To the Editor:

Congratulations to Thomas Sowell for “ ‘Affirmative Action”: A Worldwide Disaster” [December 1989]. The United Kingdom presents an interesting case of his “indigenous” example of preference turned inside out. Immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent have—thanks to their self-elected spokesmen and the activist Left of British politics (plus a lot of shallow journalism)—acquired a patina of superior virtue placing them on a morally higher plane than the indigenous British who have lived on this island for some centuries. This has resulted in a number of policies, labeled “multicultural,” which, in Manchester where I live, actually led to a murder in a local school when a resentful white bully knifed an Asian boy who had defied him. This took place in an atmosphere of bitterness directly caused by ethnically preferential policies in the Manchester school system.

A report on this incident was suppressed by the radically leftwing Manchester Council for two years, and finally published by the authors at their own expense. It is a devastating indictment of the so-called multicultural preferential policies of the Left. The only response of the electorally secure Manchester Council has been to shrug it off with the claim that the criticisms were noted and that things are “better now.” But the policies continue. It is a depressing illustration of Mr. Sowell’s remarks about the disastrous blend of politics and good intentions where these issues are concerned, and of the resistance of their proponents to plain facts—even bloodshed. Mr. Sowell’s reference to social disaster is neither extreme nor melodramatic.

Herb Greer
Manchester, England

_____________

To the Editor:

The article by Thomas Sowell is superb. It highlights what I believe is a generally unacknowledged dark side of affirmative action, i.e., that it really represents base-line racism on the part of its advocates.

Specifically, the message of affirmative action to blacks in this country is that they are not good enough to succeed on their own. While rabid segregationists generally object to preferential programs on racist grounds, well-meaning liberals who insist on affirmative-action programs have in essence a similar view of the capabilities, intellect, and potential of blacks. The major difference between these groups is that the second set has good intentions. But as we know, the road to hell, etc., etc. . . .

If you continue to tell someone throughout his life that he cannot get into a school on his merits, get a job on his merits, win contracts based on his merits, you will eventually convince him that he does not merit his college admission, his job, and his way of life. Over time, you will convince him that he does not deserve what he has. . . .

Affirmative action has set back the self-esteem of blacks and other groups, notwithstanding the good intentions of its proponents.

Andrew J. Neff
Larchmont, New York

_____________

To the Editor:

As usual, Thomas Sowell is a joy to read. His article is a scholarly treatment of a development I have watched, with fascination, over the last sixty-odd years—ever since I started working full time in 1928.

From my perspective, . . . the whole anarchic trend is summarized in Mr. Sowell’s brief comment about “a whole group-consciousness industry that acquires a vested interest in agitating emotional issues,” and his further comment that “The point is to create the appropriate climate for recriminations.”

The “malcontents of civilization” (to paraphrase Sidney Hook) are ever with us. These malcontents (who must be distinguished from bona-fide rebels, who are a necessary catalyst in an open culture) are essentially destructive. The fact of their existence is not new; what is new is their unprecedented power and influence. And politicians toady to these elements. . . . This is the real heart of the problem which neither Thomas Sowell nor King Solomon can solve—not this side of Judgment Day, at any rate.

Tom Humble
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

_____________

To the Editor:

The good news is that in “ ‘Affirmative Action’: A Worldwide Disaster” Thomas Sowell exceeds even his own standards of clarity of expression, breadth of documentation, and depth of thought. The bad news is that it probably won’t matter, since factual, logical arguments have little effect on quasi-religious beliefs.

In today’s secular world, many persons no longer have deep religious beliefs, but they may still have religious feelings. If this need for a religious experience is not satisfied, it tends to find expression in such things as liberal politics, environmentalism, animal rights, gun control, disarmament, or some other cause or social program. The problem is that religious feelings tend to be associated not only with zeal but also with non-logical thinking. In science as in everyday life, when we confront a problem, we try one possible solution; if it does not work we try another. But in religion, we persist in doing what does not work so long as we perceive it as being “good.”. . . And it is all too easy to mistake feeling good for doing good. In addition, believing that those who disagree with us are not just mistaken but wrong—that is, criminal or sinful—leads to intolerance. Non-logical thinking and contempt for one’s opponents are not useful tools for solving problems in a democracy.

David C. Stolinsky
Los Angeles, California

_____________

To the Editor:

It is a shame that all the important research Thomas Sowell has done to demonstrate conclusively that affirmative action is a worldwide disaster will have no effect on current or short- or medium-term public policy. Public policy with respect to affirmative action is based not on rational considerations but on the emotional perceptions of incompetent, fearful, guilt-ridden bureaucrats supported by academicians with similar attributes in response to threats and violence. It is fueled by continuous threats of further violence. . . .

Mr. Sowell’s lone rational voice is lost amid the clamor that continually arises from the affirmative-action Industry. . . .

Sheldon F. Gottlieb
Mobile, Alabama

_____________

To the Editor:

. . . Can anyone deny that affirmative action is based on the presumption that racial and ethnic categories are mutually exclusive (somewhat like different species), meaning that no individual can have (or be acknowledged as having) ancestors in more than one of the official racial/ethnic classifications? . . .

Affirmative-action policies are designed to force or forcefully to encourage . . . fraudulent claims of belonging to the designated beneficiary groups. . . . Not only is this degrading for the people encouraged, or tempted, to make fraudulent racial claims, but it gives the designated beneficiary groups the double message that they can’t stand on their own genetic feet. Why should people who proudly proclaim their opposition to racism demand the adoption of racist policies . . . ?

Too many people on the political Left have succumbed to a Nazi-like fascination with simpleminded myths of blood and race, and their division of the world into “whites” and “people of color” is dangerously close to the mythology of “Aryans” versus “non-Aryans.”

A. D. Powell
Madison, Wisconsin

_____________

To the Editor:

Thomas Sowell’s examination of affirmative action is a cogent reminder that we have created a virtual parody of John Cheever’s short story, “The Law,” in which new laws must constantly be passed in order to repair the bad effects of previous laws. What we need to do is get back to the root cause of the problem, which is that every act of hiring is an act of discrimination. Since the employer must choose blindly from any number of qualified applicants, he has no choice but to discriminate. All our laws about who may be discriminated against only make matters worse. Why not attack the root cause and take away from the employer the right to discriminate?

Let the employer set objective qualifications for every job. Then let the qualified applicants decide for themselves by that most democratic of methods—competitive bidding. Low bid gets the job. If we adopted this sensible method of assigning jobs to people and assigning value to jobs, we would eliminate discrimination and any need for affirmative action. What is more, we would eliminate poverty and unemployment, because the free-market price of labor would automatically maintain equilibrium at the full-employment level. . . .

Richard A. Davis
Ashland, Ohio

_____________

To the Editor:

Although illuminating and intriguing, Thomas Sowell’s dissection of affirmative-action policies on a global scale is heavy on analysis, short on blame, and devoid of prescriptive solutions.

Among the guilty parties worthy of condemnation, we should include: (1) every U.S. President (starting with the late Lyndon Baines Johnson) who used executive orders for that well-intended but dysfunctional purpose; (2) every federal and state legislative member who voted for such laws—retroactively; and (3) every federal and state judge, clerk, and/or mugwump who had a hand in issuing race- or gender-based fiats. As penance, they should have their healthy pensions attached!

At present, those directly affected by such policies are (euphemistically!) categorized as “overqualified” for race- or gender-based governmental largesse. We have suffered too long! Our restitution is now due. . . .

Here is a solution: using the aforementioned attached federal/state pensions to prime the pump, an immediate trust fund (interest-bearing, with cost-of-living increases) should be established under presidential executive order. Those overqualified for affirmative-action benevolence would receive (1) all back wages tax free (based on the last year of full employment—not subsequent involuntary underemployment); (2) full pardons on credit ratings; (3) restoration of lost housing; (4) federal payment of spousal and/or child support, in cases of broken marriages. . . .

