What do you think?
Rate this book
Out of Order
The policy of affirmative action, today, more so than in the Civil Rights era, is under severe scrutiny. Nicholas Capaldi's Out of Order typifies the present-day criticism of affirmative action and shows how we have shifted from equality of opportunity and individual merit to the concept of group entitlement and statistical quality of result. Capaldi contends that affirmative action has not solved the problem of equal opportunity for which it was presumably designed, it has instead created a new moral dilemma in the form of reverse discrimination.
Out of Order highlights key affirmative action issues from the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Bakke decision, the Weber case of 1979, and beyond. Capaldi illuminates not only the historical/judicial complexion of affirmative action policies but also their philosophical and social implications. Capaldi questions the necessity of affirmative action, whether its creation was based upon a valid definition of the nature and extent of discrimination, and whether it is a suitable policy for dealing with discrimination.
Capaldi maintains that the creation of affirmative action evolved more out of social theory than social reality. By carefully documenting the legislative and judicial history of the Civil Rights Act, the author argues that affirmative action is a bureaucratic fabrication, that it is not a solution to a problem but a policy in search of problems.
The crux of Capaldi's thesis boldly claims that affirmative action is perpetuated by the self-interest of "modern liberals" who "guide and control the system from their superior vantage point." Moreover, affirmative action is centered on education and has its roots in doctrinaire liberalism. Since that social philosophy attaches a crucial role to education, and since the conflicting demands made upon the modern American university have exposed its inability to generate coherent policies, doctrinaire liberalism has undergone a crisis of confidence.
Out of Order highlights key affirmative action issues from the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Bakke decision, the Weber case of 1979, and beyond. Capaldi illuminates not only the historical/judicial complexion of affirmative action policies but also their philosophical and social implications. Capaldi questions the necessity of affirmative action, whether its creation was based upon a valid definition of the nature and extent of discrimination, and whether it is a suitable policy for dealing with discrimination.
Capaldi maintains that the creation of affirmative action evolved more out of social theory than social reality. By carefully documenting the legislative and judicial history of the Civil Rights Act, the author argues that affirmative action is a bureaucratic fabrication, that it is not a solution to a problem but a policy in search of problems.
The crux of Capaldi's thesis boldly claims that affirmative action is perpetuated by the self-interest of "modern liberals" who "guide and control the system from their superior vantage point." Moreover, affirmative action is centered on education and has its roots in doctrinaire liberalism. Since that social philosophy attaches a crucial role to education, and since the conflicting demands made upon the modern American university have exposed its inability to generate coherent policies, doctrinaire liberalism has undergone a crisis of confidence.
201 pages, Hardcover
First published May 19, 1985
8 people want to read
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 20, 2024
A REJECTION OF AFFIRMIATIVE ACTION AS PRACTICED IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Nicholas Capaldi teaches Business Ethics at Loyola University; he is also the founder and President of the Global Corporate Governance Institute.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “The policy of affirmative action has disturbed the national conscience for almost two decades… it has created a new moral dilemma in the form of reverse discrimination. The problems remain unsolved, and we have less of a consensus now than we used to on how even to define those problems. What we shall pursue is a sustained, comprehensive, and definitive examination of affirmative action, encompassing the historical, legal, political, sociological, economic, and moral dimensions of the issue… The focus is on affirmative action in higher education…
“the central theme of this book… [is that] affirmative action was the inevitable consequence of the social philosophy known as doctrinaire liberalism, that doctrinaire liberalism is the entrenched philosophy of academic social science, and that affirmative action very nearly destroyed the university as a viable, independent institution---and it would have it that policy had remained unchecked… In this book we take blacks are the paradigm case of all oppressed groups.” (Pg. 1-3)
He notes, “EEOC is forced to … arguing that affirmative action is the overcoming of past discrimination and that such discrimination is inferable from the statistics. Increasingly, statistics must be used because, with the passage of time and the working out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, overt acts of discrimination are harder and harder to find… In order to make a case, one would have to prove that statistical underachievement is a direct result of previously segregated schools and public facilities. This… is a hypothesis and not a fact. And the one thing that advocates of realignment want to avoid is an open challenge to their hypotheses or even to have them exposed as hypotheses.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “A few years back, administration officials were amazed that officials of HEW did a statistical analysis of every rank and every field and every subfield at major universities. Why pick on the big schools, why be picayune about every little distinction? Now it is clear why. IF women and minorities are able to achieve statistical parity in high er education s a whole, that is not enough. Invidious comparison is still possible. It is especially important that they achieve parity in the best schools. And if they achieve parity in the best schools but not in every department, then invidious comparisons can still be made. Finally, if they achieve it in every level of every department but some subfield of knowledge is not proportional, then a gap still exists. Any evidence that groups may vary widely must be eliminated, otherwise the liberal assumption about human nature cannot sustain the policies recommended.” (Pg. 98)
He says, “I should like to point out that prejudice is not the simple product of associated lower status. Anti-Semitism has hardly abated in the modern world because Jews are so successful. Quite the contrary. The issue of prejudice is much too complex to let this one get by. The case here is just the reverse. The more that minorities are the perceived beneficiaries of preference, the more prejudice is created.” (Pg. 110-111)
He argues, “Affirmative action must somehow make sense of itself as both teleological and deterministic. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown precisely how this applies in human social behavior. Unfortunately, what affirmative action and many other social policies offer is speculation in the absence of positive knowledge. It is in fact a crude appeal to ignorance. Finally, there is no guarantee that if we obtained the relevant knowledge it would entail or be comparable with the preferred values of results.” (Pg. 128)
He contends, “Liberals do not feel sympathy or compassion or even guilt. What they feel is pity. The effects of pity on human beings as opposed to compassion can be disastrous. If the helping hand of liberalism is a necessary condition for achievement or development, then this means that the victim could never have made it on his or her own, could never have made it without the liberal.” (Pg. 177)
He concludes, “What doctrinaire liberalism has lost sight of is a conception of the common good that need not be a total unity. We in America have always operated with, and still operate with, a sense of community, which is the result of an INHERITED and NEGOTIATED harmony of COMPLEMENTARY interests, a working consensus. Our community exists because of what has happened to it. It has been shaped by its heritage. Consequently, any debate about the future must start with the question, What is good for a community with our heritage? Doctrinaire liberalism fails to ask this question because it does not recognize that a community exists in time as well as in space. that is why it is so important to get the history right and not to succumb to ideologically distorted visions.” (Pg. 178)
This book may interest c\some critics of affirmative action programs.
Nicholas Capaldi teaches Business Ethics at Loyola University; he is also the founder and President of the Global Corporate Governance Institute.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “The policy of affirmative action has disturbed the national conscience for almost two decades… it has created a new moral dilemma in the form of reverse discrimination. The problems remain unsolved, and we have less of a consensus now than we used to on how even to define those problems. What we shall pursue is a sustained, comprehensive, and definitive examination of affirmative action, encompassing the historical, legal, political, sociological, economic, and moral dimensions of the issue… The focus is on affirmative action in higher education…
“the central theme of this book… [is that] affirmative action was the inevitable consequence of the social philosophy known as doctrinaire liberalism, that doctrinaire liberalism is the entrenched philosophy of academic social science, and that affirmative action very nearly destroyed the university as a viable, independent institution---and it would have it that policy had remained unchecked… In this book we take blacks are the paradigm case of all oppressed groups.” (Pg. 1-3)
He notes, “EEOC is forced to … arguing that affirmative action is the overcoming of past discrimination and that such discrimination is inferable from the statistics. Increasingly, statistics must be used because, with the passage of time and the working out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, overt acts of discrimination are harder and harder to find… In order to make a case, one would have to prove that statistical underachievement is a direct result of previously segregated schools and public facilities. This… is a hypothesis and not a fact. And the one thing that advocates of realignment want to avoid is an open challenge to their hypotheses or even to have them exposed as hypotheses.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “A few years back, administration officials were amazed that officials of HEW did a statistical analysis of every rank and every field and every subfield at major universities. Why pick on the big schools, why be picayune about every little distinction? Now it is clear why. IF women and minorities are able to achieve statistical parity in high er education s a whole, that is not enough. Invidious comparison is still possible. It is especially important that they achieve parity in the best schools. And if they achieve parity in the best schools but not in every department, then invidious comparisons can still be made. Finally, if they achieve it in every level of every department but some subfield of knowledge is not proportional, then a gap still exists. Any evidence that groups may vary widely must be eliminated, otherwise the liberal assumption about human nature cannot sustain the policies recommended.” (Pg. 98)
He says, “I should like to point out that prejudice is not the simple product of associated lower status. Anti-Semitism has hardly abated in the modern world because Jews are so successful. Quite the contrary. The issue of prejudice is much too complex to let this one get by. The case here is just the reverse. The more that minorities are the perceived beneficiaries of preference, the more prejudice is created.” (Pg. 110-111)
He argues, “Affirmative action must somehow make sense of itself as both teleological and deterministic. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown precisely how this applies in human social behavior. Unfortunately, what affirmative action and many other social policies offer is speculation in the absence of positive knowledge. It is in fact a crude appeal to ignorance. Finally, there is no guarantee that if we obtained the relevant knowledge it would entail or be comparable with the preferred values of results.” (Pg. 128)
He contends, “Liberals do not feel sympathy or compassion or even guilt. What they feel is pity. The effects of pity on human beings as opposed to compassion can be disastrous. If the helping hand of liberalism is a necessary condition for achievement or development, then this means that the victim could never have made it on his or her own, could never have made it without the liberal.” (Pg. 177)
He concludes, “What doctrinaire liberalism has lost sight of is a conception of the common good that need not be a total unity. We in America have always operated with, and still operate with, a sense of community, which is the result of an INHERITED and NEGOTIATED harmony of COMPLEMENTARY interests, a working consensus. Our community exists because of what has happened to it. It has been shaped by its heritage. Consequently, any debate about the future must start with the question, What is good for a community with our heritage? Doctrinaire liberalism fails to ask this question because it does not recognize that a community exists in time as well as in space. that is why it is so important to get the history right and not to succumb to ideologically distorted visions.” (Pg. 178)
This book may interest c\some critics of affirmative action programs.
Displaying 1 of 1 review