Time: Sat Sep 20 22:10:06 1997
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14927;
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:33:13 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:32:58 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Victimhood beginning to know no bounds," by George F.
Will (fwd)
Victimhood beginning to know no bounds
By GEORGE F. WILL
T is generally wrong to assume that any government policy,
however preposterous it has become, has hit bottom. In
today's government, the bottom is a downward-moving
target.
The New Republic calls a new wrinkle in affirmative action
from the Small Business Administration "the reductio ad
absurdum of victimhood politics." But a late entry in the
absurdity sweepstakes is a theory discussed at the
Commission on Civil Rights.
The new nuance in the SBA's racial spoils system concerns
set-asides for federal contractors deemed "socially and
economically disadvantaged." Since 1987 the presumption
has been that contractors are "socially disadvantaged" if they
are black, Hispanic, Native Americans, Asian Pacific
Americans and Subcontinent Asian Americans. Now the
golden door to the advantageous status of "disadvantaged,"
and to set-asides, has been opened wider.
One "distinguishing feature" that the SBA will now assume
to have contributed to social disadvantage will be "long-term
residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of
American society, or other similar causes not common to
individuals who are not socially disadvantaged." That isolated
environment criterion makes members of Congress or the
Harvard faculty eligible for "socially disadvantaged" status if
they decide to moonlight as contractors.
Furthermore, set-asides shall be available for those who have
had "personal experiences of social disadvantage" that have
been "substantial, chronic and long-standing." Furthermore,
when parceling out set-asides the SBA will consider
"education, employment and business history to see if the
totality of circumstances shows disadvantage in entering into
or advancing in the business world."
The New Republic notes that almost every entrepreneur can
be stuffed under the shelter of those capacious criteria of
victimhood. The magazine reports that a federal judge has
even ruled that white men are socially disadvantaged, and
thus eligible for affirmative action, if they have been denied
contracts because of affirmative action.
What could be more absurd? Perhaps this:
Recently the Civil Rights Commission discussed "ability
grouping" of students on the basis of aptitudes. Why is this
considered a problem, let alone a federal civil rights matter?
An answer was supplied by Commissioner Yvonne Lee, a
Clinton appointee, who began by noting that "within the
Asian-American community you do see an
overrepresentation of Asian-Americans in certain so-called
honor groupings or advanced classes."
That, she said, "discriminates against the students" by
preventing them from "being exposed to other courses of
studies." She said the discrimination problem of "ability
grouping" does not involve only "students who are stuck at
the bottom rung. It also affects students who get labeled as
whiz kids and they get stuck in the upper rank and never get
exposed to other opportunities."
Commissioner Robert George, a Princeton professor of
government, was politely nonplused. He asked if Lee really
was saying "that ability grouping is inherently discriminatory"
and is particularly discriminatory against Asian-Americans
because, by grouping them at the top of certain categories, "it
deprives them of other opportunities."
Lee, who runs a San Francisco public relations firm, said yes,
she believes "Asian-Americans are overrepresented in
middle management, technical, professional ranks because
throughout their educational ladder they've been shifted
toward that area because they were thought to be smart in
math and all the technical areas." Thus "they were shielded
away from other social studies and other courses." Ability
grouping put them "in a certain track," thereby denying them
"the opportunity to be exposed to other aspects of
education." Asian-Americans "are being hurt in later years
when you see the other aspects of development that they did
not have in their social interaction."
Getting "stuck in the upper rank" is a "civil rights problem"
that millions of young Americans are studying diligently in the
hope of acquiring. But Commissioner Lee sees people
through contemporary liberalism's lens -- as members of
grievance groups, but essentially passive, and who need to
have their consciousness raised. She thinks they are victims
who are "shifted" here and "put" there, allowing themselves
to be stigmatized as "whiz kids." And they are improperly
concentrated ("overrepresented") in the academic and
vocational areas they choose to be in.
The implicit premise, central to the logic of contemporary
liberalism, is that their choices result from social pressures
and stereotypes and other facets of victimhood, and
therefore are not really free choices. Therefore their choices
need not be respected, and can be considered ripe for
remedial government action.
Thus is the government, locked in the logic of group
preferences, drawn toward the receding bottom of a
bankrupt policy. Its descent is rationalized by a new social
science, victimology.
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail