Below, a few excerpts (and my responses) from an email that’s pretty typical of the handful of negative reactions to my Tiger Woods column on FoxNews.com. Most of the negative feedback in fact came from people working for alleged “civil rights” groups. They peppered their emails with slave rhetoric like “massa’” and “workin’ for the man,” and more than a few accused me of subscribing to ridiculous assertions such as “the only good Negro is a silent Negro.” The email below came from Eden Brown Gaines, Assistant General Counsel for the NAACP:

Mr. Balko….

…I would also like to object to your failure to recognize the true history of
sports in this country. Your article is based on the mistaken premise of a
sports world without a history of bigotry and you seem to have forgotten the
sports world’s own Affirmative Action plan. If only we could ask the first
African Americans to integrate tennis, boxing, basketball and football what
their lives were really like. I’m curious as to how many games were skewed
in Mr. Ashe’s opponent’s favor despite his lack of merit? How many refs
made unfair calls cutting against the football team with the Black player?
Remember when a boxing match could racially polarize an entire city? Indeed,
there was a time when sports was not about merit but about color.

Yes, and the first blacks to integrate those sports integrated them thirty, forty and fifty years ago. I’m not certain affirmative action wasn’t needed before the civil rights movement. I’m certain it isn’t necessary now. As for boxing matches polarizing cities along color lines, I agree. But how is that relevant? Ali’s fight’s were also draped with racial overtones — but usually because he invited them. As for referees being biased against players of color, I’ve never read accounts to support that claim. It’s possible, I guess. Then again, the referees seem to be biased against my favorite players, too.

I agree with you with regard to the employment sector. It too is about
color and not merit. However, your perspective is skewed. It is not that
Affirmative Action has benefited the meritless African American, it is that
white privilege has long benefited the meritless white American. I have
come across a number of undeserving, utterly unqualified white individuals
holding positions at every level. More so than any undeserving African
American.

And this is okay? People seem to think that opposing state-sponsored affirmative action that benefits less qualified blacks somehow translates into support for “legacy” preferences and “good ‘ol boy” networks that grant unmerited preferences for whites. That’s not the case. Both are wrong.

Let’s draw an important distinction here. If private firms want to grant preferences to “oppressed groups,” or to people with difficult histories, I have no problem with that. It’s a risk they’re free to take — and more power to them for taking it. If private firms want to discriminate based on the sex, color, ethnicity, orientation — whatever — I think its wrong and despicable and ignorant — but I think that should be legal too. Why? Because I don’t want the state telling anyone whom they can and can’t hire. It was wrong when the State enforced Jim Crow in the 1950′s, and it’s wrong when States today enforce affirmative action. It’s simply not a legitimate function of government.

The market has a number of corrective measures to address private sector bigotry. For one, firms refusing to hire more qualified applicants will, in the long run, be less competitive, because they’ll be operating with less talent. Another, blatant bigots will eventually be exposed, allowing consumer activism and negative publicity to disrupt the firm’s flow of business.

Private firms should be free to use whatever criteria they please in choosing personnel. (This, by the way, includes private schools and universities. I don’t approve of affirmative action in the admissions processes at elite private schools, but I’m certainly not in favor of lawmakers forbidding them from employing it.)

But it’s a different story when you’re talking about the State. Government ought not discriminate. Ever. The only fair way to award State contracts, or competitive admissions slots to state schools — is to evaluate candidates on merit, and merit alone. If all taxpayers are supporting a State program, all tax payers ought to have an equal crack at said program’s benefits.

I am a child of Affirmative Action. Despite my higher grades and SAT scores
and in many cases, superior academic performance, I must often bear the
unfair stigma of Affirmative Action.

Hmm. Sounds like a sound argument against affirmative action. I should add that the author here is in her mid 40′s, meaning she attended college and law school in the 70′s, a time when, arguably, affirmative action may still have been necessary. That’s not the case today. If anything, admissions committees bend over backwards to ensure that qualified minorities find slots in freshman classes. Still, because of affirmative action, qualified blacks such as Ms. Gaines– blacks who today wouldn’t need AA to get in in the first place — still “bear the unfair stigma” of AA, simply because they’re black. Stigmatization is perhaps the single strongest argument against AA.

You ignore the countless
inept white men in jobs all over America for no other reason than the fact
that they are white or their daddy has financial resources. If I were a
white man in such a situation, I could barely get through college, drink and
do drugs, run a couple of businesses into the ground, and be completely
shiftless until I am 45 years old, and then run for and win the office of
president.

Ah, the venom begins to flow…..

After years of being told that I am less than, in a strange way, it is
always empowering to run across the unsophisticated, unevolved, uneducated
and unconscious, racist/sexist – whether he is Black or white. If ever I
could have been inclined to buy into white supremacy, the writings, speeches
and think tanks sponsored by the racist/sexist make it clear that there is
no such animal.

Classic NAACP demagoguery. Now, because I wrote a column commending Tiger Woods for shunning leftist political activism — and included a paragraph about the importance of “merit” over “race” in sport — I, now, am an “unsophisticated, unevolved, undedicated, white supremacist.” You can’t disagree with these people. You can’t have an honest debate with them. You’re either with them…or you’re a deviant/rapist/serial killer/bigot/hater. George W. Bush either favors laws against hate crimes, or he’s complicit in the dragging death of James Byrd. I’m either for affirmative action, or I’m a white supremacist. It’s disheartening it has to be this way.

The NAACP at one time pushed for equality — for a State oblivious to color (see my book review post below). Before the 1960 census, the NAACP actually lobbied against including race check boxes on census forms. No more. The NAACP and like groups soon came to realize that there’s political clout in racial categorization.

The organization now employs many of the more virulent racist philosophies bigots once used against them — the despicable “one drop rule,” for example (whereby “one drop” of black blood in one’s ancestry makes one “black” (unless, of course, you’re a black Republican, in which case no amount of black blood can make you sufficiently “black”)).

Thing is, these groups thrive on racial animosity — its great fodder for fundraising letters. It’s no wonder the NAACP opposes interracial adoptions, pushes for “one drop” black identity, and opposes Ward Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative in California.

They’d never take the position publicly, but I’d suspect most in the organization’s hierarchy oppose interracial marriage, too. Why? Because all such trends, policies and attitudes point to an increasingly colorblind society. And in a colorblind society, there’s no need for an NAACP.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 30th, 2002 at 3:06 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.