The Color of Crimson

There is a well-written article at Harvard's The Crimson (hat tip to Roger Clegg at NRO’s Phi Beta Cons) on the most insidious weakness of affirmative action: its inculcation of doubt in all spectators as to whether the winner of a post is worthy or simply being affirmed. I have very little to add to the article, which is written in a quietly reasonable manner that can only help its cause, other than to offer a supportive analogy: the coach's son. Imagine hearing that the coach's son, a sophomore, has made the varsity basketball team, and is a starter, in front of boys two years older than he. My first impression, when I learned just this right before a playoff game at our school (just last week, in fact), was to wonder. I know our coach, though it is not deeply that I know him, and he comes across as a scrupulously honest man. I thought, “Well, the kid has to be good – coach wouldn't let him play otherwise.” Though there are certainly similar situations where parental favoritism exists, it turns out I was right – the kid knocked down five of five three pointers in our losing effort and did not turn it over once.

The argument here is of course not that we should ban coaches’ sons from playing for fear of permanently injuring their integrity. For coaches’ sons (and daughters), and corporate sons and daughters (I have been one of these), and sons and daughters generally, are only vulnerable when they are given by those parents a responsibility for which others are competing. They are not a readily identifiable group, are not identifiable as privileged outside of that particular environment, and so cannot besmirch the others of their “class.”

Ethnicities, however, are often immediately identifiable, and the particular privileges of affirmative action do not stem from private nepotism but from grievance group agitation and government decree. Thus are tarnished the reputations of whole groups, instead of the reputations of individually foolish fathers or mothers, and inept sons or daughters.

One other comment: Clegg mentions, as his final statement, that affirmative action is illegal. Is it, though? I know that it is, and can understand why it would be, in a government-owned institution such as a Social Security office or a University, but is not Harvard a private institution? Can’t they lay whatever good intentions down to pave whatever road they wish to wherever they wish? If not, it probably has something to do with the receipt of Federal monies. I could quite easily be wrong however, as this paragraph is almost wholly speculative, and I would be willing to bet significant sums that Clegg knows more of this issue than I do.