Take Your Boxes and . . .: A nation of race rebels?

National Review, August 11, 2003 by Jay Nordlinger

When the Michigan decisions were handed down-the ones that upheld affirmative action-many Americans underwent a bout of race-pondering. Of course, race is never far from our eyes: It's on our forms, for one thing. When applying to college, for a marriage license, for a loan: There are those boxes, demanding that we check White, African-American, Aleut, what have you.

A lot of Americans don't like this very much-and not all of them are lily-white. Ward Connerly, remember, is the force behind the Racial Privacy Initiative in California. This is the measure that would prevent governmental bodies from classifying individuals by race (with some prudent exceptions). Connerly wrote a piece for National Review on this subject titled "Don't Box Me In"-a phrase that captured the restless desire of many people to get free of color, to the extent possible. The magazine ran a cartoon with the piece that had a woman filling out a form and asking, "Can't I just check 'American'?" (The answer, madam, is no.) The ACLU has attacked Connerly's initiative as- natch-"racist." Thus is black white and white black (so to speak).

Shortly after the Michigan decisions, we at National Review ran a piece on our website decrying the Court's action and wondering what to do about it. Was a little rebellion in order? Should we meekly comply with these racial checkboxes? When facing the little devils, white people tend to think they're about to get the shaft. And those from approved minorities may feel a related anxiety: "Sure, I want to get in, or get the job, or get the loan-but this way? How can I know?"

Letters poured in from readers of the site, each with a story, or a fear, or a grievance-or some clever suggestion. Together, they showed a nation (or a slice of a nation) mightily sick of the race game, and the steady South Africanization of American life, where blood and shade hold stubborn sway.

One man said, "What would happen to affirmative-action programs if a significant portion of college applicants intentionally misreported their races? Even if most applications were marked correctly, a little civil disobedience could introduce a large enough margin of error to bring out the pure intellectual chaos and moral repugnance of affirmative action. Think about it: Schools would be forced to confirm, visually, the race of every applicant who claimed to be a minority. The explicit process of racial classification, the naked barbarity of the data collection: This would render affirmative action politically indefensible. What dean of admissions wouldn't be uncomfortable in front of Fox News cameras turning away a previously accepted student on the first day of class because he or she had the incorrect pigmentation?"

An intriguing question, more broadly: To what lengths would admissions offices go to verify the race or ethnicity of an applicant? How anthropological would they get? Would there be a medical unit at the ready, prepared to examine blood and assess DNA?

The letters we received clearly show that many white students feel themselves kept out of universities because of their damning skin-in other words, their "privilege" makes them unprivileged. They say, "I had these glittering credentials, including an A average, top test scores, and a trunkful of prizes. And my counselor said, 'Don't tell anyone, but if you could mark another race box, you could get in anywhere.'" Of course, this may be nonsense: but, again, how does one know? This is one of the effects of the system, raising suspicions in people of all colors. It creates martyrs and victims even when they should not exist. Whether this is good for societal harmony is easily answered.

Some people simply "decide to become a minority," by hook or crook. Everyone has a favorite tale to tell. I knew a girl in college-a pretty white girl from Minnesota who played golf-who received a scholarship for being an Indian. If she was an Indian, so is Annika Sorenstam, let me tell you. One young writer to NR was also planning on claiming a misty Indian ancestry: "If there has to be a bias, I want it in my favor." Other palefaces are discovering an African-American on some limb of the family tree. This may confer a whole new meaning on "passing."

A great many people answer "human" when asked about their race. Said a reader, "A pollster phoned me, and after we waded through sex, age, and income, she asked me about race. When I answered 'human,' she said, quick as a flash, 'Thank you, we already have enough data on that group.'" Another reader urged a national campaign to induce Americans to enter "human" on all the various forms: "We can have a website- www.OnlyHuman.org. This could be huge, man. Huge!"

Evolution-minded readers suggested that everyone record "African- American" on grounds that we all originate at Olduvai Gorge, or wherever. In other words, each of us is a descendant of Lucy (the famous skeleton, not the flame-haired comedic actress). Other people have their own dodges: "I always answer 'Black Irish.'" Some Jews are especially flummoxed. One man informed us, "My father, of blessed memory, was not enough of a white European to get into Cornell. My son may be too much of a white European to get into Cornell." Another man wrote-responding to a point about who qualifies as a minority-"When I found out that Jews were no longer a minority, I had my first good night's sleep in 2,000 years!"