What do you think?
Rate this book
Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy
Should government try to remedy persistent racial and ethnic inequalities by establishing and enforcing quotas and other statistical goals? Here is one of the most incisive books ever written on this difficult issue. Nathan Glazer surveys the civil rights tradition in the United States; evaluates public policies in the areas of employment, education, and housing; and questions the judgment and wisdom of their underlying premises―their focus on group rights, rather than individual rights. Such policies, he argues, are ineffective, unnecessary, and politically destructive of harmonious relations among the races.
Updated with a long, new introduction by the author, Affirmative Discrimination will enable citizens as well as scholars to better understand and evaluate public policies for achieving social justice in a multiethnic society.
Updated with a long, new introduction by the author, Affirmative Discrimination will enable citizens as well as scholars to better understand and evaluate public policies for achieving social justice in a multiethnic society.
- GenresPolitics
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
1 person is currently reading
50 people want to read
About the author
Nathan Glazer
73 books18 followersNathan Glazer was an American sociologist who taught at the University of California, Berkeley, and for several decades at Harvard University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 21, 2024
A PROMINENT SOCIOLOGIST LOOKED CRITICALLY AT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Nathan Glazer (1923-2019) was an American sociologist who taught at UC Berkeley and at Harvard University; he was also co-editor of the policy journal ‘The Public Interest.’
He wrote in the 1978 Introduction to this 1975 book, “In [this book] I attacked the justice and the wisdom of shifting from individual rights to group rights in devising policies to overcome racial and ethnic-group discrimination and is heritage… after this book was published… the Democrats returned in 1976, all the regulations remained in place for further development toward a society in which race and ethnic group determine individual fate. We now had top administrators who believed in this vision… Why could not an administration that believed that this vision was wrong act? First, because a minority who did not want such a society (I speak not of blacks and Hispanic Americans, who oppose a quota system almost as much as other Americans; I speak of those who CLAIM to speak for them) had behind them the moral authority that comes from speaking for a group that has suffered fierce prejudice and discrimination and is now ridden with social problems. This moral authority was expressed in the way they would denounce those who wanted to moderate race and group based policies as racist, as wishing to undo the gains of the civil rights revolution and to return to 1876.” (Pg. ix, xiv)
He states, “Affirmative action has developed a wonderful Catch-22 type of existence. The employer is required by the OFCC to state numerical goals and dates when we will reach them. There is no presumption of discrimination. However, if he does not reach these goals, the question will come up was to whether he has made a ‘good faith’ effort to reach them. The test of a good faith effort has not been spelled out. From the employer’s point of view, the simplest way … to avoid the severe penalties of loss of contracts and heavy costs in back pay… is simply to meet the goals.” (Pg. 58-59)
He explains, “Nothing I have said… should be taken as justifying discrimination; the real question is what part of the severe problems of the black population can be reached by programs of preferential hiring or is the result of present discrimination in employment. (Perhaps all of it can be attributed to PAST discrimination in employment, but that does not mean these problems can be PRESENTLY reached by programs of preferential employment.” (Pg. 73)
He argues, “The Department of Labor… was the organization which decided that the ‘affected’ or ‘protected’ classes should consist of Negroes, Spanish-surnamed Americans, Native Americans, and Orientals. It is a strange mix. Why just these and no others? We understand why Negroes and American Indians… Puerto Ricans, perhaps, are included because we conquered them and are responsible for them. We did not conquer most of the Mexican-Americans. They came as immigrants, and why they should be ‘protected’ more than other minorities is an interesting question… Why Cubans? They have already received substantial assistance in immigration and have made as much progress as any immigrant might expect… Why Oriental Americans. They have indeed been subject in the past to savage official discrimination, but that is in the past…. Why not the Portuguese in New England and the French Canadians? And why not dark-skinned immigrants from India, who are now a very substantial part of the new immigration?” (Pg. 74)
He outlines, “I believe that three questions are critical in developing a position on school busing. First, do basic human rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, require that the student population of every school be racially balanced according to some specified proportion, and that no school be permitted a black majority? Second, whether or not this is required by the Constitution, is it the only way to improve the education of black children? Third, whether or not this is required by the Constitution, and whether or not it improves the education of black children, is it the only way to improve relations between the races?” (Pg. 94)
He observes, “Integrating the generally lower-income whites of the central city with lower-income blacks, particularly under conditions of resentment and conflict, as in San Francisco and Boston, is likely to achieve nothing, in educational terms. Furthermore, the effect of busing is to lose substantial parts of the white student population.” (Pg. 121)
He states, “The integration of the poor is quite another matter, and is hardly likely to be much advanced whatever measures of public policy we adopt. The poor are constrained in their movements by limited income, are resisted by the middle classes because of the social problems they bring, and further, it is not at all clear that the poor will be better off if distributed through an active public policy---even if it were possible---among the middle classes.” (Pg. 166-167)
He argues, “Compensation for the past is a dangerous principle. It can be extended indefinitely and make for endless trouble. Who is to determine what is proper compensation for the American Indian the black, the Mexican American, the Chinese or Japanese American? When it is established that the full status of equality is extended to every individual, regardless of race, color, or national origin, and that special opportunity is also available to any individual on the basis of individual need, against regardless of race, color, or national origin, one has done all that justice and equity call for and that is consistent with a harmonious multigroup society.” (Pg. 201)
This book will interest those seeking critiques of Affirmative Action, and related issues
Nathan Glazer (1923-2019) was an American sociologist who taught at UC Berkeley and at Harvard University; he was also co-editor of the policy journal ‘The Public Interest.’
He wrote in the 1978 Introduction to this 1975 book, “In [this book] I attacked the justice and the wisdom of shifting from individual rights to group rights in devising policies to overcome racial and ethnic-group discrimination and is heritage… after this book was published… the Democrats returned in 1976, all the regulations remained in place for further development toward a society in which race and ethnic group determine individual fate. We now had top administrators who believed in this vision… Why could not an administration that believed that this vision was wrong act? First, because a minority who did not want such a society (I speak not of blacks and Hispanic Americans, who oppose a quota system almost as much as other Americans; I speak of those who CLAIM to speak for them) had behind them the moral authority that comes from speaking for a group that has suffered fierce prejudice and discrimination and is now ridden with social problems. This moral authority was expressed in the way they would denounce those who wanted to moderate race and group based policies as racist, as wishing to undo the gains of the civil rights revolution and to return to 1876.” (Pg. ix, xiv)
He states, “Affirmative action has developed a wonderful Catch-22 type of existence. The employer is required by the OFCC to state numerical goals and dates when we will reach them. There is no presumption of discrimination. However, if he does not reach these goals, the question will come up was to whether he has made a ‘good faith’ effort to reach them. The test of a good faith effort has not been spelled out. From the employer’s point of view, the simplest way … to avoid the severe penalties of loss of contracts and heavy costs in back pay… is simply to meet the goals.” (Pg. 58-59)
He explains, “Nothing I have said… should be taken as justifying discrimination; the real question is what part of the severe problems of the black population can be reached by programs of preferential hiring or is the result of present discrimination in employment. (Perhaps all of it can be attributed to PAST discrimination in employment, but that does not mean these problems can be PRESENTLY reached by programs of preferential employment.” (Pg. 73)
He argues, “The Department of Labor… was the organization which decided that the ‘affected’ or ‘protected’ classes should consist of Negroes, Spanish-surnamed Americans, Native Americans, and Orientals. It is a strange mix. Why just these and no others? We understand why Negroes and American Indians… Puerto Ricans, perhaps, are included because we conquered them and are responsible for them. We did not conquer most of the Mexican-Americans. They came as immigrants, and why they should be ‘protected’ more than other minorities is an interesting question… Why Cubans? They have already received substantial assistance in immigration and have made as much progress as any immigrant might expect… Why Oriental Americans. They have indeed been subject in the past to savage official discrimination, but that is in the past…. Why not the Portuguese in New England and the French Canadians? And why not dark-skinned immigrants from India, who are now a very substantial part of the new immigration?” (Pg. 74)
He outlines, “I believe that three questions are critical in developing a position on school busing. First, do basic human rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, require that the student population of every school be racially balanced according to some specified proportion, and that no school be permitted a black majority? Second, whether or not this is required by the Constitution, is it the only way to improve the education of black children? Third, whether or not this is required by the Constitution, and whether or not it improves the education of black children, is it the only way to improve relations between the races?” (Pg. 94)
He observes, “Integrating the generally lower-income whites of the central city with lower-income blacks, particularly under conditions of resentment and conflict, as in San Francisco and Boston, is likely to achieve nothing, in educational terms. Furthermore, the effect of busing is to lose substantial parts of the white student population.” (Pg. 121)
He states, “The integration of the poor is quite another matter, and is hardly likely to be much advanced whatever measures of public policy we adopt. The poor are constrained in their movements by limited income, are resisted by the middle classes because of the social problems they bring, and further, it is not at all clear that the poor will be better off if distributed through an active public policy---even if it were possible---among the middle classes.” (Pg. 166-167)
He argues, “Compensation for the past is a dangerous principle. It can be extended indefinitely and make for endless trouble. Who is to determine what is proper compensation for the American Indian the black, the Mexican American, the Chinese or Japanese American? When it is established that the full status of equality is extended to every individual, regardless of race, color, or national origin, and that special opportunity is also available to any individual on the basis of individual need, against regardless of race, color, or national origin, one has done all that justice and equity call for and that is consistent with a harmonious multigroup society.” (Pg. 201)
This book will interest those seeking critiques of Affirmative Action, and related issues
Displaying 1 of 1 review