Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action

by Frederick R. Lynch

Lynch condemns the sloppy, fearful thinking that has converted affirmative action into quotas and that has kept social researchers shying away from this explosive topic.
Shulamit Reinharz Choice

There is nothing quite like Frederick Lynch's book which describes how affirmative action works in real life, and points to some very disturbing effects. This is a subject that should be discussed not only in the Supreme Court and Lynch makes an important contribution to that discussion. Nathan Glazer, Harvard University

More and more questions have surfaced in the past decade concerning the wisdom and fairness of affirmative action programs. In this book, Lynch takes a hard look at affirmative action policy development and the social and ethical implications of a system that promotes gender and race as criteria for vocational advancement and educational opportunity. He focuses on the experiences of white males who have been victims of reverse discrimination under such programs and explores the lackluster response from government, the media, and employing institutions. Lynch examines the political taboo that for two decades effectively stifled discussion of the issues that affirmative action raises in both public discourse and scholarly analysis. He reviews the original ideals and purposes of affirmative action and contrasts them with the program as it has actually operated in everyday work settings. In case studies based on interviews and other data, Lynch assesses the reactions of white males to affirmative action social barriers, as well as their impact on co-workers, friends, and relatives. He describes the role of the mass media, the social sciences, and ideological elites in creating a conspiracy of silence concerning the hidden and unintended consequences of affirmative action policies. The only study that deals specifically with the impact of affirmative action on white males, this book is a must read for anyone who is truly interested in understanding the sociological, political, and psychological complexities of this issue.

256 pages, Paperback

First published December 11, 1989

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 1 out of 5]

PURPORTED ‘RESEARCH’ ON THE EFFECT OF ‘REVERSE DISCRMINATION ON WHITE MALES

Frederick R. Lynch is a Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College. He wrote in the Preface to this 1991 book, “For the past twenty years, a system of taboos has structured the analysis of race relations in this country. Fostered by intellectual, political, and media elites, these taboos suppressed stereotypical thinking about women and minority groups. The taboos also discouraged criticism of social programs designed to aid the occupational and social mobility of these same oppressed populations… As the 1970s wore on, however, outright distortion was required to maintain the taboos… journalists and social scientists felt compelled to avoid close scrutiny of race-related topics, such as violent crime, forced busing, and affirmative action quotas…

“Sociologists and political scientists … caved in to political fashion. The taboos became increasingly intense and violators were threatened with being labeled ‘racist.’ This New McCarthyism, as I term it, prevented recognition and discussion of race-related problems… The New McCarthyism also masked the transformation of affirmative action programs from equality of opportunity for individuals to group-based quotas… There was little mention that affirmative action quotas included many newly arrived immigrants who thus obtained preference over citizens who had resided in this nation for many generations.” (Pg. xiii-xiv)

He continues, “[This book] is concerned with the costs of public ignorance as well as the manipulation of law and social reality by ideological elites. The book explores how an official system of race-and-gender preferences was imposed upon American life in spite of laws and massive public opinion against such policies. The focus of the book is on how affirmative action has actually operated in everyday settings, as opposed to its early, airy ‘ideals.’ A particular aim of the book is to discover how white males, their co-workers, and families reacted to reverse discrimination situations. The role of the mass media and social sciences in portraying---or ignoring---affirmative action is also examined. Finally, I examine the latent, or hidden and unintended, consequences of affirmative action policies… the approach in this book is decidedly investigative and qualitative. A case-study approach has been used to assess reactions of white males to affirmative action barriers.” (Pg. xv-xvi) Later, he adds, “I am somewhat less concerned with affirmative action in the form of gender preferences; for the cutting edge in rhetoric and effort appears to have been with regard to racial/ethnic matters.” (Pg. 4)

He observes, “one of the major objections to real-world affirmative action is that unqualified minorities have been hired or promoted over better qualified whites… people man now automatically equate affirmative action with lowered standards or quotas.” (Pg. 18)

He acknowledges, “no one knows how widespread reverse discrimination has been. One telephone survey of white males suggests a one-out-of-ten figure… Also largely unknown is how individual white males responded to actual encounters with reverse discrimination.” (Pg. 51) He recounts, “From late 1984 to the spring of 1986, two researchers and I sought white, male subjects through networks of friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and a few students. We networked our way to thirty-four subjects and interviewed each in depth utilizing an interview format of open-ended questions.” (Pg. 53)

He asserts, “It is difficult to determine the extent to which resentment over racial preferences and spiral-of-silence pressures have contributed to recent racial incidents on college campuses. But, in newspaper interviews subsequent to such events, white students complained of preferential treatment in admissions, use of dual standards, and racial favoritism by college administrators. Both blacks and whites complained that affirmative action quotas have led to stereotyping of non-Asian minority students as unqualified…” (Pg. 127)

