At least since the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville
published Democracy in America, observers
have understood that there exists a fundamental tension in American
society between the passion for freedom and the passion for
equality. In recent decades, in many areas of life, the
passion for equality has gained the upper hand. One sign of
this is the popularity of the phrase—even more, the reality
of—“affirmative action.”

There is, however, a silver lining to this story. For
the fact that
egalitarian imperatives clothe themselves in phrases like
“affirmative action” suggests that the passion for freedom
is not moribund, only that it is not sufficiently vigilant. If
a college administrator or government bureaucrat advertised
a big new program to enforce racial or sexual discrimination
on campuses and
in the workplace, he (or she) probably wouldn’t get
far. But redescribe the same program in more emollient
terms and she (or he) might just be able to slip it by.
And so it has been with “affirmative action.”
That’s the great thing about the phrase: it seems so, well,
so affirmative, so positive.
It produces warm, fuzzy feelings of do-goodery while at
the same time exploiting, and exacerbating, the canker of
liberal guilt. Considered as a rhetorical artifact—which is
to say, considered as an instrument of liberal coercion—“affirmative action”
is one of the most impressive inventions of our time.

Yet considered in moral terms, “affirmative action” is
a disaster. For one thing, it is deeply dishonest. You can
see this simply by asking, “What is the opposite of
affirmative action?” It certainly isn’t “negative action.”
No, the opposite of affirmative action is judging—and
hence hiring and promoting—people on their merits, regardless of such
attributes as race, sex, or ethnic origin. This is something
that the educational establishment has done its best to
conceal, with, it must be acknowledged, considerable success.

That may be changing, however. As was reported in The
Chicago Sun-Times on November 11, the Bush administration
has cast a cold eye on some fellowship programs for minority and
female students at Southern Illinois University, alleging that
they violate the provisions of the infamous Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act by
discriminating against whites, men, and others.
According to a letter sent to the university by the Justice
Department, SIU “has engaged in a pattern or practice of
intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred
minorities, and males.”
For example, a program called
“Bridge to the Doctorate,” which has a budget of almost $1
million and provides a $30,000 stipend plus $10,500 for
“educational expenses,” has gone to twenty-five students
since its inception: nineteen blacks, five Latinos, and one
“Native American.” (We are always tempted to object, when we
encounter that phrase, that anyone born in the United States
should count as a native American, but we digress
…) Then
there is the “Proactive Recruitment and Multicultural Professionals for
Tomorrow” (no, we are not making this up), which provides for a
tuition waiver and a monthly stipend of $1,200. There have
been 78 of those plums to date, 61 to blacks, 14
to Latinos, 1 to an Asian, 2 to “Native Americans.” Et, we
need hardly say, cetera.

The Justice Department wants SIU to cease and desist
eftsoons and right speedily or face a lawsuit. The liberal
establishment is in a tizzy.
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said that the Justice
Department’s threat “just doesn’t make sense.”
The chancellor of SIU, one Walter V. Wendler, agrees.
Chancellor Wendler publicly supports the
programs and also denies that they discriminate against
any students.
Quoth the Chancellor: “I don’t think that [program] discriminates
against whites, but that’s part of what we need to talk to
them about.” We suggest that Senator Obama and Chancellor
Wendler take along a copy of Through the Looking Glass.
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to
mean—neither more nor less.’” Nice work if you can get it!
Of course, SIU is merely the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to academic programs that actively discriminate
against whites, males, and other groups not sanctioned by
the politically correct establishment. Does this new initiative by the
Justice Department mark the beginning of a return to sanity,
i.e., an end to the discriminatory practices enshrined in
the imperatives of “affirmative action”? It is too early to
say but not, perhaps, too early to hope.