Reflections Of An Affirmative Action Baby

by Stephen L. Carter

In a climate where whites who criticize affirmative action risk being termed racist and blacks who do the same risk charges of treason and self hatred, a frank and open discussion of racial preference is difficult to achieve. But, in the first book on racial preference written from personal experience, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby, Stephen L. Carter, Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale University and self-described beneficiary (and, at times, victim) of affirmative action, does it.Using his own story of success and frustration as “an affirmative action baby” as a point of departure, Carter, who has risen to the top of his profession, provides an incisive analysis of one of the most incendiary topics of our day—as well as an honest critique of the pressures on black professionals and intellectuals to conform to the “politically correct” way of being black.Affirmative action as it is practiced today not only does little to promote racial equality, Carter argues, but also allows the nation to escape rather cheaply from its moral obligation to undo the legacy of slavery. Affirmative action, particularly in hiring often reinforces racist stereotypes by promoting the idea that the black professional cannot aspire to anything more than being “the best black.”Has the time come to abandon these programs? No--but affirmative action must return to its simpler roots, Carter argues: to provide educational opportunities for those who might not otherwise have them. Then the beneficiaries should demand to be held to the same standards as anyone else.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Biography, Race

300 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Stephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale where he has taught since 1982. He has published seven critically acclaimed nonfiction books on topics ranging from affirmative action to religion and politics. His first novel, The Emperor of Ocean Park (2002), was an immediate national best seller. His latest novel is New England White (Knopf, 2007). A recipient of the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Literature-Fiction, he lives near New Haven, Connecticut."

Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.

Reviews

[John Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Stanford undergraduate Stephen L. Carter applied for admission to Harvard Law School, he was rejected. Some time later, he received an anguished call from the law school, which now wanted to admit him. The law school representative explained that based on Carter's record, the admissions committee had presumed he must be white. When the committee realized he was black, it reversed its decision.

Mr. Carter drew the obvious conclusion from this strange turn of events. In his own words: "Stephen Carter, the white male, was not good enough for the Harvard Law School; Stephen Carter, the black male, not only was good enough but rated agonized telephone calls urging him to attend. And Stephen Carter, color unknown, must have been white: How else could he have achieved what he did in college? Except that my college achievements were obviously not sufficiently spectacular to merit acceptance had I been white. In other words, my academic record was too good for a black Stanford University undergraduate, but not good enough for a white Harvard law student. Because I turned out to be black, however, Harvard was quite happy to scrape me from what it apparently considered somewhere near the bottom of the barrel."

Carter naturally was offended by these shenanigans, and chose to attend Yale instead. He realized that Yale no doubt had played the same racial games as Harvard; they simply executed their plan well enough to avoid making the racial double standard quite so obvious.

One of the absurdities of racial preferences - also known under the more benign-sounding euphemism of "affirmative action" - is that while advocates insist the regime of racial discrimination must be defended to the death, they also demand that no one ever acknowledge that those racial preferences even exist. In contemporary society, racial discrimination is absolutely verboten under the United States Constitution, state and federal laws, and widely held social mores. As a result, racial preferences can continue only under the cloak of darkness and denial.

As a black man who was willing to say the unsayable, Carter was viciously attacked from the left. He was called an Uncle Tom, a traitor to the race, and worse by many on the left, including, of course, white left-wingers who feel entitled to determine what a black person is allowed to say and think. At the same time, he won praise from conservatives, libertarians, moderates, classical liberals, and others who found the honesty in his acknowledgment of racial preferences to be refreshing.

The most disappointing aspect of Carter's book, therefore, is his refusal to carry through in this honest fashion to the end. Carter laments the burdens so-called "affirmative action" imposes even on its beneficiaries, among them the widespread suspicion that black students and graduates aren't really as good as their paper credentials would indicate, the burdens that come with being the representatives of the race, and the demand that they adhere to the party line on racial matters, and a wide variety of other questions as well. These are discomforts Carter no doubt has faced in his own life, and he does not like it.

The far greater problem with racial preferences, however, is the impact on their victims, in this case, white persons who often come from poor backgrounds yet are denied opportunities for advancement simply because of their race. The unfairness is magnified by the fact that most of the benefits of racial preferences accrue to blacks who already are privileged, and therefore are better placed to gather in those benefits. The central problem with racial preferences, as with all other forms of discrimination, is the unfairness for the victims of that discrimination.

It is at this point where Carter falters. He makes it uncomfortably clear that he isn't all that concerned with the victims of racial preferences. Indeed, it appears Carter would have no objection to these discriminatory policies if only one could eliminate the stigma and though restrictions it places on privileged blacks such as himself. Carter actually goes so far as to entitle one chapter "Racial Preferences? So What?"

