Black college students are more likely to drop out than graduate. (Mario Tama/Getty)
Say what you like about progressives in America and their nebulous calls for “racial equity”, but they got one thing right: college admissions have always been a zero-sum game. With limited places at the prestigious universities and tens of millions of applicants, some sort of discrimination in deciding who gets accepted is inevitable. The question is: on what grounds?
Since the Sixties, the answer on campuses from Harvard down has been race-based affirmative action — a policy dedicated to increasing racial diversity on campuses. Until today, that is, when the Supreme Court rejected the practice as unconstitutional.
In the coming days, you will no doubt be treated to a cacophony of views either celebrating the decision as a victory for meritocracy or abhorring it as a racist verdict that exposes the white supremacy inherent in our institutions. What you won’t hear, however, is much discussion about whether affirmative action has realised its intended outcome of raising black Americans, the descendants of slaves and victims of segregation, out of poverty. It is all too easy for a university to boast about having a certain number of black kids on campus. It is much harder to reflect on whether the policy that put them there has succeeded more generally.
While the birth of affirmative action can be traced back to the end of the Civil War, its role in college admissions was only secured by a Supreme Court ruling in 1978. Since then, all affirmative-action policies have articulated the same goal: to make the second-class socio-economic status of black Americans a thing of the past.
In part, this was to be celebrated. In the US, access to college is seen as a prerequisite for success; indeed, those with bachelor’s degrees tend to earn significantly more than those with only a high school diploma: 75% more, according to one recent study. In other words, despite recent cynicism, affirmative action comes from a genuine desire to improve the lives of black Americans.
But have these attempts worked? Although the formal and objective legal and social barriers to black prosperity have been eliminated, and despite the fact that all sorts of other government welfare and criminal justice policies have been adopted since the Sixties, disparities between white and black Americans remain entrenched in wealth, education, housing and crime. One recent study by the Federal Reserves notes, for instance, that black households earn on average about half as much as white households. In fact, black Americans do less well than any other minority groups in America, including other black immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa.
Of the several articles published on Unherd following on from the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, this is the most incisive. No surprise really, given that the author never wastes a word in her mission to peel back the nonsense across the entire range of cultural, religious and political wars to reveal what lies beneath.
The searing question: it’s one thing to grant privileged access to the top academic institutions to black Americans, but what happens when they get there? reveals the bankruptcy of the policy, the thoughtlessness of its implementation and the superficiality of those who will no doubt wail in the coming days about its being overturned. The narrative of victimhood is just the latest – and possibly the most insidious by being covert – prejudice inflicted upon black Americans. If this ruling helps lead the way to the ending of that narrative – perhaps then they will become “Free at last”.
The institutions don’t give a rat’s what happens when any student gets there. It’s all about optics and money. I know: I was in the biz myself. The Dean of Admissions told me over lunch one day that her job was to recruit “first generation” ethnic minorities, offering scholarships that had nothing to do with scholarship, so the government would continue shoveling cash our way. I was an adjunct with a career of my own outside academia, so I didn’t return the following semester. I couldn’t stand being part of such an eye-opening scam.
We were shocked to realize the essential mercenary nature of higher education when our first child went to college. She and her friends faced various challenges—which is normal—but the reaction of the university and the local authorities in this college-dependent town to these challenges was one hundred percent unhelpful. It became clear that the university and the town were vampires who viewed students as just flesh-blobs who were to be admitted and then drained of as much blood as possible.
I had thought it would look more like a win-win situation, where of course the university and town had their own interests but there would also be appreciation and support offered to the flesh-blobs, er, I mean, students. Instead we saw interlocking systems of parasites who extended only the minimum effort necessary to keep enough of the students around to extract maximum value. If a lot of the students were drop-outs, crime victims, or otherwise received a poor education, oh well.
Very apt comparison. I, too, lived in a college town and vampire is a much cleaner word to use than I would have.
Very apt comparison. I, too, lived in a college town and vampire is a much cleaner word to use than I would have.
We were shocked to realize the essential mercenary nature of higher education when our first child went to college. She and her friends faced various challenges—which is normal—but the reaction of the university and the local authorities in this college-dependent town to these challenges was one hundred percent unhelpful. It became clear that the university and the town were vampires who viewed students as just flesh-blobs who were to be admitted and then drained of as much blood as possible.
I had thought it would look more like a win-win situation, where of course the university and town had their own interests but there would also be appreciation and support offered to the flesh-blobs, er, I mean, students. Instead we saw interlocking systems of parasites who extended only the minimum effort necessary to keep enough of the students around to extract maximum value. If a lot of the students were drop-outs, crime victims, or otherwise received a poor education, oh well.
I agree with others: This gets to the heart of the matter and with the author’s usual brilliance and dash. In the USA (and presumably in other places), our brains, brawn, and dollars need to have been put into a comprehensive plan to (a) give the nuclear American family a leg up and (b) improve our primary and secondary schools across the board. Hirsi Ali has helped me understand on a deeper level what Justice Thomas et al. are saying as they respond favorably to the SCOTUS decision. In any case, it appears that Affirmative Action was probably a white-guilt-driven Bandaid on a much deeper problem. By daring to focus on class, I think Hirsi Ali gets to the heart of the matter. (Certainly on one level what we’re in the midst of in the USA is a kind of class conflict — not a true race conflict — and if we can start there we might see what there is to do!) Now I realize that using the phrase “comprehensive plan” will activate some alarms. But just because comprehensive plans have at times been demonstrably counter-productive–Affirmative Action was one aspect of just such a comprehensive plan in the USA in the 1960s–does not mean we must throw the baby out with the bathwater. … I’m personally very uneasy with the idea that the state through its high court can tell a private college or a private school how to pick its entering student class. A great school and a truly fine educational experience — the kind of education that produces, not intellectual barbarians but well-rounded, deepened, authentically learned, and good (I mean virtuous) citizens for a republic — depends on FAR MORE than high test scores, stellar AP exams, the highest GPAs, etc. (“merit”), even as these are indeed indications of character. For example, the admission committee at a top prep school (I mean a truly great school and not a merely good one with lots of bells, whistles, and impressive college placement data alone) must always feel the freedom to assemble the next class according to the first purpose of the school which is the development of Virtue. In the best schools and among the best educators of the last 2,500 years and more, this is the end or target of education: Virtue. All the other (important) acquisitions–what Aristotle called the “natural goods”–will actually fall into place if educators aim high for the Target of general human excellence (Virtue). The constitution of the school–and by implication the college–community is thus of supreme importance; so admission people need to feel the liberty to put each class together by using criteria that may have very little to do with the worldly “merit” we hear so much about. Good riddance to AA if it was really about Quotas to assuage guilt. But in this debate over AA, and in the press, I’ve not seen even the conservatives mention the radical importance of what might be called the requisite “social catholicity” of a really fine scholastic community. Pro-AA and Anti-AA folks may be equally remote from the true End of education for any human being born into this world anywhere.
Wonderful comment. Thank you for it. The word you used — virtue — has all but disappeared from modern discourse. Neither the left nor the right use it, which suggests that these warring factions have something fundamental in common. What is it?
This would be a long story, Michael! What I venture to say is that both sides confuse ends and means, just as our entire culture tends to confuse ends and means. I’d recommend to anyone Sir Gilbert Murray’s 1921 essay entitled something like “Why the Study of Greece is Important for the History of the World.” It was a chapter in R.W. Livingston’s The Legacy of Greece. Murray brilliantly uses Euclid (and others) to show why the study of the classics can never be useless. There are those aspects of Euclid’s geometry that were always “mere knowledge,” which progresses and thus becomes dated. But there is an “inner spirit” we gain a glimpse of by immersing ourselves in the work of a world-class author such as Euclid or Homer or Aeschylus: this “spirit” or “quality” we discern is far more than “mere knowledge.” It is the vision of another mind of something durable and permanent. Murray–an agonistic, I believe–even called this thing “eternal.” I would say that it is not rational knowledge and not a product of the instrumental reason but it is definitely found in the intellectum (understanding) and it will never not be vital to the human comprehension of the nature of things. Murray would argue that this is why “the classics” must be studied for ever. … But look what a great many very enlightened and earnest educators have stressed over the last several decades: We’ve been proud to say that the purpose of a school is to teach children and youth HOW to learn. You know what I’m referring to here. A really wonderful teacher might say, “Content and core knowledge are always changing; so we shall spend most of our time this year learning how to learn, developing the skills to keep up with knowledge in this ever-changing world in which we live. We love our students and want them to succeed!” This seems like an irrefutably fine sentiment. Who can argue with such a “practical” plan? But it is based on an assumption that Murray and I daresay the greatest educators in history would recognize quickly: the assumption that “mere knowledge” (which is indeed always changing, advancing, developing) is the only knowledge. And I would submit it is also a confusion — literally! — of ends and means. … Both the defenders of Affirmative Action and the critics too often appear to assume that knowledge is reducible to Murray’s “mere knowledge” and institutions must be geared to deliver it and then filled with the students who are best equipped to acquire it. In preparing students for college, the routine of teaching students how to learn suffices beautifully for this sort of understanding of education. But what the SFFA and the SCOTUS justices may be missing is the radical importance of the community of which human beings are constitutive: For it is the “overall experience” combined with hard work in the classroom–NEVER neglecting “the classics” (which go beyond Greece and Rome)–by which persons may apprehend what Gilbert Murray called the “eternal” qualities that happen to be the bedrock of Western Civilization. Here are several quotations that maybe point to the idea I’m getting at (that the scholastic community is itself educative and virtue can be acquired in such a community):
“The problem in American education is an overemphasis upon method, when experience shows that what matters most is the living spirit of the teacher.”
— Wm Augustus Muhenberg (1796-1877), one of the greatest educators in American history whom no one has ever heard!
“Truth is preserved and communicated, not by books, not by argument, nor by temporal power, but by the personal influence of persons who are at once the teachers and patterns of it.”
— John Henry Newman (1801-1890)
And here are a couple more from Gilbert Murray:
“The power of seeing things straight and knowing what is beautiful or noble, quite undisturbed by momentary boredoms or changes of taste, is a very rare gift and never perhaps possessed in full by any one” (21).
“It is only by the standard of the spirit, to which the thing achieved is little and the quality of mind that achieved it much, which cares less for the sum of knowledge attained than for the love of knowledge, less for much good policing than for one free act of heroism, that the great age of Greece can be judged as something extraordinary and unique in value.”
… “mere knowledge or science” (Murray) is always progressive (which is to say it becomes quickly dated by new mere knowledge (!). E.g. Euclid’s geometry. But a great work—a classic—has an element and a quality that is NOT progressive at all but “has a kind of stationary and eternal value” (5).
As I wrote before, quotas are usually a terrible idea, even to increase diversity. If Affirmative Action was all about quotas, then many will and ought to oppose it. On the other hand, the admission officers of especially a private institution with a certain kind of mission (perhaps to form Virtue!)–an end which transcends “mere knowledge” and all this phrase connotes–ought to have the complete freedom to assemble the incoming class as they see fit. Invariably, this will result in more “diversity” than SFFA can stomach. I believe pretty much all of American education has been swept over the dam. But there is hope here and there!
On another note, I do heartily affirm Clarence Thomas et al. who seem to be saying that African Americans must now be regarded as free and worthy citizens and not mere victims of the past. Only then can we follow the path Ayaan Kirsi Alii has adumbrated in her article: addressing pronto the common culturo-economic challenges that cut across race entirely.
Your expression ”mere knowledge” is one I haven’t heard used in the way you used it. The emphasis is on”mere,” yes? Did we attach ourselves to teaching how to know, in lieu of what to know, because there is no “what“ to know? Is it the “advent of nihilism” we’re discussing?
And, of course, what is missing in a nihilist world? By that I mean what most especially? “Virtue?”
I was pleased to see you cite Euclid. I recall a Friday night lecture, given by a tutor from St. John’s College, who defended the position that proof no. 45, not proof no. 47 (the Pythagorean theorem), is the most important one in Book 1. The discussion went on to the small hours of the morning. There was a great deal of chin scratching but also a great deal of laughing. Those days are all gone now.
Your expression ”mere knowledge” is one I haven’t heard used in the way you used it. The emphasis is on”mere,” yes? Did we attach ourselves to teaching how to know, in lieu of what to know, because there is no “what“ to know? Is it the “advent of nihilism” we’re discussing?
And, of course, what is missing in a nihilist world? By that I mean what most especially? “Virtue?”
I was pleased to see you cite Euclid. I recall a Friday night lecture, given by a tutor from St. John’s College, who defended the position that proof no. 45, not proof no. 47 (the Pythagorean theorem), is the most important one in Book 1. The discussion went on to the small hours of the morning. There was a great deal of chin scratching but also a great deal of laughing. Those days are all gone now.
This would be a long story, Michael! What I venture to say is that both sides confuse ends and means, just as our entire culture tends to confuse ends and means. I’d recommend to anyone Sir Gilbert Murray’s 1921 essay entitled something like “Why the Study of Greece is Important for the History of the World.” It was a chapter in R.W. Livingston’s The Legacy of Greece. Murray brilliantly uses Euclid (and others) to show why the study of the classics can never be useless. There are those aspects of Euclid’s geometry that were always “mere knowledge,” which progresses and thus becomes dated. But there is an “inner spirit” we gain a glimpse of by immersing ourselves in the work of a world-class author such as Euclid or Homer or Aeschylus: this “spirit” or “quality” we discern is far more than “mere knowledge.” It is the vision of another mind of something durable and permanent. Murray–an agonistic, I believe–even called this thing “eternal.” I would say that it is not rational knowledge and not a product of the instrumental reason but it is definitely found in the intellectum (understanding) and it will never not be vital to the human comprehension of the nature of things. Murray would argue that this is why “the classics” must be studied for ever. … But look what a great many very enlightened and earnest educators have stressed over the last several decades: We’ve been proud to say that the purpose of a school is to teach children and youth HOW to learn. You know what I’m referring to here. A really wonderful teacher might say, “Content and core knowledge are always changing; so we shall spend most of our time this year learning how to learn, developing the skills to keep up with knowledge in this ever-changing world in which we live. We love our students and want them to succeed!” This seems like an irrefutably fine sentiment. Who can argue with such a “practical” plan? But it is based on an assumption that Murray and I daresay the greatest educators in history would recognize quickly: the assumption that “mere knowledge” (which is indeed always changing, advancing, developing) is the only knowledge. And I would submit it is also a confusion — literally! — of ends and means. … Both the defenders of Affirmative Action and the critics too often appear to assume that knowledge is reducible to Murray’s “mere knowledge” and institutions must be geared to deliver it and then filled with the students who are best equipped to acquire it. In preparing students for college, the routine of teaching students how to learn suffices beautifully for this sort of understanding of education. But what the SFFA and the SCOTUS justices may be missing is the radical importance of the community of which human beings are constitutive: For it is the “overall experience” combined with hard work in the classroom–NEVER neglecting “the classics” (which go beyond Greece and Rome)–by which persons may apprehend what Gilbert Murray called the “eternal” qualities that happen to be the bedrock of Western Civilization. Here are several quotations that maybe point to the idea I’m getting at (that the scholastic community is itself educative and virtue can be acquired in such a community):
“The problem in American education is an overemphasis upon method, when experience shows that what matters most is the living spirit of the teacher.”
— Wm Augustus Muhenberg (1796-1877), one of the greatest educators in American history whom no one has ever heard!
“Truth is preserved and communicated, not by books, not by argument, nor by temporal power, but by the personal influence of persons who are at once the teachers and patterns of it.”
— John Henry Newman (1801-1890)
And here are a couple more from Gilbert Murray:
“The power of seeing things straight and knowing what is beautiful or noble, quite undisturbed by momentary boredoms or changes of taste, is a very rare gift and never perhaps possessed in full by any one” (21).
“It is only by the standard of the spirit, to which the thing achieved is little and the quality of mind that achieved it much, which cares less for the sum of knowledge attained than for the love of knowledge, less for much good policing than for one free act of heroism, that the great age of Greece can be judged as something extraordinary and unique in value.”
… “mere knowledge or science” (Murray) is always progressive (which is to say it becomes quickly dated by new mere knowledge (!). E.g. Euclid’s geometry. But a great work—a classic—has an element and a quality that is NOT progressive at all but “has a kind of stationary and eternal value” (5).
As I wrote before, quotas are usually a terrible idea, even to increase diversity. If Affirmative Action was all about quotas, then many will and ought to oppose it. On the other hand, the admission officers of especially a private institution with a certain kind of mission (perhaps to form Virtue!)–an end which transcends “mere knowledge” and all this phrase connotes–ought to have the complete freedom to assemble the incoming class as they see fit. Invariably, this will result in more “diversity” than SFFA can stomach. I believe pretty much all of American education has been swept over the dam. But there is hope here and there!
On another note, I do heartily affirm Clarence Thomas et al. who seem to be saying that African Americans must now be regarded as free and worthy citizens and not mere victims of the past. Only then can we follow the path Ayaan Kirsi Alii has adumbrated in her article: addressing pronto the common culturo-economic challenges that cut across race entirely.
Wonderful comment. Thank you for it. The word you used — virtue — has all but disappeared from modern discourse. Neither the left nor the right use it, which suggests that these warring factions have something fundamental in common. What is it?
The institutions don’t give a rat’s what happens when any student gets there. It’s all about optics and money. I know: I was in the biz myself. The Dean of Admissions told me over lunch one day that her job was to recruit “first generation” ethnic minorities, offering scholarships that had nothing to do with scholarship, so the government would continue shoveling cash our way. I was an adjunct with a career of my own outside academia, so I didn’t return the following semester. I couldn’t stand being part of such an eye-opening scam.
I agree with others: This gets to the heart of the matter and with the author’s usual brilliance and dash. In the USA (and presumably in other places), our brains, brawn, and dollars need to have been put into a comprehensive plan to (a) give the nuclear American family a leg up and (b) improve our primary and secondary schools across the board. Hirsi Ali has helped me understand on a deeper level what Justice Thomas et al. are saying as they respond favorably to the SCOTUS decision. In any case, it appears that Affirmative Action was probably a white-guilt-driven Bandaid on a much deeper problem. By daring to focus on class, I think Hirsi Ali gets to the heart of the matter. (Certainly on one level what we’re in the midst of in the USA is a kind of class conflict — not a true race conflict — and if we can start there we might see what there is to do!) Now I realize that using the phrase “comprehensive plan” will activate some alarms. But just because comprehensive plans have at times been demonstrably counter-productive–Affirmative Action was one aspect of just such a comprehensive plan in the USA in the 1960s–does not mean we must throw the baby out with the bathwater. … I’m personally very uneasy with the idea that the state through its high court can tell a private college or a private school how to pick its entering student class. A great school and a truly fine educational experience — the kind of education that produces, not intellectual barbarians but well-rounded, deepened, authentically learned, and good (I mean virtuous) citizens for a republic — depends on FAR MORE than high test scores, stellar AP exams, the highest GPAs, etc. (“merit”), even as these are indeed indications of character. For example, the admission committee at a top prep school (I mean a truly great school and not a merely good one with lots of bells, whistles, and impressive college placement data alone) must always feel the freedom to assemble the next class according to the first purpose of the school which is the development of Virtue. In the best schools and among the best educators of the last 2,500 years and more, this is the end or target of education: Virtue. All the other (important) acquisitions–what Aristotle called the “natural goods”–will actually fall into place if educators aim high for the Target of general human excellence (Virtue). The constitution of the school–and by implication the college–community is thus of supreme importance; so admission people need to feel the liberty to put each class together by using criteria that may have very little to do with the worldly “merit” we hear so much about. Good riddance to AA if it was really about Quotas to assuage guilt. But in this debate over AA, and in the press, I’ve not seen even the conservatives mention the radical importance of what might be called the requisite “social catholicity” of a really fine scholastic community. Pro-AA and Anti-AA folks may be equally remote from the true End of education for any human being born into this world anywhere.
Of the several articles published on Unherd following on from the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, this is the most incisive. No surprise really, given that the author never wastes a word in her mission to peel back the nonsense across the entire range of cultural, religious and political wars to reveal what lies beneath.
The searing question: it’s one thing to grant privileged access to the top academic institutions to black Americans, but what happens when they get there? reveals the bankruptcy of the policy, the thoughtlessness of its implementation and the superficiality of those who will no doubt wail in the coming days about its being overturned. The narrative of victimhood is just the latest – and possibly the most insidious by being covert – prejudice inflicted upon black Americans. If this ruling helps lead the way to the ending of that narrative – perhaps then they will become “Free at last”.
You don’t mention that Hispanic-Americans are also “helped” by affirmative action. They didn’t suffer slavery, segregation, redlining etc but they’re underrepresented at Ivy League institutions, so affirmative action steps in. There are two obvious problems with this.
Firstly, if a group is doing badly for reasons entirely within its own control, not because of discrimination, is it fair to elevate them above others who have earned their success on merit? It bears repeating that the group most harmed by affirmative action is Asian-Americans, who by some estimates have to score 550 more in their SATs than African-Americans to have the same chance of being accepted by an elite college.
Secondly, if you allow this sort of social engineering in college admissions, where does it stop? Black people are about 4% of the UK population, yet they make up (I would estimate) at least 40% of Premier League footballers. In other words, they’re statistically overrepresented by a factor of 10. Does anyone think we need an affirmative action programme to force the Premier League to have the same ethnic balance as the country as a whole? In other words, should 9 out of 10 black players lose their jobs and be replaced by inferior white players? If not, why should university admissions work that way?
Brilliant comparison – thank you
Brilliant comparison – thank you
You don’t mention that Hispanic-Americans are also “helped” by affirmative action. They didn’t suffer slavery, segregation, redlining etc but they’re underrepresented at Ivy League institutions, so affirmative action steps in. There are two obvious problems with this.
Firstly, if a group is doing badly for reasons entirely within its own control, not because of discrimination, is it fair to elevate them above others who have earned their success on merit? It bears repeating that the group most harmed by affirmative action is Asian-Americans, who by some estimates have to score 550 more in their SATs than African-Americans to have the same chance of being accepted by an elite college.
Secondly, if you allow this sort of social engineering in college admissions, where does it stop? Black people are about 4% of the UK population, yet they make up (I would estimate) at least 40% of Premier League footballers. In other words, they’re statistically overrepresented by a factor of 10. Does anyone think we need an affirmative action programme to force the Premier League to have the same ethnic balance as the country as a whole? In other words, should 9 out of 10 black players lose their jobs and be replaced by inferior white players? If not, why should university admissions work that way?
Reads similar to the UK in many respects. Among our Afro-Caribbean demographic there appears be a significant element that believes a combination of the state and white people in general are out to get them in a way many African-Americans also feel. Like in America though, this argument falls down quickly when reviewed objectively. Sure our black Afro-Caribbean population is disadvantaged, but then again, people born into that demographic are more likely to be raised in single parent households, less likely to outperform peers of other ethnic groups (children from Black African backgrounds don’t have this problem), live in households with lower incomes etc.
It’s well established that the first two things in particular will make your life more of a struggle and the first example of single-parenting will naturally lead to lower household income. This isn’t to slag off single parents, just a sad observation that life will be harder than it already is and until our Afro-Caribbean demographic acknowledge this is at least part of the issue (rather than vague accusations of racism), and the rest of society is brave enough to state it, we will keep having this argument and divisive finger-pointing.
Reads similar to the UK in many respects. Among our Afro-Caribbean demographic there appears be a significant element that believes a combination of the state and white people in general are out to get them in a way many African-Americans also feel. Like in America though, this argument falls down quickly when reviewed objectively. Sure our black Afro-Caribbean population is disadvantaged, but then again, people born into that demographic are more likely to be raised in single parent households, less likely to outperform peers of other ethnic groups (children from Black African backgrounds don’t have this problem), live in households with lower incomes etc.
It’s well established that the first two things in particular will make your life more of a struggle and the first example of single-parenting will naturally lead to lower household income. This isn’t to slag off single parents, just a sad observation that life will be harder than it already is and until our Afro-Caribbean demographic acknowledge this is at least part of the issue (rather than vague accusations of racism), and the rest of society is brave enough to state it, we will keep having this argument and divisive finger-pointing.
From my first hand experiences working as a teacher in a poor area of the North of England, I would agree that where you are born and live has a huge impact on outcomes. People might like to think it is about skin colour but from what I see it is mainly about family and geography. A work colleague who lives locally once said to me that the only people who succeed in life are the ones that leave the area.
I think you’re right. While ethnicity may well have a part to play in terms of inequalities, there is no denying that if you grow up in or near Greater London for example, you have a tremendous advantage regardless of your race or religion by having a very disproportionate amount of the country’s historic sites and cultural institutions on your doorstep.
Even as someone who grew up in an area around two hours from London by train, we usually had to at least stay a night in London when we went. If you live elsewhere like the North East, South West, Wales, Scotland etc, the costs of visiting the capital (train fares, hotels, meals out) for a decent amount of time can become prohibitive very quickly. This is before you encounter London prices as well. I could also go on about London getting the most funding per head for things like schools, the fact you don’t have to move out of the area you grew up in to find well paying jobs, access to latest fashions and technologies etc, but I’d be here for a very long time.
As one of those who fits that demographic, i take exception to that remark. Your work colleague should’ve had greater insight into what “success” might mean; if they applied that ethos to their teaching they might well have had an unconscious but detrimental effect on many of the students/pupils. I came across teachers with similar views, and by the time i reached sixth form started to challenge them.
I take your point Steve, however the colleague I mentioned wasn’t one of the teachers. Unfortunately that mindset I mentioned is something we have worked very hard to change over the last 15 years.
Surely the example of the Jews seems to prove the point.
Since the so-called Diaspora they have done phenomenally well both Europe and the US. Indeed Winston Churchill is alleged to have described them as ‘the aristocracy of the human race”.)*
Prior to the Daspora, whist in their homeland, they appear to have been a bit of a menace, or at least the Romans found them so.
(* I cannot find that quote, can anybody help?)
Seconded. The key to prosperity, however poor the neighbourhood, is a healthy small business economy. Unfortunately, that is something that teachers and other middle class state employees very rarely grasp. Meanwhile, state policy at the highest level is dominated by the interests of big business, which are not the same at all.
The Conservative party used to understand this, before it became a branch of the banking industry.
I take your point Steve, however the colleague I mentioned wasn’t one of the teachers. Unfortunately that mindset I mentioned is something we have worked very hard to change over the last 15 years.
Surely the example of the Jews seems to prove the point.
Since the so-called Diaspora they have done phenomenally well both Europe and the US. Indeed Winston Churchill is alleged to have described them as ‘the aristocracy of the human race”.)*
Prior to the Daspora, whist in their homeland, they appear to have been a bit of a menace, or at least the Romans found them so.
(* I cannot find that quote, can anybody help?)
Seconded. The key to prosperity, however poor the neighbourhood, is a healthy small business economy. Unfortunately, that is something that teachers and other middle class state employees very rarely grasp. Meanwhile, state policy at the highest level is dominated by the interests of big business, which are not the same at all.
The Conservative party used to understand this, before it became a branch of the banking industry.
I had a black man tell me that when things started to get bad in his Chicago neighborhood his parents moved out. He actually said, “those young men getting killed there? Their parents didn’t care enough to move.” He said his parents stayed married and wanted to keep in school and out of gangs so they moved to a lesser house in a better area.
Bold words. Inflammatory. But when I repeated this to a white friend she shook her head. And I thought, “Who are you to tell this black man who has lived this life that he is in denial or wrong?”
Please explain how G Stephenson invented the steam engine and modern railways? His ife as described by Samuel Smiles was one of poverty.
George Stephenson – Wikipedia
Many of the Engineers of the Industrial Revolution came from poor backgrounds: how did they achieve so much ?
Lives of the Engineers (cambridge.org)
Perhaps the poverty is spiritual not material ?
Newton did the majority of his work on the family farm over two years.
The Laws of the Universe have no feelings, they are neutral, they can be understood by everyone or none.
Does anyone want to fly on a plane designed by people who do not understand Newton’s Laws? Will the universe make an allowance for the designer if they do not understand the laws of the universe relevant to flight ?
Sad. Except—what is success? Must it always be city-style success?
I think you’re right. While ethnicity may well have a part to play in terms of inequalities, there is no denying that if you grow up in or near Greater London for example, you have a tremendous advantage regardless of your race or religion by having a very disproportionate amount of the country’s historic sites and cultural institutions on your doorstep.
Even as someone who grew up in an area around two hours from London by train, we usually had to at least stay a night in London when we went. If you live elsewhere like the North East, South West, Wales, Scotland etc, the costs of visiting the capital (train fares, hotels, meals out) for a decent amount of time can become prohibitive very quickly. This is before you encounter London prices as well. I could also go on about London getting the most funding per head for things like schools, the fact you don’t have to move out of the area you grew up in to find well paying jobs, access to latest fashions and technologies etc, but I’d be here for a very long time.
As one of those who fits that demographic, i take exception to that remark. Your work colleague should’ve had greater insight into what “success” might mean; if they applied that ethos to their teaching they might well have had an unconscious but detrimental effect on many of the students/pupils. I came across teachers with similar views, and by the time i reached sixth form started to challenge them.
I had a black man tell me that when things started to get bad in his Chicago neighborhood his parents moved out. He actually said, “those young men getting killed there? Their parents didn’t care enough to move.” He said his parents stayed married and wanted to keep in school and out of gangs so they moved to a lesser house in a better area.
Bold words. Inflammatory. But when I repeated this to a white friend she shook her head. And I thought, “Who are you to tell this black man who has lived this life that he is in denial or wrong?”
Please explain how G Stephenson invented the steam engine and modern railways? His ife as described by Samuel Smiles was one of poverty.
George Stephenson – Wikipedia
Many of the Engineers of the Industrial Revolution came from poor backgrounds: how did they achieve so much ?
Lives of the Engineers (cambridge.org)
Perhaps the poverty is spiritual not material ?
Newton did the majority of his work on the family farm over two years.
The Laws of the Universe have no feelings, they are neutral, they can be understood by everyone or none.
Does anyone want to fly on a plane designed by people who do not understand Newton’s Laws? Will the universe make an allowance for the designer if they do not understand the laws of the universe relevant to flight ?
Sad. Except—what is success? Must it always be city-style success?
From my first hand experiences working as a teacher in a poor area of the North of England, I would agree that where you are born and live has a huge impact on outcomes. People might like to think it is about skin colour but from what I see it is mainly about family and geography. A work colleague who lives locally once said to me that the only people who succeed in life are the ones that leave the area.
Eloquent and powerful. A superbly well-argued, nuanced article. Thanks to Ms. Hirsi Ali.
I think some of the female contributors to Unherd really are exceptional – Ayaan foremost among them. I worry about her after what happened to Salman Rushdie.
Kathleen Stock and Kat Rosenfield are always worth reading and Mary Harrington’s piece on motherhood was amazing.
Totally agree. You mentioned all my favorites too–except for Lionel Shriver (where has she gone, guess I’ll check with my one or two free articles over at The Spectator).
Do read Lionel Shriver’s similarly excellent item on Affirmative Action in yesterday’s Spectator
Do read Lionel Shriver’s similarly excellent item on Affirmative Action in yesterday’s Spectator
It balances out : there is also Julie Bindel, who is also exceptional, but in a wholly different way.
They need at least one wind up merchant..
True. But the point remains that several of the best regulars here are women, at least that’s an opinion I share with Mr. Phillips.
The comments were sure carefully quarantined on this article, I think for more than the 12-hour pause they often use.
Well, our Julie may be far out, anti-male, and somewhat predictable to read, but at least she deserves respect – unlike Guardian feminists like Filipovic who are just riding the woke wagon. Bindel is tough, consistent, and fighting for women who are in trouble and need help. I may not agree that women who murder their violent partners are really that deserving, but at least helping them makes a lot more sense than fighting for more boardroom places.
They need at least one wind up merchant..
True. But the point remains that several of the best regulars here are women, at least that’s an opinion I share with Mr. Phillips.
The comments were sure carefully quarantined on this article, I think for more than the 12-hour pause they often use.
Well, our Julie may be far out, anti-male, and somewhat predictable to read, but at least she deserves respect – unlike Guardian feminists like Filipovic who are just riding the woke wagon. Bindel is tough, consistent, and fighting for women who are in trouble and need help. I may not agree that women who murder their violent partners are really that deserving, but at least helping them makes a lot more sense than fighting for more boardroom places.
Totally agree. You mentioned all my favorites too–except for Lionel Shriver (where has she gone, guess I’ll check with my one or two free articles over at The Spectator).
It balances out : there is also Julie Bindel, who is also exceptional, but in a wholly different way.
Hirsi Ali is a real thinker. We should all listen to her. Not everything she says is right but most of it is.
Hirsi Ali is one of the greatest thinkers of our times. I tried to say this earlier but got blocked. So much for free speech.
The comments for this article have been preemptively quarantined. Did they anticipate some flood of racist, sexist, or Islamicist vitriol from the (un)herd?
The comments for this article have been preemptively quarantined. Did they anticipate some flood of racist, sexist, or Islamicist vitriol from the (un)herd?
I think some of the female contributors to Unherd really are exceptional – Ayaan foremost among them. I worry about her after what happened to Salman Rushdie.
Kathleen Stock and Kat Rosenfield are always worth reading and Mary Harrington’s piece on motherhood was amazing.
Hirsi Ali is a real thinker. We should all listen to her. Not everything she says is right but most of it is.
Hirsi Ali is one of the greatest thinkers of our times. I tried to say this earlier but got blocked. So much for free speech.
Eloquent and powerful. A superbly well-argued, nuanced article. Thanks to Ms. Hirsi Ali.
AHA and Thomas Sowell state the facts, accurately and eloquently. Sadly, were a white person to make the same points, they may well be accused of racism.
BLM has done more harm than good, and often created resentment and division where there was none before. Close examination of the finances of such charities indicates self serving interests may be major drivers.
Indeed, the tax and other advantages conferred by charitable status of organisations like BLM, Stonewall, Mermaids etc… provide the perfect opportunity for the organisers to make a lot of money, pretending to do good, whilst actually causing harm.
The Charities Commission appears to be asleep to the abuse.
Few people have both, the ability to understand and the courage to expose how much charities benefit those, who are running them compared to those whom they purportedly help. Being Caucasian and educated makes speaking out very dicey, irrespective of extensive, relevant, first hand experience. Thankfully we have the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Katharine Birbalsingh to carry the torch of sanity.
What good has BLM done, I’d like to know.
Few people have both, the ability to understand and the courage to expose how much charities benefit those, who are running them compared to those whom they purportedly help. Being Caucasian and educated makes speaking out very dicey, irrespective of extensive, relevant, first hand experience. Thankfully we have the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Katharine Birbalsingh to carry the torch of sanity.
What good has BLM done, I’d like to know.
AHA and Thomas Sowell state the facts, accurately and eloquently. Sadly, were a white person to make the same points, they may well be accused of racism.
BLM has done more harm than good, and often created resentment and division where there was none before. Close examination of the finances of such charities indicates self serving interests may be major drivers.
Indeed, the tax and other advantages conferred by charitable status of organisations like BLM, Stonewall, Mermaids etc… provide the perfect opportunity for the organisers to make a lot of money, pretending to do good, whilst actually causing harm.
The Charities Commission appears to be asleep to the abuse.
The race industry has a vested interest in keeping their selected ‘victims’ in victimhood; they can then continue to strut their stuff, championing the underdog and enjoying the kudos and money that goes with it. ‘The other obvious difference is that those in group one tend to come from stable, monogamous families. They largely complete their education before marrying and having children. They cultivate a strong work ethic and are members of strong communities’. Or, as the race activists condemn it ; ‘acting white’. And it’s getting worse; not only do they decry personal and parental responsibility, stable families, work ethic, and educational achievement as ‘acting white’, they seek to destroy these ideals as ‘engines of white supremacy’.
Other victim industries include [domestic] violence – DV – in Australia at least.
Again, those who are running the show benefit from the forced, eternal misery of victims.
The perversion with DV includes victims, who never even dated those who commit violence against them being ignored. I cannot even take out an intervention order against an ex-coworker stalker, even though a UK study showed that about half of all stalking is done by perpetrators like coworkers, shop clients, etc. I would need to be able to provide the stalker’s home address to even get a shot at an intervention order.
The stalker coworker in my case was already a seasoned criminal rightfully confident in his ability to commit crimes risk-free, when he added me to his already extensive list of concurrent targets in 2009.
[Domestic] Violence victims are expected to carry the effects of crimes with obedient resignation and silent dignity – out of sight. No one tries to stop crimes – since 2009 in my case, last cyber-crime about an hour ago, last home break-in that I know of on 13 April 2023. There is a lot of virtue-signalling going on, while no one is tasked with stopping violent crimes. I met a fellow victim of a stranger stalker who had to move state, and change her name to free herself of the stalker. To my horror she spoke with obvious shame. Since the stalker in my case has access to government databases as well as showing off never having lost access to the contents of my electronic communication, there is no point in me moving anywhere. Women like me live with a life-sentence.
If the crime victim is attempting to defend herself turning to entities like the police, the Human Rights Commission etc., she is seamlessly palmed off to charities whose untrained volunteers provide endless infantilising, time-wasting dribble congratulating the victim for example on how well she is doing – being still alive? – in spite of the volume, range and frequency of unpunished crimes she is forced to endure on a daily/hourly basis as per the power-trip needs of any failed psycho.
If the victim refuses to waste more time with untrained volunteers, a welfare crew turns up, as I had to experience, comprising of an ambulance and a police car, two officers each – police armed, sirens blaring, lights blazing, coming to a screeching halt in my front-yard in quiet suburbia, barging into my home ransacking it to find what I am about to kill myself with.
There are no alternatives: the victim must be pumped full of sedatives in an institution, accept endless infantilising counselling keeping charities thrive, or be invisible. It works. I stopped trying to report any crime in 2018. None of the crimes against me show up in any statistics.
OMG.
OMG.
Other victim industries include [domestic] violence – DV – in Australia at least.
Again, those who are running the show benefit from the forced, eternal misery of victims.
The perversion with DV includes victims, who never even dated those who commit violence against them being ignored. I cannot even take out an intervention order against an ex-coworker stalker, even though a UK study showed that about half of all stalking is done by perpetrators like coworkers, shop clients, etc. I would need to be able to provide the stalker’s home address to even get a shot at an intervention order.
The stalker coworker in my case was already a seasoned criminal rightfully confident in his ability to commit crimes risk-free, when he added me to his already extensive list of concurrent targets in 2009.
[Domestic] Violence victims are expected to carry the effects of crimes with obedient resignation and silent dignity – out of sight. No one tries to stop crimes – since 2009 in my case, last cyber-crime about an hour ago, last home break-in that I know of on 13 April 2023. There is a lot of virtue-signalling going on, while no one is tasked with stopping violent crimes. I met a fellow victim of a stranger stalker who had to move state, and change her name to free herself of the stalker. To my horror she spoke with obvious shame. Since the stalker in my case has access to government databases as well as showing off never having lost access to the contents of my electronic communication, there is no point in me moving anywhere. Women like me live with a life-sentence.
If the crime victim is attempting to defend herself turning to entities like the police, the Human Rights Commission etc., she is seamlessly palmed off to charities whose untrained volunteers provide endless infantilising, time-wasting dribble congratulating the victim for example on how well she is doing – being still alive? – in spite of the volume, range and frequency of unpunished crimes she is forced to endure on a daily/hourly basis as per the power-trip needs of any failed psycho.
If the victim refuses to waste more time with untrained volunteers, a welfare crew turns up, as I had to experience, comprising of an ambulance and a police car, two officers each – police armed, sirens blaring, lights blazing, coming to a screeching halt in my front-yard in quiet suburbia, barging into my home ransacking it to find what I am about to kill myself with.
There are no alternatives: the victim must be pumped full of sedatives in an institution, accept endless infantilising counselling keeping charities thrive, or be invisible. It works. I stopped trying to report any crime in 2018. None of the crimes against me show up in any statistics.
The race industry has a vested interest in keeping their selected ‘victims’ in victimhood; they can then continue to strut their stuff, championing the underdog and enjoying the kudos and money that goes with it. ‘The other obvious difference is that those in group one tend to come from stable, monogamous families. They largely complete their education before marrying and having children. They cultivate a strong work ethic and are members of strong communities’. Or, as the race activists condemn it ; ‘acting white’. And it’s getting worse; not only do they decry personal and parental responsibility, stable families, work ethic, and educational achievement as ‘acting white’, they seek to destroy these ideals as ‘engines of white supremacy’.
An interesting take, which will probably be dismissed as racist by group 2 as defined in your essay.
O
O
An interesting take, which will probably be dismissed as racist by group 2 as defined in your essay.
It is heartening that the US Supreme Court has decided to uphold the view that all shall be equal before the law and striking down affirmative action and racially discriminatory policies within University admissions.
Here is the full judgement and the Judgement of Clarence Thomas provides compelling reasons for that decision and quotes extensively from the works of Thomas Sowell:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
It is striking that little has been said about this important decision in UK papers so far. Only Unherd has highlighted it in any way. Clarence Thomas dismantles the arguments in favour of affirmative action most masterfully. The points he advances are as applicable to affirmative action here in the UK, particularly given that there has never been legal discrimination in the UK unlike the US that has had many discriminatory laws within the lifetime of many alive today.
Here in Australia it is being portrayed as racist, sexist, and homophobic in some news outlets, and in others it is ignored.
Here in Australia it is being portrayed as racist, sexist, and homophobic in some news outlets, and in others it is ignored.
It is heartening that the US Supreme Court has decided to uphold the view that all shall be equal before the law and striking down affirmative action and racially discriminatory policies within University admissions.
Here is the full judgement and the Judgement of Clarence Thomas provides compelling reasons for that decision and quotes extensively from the works of Thomas Sowell:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
It is striking that little has been said about this important decision in UK papers so far. Only Unherd has highlighted it in any way. Clarence Thomas dismantles the arguments in favour of affirmative action most masterfully. The points he advances are as applicable to affirmative action here in the UK, particularly given that there has never been legal discrimination in the UK unlike the US that has had many discriminatory laws within the lifetime of many alive today.
Another point – if we want the highest standards and outcomes, isn’t there a case for admissions to be “blind “ to sex, race etc…and determined by accepting x numbers of those with the highest grades. To be blunt – do you want the most competent brain surgeon or one of the “correct” gender or ethnicity?
You want the “correct” person only if you live in an Idiocracy. Not in a democracy.
You want the “correct” person only if you live in an Idiocracy. Not in a democracy.
Another point – if we want the highest standards and outcomes, isn’t there a case for admissions to be “blind “ to sex, race etc…and determined by accepting x numbers of those with the highest grades. To be blunt – do you want the most competent brain surgeon or one of the “correct” gender or ethnicity?
is it possible that AA suppresses black achievement by reducing work ethic? if you don’t have to work your a$$ off to get into school, are you more or less likely to become a high-achiever, later (absent DEI, of course).
is it possible that AA suppresses black achievement by reducing work ethic? if you don’t have to work your a$$ off to get into school, are you more or less likely to become a high-achiever, later (absent DEI, of course).
I would like to see a study of primary school size and educational achievement. The scraps of data I’ve seen point towards a link between smaller primary schools and better long-term educational and pro-social outcomes – but there are a lot of potential confounding factors.
My hypothesis is that poorer, particularly city-based, neighbourhoods have larger, more-impersonal, primary schools for the crucial pre-seven period of children’s social development (for all groups), with vulnerable children getting ‘lost’ and missing the learning on the balance between selfish and social behaviours. Poor black children are more likely to end up in overlarge primary schools and underachieve at least as a partial result.
I would like to see a study of primary school size and educational achievement. The scraps of data I’ve seen point towards a link between smaller primary schools and better long-term educational and pro-social outcomes – but there are a lot of potential confounding factors.
My hypothesis is that poorer, particularly city-based, neighbourhoods have larger, more-impersonal, primary schools for the crucial pre-seven period of children’s social development (for all groups), with vulnerable children getting ‘lost’ and missing the learning on the balance between selfish and social behaviours. Poor black children are more likely to end up in overlarge primary schools and underachieve at least as a partial result.
I grew up in Chicago in the 50s and 60s. It was the start of helping the poor, mainly black, neighborhoods by tearing down low quality housing to replace them with clean towers. Ignored was the fact that those neighborhoods contained vibrant communities, poor yes, but with churches, clubs, restaurants and bars. Those communities were destroyed through displacement. The result was to replace low-rise slums with high-rise slums filled with people who had lost social cohesion. Good intentions, combined with the certainty of pouring millions into predominantly Democratic political machines, has ugly consequences to this day.
The road to hell is all too often paved with good intentions. At least we can hope the intentions are good and not knowingly malign.
The road to hell is all too often paved with good intentions. At least we can hope the intentions are good and not knowingly malign.
I grew up in Chicago in the 50s and 60s. It was the start of helping the poor, mainly black, neighborhoods by tearing down low quality housing to replace them with clean towers. Ignored was the fact that those neighborhoods contained vibrant communities, poor yes, but with churches, clubs, restaurants and bars. Those communities were destroyed through displacement. The result was to replace low-rise slums with high-rise slums filled with people who had lost social cohesion. Good intentions, combined with the certainty of pouring millions into predominantly Democratic political machines, has ugly consequences to this day.
Amazing that it was beyond the academic elites to realise that disadvantage is not synonymous with skin colour; and that there is a simple and elegant solution to the conundrum – give some extra credibility to those coming from deprived backgrounds and schools, who nevertheless shone from their peers. This is what happens, I think, in the UK. A cynic might think that US style positive discrimination was kept as a fig-leaf for this kind of thing: “A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the “Dean’s” or “Director’s” lists of relations of donors or prominent figures, or children of university employees”
Amazing that it was beyond the academic elites to realise that disadvantage is not synonymous with skin colour; and that there is a simple and elegant solution to the conundrum – give some extra credibility to those coming from deprived backgrounds and schools, who nevertheless shone from their peers. This is what happens, I think, in the UK. A cynic might think that US style positive discrimination was kept as a fig-leaf for this kind of thing: “A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43% of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the “Dean’s” or “Director’s” lists of relations of donors or prominent figures, or children of university employees”
Thanks for the article. Sadly I think it could only really be written these days from someone that is black themselves as anyone else would be castigated as being racists etc. Still doesn’t answer what could be the answer. That would be a golden bullet.
I am on the board of a Catholic elementary school that serves very poor Latino immigrant families. The parents of the students speak Spanish only; the kids are all bilingual. We debate endlessly about the secret to student success. Catholic v. public? Rich v. poor. Rural v. urban. None of these things, it turns out, matter all that much. The single most important factor is the mother. If the mother cares, if she does homework with the kids every night, if she gets them to bed at a decent hour and gets them to school on time, this is what makes the greatest difference. Survey after server confirms this.
Well said — though I think really this is obvious to everyone who has ever really looked into this.
The reason it is universally denied is because it would mean the sexual revolution was actually very bad for us all.
According to research it is actually the father that is the most important factor. A single father household tends to do almost as well as a household with both parents. Single mother households do far worse in nearly every metric. It was pretty shocking to read.
Interesting. Is what you say true across all demographics?
Interesting. Is what you say true across all demographics?
Well said — though I think really this is obvious to everyone who has ever really looked into this.
The reason it is universally denied is because it would mean the sexual revolution was actually very bad for us all.
According to research it is actually the father that is the most important factor. A single father household tends to do almost as well as a household with both parents. Single mother households do far worse in nearly every metric. It was pretty shocking to read.
I am on the board of a Catholic elementary school that serves very poor Latino immigrant families. The parents of the students speak Spanish only; the kids are all bilingual. We debate endlessly about the secret to student success. Catholic v. public? Rich v. poor. Rural v. urban. None of these things, it turns out, matter all that much. The single most important factor is the mother. If the mother cares, if she does homework with the kids every night, if she gets them to bed at a decent hour and gets them to school on time, this is what makes the greatest difference. Survey after server confirms this.
Thanks for the article. Sadly I think it could only really be written these days from someone that is black themselves as anyone else would be castigated as being racists etc. Still doesn’t answer what could be the answer. That would be a golden bullet.
Does this mean Asian Americans will now get a fair chance to get into top universities in US?
Does this mean Asian Americans will now get a fair chance to get into top universities in US?
Stable families are *not* beyond the power of legislatures to address.
Obviously the solution is not solely a political one, but the legal regime plays a huge role in shaping cultural norms.
Stable families are *not* beyond the power of legislatures to address.
Obviously the solution is not solely a political one, but the legal regime plays a huge role in shaping cultural norms.
I wonder which of the three groups is most active in the current French looting activity ….
I wonder which of the three groups is most active in the current French looting activity ….
Sadly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali offers the ever popular environmental explanation – but what if the heart of the problem of widespread black underachievement really does lie with race? What then? Keep calm and carry on forcing equal outcomes? There are wider issues to consider than black self-esteem.
By the way, Lionel Shriver has written a hard-hitting piece on affirmative action in this week’s Spectator.
Sadly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali offers the ever popular environmental explanation – but what if the heart of the problem of widespread black underachievement really does lie with race? What then? Keep calm and carry on forcing equal outcomes? There are wider issues to consider than black self-esteem.
By the way, Lionel Shriver has written a hard-hitting piece on affirmative action in this week’s Spectator.
Oh, my gosh…she hit the nail on the head! Very astute article. So many black Americans just keep their eyes turned to their own lives and successes. They don’t necessarily have time for parades because they are too busy paying their mortgage and taking care of their familles.
The more attention drawn to racial disparity, the worse it seems to get. For some reason that second group of African Americans that she discussed is making things worse. And they are joined by what I call, The Big White Plantation Liberal Mama. Some of the BLM marches? There were more white women than black.
This is the suburban white soccer mom who knows or has known very few black Americans, but, hey, she reads a lot, is educated and is.. kind of bored. So she decides to get involved in the racism issue in America.
And how does she do that? By telling African Americans that if they aren’t outraged and if they don’t agree with systemic racism, they are in denial. She helps them by telling them she knows what is best for them and they should listen to her tell them what to do because they don’t know any better.
You know, this white liberal savior helps them by being a racist.
EDIT: Silly me. Of course this article is so well-written. The author is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Read, “Infidel”, her autobiography. One of my favorite books of all time.
Oh, my gosh…she hit the nail on the head! Very astute article. So many black Americans just keep their eyes turned to their own lives and successes. They don’t necessarily have time for parades because they are too busy paying their mortgage and taking care of their familles.
The more attention drawn to racial disparity, the worse it seems to get. For some reason that second group of African Americans that she discussed is making things worse. And they are joined by what I call, The Big White Plantation Liberal Mama. Some of the BLM marches? There were more white women than black.
This is the suburban white soccer mom who knows or has known very few black Americans, but, hey, she reads a lot, is educated and is.. kind of bored. So she decides to get involved in the racism issue in America.
And how does she do that? By telling African Americans that if they aren’t outraged and if they don’t agree with systemic racism, they are in denial. She helps them by telling them she knows what is best for them and they should listen to her tell them what to do because they don’t know any better.
