Not All Black and White: Affirmative Action and American Values. - book reviews

Washington Monthly, Dec, 1996 by Richard D. Kahlenberg

IN 1995, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR Christopher Edley Jr. received what he calls "the chance of a lifetime" when he was asked to head President Clinton's formal review of affirmative action policies. After several tumultuous months, Edley's review concluded that affirmative action policies should be "mended, not ended." This was a politically brilliant slogan, capturing America's ambivalence over racial and gender preference policies: the desire to address inequalities, paired with the deep concern about biological preferences as the means. Many observers noted, however, that the slogan hardly translated into the fine print of the President's program, which seemed devoid of visible "mending."

Edley has now come forward with a thoughtful, thorough, well-written book combining sharp analysis of the difficult questions raised by affirmative action with behind-the-scenes tales of the White House struggle with the issue. Those familiar with Edley's teaching will not be surprised that the book presents a strong, comprehensive case for his position, but also acknowledges the tough counterarguments made by opponents of current programs.

Having said all this, I doubt Not an Black and White will win over many new converts. Despite the fact that one of Edley's most important contributions to the debate is his insistence that affirmative action involves a question of values, not just interests, his book ultimately endorses almost every form of racial preference--a position that contradicts some of the fundamental values Americans hold dear.

Edley lays out three different visions in the affirmative action debate: the colorblind vision, which repudiates both discrimination and preferences; the remedial vision, in which affirmative action is a temporary remedy to discrimination; and the diversity vision, in which affirmative action is used to foster inclusiveness, even in the absence of discrimination.

The first vision, colorblindness, calls for nothing beyond strict enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Edley argues that this thinking is willfully ignorant of social realities. He notes that we live in a society in which black unemployment is two times that of whites, where 1 of every 2 black children under the age of six lives in poverty (compared to 1 in 7 white children); and where only 2.4 percent of businesses nationwide are owned by blacks. Even absent future discrimination, this condition will be perpetuated into the future, says Edley, given the low levels of social mobility for people of all races.

While conceding that racial preferences have "moral costs," Edley rejects colorblind law. He further argues that the conservative use of Dr. Martin Luther King's admonition to judge people by the "content of their character" rather than the color of their skin is "a grotesque distortion of his message" and "sadly manipulative." Edley writes, "King spoke approvingly of race-conscious affirmative action," then cites the passage from Why We Can't Wait where King says: "It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years." Checkmate.

Except that it's not. In the very book where King appears to be making a case for racial preference, he ultimately rejects a special Bill of Rights for the Negro in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged. Rather than discarding the colorblind principle for which he had fought so long, King saw that we could implicitly address a history that had left blacks disproportionately poor by advocating policies for the disadvantaged. King saw it as a "matter of simple justice" that poor whites be helped too; he also saw that, as a matter of politics, poor and working-class whites would never accept a program that gave wealthy blacks preference over poor whites.

Rather than follow King's vision of merging colorblindness with a needs-based remediation, Edley outlines a vision that pays limited homage to the colorblind principle--saying no to quotas--but allows race to be used as a plus factor in decision making Rejecting the sterile "equal opportunity" of conservatives, Edley calls for "morally equal opportunity" He explains: "All Americans should have, so far as is possible, a full and equal chance to develop their talents and use them for the betterment of themselves, their families, and their society" Edley claims racial preferences are needed to create this condition, citing Lyndon Johnson's famous 1965 Howard University speech: "Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family you live with . . . the neighborhood . . . the school . . . and the poverty or richness of your surroundings."

Surely Edley is correct in saying that antidiscrimination laws are necessary, but not sufficient, for morally equal opportunity. But his line of argument--that children residing in dangerous neighborhoods, going to lousy schools, and living in poverty-stricken families need a leg up--justifies intervention based on need, not race.