Yes, so what? What is the justification for denying people with the "wrong" racial background equal standing under the law? A convincing argument is imperative to defend Carter's professed lack of concern for them. If such an argument exists, however, Carter does not even attempt to make it. Carter appears to realize that any attempt to justify racial discrimination because of the race of the victims rightly will be regarded as racist and repugnant. He attempts to resolve the problem by gliding over it.

Carter claims racial preferences are no different than ordinary taxes in that both require people to pay for services and benefits they will not receive in order to remedy a perceived problem they did not cause. Of course, that is not so. Racial discrimination is a unique social evil which has been prohibited by a whole host of laws and social mores. The same thing does not apply to taxation.

To put a sharper point on the issue, one might ask why it is acceptable to "tax" white people for their skin color, but not do the same for blacks (or Hispanics, or any of the myriad other groups who have a sought to share in the spoils). If it's acceptable to burden whites in this way, why would it not be acceptable to impose the same burdens on blacks? Indeed, why would it not be proper to re-institute Jim Crow and put blacks back at the bottom of the pile?

Jim Crow existed in the southern states for nearly 100 years. Reverse discrimination now has existed in all states for over 50. If it is allowed to continue, it will pass Jim Crow in longevity within the lifetime of many or most people who now are living. Clearly, we can do better.

The most disappointing thing about Carter's book is the selfishness he brings to the subject of racial discrimination. His primary, and perhaps even only, concern is to buttress the self-respect of privileged buppies (i.e. black yuppies) like himself. He's honest enough to forthrightly admit that racial preferences exist, and are the source of his despair. However, he denigrates the just concerns of the victims of those preferences and asserts this discrimination should be allowed to continue. At this point his argument collapses into a disjointed mess.

In the end, Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby is interesting primarily for the psychological and sociological insight it provides into the mind of an American buppie. Although Mr. Carter is honest enough to acknowledge the existence of racial preferences, his failure to take that honesty to its logical conclusion irreparably mars his actual argument.

[Cliff · Rating 4 out of 5]

"I got in to law school because I was black."

Bold words to begin a book with, particularly in the sort of culture we live in now where confronting hard, "mean" sounding truths, is difficult. I'm not sure if this was more or less true when Carter wrote this book. Carter seems less to relish discussing hard truths than he does feels duty bound to his own intelligence and integrity to do so.

And I must say, there are few books I've read that showed, to me at least, clear integrity and strength of an individual. Ironic, perhaps, given the topic. It's this individual strength that causes Carter to question many orthodoxies of "black leadership" and the modern civil rights movement. Yet, as Carter goes at length to explain, he's no conservative. Beyond the fact that he holds rather orthodox liberal views on things like taxes and spending and seems to lean moderately left on other issues, as a conservative, I'm not even sure he has a particularly strong understanding of what modern conservatism is. I personally think he mischaracterizes modern conservatism, although with good intentions, a few times. My point here is not to diminish his arguments or scholarship, it's merely to say Carter is not easily labeled, either by his race, nor his ideas. His ideas and opinions are his own and are not driven by external considerations. This is a compliment.

Suffice to say, the title of this book should be taken literally. Carter is admittedly a beneficiary of affirmative action and law professor at Harvard, and these are his reflections, not merely on affirmative action, but on many other things related, both closely and distantly, to the issue of race. Being at Harvard, he is at the peak of his field. What this means, in Carter's point of view, is not obvious. He isn't so much opposed to affirmative action as he is ambivalent on it. He recognizes the way it tends to characterize and stereotype him from the get go. "Best Black" is the way he puts it. He further recognizes that he is not the intended beneficiary. He grew up in an upper-middle class family, his father taught at Cornell for a spell, and likely would have done just fine in any event. But while he's not crazy about affirmative action, neither is he someone who sees it as an unalloyed evil. He tends to favor it for educational purposes, but not for professional reasons. This is just a taste of the kinds of things he discusses. He also discusses the relation of blacks to the political parties, the state of blacks in the American corporate world, and a thousand other things. He's very thoughtful. There are few things he doesn't have opinions and ideas on.

But none of this is really what Carter wants to do in this book. What he really wants to do is to is challenge the tendency of the African American community, and their allies, to desire, and even expect, what he sees as a misplaced sense of solidarity over honest debate and dissent. He points out that there was a time where blacks questioning Booker T. Washington's views were barely tolerated by other blacks. Chief amongst Washington's critics, WEB DuBois even lost his job over it.

