By Victor Davis Hanson in PJ Media
The United States can be quite an
incoherent place at times. Here are a few examples.
Diversity
Sometime in the 1990s the growing
contradictions of affirmative action in a multiracial society became
problematic. Ethnic ancestry was often neither easily identifiable nor readily
commensurate with class status, and so gave way to a more popular term:
“diversity.”
Under diversity, it no longer
mattered so much how wealthy or poor one was. Nor was it a concern exactly who
one’s grandparents had been — at long as, in some vague way, one was
non-“white.” If so, one was diverse. That was deemed in and of itself a
good thing. We no longer worried as much whether someone enjoying affirmative
action status was upper middle-class or the child of a surgeon.
Nor did it matter that one was only
one-quarter “Latino” or, in fact, took the rarer Elizabeth Warren or Ward
Churchill route of fabricating ethnic ancestry out of whole cloth. Those were
written off as the bothersome details used by reactionaries to jeopardize the
noble objectives of affirmative action.
But with “diversity,” that
incoherence supposedly abated, and how one looked or how one spelled or
accented or hyphenated one’s last name was about all that was needed for some
sort of redress or compensation.
The theory of “disparate impact”
became a valuable tool of diversity. If an entire field — Silicon Valley
techies, employees at the DMV, or school administrators — did not reflect
“diversity” (e.g., was more than about 70% “white”), then whether conscious or
not, whether accidental or deliberate, the impact, not the intent, was all that
mattered, and was by nature bad. Adjustments — legalized discrimination on the
basis of race — followed. At least in theory.
Diversity became also a haphazardly
selective idea. Some of the highest-paid and most celebrated jobs in America
are found in professional sports. Yet the National Football League, Major
League Baseball, and National Basketball Association are increasingly the most
un-diverse employers around, at least sort of. The owners are mostly white; the
players in the majority mostly not.
On the flip side, college swim teams
and the National Hockey League are disproportionally white. What strangely
exempts these organization from the charge of “disparate impact” — or the idea
that these disequilibria need not be deliberate to have a negative impact?
After all, think of the
consequences. There are lots of gifted Asian basketball players and
African-American hockey players that might enrich the mosaic of these sports
and energize non-traditional audiences. Diversity dictates that ipso facto
things improve the more we appear differently. Would not a team of basketball
or hockey players reflecting the ethnic make up of the country be more inclusive or
at least fairer?
I think we know the answers. Money
and more money. Owners are billionaires and professional athletes are
multimillionaires. Both are free-market, up-by-your-bootstraps advocates of
merit or at least their own privilege. Players believe their hard work and
natural ability earn them the right not to be discriminated against by
mandating replacements of some of them by others with less proven success, but
whose appearance and cultural background would “diversify” both the team and
its audience.
Owners agree — and all but imply
their business brains and work ethic won their riches and with them the right
to own anything they want. Finally, society agrees because sports are its de
facto religion in a way that university faculties and the Post Office are
not. Would you rather watch the 49ers, or hear a classics professor lecture on enjambment?
And so we have few black hockey players and few Latino basketball players
because the public, in classically liberal fashion, demands racially blind
criteria as the sole adjudicator of participation. Ethnic over- and
under-representation are not terms that apply to lucrative sports leagues.
Also note the issues with critical
industries that we count on for our safety. Take airline pilots: Al Sharpton is
badgering the tech industry to become more diverse, but not the
pilots association. Eric Holder will not seriously sue the airlines for “disparate
impact,” apparently because passengers demand the assurance that the person in
control of 300 lives at 30,000 feet, like an NBA basketball star, has a
superior, and identifiably superior, record of achievement. Sports and safety
demand that perceived merit trumps diversity. Again, these are the truths we
dare not speak, but collectively assume and apparently insist upon.
Women in Danger
Lots of college campuses are in
so-called dangerous neighborhoods. East Palo Alto is not far from the Stanford
campus. New Haven can still be a perilous place for Yale students. Many of the
Cal State campuses are in iffy neighborhoods. Women alone walking to cars or
apartments in these environs can often be targeted by criminals.
Why, then, is there not a greater
campus awareness campaign about the dangers of the street, or at least more
attention to insist that felons and convicted rapists are not released early in
college neighborhoods? Instead, more emphases recently have been focused on
date rape and other college students. The apparent greater dangers to female
students are not violent felons on parole or previous offenders, but campus
frats and jocks — even to the point of suggesting that campus rape statistics
are astronomically higher than those found among the general population, as if
it were more dangerous to go to a USC dorm party than to walk through South
Central or Watts.
Why the disconnect? Criminal
statistics about rape can be politically incorrect, in that persons of color
are statistically on a per capita basis more likely to commit such crimes than
so-called whites. For campuses to suggest that a convicted felon of an
adjoining inner city is the more likely danger than an arrogant,
full-of-himself conservative frat boy is largely an exercise in what the
president, in another context, called acting “stupidly” or “stereotyping.”
Warning women of the rough areas in
the vicinity means race and class issues turn against the speaker. Warning
women of the drunken privileged campus jerk breaks in the speaker’s favor.
Which warning is more likely to keep
women secure on campus from bodily harm?
Second, our culture has a tendency
to obsesses on what we can influence, and ignore what we cannot: banning a
fraternity and bringing wealthy lacrosse players up on campus charges are
easily within our power; and it’s easy for Lena Dunham or Rolling Stone to invent crimes of
conservative college rapists.
But the pathologies of the inner
cities are existential crises apparently beyond our imagination.
It is sort of analogous to central
California. Out here, the authorities ignore zoning violations: they ignore 10
people living around a rural farmhouse in Winnebagos with porta-potties,
Jerry-rigged Romex wire, and unlicensed and unvaccinated pit bulls wandering
into the street, because it is far easier and less politically incorrect to
focus on the suburbanite who sneaks in an extra lawn irrigation on a no-watering
day. The former invites existential and unsolvable issues; the latter
addressable inconsistencies that make the enforcer feel empowered and big
rather than inconsequential, impotent, and incorrect.
Ethos?
Last week I saw the following: at
the local Save Mart, the person ahead of me was grossly obese and in obvious
poor health. She had two piles of quite different sizes on the checkout
conveyor belt: one consisted of eggs, milk, bread, and diapers; she paid the
small sum with her California WIC card. Her other pile that followed had Cap’n
Crunch cereal, bags of Oreos, chips, and lots of regular Pepsi supersize
bottles. She paid the far greater tab with three twenty-dollar bills. As I
exited, she left in a new Honda Accord, with customized rims. Could she not
have passed on the rims and the Oreos, and used the savings to spare the state
the cost of her milk subsidy? Does she represent the downtrodden that our
legislators insist are not served well by supposedly underfunded state
agencies?
But why pick only on the supposed
poor?
On the same day, I read a story in the local paper about John Welty, the
former president of CSU Fresno. He had worked very hard and successfully at
fundraising, and earned his sizable state pension — in addition to a
long-contracted year’s “transition” vacation pay of $223,000 to adjust to
retirement. Now he is teaching one class at a San Bernardino CSU satellite
campus that also entails some administrative duties that together pays
$148,752.
His years in the hot seat in the
unenviable position as a college president certainly should entitle him to a
generous pension whose amount was undisclosed. His apparent administrative
excellence may well justify such generous additional post-retirement
compensations, given they were long ago contracted before the state’s fiscal
meltdown and the across-the-board cutbacks at CSU. He surely has a right to
work in his retirement to augment his income, even if it’s for the same state
that is paying his pension. All of these are the deserved fruits of a
successful administrative tenure that saw the CSUF campus infrastructure and
grounds noticeably improve and its private fundraising markedly increase, which
resulted in more student scholarships and opportunities.
My worries and yours: the classroom
component of his job is not really a class, but is described as a “speaker
series,” to coordinate others to talk to students rather than demanding his own
prepping, lecturing, and correcting assignments. That is hardly “teaching.”
Two, the campus CSU branch that
hired Dr. Welty also has recently hired his wife as dean, who, on his
retirement from the Fresno campus, left with him to their new home in the Palm
Desert area — and then was rather promptly hired as an administrator at the
nearby CSUSB branch campus.
Three, Dr. Welty’s spouse had
earlier left CSUF under a cloud of some controversy because her return to recent
administrative status consisted of a brief tenure as an interim graduate dean
at CSUF, when her husband was campus president — reportedly a result of a
quick, in-house search in which there were no other candidates seriously
considered.
It is difficult not to conclude that
her husband’s administrative team hired her without a normally run search for a
well-compensated administrative post; then the administrative team she became a
part of had earlier also hired her husband for a post-retirement,
well-compensated administrative/”teaching” post. Doing that once may not be
nepotism at a local bank, but twice for elite positions at a public university?
As a professor at CSUF — a public
university with rules far different from those in the private sector — I
conducted seven searches, both for full-time, tenure-track and full-time
temporary and fill-in openings. Every search, even for sabbatical replacements,
was advertised and open. Each had an assigned affirmative action officer in
addition to a committee of three faculty members, both to watch for biases and
to adjudicate disproportionate impact. There were careful institutionalized
timelines that mandated the process went on for weeks on end. CSU does many
things wrong, but its faculty searches are usually transparent and conducted
according to protocols, reflecting its status as a public university without
the leeway of a private counterpart. Had the university hired someone without a
normal search, without advertised announcements, and without an affirmative
action officer, I would have been in serious trouble — and from the president
mentioned above. The point in both cases was not that laws were violated, but
that the appearance breeds cynicism at government when government is already
seen as cynical enough.
From the application of diversity
remedies to the most efficacious ways of curbing campus sexual violence to the
expenditure of state funds, this culture is incoherent.
He was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 and the Bradley Prize in 2008.
Hanson, who was the fifth successive generation to live in the same house on his family’s farm, was a full-time orchard and vineyard grower from 1980-1984, before joining the nearby CSU Fresno campus in 1984 to initiate a classical languages program. In 1991, he was awarded an American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award, which is given yearly to the country’s top undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin. Hanson has been a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992-93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991-92), a recipient of the Eric Breindel Award for opinion journalism (2002), an Alexander Onassis Fellow (2001), and was named alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002). He was also the visiting Shifrin Professor of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002-3). He received the Manhattan Institute’s Wriston Lectureship in 2004, and the 2006 Nimitz Lectureship in Military History at UC Berkeley in 2006.
Hanson is the author of hundreds of articles, book reviews, scholarly papers, and newspaper editorials on matters ranging from ancient Greek, agrarian and military history to foreign affairs, domestic politics, and contemporary culture. He has written or edited 17 books, including Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (1983; paperback ed. University of California Press, 1998); The Western Way of War (Alfred Knopf, 1989; 2d paperback ed. University of California Press, 2000); Hoplites: The Ancient Greek Battle Experience (Routledge, 1991; paperback., 1992); The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (Free Press, 1995; 2nd paperback ed., University of California Press, 2000); Fields without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea (Free Press, 1996; paperback, Touchstone, 1997; The Bay Area Book reviewers Non-fiction winner for 1996); The Land Was Everything, Letters from an American Farmer (Free Press, 2000; a Los Angeles Times Notable book of the year); The Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Cassell, 1999; paperback, 2001); The Soul of Battle (Free Press, 1999, paperback, Anchor/Vintage, 2000); Carnage and Culture (Doubleday, 2001; Anchor/Vintage, 2002; a New York Times bestseller); An Autumn of War (Anchor/Vintage, 2002); Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (Encounter, 2003), Ripples of Battle (Doubleday, 2003), and Between War and Peace (Random House, 2004).
A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, was published by Random House in October 2005. It was named one of the New York Times Notable 100 Books of 2006. Hanson coauthored, with John Heath, Who Killed Homer? The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom (Free Press, 1998; paperback, Encounter Press, 2000); with Bruce Thornton and John Heath, Bonfire of the Humanities (ISI Books, 2001); and with Heather MacDonald, and Steven Malanga, The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s (Ivan Dee 2007). He is currently editing Makers of Ancient Strategy for Princeton University Press.
Hanson has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, International Herald Tribune, New York Post, National Review, Washington Times, Commentary, The Washington Post, Claremont Review of Books, American Heritage, New Criterion, Policy Review, Wilson Quarterly, Weekly Standard, Daily Telegraph, and has been interviewed often on National Public Radio, PBS Newshour, Fox News, CNN, and C-Span’s Book TV and In-Depth. He serves on the editorial board of the Military History Quarterly, and City Journal.
Since 2001, Hanson has written a weekly column for National Review Online, and is a Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute. In 2004, he began his weekly syndicated column for Tribune Media Services. In 2006, he added his weekly column for PJ Media, Works and Days.
Hanson was educated at the University of California, Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975, ‘highest honors’ Classics, ‘college honors’, Cowell College), the American School of Classical Studies, Athens (regular member, 1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. He divides his time between his forty-acre tree and vine farm near Selma, California, where he was born in 1953, and the Stanford campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment