Professor Thomas Sowell of UCLA, currently on leave at The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., has given us permission to publish his letter to Professor Frank C. Pierson of Swarthmore College as part of our continuing discussion of affirmative action in the universities [“HEW & the Universities,” by Paul Seabury, February 1972; Letters from Readers, May, June, July, and December 1972].—Ed.
September 18, 1972
Professor Frank C. Pierson
Chairman,
Department of Economics
Swarthmore College
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
Dear Professor Pierson:
This morning I was pleased to receive a letter from Swarthmore College, an institution for which I have long had respect, and reports from which have added to my admiration. Then I opened the letter and learned that “Swarthmore College is actively looking for a black economist. . . .” and the phrase that came immediately to mind was one from a bygone era, when a very different kind of emotionalism was abroad, and a counsel facing Senator Joseph McCarthy said, “Sir, have you no shame?”
What purpose is to be served by this sort of thing? Surely a labor economist of your reputation must know that unemployment among black Ph.D.’s is one of the least of our social problems, and has been for many years—long before “affirmative action.” In general, even, the salary is no higher at a top college than at less prestigious institutions for a given individual. So you are doing very little for black faculty members with broadcast recruiting campaigns like this (I note the letter is mimeographed). Maybe you think you are doing something for race relations. If you are going to find a Swarthmore-quality black faculty member, that is one thing. But Swarthmore-quality faculty members are found through Swarthmore-quality channels and not through mimeographed letters of this sort. Many a self-respecting black scholar would never accept an offer like this, even if he might otherwise enjoy teaching at Swarthmore. When Bill Allen was department chairman at UCLA he violently refused to hire anyone on the basis of ethnic representation—and thereby made it possible for me to come there a year later with my head held up. Your approach tends to make the job unattractive to anyone who regards himself as a scholar or a man, and thereby throws it open to opportunists.
Despite all the brave talk in academia about “affirmative action” without lowering quality standards, you and I both know that it takes many years to create a qualified faculty member of any color, and no increased demand is going to increase the supply immediately unless you lower quality. Now what good is going to come from lower standards that will make “black” equivalent to “substandard’ in the eyes of black and white students alike? Can you imagine that this is going to reduce racism? On the contrary, more and more thoughtful people are beginning to worry that the next generation will see an increasing amount of bigotry among those whites educated at some of the most liberal institutions, where this is the picture that is presented to them, however noble the rhetoric that accompanies it.
You and I both know that many of these “special” recruiting efforts are not aimed at helping black faculty members or black or white students, but rather at hanging on to the school’s federal money. Now, I have nothing against money. I have not been so familiar with it as to have contempt for it. But there are limits to what should be done to get it, and particularly so for an institution with a proud tradition, at a time when the government itself is wavering and having second thoughts about this policy, and when just a little courage from a few men in “responsible” positions might make a difference.
Yours sincerely,
[signed] Thomas Sowell
_____________
To the Editor:
Those of us who, like Elliott Abrams [“The Quota Commission,” October 1972] and Paul Seabury, have voiced fears of artificially imposed proportional representation in employment or education, whether it may result from outright quotas or numerical goals, are sometimes made to feel a bit like people years ago who saw bomb-carrying bearded Bolsheviks under every bed. After all, it is being said, aren’t we at least exaggerating the perils? In this connection, a recent Consent Decree approved by a U.S. District Court in California in disposing of a job discrimination suit is of interest.
In the case of NAACP v. Imperial Irrigation District, the Consent Decree entered on September 8 and agreed to by the parties, without any adjudication on the merits and without any admission of discrimination by the defendants, reads in part as follows:
Defendants shall take all action necessary to insure that as soon as possible the proportion of Chicanos and Blacks in the IID work force generally, and in each job classification (including supervisory and management positions), shall equal the proportion of Chicanos and Blacks in the general population of Imperial County, as shown by the latest United States Bureau of the Census figures. Similarly, defendants shall take all the actions necessary to insure that as soon as possible the proportion of all other racial and ethnic groups employed at the IID shall be equal to their proportion in the general population of Imperial County, as shown by the latest United States Bureau of the Census figures. The attainment of these hiring levels shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Affirmative Action Goal.” (emphasis added)
The target date for achieving the overall Affirmative Action Goal (perhaps very fittingly) is January 1, 1984.
Samuel Rabinove
New York City