...since federal money, of which Princeton gets plenty, are conditioned on non-discriminatory practices by the receivnig institution. Unfortuntely, President Eisgruber (who is, himself, a lawyer, but apparently didn't consult any in this instance) in his public statement a few weeks ago made a number of careless (and probably false) claims that, predictably, would invite scrutiny from an Education Department hostile to affirmative action and racial preferences; for example:
We must ask how Princeton can address systemic racism in the world, and we must also ask how to address it within our own community. That is true even though, for at least the past fifty years, this University has committed itself to becoming more inclusive....
Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies....
[M]y Cabinet colleagues examined systems and practices covering all facets of the University....Much of this work is unglamorous, focused not on flashy symbols but on the nuts and bolts of University management. That is essential: to care about eradicating systemic racism, one has to care about systems...
All these statements are naturally read as saying that the current Princeton University suffers from various forms of racism. The good, legal news for Princeton is that "systemic racism" isn't a legal category, so unless investigation turns up actual conscious discriminatory practices, nothing will come of this. The law does not try to prohibit "systemic racism": it prohibits intentional racial discrimination.*
There is a further question about what is meant by "systemic racism": it too often functions as a placeholder for denouncing racially disparate outcomes where there is no evidence of intentional discrimination. Some of those disparities are the effects of earlier intentional discrimination, others are not. One reason we are now overwhelmed with diversity blather is that the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for institutions to take race into account in order to remedy prior discrimination; if the Court had approved that remedial rationale for affirmative action--which was the primary rationale for affirmative action for African-Americans--we would have been spared the mindless diversity rhetoric that has now made its way into every university's mission statement.
I'll conclude with an amusing observation by philosopher Jason Brennan (Georgetown):
Princeton is one of the least racist mixed-race places in the United States, and the president knows that. His Sep. 2 letter was largely insincere and was mostly about PR posturing. Just as in the Middle Ages, one could gain status among the faithful by engaging in self-flagellation and publicly declaring oneself a sinner, so in today's environment, white people can gain status and prestige by declaring themselves racist and engaging in activities akin to self-flagellation.
*In the employment context, the law also prohibits hiring criteria that produce a disparate racial impact regardless of intention if the criteria are not reasonably related to the job.
Recent Comments