When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History Of Racial Inequality In Twe

Book was new, very interesting read

The forgotten history of affirmative actionThis isn’t taught in history class.How African Americans were left out of the first policies of affirmative action

A must read for EVERYONE!!!

Great book. Shipped quickly. Thank you!

I used to think history was boring. In high school I had the impression that history consisted of a relentless series of dates that had little bearing upon my life. As we know history is amazing, and helps us make sense of our current world. This book describes how US policies and programs benefited only some of our citizens while leaving others out, and goes a long way to helping me understand how the distribution of wealth has come to be where it is in contemporary US society. I wish we’d read things like this in high school!

Excellent!

Excellence scholarship exposing WS strategic and tactics….with some very strong analyses of its consequences for the rest of us. Buy a physical copy, they will remove the kindle version in the near future, leaving you without accesses.

Brush up on your racial history and become apart of a movement. This book puts ridiculous arguments against affirmative action to bed. From start to finish you’ll get a new understanding of affirmative action and why it has played such a crucial role in our society.

Regarding the comments of Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Frantzman: yes, blacks may have been heavily represented in the military, but no, they were NOT able to take advantage of the G.I. Bill to obtain Veteran’s mortgage loans.Due to legal restrictions, restrictive convenants, and general violence and protests, blacks in the U.S. in the 1940’s and 1950’s were limited to obtaining housing in only all-black neighborhoods, or in neighborhoods that were rapidly turning all-black. There has been much research done showing that the FHA and VA both participated in redlining, and refused to provide home mortgages in neighborhoods which were all black, or on the verge of becoming all-black.Therefore, any black veteran who wished to purchase a home using his/her V.A. benefits would be severely restricted, by A) not being able to buy a home outside of a black neighborhood, where mortgage funds were readily available and B) being able to find a home in a black neighborhood, but not being able to receive mortgage money to purchase it.Check out the book “From the Tenements to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth-Century America” to see that what I am saying is correct.

Good read about the inequalities of different state legislation implementation especially the chapter about the GI Bill of Rights. Buy It!

The stuff they never taught you in school can be found here. America was and probably will never be fair or equal.

I read chapters of this book in graduate school and it got me curious to read the rest of the book. It did not disappoint. The system was literally designed to fail African Americans in this country. To those who believe that some people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps must read this book and understand that some people never own boots to begin with.

A well researched work that highlights how the fiduciaries of public policy willfully discriminated against African Americans. This book a worth reading.

I primarily used this book for my thesis, but the story is one the Red states have spent decades keeping out of schools -for good reason- your life will be altered.

What a great book. If you are a history buff, this is the type of book you need to read.

Incredibly eye-opening. People talk about black history and institutional racism, but all you hear about is the most blatant racism and slavery. This book describes the stuff that’s truly important today: how blacks were systematically denied a decent livelihood and.progress from generation to generation. Not just in blatant ways, but in countless little ways. The end result is the poor black nation living within an otherwise wealthy nation. This material should be in every high school course in American history.

When Affirmative Action Was White accurately explains the historic amnesia America has when debating the topic of Affirmative Action. The author artfully explains that Affirmative Action did not just begin in the late 60s and 70s but decades before during the New Deal era. It began when government explicitly granted New Deal, Social Security, GI Bill, and other social programs to White Americans only. By doing so, the American government effectively created Affirmative Action for the White population by carving African Americans out of such programs.

As I read this book I was reminded of the Broadway play and subsequent movie ‘1776’ about the creation of the Declaration of Independence. In the play the Southern representatives agreed to support the Declaration only if words prohibiting slavery were taken out. Politics is the art of compromise, and without the Southern states there would have been no Declaration. So slavery was left in.In the time of Roosevelt the Southern politicians had enough clout to stop all of the New Deal legislation if it were made truly color blind. As is often the case, it took a politician from the affected states to force legislation through the Congress to right this wrong. Lyndon Johnson had been in long enough that he truly understood how to get what he wanted through the congress.In this book, the author explains how nominaly racially blind legislation and programs were in fact deliberatly and subtly were able to exclude blacks from participation. He uses this to make a plea to eliminate poverty and inequality in America.

Awesome

An awesome book! Very informative and useful. Quickly became a favorite. Picks up with the New Deal I think it should have gone back a little further but it sums things up nicely.

Great quality. Came fast.

Absolutely well written. Wonderful history lesson.

I found out a lot of new things about the New Deal.

When I worked in college admissions, most of our “affirmative action” cases revolved around those whose educational experiences were affected by illness, socio-economic depravation, poor schools etc. I think many white students would be surprised to learn that they were admitted on the basis of “special consideration”. Just for fun, ask to see your admissions rating. You will be surprised to see you weren’t rated as high as you think you were. And of course, there is no greater handicap, or reason for special consideration, than to come from an under represented state like Idaho, Montata, Wyoming, North Dakota or New Mexico.

Many if not most whites resent the idea that nonwhites are getting racial preferences. As a young man, this reviewer was one of them. What I wasn’t aware of, however, was the government policies in the mid-twentieth century that gave preference to whites at the expense of blacks. This book is about those policies.Ira Katznelson is a history professor at Columbia. His book examines government policies in the 1930s and 40s regarding welfare, work, and war that had blatantly harmful impact on African Americans while benefitting whites. These policies significantly hindered black participation in the development of the modern middleclass during and after WWII. Without the record of when affirmative action was white, writes Katznelson, the history of racial preferences is incomplete.The author argues that the disparity between white and black Americans widened after the Second World War, despite the country’s prosperity, is largely due to white affirmative action.The power of Democratic bloc from the South in Congress was formidible from the 1930s until the early 1960s. They controlled key committee chairmanships and were united in defense of Jim Crow. Nothing could pass without their approval.When social programs were enacted, the Dixiecrats ensured that whites were privileged by inserting provisions that had a disparate racial impact on blacks. One particular technique was to insist upon local administration of federally funded relief programs during the Depression.This way the distribution was controlled by all-white local officials who supported Jim Crow and wanted to preserve the racialized low-wage economy on which Jim Crow was built. Keeping black incomes low forced them to continue working for very low wages on farms and in homes as maids.For example, during the 1930s, more than 60 percentage of blacks were employed in agriculture or as maids (75 percent in the South). The Dixiecrats made sure those groups were excluded from Social Security and from legislation that supported labor unions, set minimum wages and regulated hours of work. Meanwhile, most whites benefitted from those programs and rapidly moved into the middle class.While the Social Security Act was being written, the Roosevelt administration resisted exclusions. Nonetheless, conservatives prevailed in excluding from coverage two-thirds of the black workforce, and 70-80 percent in parts of the South. Those exclusions weren’t eliminated until the late 1950s. As a result, “for the first quarter century of its existence, Social Security was characterized by a form of policy apartheid.”Parts of the Act provided aid to families with dependent children and to the elderly poor. Southern congressmen, including committee chairmen, put administration of the benefits under local control. Consequently, in southern states, a much smaller proportion of eligible black than eligible white children were deemed qualified for AFDC benefits. In Georgia, for example, 14.4 percent of whites were funded vs 1.5 percent of blacks. The same pattern existed in how funds for the elderly poor were distributed. The unemployment insurance program excluded farm and domestic workers, and it let states set eligibility and benefit levels.Early in the New Deal, federal laws protecting the right of workers to unionize explicitly excluded farm and domestic workers at the behest of Southern Democrats. Since Southern blacks predominated in those two occupations, black workers were left out of the benefits of union representation enjoyed by millions of mainly white workers who were rising into the middleclass.When the Fair Labor Standards Act set the first minimum wage and maximum hours, once again Southern blacks were largely excluded because the law did not apply to agricultural and domestic employees, the most poorly paid workers who most needed the protection.Northern Democrats consistently supported the exemptions their Southern colleagues demanded in order to secure passage of the bills.As a result, New Deal legislation primarily promoted the advancement of white labor.During WWII, the U.S. armed forces were strictly segregated by race, following the policy of 17 states with Jim Crow laws. The Roosevelt administration rejected appeals to integrate the armed forces. In the fight for democracy, blacks soldiers suffered second-class status. For example, Nazi POWs in Southern states were permitted to sit in the front of movie theatres, while black American soldiers were not.Jim Crow sharply limited black advancement. By the end of the war, 11 percent of white men in the military were officers compared to less than one percent of blacks. Though some black troops received training useful in the civilian economy, “the larger, overall effect created increasing racial disparity.”Postwar benefits also contributed to the growing racial inequality. Once again, white vets enjoyed preferential treatment that boosted their economic status.In the postwar years, the GI Bill greatly accelerated upward mobility into the middleclass. Millions of veterans received help to buy homes, go to college, and start businesses.However, “the prevailing experience for blacks was starkly differential treatment.”One assessment of the popular program concluded that is was “as though the GI Bill had been earmarked ‘For White Veterans Only.'”By 1946 and ’47, VA mortgages constituted 40 percent of all mortgages. There was no more important impetus for suburban sprawl or for upward mobility. Though many black veterans benefitted, “on balance…there was no greater instrument for widening an already huge racial gap in postwar America than the GI Bill.”That’s because the GI Bill, despite complete federal funding, left implementation of benefits primarily to states and localities, as Southern congressmen had wanted. Consequently, white officials operating under Jim Crow made the decisions about who received loans, job placement, unemployment benefits and schooling.Banks and colleges were also free to decide whom to offer services to. Black vets were eligible for federal insurance for loans, but banks used redlining and other means to deny them loans. Though the GI Bill contained colorblind language, local control guaranteed discriminatory treatment for blacks and preferential treatment for whites.This meant that black vets were less able to buy homes than their white counterparts. Home ownership is a major source of family wealth. “Missed chances at homeownership obviously compound over time.”In addition, colleges were segregated by law in Southern states. There were not enough black colleges to accomodate the influx of black veterans. Public black colleges were funded much less generously than public institutions for whites.Vocational training programs were also segregated, with far fewer opportunities for black vets. One major barrier was the requirement to have a job offer before enrolling. White employers preferred to hire white workers to be trained.In sum, the exclusion of blacks from full participation in the most significant social programs of the 1930s and 40s had an immense effect on black socioeconomic status compared to white Americans.Though these racist policies gave whites an advantage for decades over blacks, there is little historical memory of racial preferences for whites.The legacy of this racial advantage is still seen today when the median white family has ten times of the wealth of the median black family.LBJ wanted a remedy beyond the end of Jim Crow. A remedy for the cumulative history of racial disadvantage. A broad, transformative remedy for generations of Jim Crow, however, was not politically feasible. Instead, a more measured approach did start in the late 1960s under LBJ and then under Nixon.Federal regulations required that affirmative action be taken to insure that blacks actually had opportinities to be hired and admitted to universities.The EEOC lacked the resources to deal with individual cases of discrimination. Instead, the focus was put on patterns that suggested disparate “treatment.” Under Nixon, that was replaced with “disparate impact.”In 1971, the Civil Service Commission approved the use of racial goals and timetables in federal hiring. That practice was soon adopted in higher education, where black enrollment jumped from less than five percent of college students in 1965 to 12 percent in 1990. Affirmative action was “the most important tool” to promote equity that the federal government endorsed since the civil rights laws.Racial injustice requires “corrective justice,” which seeks to compensate those who were unjustly deprived in the past. As Ronald Dworkin said, there is an important difference between the use of race to harm the downtrodden and its use to correct these injustices.That’s a difference, however, that eludes opponents of affirmative action. It is also a difference not stated in the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Civil Rights Act.Supporters seek to end the the lower caste status of African Americans and the privileged status of whites. Katznelson argues that any use of race should be in narrowly tailored policies to remedy specific past harms. “Every violation of colorblind norms must be justified with the goal of a just, colorblind society.”The specific past harm Katznelson points to is the exclusion of most blacks under New Deal and Fair Deal programs, which gave an advantage to whites — an affirmative action. The record reveals a “profound and pervasive racial bias” that justifies “remedies for the deep, even chronic dispossession that continues to afflict a large percentage of black America.”Since this bias was officially sanctioned, argues Katznelson, it is appropriate to have an official remedy. Whites enjoyed privileges denied to blacks on account of race. Consequently, race should be taken into account when fashioning a remedy. Systemic harm justifies systemic compensation. He recognizes, however, that unless remedies are narrow and address specific deprivation, they face legal and political barriers.Since the SCOTUS put an end to affirmative action this year, some of the book’s references seem dated. On the other hand, “When Affirmative Action Was White” provides recent history that explains why wealth inequality widened between the races. That stark wealth gap, which was largely built by racial preference, seems unlikely to be narrowed by strict colorblindness now. -30-

Must read!

Fantastic book

This engaging book is remarkably concise for being a well-researched academic history book. It is clear and engaging and extremely relevant. A great book for people wondering about what “systemic racism” means, and where it came from.

The book is extremely well-written, and the sources are very well documented. Without question, the federal government chose for a couple of decades in the 20th century to massively invest in its citizens, but because of the machinations of some (mostly) Southern US politicians, opportunities for African-americans under these programs were severely restricted. These local bosses wanted to keep the sources of cheap and docile wage labor in place in their Southern states so as to keep their local hierarchies of race and class intact – it may have been a small totem pole in their communities, but at least they were on top of it and in control!In contrast, many poorer whites outside the South were able to leapfrog into the middle class, and many descendants of immigrant Jews, Italians, and Slavs were able to become more fully integrated into US social and economic life. This book obviously makes some whites defensive, because the sources of this book demonstrate that they had LOTS of help achieving middle class status, and they would rather that we all settle into a collective amnesia about these facts regarding their past receipt of government assistance. (Well, maybe it isn’t really amnesia — some of these past beneficiaries will at present fight for more largesse under Social Security and Medicare). But they will still not admit they got government help – no!, they say, we earned it!!I would differ from the author’s statistical emphasis on averaging together all whites versus all African-americans, as this would obscure important differences of class within races. A frequent criticism of present affirmative action programs is that its beneficiaries are usually from amongst the more affluent and middle class members of the targeted groups, while the more poor segments continue to be shut out. Perhaps a different type of affirmative-action, based on focusing on underprivileged classes (irrespective of race) make more sense for 21st century America. That type of affirmative action would look a lot more like the affirmative action described in Mr. Katznelson’s book.

A friend recommended this was so glad to find it.

Wow, so much history I didn’t learn in school

For those who have amnesia about U.S. race relations today, this book is a remedy and essential intellectual therapy.

This book was comprehensive, well thought out, and written in a way that could apply to the layperson as well as the scholar. It points out so many points in our history that led to the racial inequality we have today. For so many white people who have lived lives surrounded mostly by other white people, it points out these details that so many of us remain oblivious to since it happens out of sight from such groups. It’s something I feel should be required reading for any citizen of the country, in order to actually understand the context of our own lives.

While the writing style is a bit difficult, it is a very eye-opening book. He definitely sets the record straight on Affirmative Action.

Really enjoyable read of facts untold. This book put an entirely different perspective on the entity of Affirmative Action as we know it. When you consider the laws that were put in place long before we had a term then you start to gain a new understanding of how tricky our government policies can be and how they so easily be changed.

Very detailed and excellent analysis.

I actually bought the paper copy of this book. I was pleasantly surprised by the excellent condition it wa end. I have not read the book, but was very pleased with the company’s care of the book. I will definitely use them again.

In his admittedly “polemical” book, Katznelson historicizes affirmative action in order to make a compelling case for its continued existence and application to the marginalized position of black people in America. He re-periodizes the discussion of affirmative action. While most commentators look to the 1960s and 1970s for the origins of affirmative action as applied to black people, Katznelson shows that the history goes back to the 1930s and 1940s when lawmakers—compelled by Southern Democrats but with Northern politics complicit—deliberately crafted policies to exclude or differentially treat black people to the advantage of whites. Katznelson also brings Jim Crow and its impact into discussions on affirmative action to show that from its origins, affirmative action was indeed white.

Excellent book. I wish everyone was aware of the information it covers.