Matt Yglesias, reminding us all of the evils of George Will, quotes him:
What institution is consistently rated most trustworthy by Americans? The institution that ended its reliance on conscription, that has no racial preferences and that has rigorous life-and-death rules and standards: the military.
Matt then snarks:
If you follow the link, it is to the SCOTUS Writs of Certiorari in the Michigan Affirmative Action case, in which several prominent military personnel advocated affirmative action.
All together, so when they deny it later, you will remember:
Affirmative Action = Racial Preferences
Racial Preferences = Affirmative Action
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
*** Update ***
Matt responds:
John Cole, bizarrely, things the real point of my post is that “affirmative action” means the same thing as “racial preferences” so liberals are hypocrites. Well, maybe that’s the point here, but I’m pretty sure that the fact that George Will (and, if he’s paraphrasing him correctly, Michael Barone) have their facts totally wrong is more important. For the record, I’m something of an affirmative action skeptic as regards university admissions, though the situation vis-
MommaBear
Just to pick a wee nit: were those members of the military speaking from their personal perspective or from their authorative postiions within the DoD ??
Terry
That’s an amazing catch! You really caught them in flagrante delicto. You need to preserve/cache those atrios, et.al. comments for future reference.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’m under the impression that Yglesias (also yours truly) has somewhat heterodox record on this issue.
You know, we libs like a big tent.
I am curious, though: are you against the Army’s program?
Jeff G
priceless.
Kimmitt
Actually, he was using military support for Affirmative Action to show that Will was contradicting himself, since Will would call Affirmative Action racial preferences.
Since the point was to show yet another proveable falsehood within Will’s writing, only Will’s approach to the issue would be relevant.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Here, maybe I can help.
I think Matt is saying that the Army has an affirmative action program, and that it wrote in favor of an affirmative action program at Michigan that conservatives thought was illegal race preference, and that notwithstanding the fact that the Army has a vigorous affirmative action program, George Will says it doesn’t have racial preferences. I think we’re skeptical of the task George Will has now set himself: to distinguish the Army program (he says, no racial preferences) from the Michigan program the army endorses (he says, yes racial preferences). This isn’t impossible, because the programs don’t operate similarly, but I suspect Will (or his researchers and ghostwriters) simply forgot that an institution they purport to admire practices affirmative action.
If you weren’t determined to show that we’re hypocrites who don’t make sense, I would think this reading of Yglesias would be natural.
Do you have a problem with affirmative action as practiced by the military? (Not a gotcha question.) I have a problem with current practice of affirmative action in admissions; systems like Michigan’s are crude and at best marginally productive, leave alone the legal issues.
Ken Hahn
Liberalspeak: affirmatve action equals racial preferences if and only if the it is used or supported by someone of whom the liberal disapproves ie the military or George Will.
For the record, affirmative action is always used as a racial, religous or social preference and is thus always wrong. Will may not be accurate ( hard to say without some reseach ) but he, unlike Yglesias, is not being hypocritical.
Kimmitt
“For the record, affirmative action is always used as a racial, religous or social preference and is thus always wrong.”
…and this is the definition which George Will has espoused in other columns, which makes him, well, a liar.
Oberon
When something is very simple, sometimes people misunderstand because they expect something complicated.
I think that’s what happened here. George Will says the military has no racial preference system. Matt Y. points out that it does.
That’s all.
Andrew J. Lazarus
So, Ken, you’re suggsting that George Will, beloved conservative columnist, is completely wrong in saying the military doesn’t have racial preferences?
Except for your opinion on whether racial preferences are always bad, which isn’t really at issue here, I don’t see any daylight between your position and Yglesias’s. Are you sure this is what you meant to post?
Rick
Next topic: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Now, if Mr. Yglesias would kindly removed his hat.
Cordially…
Ken Hahn
Andrew, I think Will may have been wrong concerning whether the military engaged in racial preferences. If he was wrong, then your issue is with him, not me. I’m not defending Will or the military. Any preference except for ability is wrong in my opinion. Racial minorities and other prefered group are belittled by the inference that they cannot compete.
If Will made a factual error, he should correct it. If it’s important enough to you, write him. I rarely read his column and it isn’t important enough to me.
Yglesias does not err. He simply reveals a truth that the left would rather hide. Affirmative action is always preference. You can dance around the point all you want but until you admit affirmative is essentially racist and destructive of race relations, the progress of the last fifty years is in danger.
I do agree with Yglesias that affirmative action is racial preference. I just doubt that he’d admit that he agreed with me.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ken,
I think we’re in complete agreement here on the facts. The incident began when Will evidently forgot the military’s affirmative action program. I think my point has been that Yglesias’s beef (and mine) is indeed with Will. And while affirmative action isn’t always racial preferences (how about affirmative action for women????), that certainly is an apt description of the Michigan system, and I believe also the army’s.
Where you and I part company (and I think Yglesias is with me here) is that I am not opposed to racial preferences as a 100% rule, insofar as I don’t think we’ve yet remediated the effects of Jim Crow. What makes Yglesias’s thinking (and mine) somewhat heterodox in the liberal camp is that I was very skeptical of Michigan’s program, both as to its mechanisms and its effectiveness. Leaving aside the legal issues, I think we would be much better served with alternative race-neutral mechanisms to foster upward educational mobility (e.g., economic preferences, preferences for applicants whose parents did not attend college, bigger scholarships, etc.).
Kimmitt
The difference between conservatives and liberals on Affirmative Action is that the former are comfortable benefitting from the racism of others, while the later are not.
capt joe
Kimmitt, “conservatives are comfortable with racism”?
Why don’t you call conservatives “clansmen” while you are at it?
Kimmitt
Wow, that was seriously intellectually dishonest. You didn’t even put in an ellipsis.
Slartibartfast
I see the war on something or other continues.