You know, this white liberal savior helps them by being a racist.
EDIT: Silly me. Of course this article is so well-written. The author is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Read, “Infidel”, her autobiography. One of my favorite books of all time.
Excellent. Someone should send the link to David Lammy and Dr. Shola.
Excellent. Someone should send the link to David Lammy and Dr. Shola.
Test post: a comment i wrote several hours ago hasn’t appeared. Nor are there any others, so are all comments being suppressed on this fine article?
There’s a lot of that going on lately.
I had the same issue a few days ago and also yesterday.
I am making public interest disclosures about Australia’s lawlessness knowing that the truth is an effective defense against defamation. As a public servant witness to serious crimes that our police blocked me from reporting, I cannot bear the burden of silence. My posts, comments routinely vanish from various fora. I keep speaking out all the same.
I am very pleasantly surprised about Unherd’s courage and integrity publishing my comments. It is understandable precaution though, if they take some time checking what we write.
Mine too, in fact a reply to one of your earlier posts.
This really has to stop.
There’s a lot of that going on lately.
I had the same issue a few days ago and also yesterday.
I am making public interest disclosures about Australia’s lawlessness knowing that the truth is an effective defense against defamation. As a public servant witness to serious crimes that our police blocked me from reporting, I cannot bear the burden of silence. My posts, comments routinely vanish from various fora. I keep speaking out all the same.
I am very pleasantly surprised about Unherd’s courage and integrity publishing my comments. It is understandable precaution though, if they take some time checking what we write.
Mine too, in fact a reply to one of your earlier posts.
This really has to stop.
Test post: a comment i wrote several hours ago hasn’t appeared. Nor are there any others, so are all comments being suppressed on this fine article?
The Author’s clear and penetrating thinking gets us quickly beyond the fallacy of the admission policy affirmative action focus.
What she doesn’t do though is give carte blanche for us to ignore disadvantage and place all the blame on those from such backgrounds. You can already see how some have latched onto that being the end of the matter as their confirmatory bias receptor kicks in. That’s not actually what she is saying.
Bad environments can be created by ourselves and/or by the circumstances and behaviours imposed on us by society. For example the experience of policing will be very different for some nothing to do with whether they are an offender. Stuff like that has a ‘conditioning’ impact. We all have agency and we can’t deny that, but in the race of life not everyone lined up equally to start with. Therefore some correctives to reduce this are important if only for social cohesion from which we all benefit. The question is what are interventions can be, not that none are required.
It is worth reading the Judgement of the USSC linked by me above – particularly the Judgement of Clarence Thomas. What is being outlawed is the broad brush of racial discrimination. Clarence Thomas highlights some of the absurdities produced by a racial weighting whereby the son of a wealthy black man can get in on lower academic grade than a poor Asian American. It is the latter that is at a life disadvantage not the former.
Universities are not prevented from giving preference to those whose potential has been affected by their circumstances. They are simply prevented from discriminating on the grounds of race, a decision that requires considerable perverse intellectual gymnastics to oppose. Justice Thomas devotes several passages to tearing apart the flimsy arguments of Justice Jackson – the Democrat appointment who didn’t know what a woman was despite being chosen specifically because Biden wanted a black woman on the bench.
Yes, we have to tackle the disadvantages that poor black people (and other ethnicities) experience; however, the writer was addressing the flaws in the system of AA and how it has not been efficatious in reducing black poverty. There is work to be done to reduce poverty across all racial groups, and as you say there needs to be some interventions. Unfortunately all this “anti-racist” nonsense has diverted attention from this programme, as I honestly believe it was intended to do – rich white “liberals” can keep all their ill-gotten gains and wail about their “white privilge” with impunity as there is, of course, nothing that they can do about their ethnicity. It’s all performance; the poor stay poor and their wealth is untouched.
Much of that I concur with LH.
But the Author also challenged the reader on what we’d do to tackle disadvantage differently, and as you can see from the flow of comments the vast majority engage much less with that.
I wouldn’t especially focus on the colour of poorer, disadvantaged either. I’m almost certainly a bit ‘old skool’ and have a more socio-economic lens on this. That though a trickier categorisation. One suspects the default to ‘race’ not just because of some clever vested interests but because it’s simple.
Yes, there has always been a Wizard of Oz feature to AA. Hand a kid a diploma and immediately he can prove the Pythagorean theorem. As if wishes were horses. And we wonder why AA keeps not working. Justice Thomas would have us grow up.
Much of that I concur with LH.
But the Author also challenged the reader on what we’d do to tackle disadvantage differently, and as you can see from the flow of comments the vast majority engage much less with that.
I wouldn’t especially focus on the colour of poorer, disadvantaged either. I’m almost certainly a bit ‘old skool’ and have a more socio-economic lens on this. That though a trickier categorisation. One suspects the default to ‘race’ not just because of some clever vested interests but because it’s simple.
Yes, there has always been a Wizard of Oz feature to AA. Hand a kid a diploma and immediately he can prove the Pythagorean theorem. As if wishes were horses. And we wonder why AA keeps not working. Justice Thomas would have us grow up.
It is worth reading the Judgement of the USSC linked by me above – particularly the Judgement of Clarence Thomas. What is being outlawed is the broad brush of racial discrimination. Clarence Thomas highlights some of the absurdities produced by a racial weighting whereby the son of a wealthy black man can get in on lower academic grade than a poor Asian American. It is the latter that is at a life disadvantage not the former.
Universities are not prevented from giving preference to those whose potential has been affected by their circumstances. They are simply prevented from discriminating on the grounds of race, a decision that requires considerable perverse intellectual gymnastics to oppose. Justice Thomas devotes several passages to tearing apart the flimsy arguments of Justice Jackson – the Democrat appointment who didn’t know what a woman was despite being chosen specifically because Biden wanted a black woman on the bench.
Yes, we have to tackle the disadvantages that poor black people (and other ethnicities) experience; however, the writer was addressing the flaws in the system of AA and how it has not been efficatious in reducing black poverty. There is work to be done to reduce poverty across all racial groups, and as you say there needs to be some interventions. Unfortunately all this “anti-racist” nonsense has diverted attention from this programme, as I honestly believe it was intended to do – rich white “liberals” can keep all their ill-gotten gains and wail about their “white privilge” with impunity as there is, of course, nothing that they can do about their ethnicity. It’s all performance; the poor stay poor and their wealth is untouched.
The Author’s clear and penetrating thinking gets us quickly beyond the fallacy of the admission policy affirmative action focus.
What she doesn’t do though is give carte blanche for us to ignore disadvantage and place all the blame on those from such backgrounds. You can already see how some have latched onto that being the end of the matter as their confirmatory bias receptor kicks in. That’s not actually what she is saying.
Bad environments can be created by ourselves and/or by the circumstances and behaviours imposed on us by society. For example the experience of policing will be very different for some nothing to do with whether they are an offender. Stuff like that has a ‘conditioning’ impact. We all have agency and we can’t deny that, but in the race of life not everyone lined up equally to start with. Therefore some correctives to reduce this are important if only for social cohesion from which we all benefit. The question is what are interventions can be, not that none are required.
A comment that I wrote linking the US Supreme Court Judgement in the University case and commending Clarence Thomas’s judgement is awaiting approval. As it contained nothing remotely controversial I presume all posts on this article are being moderated.
A comment that I wrote linking the US Supreme Court Judgement in the University case and commending Clarence Thomas’s judgement is awaiting approval. As it contained nothing remotely controversial I presume all posts on this article are being moderated.
One of my favorite authors, in and outside of Unherd.
For all policymaking, the first question should always be “what do we hope to achieve?”, followed immediately by “what steps are necessary to get there?”. These points were lost by progressive Americans when attempting to address the plight of black Americans, on top of neglecting the larger moral and constitutional questions surrounding systemic racial discrimination.
One of my favorite authors, in and outside of Unherd.
For all policymaking, the first question should always be “what do we hope to achieve?”, followed immediately by “what steps are necessary to get there?”. These points were lost by progressive Americans when attempting to address the plight of black Americans, on top of neglecting the larger moral and constitutional questions surrounding systemic racial discrimination.
“The other obvious difference is that those in group one tend to come from stable, monogamous families.”
“Seen in this light, affirmative action on its own could never solve the problems of black Americans born into terrible environments, because its operation came too late.”
”And this is where affirmative action stepped in, no doubt because other factors — such as stable families — were beyond the power of legislators to address.”
“Stable monogamous families” beyond the power of legislators to address, or, those with the power of legislation do not want to restrict their own life-styles, and they gain easier access to elite education by seeming to advocate for the other group (number 3), the members of which will never reach the entry gates elite universities.
“The other obvious difference is that those in group one tend to come from stable, monogamous families.”
“Seen in this light, affirmative action on its own could never solve the problems of black Americans born into terrible environments, because its operation came too late.”
”And this is where affirmative action stepped in, no doubt because other factors — such as stable families — were beyond the power of legislators to address.”
“Stable monogamous families” beyond the power of legislators to address, or, those with the power of legislation do not want to restrict their own life-styles, and they gain easier access to elite education by seeming to advocate for the other group (number 3), the members of which will never reach the entry gates elite universities.
Terrible Censorship of comments on this essay as we have know come to expect sadly.
Are you not seeing your comments a day or so later?
Did you make more than 3 comments on this article?
Some level of moderation is likely necessary, given the topics Unherd dare to touch. I am immensely grateful for giving me a voice here and on other articles.
Great article from a great thinker.
My favourite thinker in fact!
Regardless of its fairness, Affirmative Action should only be considered for either Native Americans or the descendants of American slaves. No-one else, regardless of skin colour. If you or your ancestors chose to live in the US it should definitely not apply.
Regardless of its fairness, Affirmative Action should only be considered for either Native Americans or the descendants of American slaves. No-one else, regardless of skin colour. If you or your ancestors chose to live in the US it should definitely not apply.
Great article . You are of a similar mindset to Thomas Sowell – which is a compliment to your informed insight, transparent honesty and obvious intelligence. Will you soon be speaking at an Unherd event ? If so, I will certainly buy tickets?
“…despite the fact that all sorts of other government welfare and criminal justice policies have been adopted since the Sixties, disparities between white and black Americans remain entrenched.”
A damning revelation about exactly those government welfare and criminal justice policies.
I would really like to see an article on ‘the life of university drop-outs’. No degree; heavy debt load, a total loss of self confidence and probably unsupportive social and family life. So sad!
Could a kind American reader please explain to an ignorant Brit the difference between a College and a University in the US, as some comments appear to use the terms interchangeably? And what is the significance of the statistic quoted regarding graduation within six years? Six years??? Does this imply that US students enter College at a very early stage in their educational journey, that academic entry requirements are very low, or that examinations may be retaken repeatedly until the money runs out? Or is it because US undergraduate degrees are largely modular?
It is no surprise that President Biden has condemned the Supreme Court’s decision. The Guardian quoted him as saying, “This is not a normal court.”
Is it fair that, under the racist system prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, only 34% of three-quarters of the USA population was represented at these two and other universities?
It is no surprise that President Biden has condemned the Supreme Court’s decision. The Guardian quoted him as saying, “This is not a normal court.”
Is it fair that, under the racist system prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, only 34% of three-quarters of the USA population was represented at these two and other universities?
Given all the hoopla around our recent SCOTUS decision, and as a long time supporter of affirmative action principles, I was eager to read Ms Hirsi Ali’s perspectives.
I was enlightened and moved somewhat, but I have two concerns that left me ultimately disappointed:
I’d like to hear the basis for her finding that participants in the conference(s?) she attended fell into only the three groups she uses to illustrate her thesis. Is this a scientifically derived “finding”, or is it simply a global impression she had? I have read anecdotal accounts of individuals who were both successful in terms she used for her Group 1, but who also unequivocally credited affirmative action admissions to college as critical events in their career trajectories. Given that career success or failure is multifactorial, we may need to look for small groups of outliers who may form a fourth Group before we throw out the baby with the bath water.I looked for, but did not find, really a whiff of what solutions she or anyone else who opposes affirmative action approaches is proposing for enhancing career success within troubled communities. Laissez-faire seems like lame approach, so what say you other commenters?Mark H. Backlund, M.D.
The main issue here is that the SCOTUS is not in the business of creating laws, according to our constitution, regardless of any perceived benefits. The question is whether institutionalizing overt racism is the solution. How anyone can argue in favor of that is beyond me.
“I looked for, but did not find, really a whiff of what solutions she or anyone else who opposes affirmative action approaches is proposing for enhancing career success within troubled communities. Laissez-faire seems like lame approach …”
There are solutions other than affirmative action for college admission, Mark, and they definitely do not amount to lame platitudes or laissez-faire.
By the time that students reach college age and have developed attitudes toward both themselves and the larger world (including belief in the value of study, delayed gratification, ambition and personal responsibility), some have already passed the window of opportunity. So the solution must begin long before they reach the age of entry to college.
One solution (or cluster of solutions), therefore, would be to pour resources into early schooling. This would mean replacing trendy but failed pedagogical theories such as the “whole language” approach to reading with demonstrably sound approaches such as “phonics,” eliminating “critical race theory” or “gender theory” from the curriculum and evaluating students on the basis of earned personal merit.
That, in itself, wouldn’t do the trick, but it would certainly help in concert with other improvements such as strong cultural and legal support for marriage, for intact families and especially for fathers in the home.
Ultimately, of course, the kinds of cultural change that black children need must be developed within their own communities (including churches), not conferred (or imposed) on them by the state. Even the best schools are inadequate, after all, if parents don’t cooperate with teachers, or if they tell their children either implicitly or explicitly that study and hard work are somehow “white” and therefore alien.
By the way, most of these suggestions would be helpful in any community.
I’d say it’s unwise to talk about “pouring resources” as that lets “progressives” off the hook. Furthermore, Michaela, the school in London with headmistess Katherine Birbalsingh is one of the top schools in Britain while receiving standard public funding. The philosphy behind the school by the way is Stoicism – including a deal of emphasis on citizenship, personal agency, emotional control etc.. The kids are almost all black and about 40% are eligible for free school meals. Rejecting victimhood, gaining maturity and exam results means that you need not follow your parent or neighbour into for example single motherhood – other pathways become visible.
I’d say it’s unwise to talk about “pouring resources” as that lets “progressives” off the hook. Furthermore, Michaela, the school in London with headmistess Katherine Birbalsingh is one of the top schools in Britain while receiving standard public funding. The philosphy behind the school by the way is Stoicism – including a deal of emphasis on citizenship, personal agency, emotional control etc.. The kids are almost all black and about 40% are eligible for free school meals. Rejecting victimhood, gaining maturity and exam results means that you need not follow your parent or neighbour into for example single motherhood – other pathways become visible.
The main issue here is that the SCOTUS is not in the business of creating laws, according to our constitution, regardless of any perceived benefits. The question is whether institutionalizing overt racism is the solution. How anyone can argue in favor of that is beyond me.
“I looked for, but did not find, really a whiff of what solutions she or anyone else who opposes affirmative action approaches is proposing for enhancing career success within troubled communities. Laissez-faire seems like lame approach …”
There are solutions other than affirmative action for college admission, Mark, and they definitely do not amount to lame platitudes or laissez-faire.
By the time that students reach college age and have developed attitudes toward both themselves and the larger world (including belief in the value of study, delayed gratification, ambition and personal responsibility), some have already passed the window of opportunity. So the solution must begin long before they reach the age of entry to college.
One solution (or cluster of solutions), therefore, would be to pour resources into early schooling. This would mean replacing trendy but failed pedagogical theories such as the “whole language” approach to reading with demonstrably sound approaches such as “phonics,” eliminating “critical race theory” or “gender theory” from the curriculum and evaluating students on the basis of earned personal merit.
That, in itself, wouldn’t do the trick, but it would certainly help in concert with other improvements such as strong cultural and legal support for marriage, for intact families and especially for fathers in the home.
Ultimately, of course, the kinds of cultural change that black children need must be developed within their own communities (including churches), not conferred (or imposed) on them by the state. Even the best schools are inadequate, after all, if parents don’t cooperate with teachers, or if they tell their children either implicitly or explicitly that study and hard work are somehow “white” and therefore alien.
By the way, most of these suggestions would be helpful in any community.
Given all the hoopla around our recent SCOTUS decision, and as a long time supporter of affirmative action principles, I was eager to read Ms Hirsi Ali’s perspectives.
I was enlightened and moved somewhat, but I have two concerns that left me ultimately disappointed:
I’d like to hear the basis for her finding that participants in the conference(s?) she attended fell into only the three groups she uses to illustrate her thesis. Is this a scientifically derived “finding”, or is it simply a global impression she had? I have read anecdotal accounts of individuals who were both successful in terms she used for her Group 1, but who also unequivocally credited affirmative action admissions to college as critical events in their career trajectories. Given that career success or failure is multifactorial, we may need to look for small groups of outliers who may form a fourth Group before we throw out the baby with the bath water.I looked for, but did not find, really a whiff of what solutions she or anyone else who opposes affirmative action approaches is proposing for enhancing career success within troubled communities. Laissez-faire seems like lame approach, so what say you other commenters?Mark H. Backlund, M.D.