, such as firms that are not truly minority firms. I would prosecute those to the limit of the
law. They are fraud, not affirmative action. So I — yes, I would reform it, and I’d
take the problems out of it. But I certainly at the end of the day think
we need some regime. Americans have not been kind, I think, in
this area. We are notable yet to depend upon the volunteerism
of our institutions. So we still need something. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Well, I want to thank our four presidents. In Boston, Glenn Loury and Christopher Edley
Jr. Here in Washington, Ron Walters and Linda
Chavez. And thank you. Please send your questions and comments to
New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW Washington, DC, 20036. We can be reached via email at [email protected] And do check out our new home page on the
World Wide Web at For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

13 Responses

  1. Rensune says:

    After decades of it, the results are crystal clear: "affirmative" action Increases Bigotry.

  2. Faith Hope & Love says:

    The reality of the day absolves race by Americans support of Obama. He affirmed support of terrorists and dissolving police, second amendment rights, Obama Supported Alt sex, alt life, and alt agendas that are not acceptable. Never will be acceptable by those seeking recognition of their anti norm, and never acceptance by us the majority of people whom are not aligned with any poly party.

    In Western European political science, the term polyarchy (poly "many", arkhe "rule")[1] was used by Robert Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy.[2]
    This form of government was first implemented in the United States and
    France and was gradually adopted by many other countries. According to
    Dahl, the fundamental democratic principle is “the continuing
    responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens,
    considered as political equals” with unimpaired opportunities.[2] A polyarchy is a state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.[3][4]

    In semblance, the word polycracy describes the same form of government,[5] although from a slightly different premise: a polycracy is a state ruled by more than one person, as opposed to a monocracy. The word is derived from Greek poly which means "many" and kratos which means "rule" or "strength.

  3. Andrew Hoff says:

    Affirmative action is LITERAL INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. Change my mind.

    Blacks and hispanics do not perform as well in school because of persistent sociocultural issues within those groups. Overall, racism NO LONGER poses an inherent problem to black people. The fatherlessness crisis that is currently embodying the structure of our civilization is the issue at the heart of our society’s collective degradation, and that effect is even more pronounced in the black and hispanic demographic groups.

    They don’t want you to THINK about that though. They just want you to FEEL and then ACT. Who’s they? The people in the screen🤡

  4. T Clark says:

    25 more years…lol.

  5. Gee Willickers says:

    It's meant to punish and reward, not unite or divide. It's based on envy (euphemistically "equality" of outcomes, rather than equality of opportunity), just like everything the left does. I know when I see a black person at Harvard, they didn't earn it. And everyone else knows too, even the black person knows. That's not helping him, and it's not helping society.

  6. Simon Grey says:

    Well, at least leftist talking points havent changed.
    "Despite women and minorities receiving exponentially growing preference in every aspect of life, they are still oppressed, therefore affirmative action is justified. And despite the fact that their productivity is low, it is good for America…somehow(it doesnt)." Its like giving lazy person more and more money, with expectation that at some point that person will decide to get an education(o just a job) and become a productive member of society, rather than continue wasting this money on hookers and booze.
    This crap has been going on for decades – where are positives of it ? It costs an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars – where are benefits from it ? Hiring people, who are less productive, is somehow good for economy ?!!?! Admitting into uni people of lower intelligence is somehow beneficial for society ?!?!?! Where, where are those benefits ? Its endless talk talk talk and an equally endless stream of taxpayer money swallowed by this bottomless black hole, with zero measurable benefits to society as a whole.
    Whole idea is based on nothing more but circular logical fallacy of "affirmative action is good because affirmative action is good".
    Not one of those who defended affirmative action made any argument why it is needed in the first place, in this day and age. Its a constant for them. It is necessary by default, rather than being something that serves any practical purpose. Those people seem to have rather serious issues with logic.
    All i see is benefit to few, at expense of many. That in turn rises anonymity between groups and literally decimates social cohesion, as different groups fight for what they perceive to be theirs. As there are more takers, thanks to victimhood narratives(youre a woman, therefore you deserve…, youre black, therefore you deserve…, youre gay…, youre trans…, youre illegal immigrant…), than producers(youre a white middle-aged blue collar man, fuck you).

  7. thebatmanover9000 says:

    I have worked jobs where turnouts for minority applicants where low. How would this work for those businesses?

  8. SAM chandler says:

    I am jealous. The caliber of the speakers on all sides is so high here, its makes today's leadership look dysfuctional and dim. Look at the different races and sides taking on others opinions and addressing them intellectually, succinctly, even sharing a laugh.
    I dont think this could happen now

  9. peter van says:

    Yesterday (Sunday) I went to a large hardware store which is part of the largest chain in my country.
    I saw a multitude of female employees and just one male one (who was manning the gate).
    The item I was after, was labelled a "restricted item", which means it had to be ordered in.
    First I had to wait till two ladies finished their conversation (about a minute) before one of them turned to me. As she tried hard, but failed to understand what I was after, or how to order it (Right Angle Flashing 100 x 100 and Roll Top Ridge Capping as well as corrugated metal roofing) the other lady kept piping up with irrelevant information in which isle such things might be found.
    Eventually I was sent to another desk at the other side of this very large building, where the same lack of knowledge was displayed by two other ladies, before being sent back to the first desk, where a fifth female employee was waiting to have a go at it.
    After another fruitless 15 minutes I decided to try my luck at another branch of this store in a different suburb.
    Again, female employees galore. The only two males I saw were operating a forklift.
    4 female employees at an Information desk, Trade desk, and Order desk later, I finally struck gold.
    Again a female, but this one knew what she was doing.
    Within minutes my order was put through.
    It reminded me of that joke "how many employees does it take to change a light bulb". In my case 9 (and a trip across town).

    All my previous experiences with male employees at this hardware store is that they know what they are talking about, or in the rare event that they don't, they know exactly the person who does.

    I'm all for equality, but none of those 9 women, bar one, is equal to the men who work there.
    If that makes me a chauvinist, then so be it.

    In addition, on previous occasions when being "helped" by women at that hardware store, on 2 occasions they thought their phone was more important than their customer, on 1 occasion the lady at the register took of as I approached, and on another occasion a lady at a register had to be told (by a male employee) to help me (a waiting customer) first, before taking off to respond to another later request.

  10. Bob Ross says:

    Divides us. It gives an unfair advantage to people who didn’t earn it.

  11. Anti-whyte Big-o-tree Hunter LLC. says:

    Liz Warren used her “Native American” privilege to enter Harvard.

    I’m still waiting for my white privilege check.

  12. CrAsh says:

    Affirmative action is just like the Special Olympics. Wins the race even though they stood in place.

  13. Lucas says:

    Keep up the good work! You need more views! Do you know of smzeus . c o m?! You should use it to promote your videos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *