What do you think?
Rate this book
The Affirmative Action Fraud: Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?
Discusses how the civil rights movement has strayed off course, and talks about what is needed to get it back on track with some common-sense solutions to the problems of economic inequalities
- GenresPolitics
170 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 21, 2024
A LIBERTARIAN LAWYER REJECTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS ‘THE WRONG WEAPON’
Clint Bolick is an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, who was previously Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, and co-founder of the libertarian Institute for Justice.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “From representing inner-city, low-income clients for much of my career as a lawyer… I knew that many inner-city residents lack basic opportunities most of us take for granted… And the people who live in those neighborhoods cannot escape… Arrayed against this stark reality our nation’s civil rights laws and policies appear utterly impotent. For they are the wrong weapon aimed at the wrong target…. Nor does so-called ‘affirmative action’ have the slightest relevance to those people’s lives… I call affirmative action ‘trickle-down’ civil rights: benefits are bestowed upon the most-advantaged members of designated groups in the name of the least-advantaged, who somehow never seem to reap those benefits. What many of the civil rights policies of the past three decades have done, however, is to reinforce the propensity of individuals to define themselves in terms of their race.” (Pg. 3-4)
He says, “It is therefore little wonder that increasingly we look at each other not as individuals or as Americans, but as members of groups. In a multiethnic society founder on the credo of individualism---consisting increasingly of individuals who themselves are multiethnic---this is particularly vexing.” (Pg. 15)
He states, “the architects of the Civil Rights Act responded to libertarian concerns by emphasizing that the interference with private autonomy was slight and in accord with widely shared principles of fairness. The law would ensure that in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations, people would be judged as individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.” (Pg. 42)
He notes, “the civil rights laws had the perverse effect of making the irrational more rational: hiring minority employees exposed employers to the risk of discrimination claims for termination or other grievances. That induced some employers not to hire minorities and others to move to the suburbs. Those disincentives, along with social factors such as welfare dependency, inner-city isolation, inadequate education, and crime have for the past two decades neutralized any economic gains for blacks as a group wrought by affirmative action… affirmative action has mainly been about redistributing opportunities, and has failed utterly to increase the pool of qualified workers capable of competing effectively for economic opportunities. This is the fraud of affirmative action.” (Pg. 62)
He argues, “Race is both overinclusive and underinclusive---some people benefit who do not deserve to do so, while others who are more worthy do not benefit. Those who defend such preferences retort that colleges have always had preferences, such as for athletes and children of alumni… I am no great fan of such preferences. But to sanction racial preferences by equating them with other types of preferences trivializes racial discrimination, which stands alone as the least-rational basis on which to apportion opportunities or render judgments.” (Pg. 79)
He points out, “Racial gerrymandering does not evoke the same outrage as preferences in employment and education. The explanation is simple: even though racial gerrymandering, like other racial classifications, is redistributionist, unlike other race-based policies, one person’s gain does not necessarily lead to another person’s loss. No one loses the right to vote, or his or her proportionate likelihood of electing a preferred candidate. Indeed… gerrymandered districts actually INCREASE the likelihood of electoral satisfaction among many whites and blacks. This pragmatic argument translates into a legal one: no one has ‘standing’ to challenge race-drawn districts, the proponents assert, since no one is injured.” (Pg. 88)
He suggests, “Republicans should do something in the area of civil rights that is novel for them: stand firmly and unapologetically behind their principles, and reach out to potential constituencies they typically have ignored. This strategy entails making common cause on issues where Republican principles overlap with the interests of minority individuals. The opportunity to do so is greater than ever.” (Pg. 116-117)
He says, “civil rights leaders are out of step with many of their supposed constituents on key issues. How little the current civil rights orthodoxy resonates among mainstream blacks was reflected by the lack of response to Jesse Jackson’s call for a three-day march to protest the Republican ‘Contract With America.’” (Pg. 129)
He concludes, “In my view, empowerment---the removal of barriers to opportunity that prevent individuals from controlling their destinies---represents the ultimate accomplishment of civil rights. It fulfills the original understanding of civil rights as natural rights held by al in equal measure. Placing it in historical context, empowerment represents the third and final phase of a movement whose first objective was abolishing slavery and whose second was securing equality under law. Empowerment is the necessary culmination of this movement, for even if we succeed in rooting out the vestiges of government’s power to discriminate, that will count for little if we are not free.” (Pg. 133)
Although 25 years old, this book will still interest those seeking critiques of affirmative action programs.