He recalls, “My interests in affirmative action began to form in the early 1970s… I mentioned the research only to a few colleagues, and I never brought up my research interests in the classroom until the mid-1980s. To raise the question was, ipso facto, to take a political stance, one not protected by academic freedom. I did not have tenure. Freedom of inquiry on affirmative action has increased somewhat over the past decade. But there was a definite difference between the mid-to-late 1970s and the late 1980s. I encountered few direct threats in my immediate academic surroundings at an urban state university. Because I kept my research largely under wraps, I encountered no ugly incidents…” (Pg. 133)

He points out, “many non-black minorities have been, and continue to be, included in affirmative action programs: the numerous Hispanic groups (Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Central Americans, and so forth), Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Asian/Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and homosexuals. Why have so few people asked directly: on what basis do these groups ground their claims for redress through quotas, preferential treatment, or proportional representation? On what basis do we include some groups and exclude others? Especially when many, if not most, of these groups only recently arrived in significant numbers in the United States?” (Pg. 148) He continues, “The point of all this is obvious: why should recent immigrants be given preference over native-born American citizens? What does the United States owe these newly-arrived immigrants?” (Pg. 149)

He argues, “Unfortunately, some anger against affirmative action may have surfaced in the form of ugly expressions of racism. There is racism among the young just as there is among their elders. But sociologists and journalists should not be so quick to label all objections to affirmative action as racist… there are many rational, legally sound arguments against policies that seek to restructure society according to general and ill-defined categories of race and gender.” (Pg. 181)

He concludes, “The history of affirmative action is a sobering lesson in American civics. Bob Allen, the politically liberal bank administrator interviewed for this study, summed up very well a key aspect of the crisis of affirmative action: ‘We have institutionalized a counter-white-male bias. We’ve created a new group who are being discriminated against… You’ve got no access to legal recourse or power. We have institutionalized discrimination against this one group. WHEN DOES IT END?” (Pg. 181)

This book capitalized on the ‘angry white male’ sentiment in the 1980s and 1990s. His survey of an unscientifically-selected group of only 34 people is hardly ‘credible research.’ Some white males (I am a white male, by the way) who feel themselves put-upon may enjoy the book; most of the rest of us will ignore it.

[John Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the most striking aspects of modern-day racial and gender quotas and preferences is the fact that they have become firmly entrenched in American life with virtually no discussion being devoted to the issue. Indeed, most editors and writers with left-of-center predilections refuse even to use the words "quota" and "preference" and instead insist on the euphemistic term "affirmative action."

In this book, Frederick R. Lynch seeks to shine a light into this forbidden subject by examining the effects of quotas and preferences on individual victims of these policies. He notes that these persons tend to be uncomfortable about discussing what happened with friends and family, much less organizing for their own self-protection, even when their own victimization is clear, and even when they bitterly resent it. The reason for this silence seems clear. Most white men not only do not want to be accused of being racist or sexist, but do not wish to identify themselves in terms of victim categories or grievance identities. While this stoicism is laudable and carries great benefits for society (and would be even more beneficial if it was shared by everyone), it leaves its adherents open to attack by race- and gender-based special interest groups.

Mr. Lynch also describes the "New McCarthyism" which has allowed preferences and quotas to grow despite the fact that a large majority oppose this pernicious policy. Once again, Mr. Lynch's analysis cannot reasonably be disputed. Anyone who speaks out in favor of equal opportunity for all and against quotas and preferences inevitably will be accused of being a closet racist, a KKKer, or worse. His or her job may be threatened, and if the speaker owns a business, that business will be threatened by spurious but expensive litigation, regulatory reviews, or protests. Not surprisingly, most people choose to remain silent about their beliefs and go along to get along.

The recent Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas provides a good example of this phenomenon. During the course of oral argument, Justice Scalia expressed concern about the well-documented "mismatch" between students and institutions that preferences cause for members of favored minorities. Students who could succeed at a less competitive institution are given a large head start because of their racial classification, end up in more competitive schools where their classmates are far more capable and prepared, can't keep up, and either gravitate toward easy majors such as ethnic studies or drop out entirely. Students who could succeed elsewhere thus are turned artificially into alienated and embittered failures. By raising this issue, Scalia became the only member of the court or attorney who expressed any concern about the real-world impacts of preferences on minorities, who often are poorly served by policies designed for their benefit. After the hearing, Scalia was pilloried in the press as a racist in a KKK costume. Justice Scalia is strong enough in his views that he is not likely to back down before this travesty, but the same thing cannot be said for most university administrators, government bureaucrats, and corporate types.

Mr. Lynch finished this book in 1989. As a result, it necessarily is somewhat dated. The most recent Supreme Court decision discussed in the book is City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company, a 1989 decision which came out shortly before the book was finished. One of the sad facts about quotas and preferences, however, is that they have remained essentially unchanged, as though frozen in amber. As a result, this book remains as relevant now as it was in 1989.

Mr. Lynch focuses his attention on the "invisible victims" of quotas and preferences. That is not surprising, and it was entirely proper for him to do so. The intended victims of any public policy obviously deserve a special voice in the debate. The benefits of this book and others like it, however, are much broader. By shining a light onto quotas and preferences, we hopefully can bring an end to this unexamined and pernicious policy, to the benefit of us all.