David C. Phillips
Bakersfield, California

_____________

To the Editor:

. . . When I attended law school in the late 70’s, there were several factions in the student body agitating for an increase in the percentage of places reserved for minorities. Many of the most vocal champions of this idea were white liberal students who insisted that their stance was the only morally correct position to take, period. The problem was that since there was a finite number of places in the school, for every person who received one because of his race or color, another, who would otherwise have been given that place, lost it because of his race or color. As Thomas Sowell’s article points out, this kind of reverse discrimination causes bitterness and recrimination far in excess of the numbers involved, and it did so at our school also, since virtually every white who failed to get admitted blamed it on affirmative action whether that was true or not. Affirmative action thus became a bitterly contested issue which appeared to have no middle ground. To meet this problem I came up with what I modestly called the “Breen Plan for Voluntary Affirmative Action,” which was printed in the law-school newspaper, and widely discussed.

The Breen plan encouraged all white students who believed in affirmative action to go to the dean of students, tell him their feelings, and ask that their seat in law school be turned over to a minority student who would not otherwise be admitted. They would then agree to drop out of law school, and sign a pledge never to attend another professional school. In this manner, pro-affirmative-action whites could act on their own beliefs without “imposing their morals on another.”. . .

A couple of months later I interviewed the dean . . . on how well the Breen plan was progressing. You can imagine my surprise and dismay when he informed me that not one single liberal had come forward. . . . I was, in the words of Claude Rains of Casablanca fame, “Shocked! Yes, shocked!”

Still, I firmly believe that the Breen plan has great potential throughout our society. It can be expanded to apply to just about any educational or employment situation, allowing those who want certain minorities to receive special consideration for desirable jobs to act on their beliefs without stepping on the rights of others. . . . Such an example might provide the political steam necessary to force Congress to pass a bill mandating a federal Office of Total Equality. . . . Then that great dream of all right-thinking individuals, of a completely homogenized America, would at last be at hand. Surely, on that sweet day, we as a nation will have reached the liberal Promised Land.

Terry Breen
Wallisville, Texas

_____________

To the Editor:

Thomas Sowell’s critique of affirmative action is superb and unflinching. . . .

Among the less publicized but more ironic consequences of the politicization of formerly meritocratic preserves is the growing influence of swing groups. This trend naturally penalizes those whose voting patterns are predictable, by making their success dependent on the victory of a particular political party, and increasing the likelihood that they will be taken altogether for granted.

To cite one recent example: some Jews have begun to lament the absence of any of their co-religionists from the Supreme Court. Were High Court appointments made solely on the basis of merit, conceivably two or three justices would be Jewish. But Supreme Court nominations, and certainly confirmations, are almost entirely political now, especially after the Bork fiasco. . . . With what result? Of the three newest additions to the Court, one is a white Protestant female, the other two, white Roman Catholic males. All belong to important but politically unpredictable sectors of the electorate—in noticeable contrast to the two recent failed nominees, a white male Protestant and a Jew. I mean no slight to the qualifications of the successful nominees, but the fact is that their supporters had a much more tangible political incentive to fight. . . .

This effective exclusion should not be lost on other groups who imagine that sheer numbers will invariably guarantee their success in a spoils system dominated by partisan considerations.

Seth A. Halpern
Scarsdale, New York

_____________

Thomas Sowell writes:

The readers’ generous praise is especially appreciated because the research and writing behind my study kept me up all night more than once, as I pressed to complete the study in time for it to be relevant to reconsiderations of “affirmative action” in the courts. As this effort suggests, I do not consider it impossible for facts or reasoning to influence the course of events, even in an area so dominated by unsupported political dogma. The few wavering limitations put on “affirmative action” from time to time thus far, beginning with the Bakke case twelve years ago, may reflect earlier efforts of people like Nathan Glazer and many others to try to talk sense in the middle of a crescendo of nonsense. With all this, however, I cannot feel optimistic in the sense of believing that the odds are better than 50-50 that this dangerous policy will be discontinued before it leads to the kind of polarization that has meant bloodshed in the streets in other countries. There simply does not seem to be any alternative to putting an all-out effort into preventing this needless tragedy from happening in America.