Carter calls his own book "a dissenting view on a dissenting view." This is probably the best ways to characterize his thoughts. He is watching the watchers and sees both, and wants to discuss what he sees. He personally added a lot to my thinking. What's more, the book is a breezy read. His writing style and clarity of his ideals. He is clearly an intellectual of stature and I hope his contributions continue.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE CONTROVERSIAL POSITION OF A BLACK YALE LAW PROFESSOR

Stephen Lisle Carter (b. 1954) is a law professor at Yale University, writer, columnist, and best-selling novelist. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, “This book is fired by the experience of being a black professional who has lived his entire adult life in a world defined in part by ‘benign’ racial preferences. As our national debate over the wisdom of affirmative action intensifies, the beneficiary’s side of the saga cries out to be told, for there is a growing black professional class that tends to be spoken for rather than to…

“My narrative… consists of two related stories. The first… is the story of what it has been like for me as a black professional to come of age in the era of affirmative action… I sift the case for and against affirmative action in the professions, and propose a compromise that returns out systems of racial preference to their simpler, more defensible roots. The second story… chronicles the deepening divisions in the black community over the issue of affirmative action and the increasing isolation of those I call the black dissenters---professionals and intellectuals who … are often sharply opposed to those for which the contemporary civil rights movement now fights.” (Pg. 2-4)

He acknowledges, “Had I not enjoyed the benefits of a racial preference in professional school admission, I would not have accomplished what I have in my career. I was afforded the opportunity for advanced professional training at one of the finest law schools in the country, Yale, and I like to think that I have made the most of this privilege. So, yes, I AM an affirmative action baby, and I do not apologize for that fact.” (Pg. 5) He notes that "I got into a top law school because I am black”; he was initially rejected at Harvard, and was told "we assumed from your record that you were white." (Pg. 15)

He explains what he calls the ‘best black syndrome’: “We are measured by a different yardstick: first black, only black, best black. The best black syndrome is cur from the same cloth as the implicit and demeaning tokenism that often accompanies racial preferences… Not because she’s the best-qualified candidate, but because she’s the best-qualified BLACK candidate. She can fill the black slot. And then the rest of the slots can be willed in the usual way: with the best-QUALIFIED candidates.” (Pg. 50)

He observes, “Why, then, the insistence… that all black people are, in effect, in the same boat, and that the boat itself if on its way to the bottom? The structure of affirmative action programs in admission, and the predictable reaction to them by a rational university, offers a simple explanation: the most disadvantaged lack people are not in a position to benefits from preferential admission. No one seriously imagines otherwise… Surely, in assembling a class, the school will select those most likely to succeed. And if the college indulges a special admission program for the benefit of disadvantaged students, it will select for admission through that program those disadvantaged students most likely to succeed.” (Pg. 80)

He suggests, “My own view is that, given training, given a chance, we as a people need fear no standards. That is why I want to return the special admission programs to their more innocent roots, as tools for providing that training and that chance for students who might not otherwise have it.” (Pg. 85)

He recounts, “Like many leftists, then and now, [Julius] Lester was … accused (whether fairly or not) of anti-Semitism. Today Julius Lester is Jewish; he is also a dissenter who evidently has criticizes too many icons, among them Jesse Jackson. Lester’s colleagues in the Afro-American Studies Department … finally banished him following the publication of ‘Lovesong’ (1988), his moving but controversial memoir of his journey toward Judaism… [He moved] to the Judaic and Near Eastern Studies Department… With some notable exceptions, such as … Shelby Steele, prominent figures in the black community have greeted Lester’s treatment by his colleagues with a thundering silence.” (Pg. 110-111)

He comments, “I worry about the models I see. I worry when one of the nation’s leading black scholars charges recklessly that black conservative ‘spout white racist rhetoric.’ I worry when dissenters are told that they have turned against their people, that … they are blaming the victims… I worry when another scholar insists that black people who express doubt about the reconceptualization of affirmative action as diversity have been ‘domesticated’ by the system… And I worry when I attend a convention of black professionals and watch as the moderator takes it upon himself to scold one of the panelists for not emulating the way black people take ‘on the street’…” (Pg. 128)

He states, “it strikes me as shortsighted at best … to try to make our financially-strapped inner-city schools, which are nearly devoid of white students, do most of the job of training the next generation of black professionals without an influx of capital. I hold other views, too, what would surely not be congenial to the right. In particular, I am willing to attack racial prejudice in arenas where the right evidently prefers to keep silent: for example, in the stark fact that capital juries value the lives of white murder victims far higher than the lives of black ones.” (Pg. 148)

He recalls, “I was an undergrad at Stanford when [William] Shockley was there, and although I rarely dared say so, I sometimes found myself wondering how much of the fear of debate was really a fear that this admittedly brilliant Nobel Laureate might make a convincing case. I, too, wanted his ideas to be false, but I wanted them to be SHOWN to be false. Eventually, the spectacle of politically correct people fleeing from confrontation with Shockley became depressing.” (Pg. 184)

He asserts, “Embracing our people does not mean suspending judgment, a point that was brought home to me recently when certain bona fide representatives of the people, the ruthlessly oppressed victims of white racism, chose to settle a … ‘turf battle’ … by firing semi-automatic weapons at one another as well as at various bystanders including my daughter, my wife’s parents, my niece and nephew, their father, and myself. But the purest good fortune, none of us was struck by a bullet, although not all of the bystanders were so lucky. No degree of sensitivity to oppression should render these young drug dealers less culpable for their choices.” (Pg. 244)

He concludes, “Very well: it is off my chest… a book, a dissenting view about dissenting views. I have written this book… to spark a dialogue… I am an intellectual, not a leader… My criticism is meant to be constructive, and I hope that it is taken, and also answered, in that spirit. My fear, however, is that as a result of this book, only one thing will change: far from releasing me from my intellectual box, the labelers from both camps will simply change the legend on the outside. The new label will read ‘BLACK NEOCONSERVATIVE.’ And the new label will be just as inaccurate, just as stifling, just as painful, and just as much a denial of my right to think.” (Pg. 252-253)

This book will be of great interest for conservatives---particularly those interested in racial/ethnic issues.

[Alisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was inspiring in the sense that I want to read more books on the topic of affirmative action. I see what Mr. Carter is saying--if we were shooting for a "colorblind" society, affirmative action would be nonsensical. Also, the beneficiaries are usually the black middle class, rather than people who really need assistance. However, he was not able to shake my belief that from a utilitarian perspective the policy benefits society. He argued that it is "racial justice on the cheap," I would argue that it can be a beginning and certainly should not be an ending in our search for racial justice.

[Jason Margolis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a pedestrian tale about a relevant and polarizing subject, affirmative action. Stephen L. Carter is a law professor derided by the left and African-American activists as an Anglo-Apologist and Uncle Tom, and hailed by the conservatives as a treasure for all to behold. Smart guy, not much of a storyteller.

[Chrisanne]

If you're looking for a book to confirm your views, this isn't it. Carter very much straddles the lines. He also does an academically accurate job at looking at all the viewpoints and providing thoughtful counter arguments*. And I sought him out because I knew that and was curious.

Here are some things you should know:

1. He's not really against Affirmative Action. At least, I didn't read it that way. The blurb on the GR page doesn't really accurately describe it. It's not really a treatise on Affirmative Action. There are sections on it, but that isn't the whole focus.

2. If you have any affiliation with the GOP you need to read his chapter on the party. I'm advocating for a little less reliance on the origins of the party and a little more attention to what followed and what has happened more recently. And I appreciated his comments regarding Bork's nomination---I had never done that much research on his opinions prior to the nomination.

3. I thought his views on free speech were quite good at illustrating the legal issues regarding hate speech/threats. The line between hate speech and hate acts should not be as blurred as it is. Similarly telling was his comments regarding racism in the court system.

4. Finally, it's also a bit old(30 years, to be exact), which is a shame because I'd really love to read his thoughts on more recent cases, the Clarence Thomas nomination, and Pres. Obama's nomination. He always gives me more to think about.



*I defy you to prove him wrong on the specific legal case examples. The duality of the court system when the defendant is not white is hard to deny.

[Carol Read · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this book years ago for bookclub and was not impressed. Then I saw the author’s biography of his paternal grandmother and after reading that book was confused about a few things so I re-read this book.
WTF.
How the heck is a 4th generation higher education (his great grandmother attended a business college in Philadelphia and later studied at University in Germany), third generation college graduate, 3rd generation post baccalaureate an affirmative action baby? Seems this ivy league legacy nepo baby (father is a professor, grandmother’s brother attended Harvard) was able to leverage his family’s network and connections and took the spot of a deserving affirmative action candidate/student.
One star cause this member of the federalist society who often drops his wife’s ethnicity (Panamanian) into social media managed to create controversy and found a publisher for this book.

[Emma Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

At the end he reemphasized the intent of the book: to spark a dialogue rather than persuade people to believe what he does.

Affirmative action, in his mind, was good in its time and can still serve a purpose in today's world, if updated for the new world we live in.

Taxes are a reflection of our duty as citizens. It is patriotic and one of the best ways to convey that we care for our country enough to invest in its growth.

[J. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn’t like the book felt he’s an apologist for conservatives and their negative views of affirmative action. Also he was one of the “first blacks” to cover the subject in a negative although he would say ambivalent manner. Needless to say I strongly disliked the book and would never have read it if it weren’t assigned reading. In any case I did hear views different than mine.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author tries so hard to present all possible points of view that the presentation becomes muddled. Nevertheless, he does make clear his own ideas about the logical problems with affirmative action as currently applied.

[Cynthia Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book.

[Julene · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in 1993.