Clint Bolick is an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, who was previously Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, and co-founder of the libertarian Institute for Justice.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “From representing inner-city, low-income clients for much of my career as a lawyer… I knew that many inner-city residents lack basic opportunities most of us take for granted… And the people who live in those neighborhoods cannot escape… Arrayed against this stark reality our nation’s civil rights laws and policies appear utterly impotent. For they are the wrong weapon aimed at the wrong target…. Nor does so-called ‘affirmative action’ have the slightest relevance to those people’s lives… I call affirmative action ‘trickle-down’ civil rights: benefits are bestowed upon the most-advantaged members of designated groups in the name of the least-advantaged, who somehow never seem to reap those benefits. What many of the civil rights policies of the past three decades have done, however, is to reinforce the propensity of individuals to define themselves in terms of their race.” (Pg. 3-4)
He says, “It is therefore little wonder that increasingly we look at each other not as individuals or as Americans, but as members of groups. In a multiethnic society founder on the credo of individualism---consisting increasingly of individuals who themselves are multiethnic---this is particularly vexing.” (Pg. 15)
He states, “the architects of the Civil Rights Act responded to libertarian concerns by emphasizing that the interference with private autonomy was slight and in accord with widely shared principles of fairness. The law would ensure that in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations, people would be judged as individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.” (Pg. 42)
He notes, “the civil rights laws had the perverse effect of making the irrational more rational: hiring minority employees exposed employers to the risk of discrimination claims for termination or other grievances. That induced some employers not to hire minorities and others to move to the suburbs. Those disincentives, along with social factors such as welfare dependency, inner-city isolation, inadequate education, and crime have for the past two decades neutralized any economic gains for blacks as a group wrought by affirmative action… affirmative action has mainly been about redistributing opportunities, and has failed utterly to increase the pool of qualified workers capable of competing effectively for economic opportunities. This is the fraud of affirmative action.” (Pg. 62)
He argues, “Race is both overinclusive and underinclusive---some people benefit who do not deserve to do so, while others who are more worthy do not benefit. Those who defend such preferences retort that colleges have always had preferences, such as for athletes and children of alumni… I am no great fan of such preferences. But to sanction racial preferences by equating them with other types of preferences trivializes racial discrimination, which stands alone as the least-rational basis on which to apportion opportunities or render judgments.” (Pg. 79)
He points out, “Racial gerrymandering does not evoke the same outrage as preferences in employment and education. The explanation is simple: even though racial gerrymandering, like other racial classifications, is redistributionist, unlike other race-based policies, one person’s gain does not necessarily lead to another person’s loss. No one loses the right to vote, or his or her proportionate likelihood of electing a preferred candidate. Indeed… gerrymandered districts actually INCREASE the likelihood of electoral satisfaction among many whites and blacks. This pragmatic argument translates into a legal one: no one has ‘standing’ to challenge race-drawn districts, the proponents assert, since no one is injured.” (Pg. 88)
He suggests, “Republicans should do something in the area of civil rights that is novel for them: stand firmly and unapologetically behind their principles, and reach out to potential constituencies they typically have ignored. This strategy entails making common cause on issues where Republican principles overlap with the interests of minority individuals. The opportunity to do so is greater than ever.” (Pg. 116-117)
He says, “civil rights leaders are out of step with many of their supposed constituents on key issues. How little the current civil rights orthodoxy resonates among mainstream blacks was reflected by the lack of response to Jesse Jackson’s call for a three-day march to protest the Republican ‘Contract With America.’” (Pg. 129)
He concludes, “In my view, empowerment---the removal of barriers to opportunity that prevent individuals from controlling their destinies---represents the ultimate accomplishment of civil rights. It fulfills the original understanding of civil rights as natural rights held by al in equal measure. Placing it in historical context, empowerment represents the third and final phase of a movement whose first objective was abolishing slavery and whose second was securing equality under law. Empowerment is the necessary culmination of this movement, for even if we succeed in rooting out the vestiges of government’s power to discriminate, that will count for little if we are not free.” (Pg. 133)
Although 25 years old, this book will still interest those seeking critiques of affirmative action programs.
September 21, 2025
Excellent. Clear and concise on many of the points. Although the brand of affirmative action talked about here has been fended off in the past 20ish years, other more pervasive kinds of it are still present, and the arguments against it shown here still apply
It was a good companion to I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It by Norman Finkelstein
It was a good companion to I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It by Norman Finkelstein
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews