It really is too bad that in this country an accident of birth can get you preferential treatment and cushy jobs, when we should be building the kind of color-blind meritocracy that would exist if we eliminated racial considerations from college admissions.
« War Spending | Main | Must-See Fake TV »
Preferences
01 Aug 2008 12:23 pm
Comments (30)
Luke Russert has been filling in for Tony Reali this week on Pardon the Interruption. I guess he's OK, but he's definitely no Stat Boy.
I've seen him on Pardon the Interruption this week. Apparently, he's an intern at ESPN. He should stay there.
Eliminated? You mean like, totally eliminated?
Because it's my impression that minorities still have a lot of problems with glass ceilings in a lot of the better professions (like working as lawyers at law firms, etc.) and affirmative action is something that's pulling black people out of lower economic rungs which in turn leads to a color blind society-- more people who need a push (but who are talented people) to become successful get it and then in all sorts of ways the success of these people improves the ability of a new generation of black people to belong to a new social class.
It always amazes me that people miss MY's sarcasm as frequently as they do.
It always amazes me that people miss MY's sarcasm as frequently as they do.
A lot of people are unexpectedly towing conservative lines lately, and it's not just a rash of newly-stylish sarcasm. If Matt really didn't mean it, then think of me as just making sure he makes himself clear enough.
Oddly enough, it's not difficult to imagine a "Luke Gumbel" getting a job under similar highly suspicious circumstances. As we all know, entertainment executives put their agendas before whether someone makes money. That's how Hollywood works, as MattY knows.
P.S. MattY's getting into ThinkProgress shape by trmming 2 seconds off the amount of time he thinks posts through. By the time he gets there, he'll be down to an average of 5 seconds thought time per post.
Clicking the link might have clarified things for you, Swan.
I have to agree with TLB. You're linking to a story that has nothing to do with race-based hiring. Luke is getting a job based on his dad being famous and well-connected. Oh, and he's rich, too. This is a story for just the kind of status-based (as opposed to race-based) admissions and hiring program that a lot of AA-opponents think would better serve the goals of the program.
I think Matt's just in a bad mood today, between this and the overreaction to the LibertyWire (which doesn't sound at all like a conservative echo chamber, thanks).
Unfortunately, most Americans don't resent legacy-based affirmative action. They're working as hard as they can to get themselves into a situation where they have will have some status and legacy their kids can take advantage of.
The point isn't that some elite minorities can position their children similarly to Luke Russert. It's that legacy-based system is so large and pervasive that it would take generations of minorities benefitting through equal opportunities and affirmative action before we approach anything resembling a meritocracy.
I went to a pretty good school and even there success post college had as much to do with who your parents were as how you did in class. The kids who had rich/well-connected parents entered immediately into good jobs in the careers of their choice. The rest had to go to graduate school or try and work their way up the ladder, and that's after having received the benefit of affirmative action by getting into school.
I'm all for eliminating racial considerations from college admissions; as soon as those colleges also eliminate preferential treatment for legacies, prep schoolers and "development cases".
It's that legacy-based system is so large and pervasive that it would take generations of minorities benefitting through equal opportunities and affirmative action before we approach anything resembling a meritocracy.
But of course, that wouldn't be "meritocracy". You'd have a system where the well-connected had a roughly similar racial breakdown as the general population, but the kids of the well-connected will always have an advantage. The question is what happens to the people who are not well-connected? I doubt the Russert family has any opposition to affirmative action; it's poor white people who have a right to be disgruntled that poor minorities get special advantages over them just because the rich in this country -- most of whom would have nothing to do with poor people of any color -- happen to be white.
it is always amazing - and amusing - to see white folks tie themselves into knots trying to justify legacy-based preferences while still decrying race-based affirmative action.
by any logical measure, the idea of providing someone who was already advantaged by virtue of wealth or family connections further advantages makes no sense.
unfortunately, most white folks have no problem with continuing such a system, as they hope, as someone noted already, that somehow, one day, they or their children will be able to take advantage of such a system.
the argument that affirmative action offends the meritocracy that moves america forward is one of the biggest jokes that gets perpetuated by the mainstream media.
every once in a while - as with the luke russert gig - something happens that illustrates that fact as plainly as could be.
Don't hate on young Luke (the force is definitely with him). I saw him on the Today show not 48 hours after his father died and I found him uniquely poised, articulate and good-humored. He might actually be good at this.
The problem -- or one of them -- is that beneficiaries of any kind of preferences (legacy, race, whatever) have to carry around the insecurity of wondering if they really deserve to be where they are.
I actually think being the kid of someone that famous would be a somewhat miserable existence. Materially awesome; emotionally and psychologically not so much. I actually have a quasi-famous parent (not Tim Russert-famous, more like Matt Yglesias-famous). In other words not famous enough to set me up for life but famous enough to lead to occasional feelings of inadequacy.
It's that legacy-based system is so large and pervasive that it would take generations of minorities benefitting through equal opportunities and affirmative action before we approach anything resembling a meritocracy.
Yes. And ultimately of course what Matt's getting at is the hypocrisy. The meritocracy is a fraud. Piss on affirmative action if you like, but then reserve some outrage for, well, for George W. Bush even sniffing the leadership of the free world.
Weren't there facebook pictures of young Luke a couple years back in a hot tub, looking like a monumental douchebag? Or am I confusing him with some other news celebrity offspring?
Re: right's comments:
Fine, let's throw "poor white folk" into the affirmative action mix. Shouldn't be too hard to tweak the formula to include them. The problem is, Republicans/Conservatives/Whatever wouldn't want that either because that would 1) be admitting that the playing field is, in fact, not level for the population as a whole, 2) eliminate a wedge issue to play off poor whites and blacks against each other, and 3) actually get more disadvantaged students of ALL colors into college which would turn them into high-information voters who, based on their backgrounds, would be more likely to vote Democratic. Probably more reasons, just mentioning 3.
The problem is, Republicans/Conservatives/Whatever wouldn't want that either because that would 1) be admitting that the playing field is, in fact, not level for the population as a whole, 2) eliminate a wedge issue to play off poor whites and blacks against each other, and 3) actually get more disadvantaged students of ALL colors into college which would turn them into high-information voters who, based on their backgrounds, would be more likely to vote Democratic. Probably more reasons, just mentioning 3.
If by "Republicans/Conservatives/Whatever" you mean the party establishment, I agree with you almost completely -- they lose a key wedge issue and most of them are rich, well-connected white guys themselves. However, I think a significant number of Republican voters would find class- or economic-based affirmative action quite appealing.
Not sure I agree with you on #3 since that would be offset by the fact that (a) Democrats would no longer have race-based affirmative action as an issue to win minority votes, and (b) you would be making minorities wealthy voters, who would be more likely to vote Republican.
But this is the crux of the overall issue: in this day and age the big inequality in opportunity is not race-based anymore (although that still exists); it's wealth-based. Neither Republicans pretending everything's dandy nor Democrats clinging to race-based policies are addressing the real problems of today.
I was actually an RA while a grad student at BC, and while I never met the kid myself, I heard a few times that he was an entitled brat who provided constant headaches, and really got away with murder. Glad to see he's been able to pick himself up by the bootstraps and overcome so much adversity.
right:
Very thoughtful post. I was prepared to say something similar, but you said it better. You're last comment (re: race inequality v. wealth inequality) raises some issues. I think a lot of people would point to the over-representation of minorities in the poverty class to argue that (1) the issues are linked, and (2) that race-based inequality is far from over.
And to a large extent, this analysis is true. But I think from a policy perspective, it might be helpful to point out that if you're going to try to equalize opportunity to succeed, there is no principled reason to exclude under-privileged whites. Whereas if you are trying to address racism, there's a very good reason to exclude them.
I would argue that racism is not something that can be eradicated through an AA-type program, and that AA even exacerbates racist tendencies among whites. So I conclude the AA neither equalizes opportunity (since it excludes plenty of people who lack opportunity) nor does it fight racism (since it institutionalizes racial preferences). AA is a bad program. Whatever your goal, we need something else.
right: "Neither Republicans pretending everything's dandy nor Democrats clinging to race-based policies are addressing the real problems of today."
I can't disagree with that statment.
right:
Very thoughtful post. I was prepared to say something similar, but you said it better. You're last comment (re: race inequality v. wealth inequality) raises some issues. I think a lot of people would point to the over-representation of minorities in the poverty class to argue that (1) the issues are linked, and (2) that race-based inequality is far from over.
And to a large extent, this analysis is true. But I think from a policy perspective, it might be helpful to point out that if you're going to try to equalize opportunity to succeed, there is no principled reason to exclude under-privileged whites. Whereas if you are trying to address racism, there's a very good reason to exclude them.
I would argue that racism is not something that can be eradicated through an AA-type program, and that AA even exacerbates racist tendencies among whites. So I conclude the AA neither equalizes opportunity (since it excludes plenty of people who lack opportunity) nor does it fight racism (since it institutionalizes racial preferences). AA is a bad program. Whatever your goal, we need something else.
right,
blacks came here in the 1600s and were brutally or legally (at best) kept down until the mid 19 sixties. AA acknowledges this simple fact. do you honestly believe that if a white man has to choose between an equally qualified hakeem baker or sean odonnell, all things being equal--grades, university rank, experience--that hakeem would have an honest shot? let's add that the boss and sean are both Catholic. let's even take that out of the equation. would hakeem have a honest chance if not for some "diversity" initiative.
just look at nbc news. the daily howler, himself irish catholic, has made this point well. let's look at the house that jack welch built. tim russert, brian williams, chris matthews, mike barnacle, the fair odonnell ladies, pat buchanan & now tim jr. sometimes on msnbc they just sit around talking about nuns and priests. this makes work comfortable. people like their people. unfortunately, that shuts others out.
"AA even exacerbates racist tendencies among whites. So I conclude the AA neither equalizes opportunity (since it excludes plenty of people who lack opportunity) nor does it fight racism (since it institutionalizes racial preferences). AA is a bad program."
the problem is not inherent to affirmative action.
the problem is the fact that politicians demogogue and exploit the issue for political gain.
if white politicians did not exploit the program for political gain, racist tendencies would not be exacerbated.
affirmative action, implemented properly and given a real chance could have a dramatic and postive impact on our society.
the true joke is that the attack on affirmative action, via the baake lawsuit and other actions, arose within a decade of the first attempts to implement that kind of program. from that point forward, any type of affirmative action program has been narrowed and tailored to withstand the fierce attempt to do away with it completely. and it has not been as expansive and therefore given a real shot, as it might have been if a real commitment to its principles had been made.
hardly the type of real investment that type of program needs and demands.
true affirmative action has never really been implemented and established as a real tool to impact the social structure.
on the other hand, consider one of the biggest and most obvious and successful affirmative action progams in our nation's history: title IX.
because this affirmative action program benefits the daughters of all of the white politicians who might otherwise demagogue and exploit the fact that it is a pure affirmative action program based on gender preferences, nothing is ever said about the program.
it is pure affirmative action, but somehow, someway, it is not controversial.
dare i say that one of the big reasons is that it does benefit white folks?
if everyone is so concerned about maintaining the pure meritocracy, why aren't folks putting resolutions on state ballots to eliminate title IX?
the minute is see that type of action, i will believe that objections to affirmative action have a basis in a real concern about maintaining our supposed meritocracy.
do you honestly believe that if a white man has to choose between an equally qualified hakeem baker or sean odonnell, all things being equal--grades, university rank, experience--that hakeem would have an honest shot?
It's worse than that: Sean O'Donnell could be a convicted felon and he's still got a better chance of being hired than a black man with no criminal record.
jay, that little Catholic mafia (oops, probably an anti-Catholic slur there) at NBC hadn't dawned on me. I gotta start reading Sommerby again.
"Unfortunately, most Americans don't resent legacy-based affirmative action."
At least there's some utilitarian benefit to legacy-based affirmative action. The money the legacy's parent donates to the school can help that rare smart-but-poor student get a free ride. There's no such utilitarian benefit to accepting an unqualified candidate because of the color of his skin.
This is a bad example for a good point. Luke Russert is getting a job because his dad just died, and people feel sorry for him. He no longer has a powerful father to pull strings for him.
I'm sure there are thousands of better examples than this one of the kids of powerful living people getting jobs because of their connections.
There is merit in being Tim's son. There is merit in being the son and grandson of Admirals. There is merit being the grandson of a Senator and son of a President. There is no merit in being black. Actually being black is a demerit. It's all very very simple.
Now if Obama was a slave who rose to Presidential candidate then he certainly would have merit because it would have been purely by dint of his own efforts.
Comments closed August 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think it's great. I've been on the lookout for a really young TV personality I could not watch for a while. Young Russert sounds just right.
Posted by bdbd | August 1, 2008 12:30 PM