on American soil in the slave era. Thernlosers are an equally diverse group.rnWhile it is easy to agree that Americanrnblacks \ ith few exceptions were eonsistcntl-rnvictims of collective discrimination,rnit takes a huge amount of specialrnpleading to sec women as a communityrnin remotely the same sense, as an oppressedrnrace or colonized people, or asrnthe heirs of such (if they are the descendantsrnof oppressed women of h’goncrndavs, then so, of course, arc all men).rnAnd onh the most blinkered racialrnstcreotvping can view “Hispanics” as anrnoppressed category, rather than an immensernand complex range of social andrnethnic groups varying from brutalizedrnpeasants to pure hidalgos. Yet the mostrnblue-blooded and wealthy Latina t]ualificsrnas an affirmatie action hire quite asrnmuch as the grandson of a black sharecropper:rnmore so, in fact, since as a Hispanicrnand a woman, she is the imaginedrn ietini of double abuse, and thereforerncan be ticked m two columns in the federalrnforms.rnBut een assuming that all the aneillar-rncategories had been subject to pastrndiscrimination comparable to that ofrnblacks, the principles that now gainedrnacceptance were quite bizarre. Most basicrnof these “self-evident” truths is thernnotion of group rights, the sense that thernindiidual exists and has rights only inrnterms of his or her collective status. Indi-rniduals are not created equal and ha e norninalienable rights, though they might bernmarked by indelible guilt for the pereei’rned deeds of their ancestors. This isrnb’ no means a new principle, and vas inrnfact the root of the American segregationrnsystem, to say nothing of the network ofrnpriilege that undergirded the Europeanrndncien regime. Linked to collectivist theoryrnis a mutant sub-Marxist vision of existencernas a struggle between the powerfulrnand the powcriess, each perceived inrncollcetixc terms based on gender andrnethnieit and the necessity for state actionrnto side with the “wretched of thernearth.” Once again, this is nothing new,rnas a generation of Soviet legal theorists inrnthe 1920’s had evoKed a radical jurisprudencernbased on class interests, so that thernmain element of a criminal trial consistedrnof the exploration of the social andrneconomic background of the various participants,rnand the consequent allocationrnof punishment based on family history.rnMiile not no’el ideas, none has a particularKrndistinguished pedigree within thernAmerican intellectual tradition, and onernmight think that Soviet legal theory andrnancien regime privilege both representrnthe diametric opposite of democraticrnvalues and individualism. I, for one,rnwould love to see a supporter of affirmativernaction abandon the customary charadernthat the sstem is based on noblerngoals like equal opportunity and thernelimination of racism, and admit its authenticrnprecedents, in the France of thern1720’s or the Soviet Union of the 1920’s.rnOver the last year, affirmative actionrnhas become one of the central issues ofrnpartisan debate in the United States, andrnthe more attention that is paid to it, thernmore opposition grows, interestinglyrnamong blacks and other minorities asrnwell as whites. The defenses mountedrnfor the system have been incrediblyrnweak, and hae pivoted on the assertionrnthat opponents want to return to racialrndiscrimination, while they are actuallyrnthe ones seeking to abolish it. There hasrnalso been the vulgar trivialization of thernissue as a pathetic grie’anee of “angryrnwhite guys.” (Did anyone ever condescendrnto Martin Luther King sufficientlyrnto describe him as an “angry black gu”?)rnIt now appears certain that the legalrnestablishment of racial discrimination inrnthis country is doomed, though the exactrntiming of the reform is unclear: it mav gornwithin months, or it may slither into thernnew century, but its fate is sealed in thernvery near future. At this point, we encounterrnthe fascinating situation of whatrnhappens when a powerful, overarchingrntheory collapses, leaving behind thernwhole congeries of laws and policiesrnwhich had sustained it. There are few recentrnprecedents for this: even when thernSoviet Union died, communism was regrettedrnby few outside the hard-core officeholderrnand the sentimental irredentists,rnand few of those actually belie’edrnthe ideology any more. The coming socialrnrevolution in America will be a veryrndifferent and far more traumatic event,rnwith a profound effect on millions whornare sincere true believers, and who arernnot merely going through the ritual motions.rnTo understand the impending crisis, itrnis useful to recollect the experience ofrnsegregation, which was a far more seriousrnaffair than a simple refusal to allow a particularrnperson to use a gixen water fountain.rnIt represented a whole mentalityrnthat pervaded the culture, even thernthinking of people who, had theyrnstopped to consider at length, wouldrnhave rejected the underiying ideas. Segregationrnmade a world in which it was effectivelyrnimpossible to act or live jusdy,rnhowe’er good the intent of individuals.rnMoreover, the disease penetrated sorndeep that the culture found it unimaginablernto do away with this basic reality,rnand came to fear even the discussion ofrnchange. The concrete certitude was bestrnexpressed in the defiant but ultimatelyrnpathetic slogan, “Segregation Today,rnSegregation Forever,”rnFor all the general dissatisfaction andrncontroversy about affirmative action andrnmulticulturalism, no one can understandrnthe utter permeation of the theory andrnits associated alue-system without havingrnwitnessed it at its purest, in Americanrnhigher education. That the universitiesrnare such a fortress of multicult resultsrnfrom a bizarre alliance that emerged duringrnthe last two decades, when feministrnand left-liberal ideas established a powerfulrnideological presence in academic departments,rnwhile conservative administratorsrnfaced the legal nightmare ofrnpossible discrimination suits and the lossrnof federal funding. The two sides, oilrnand y’ater in every other regard, formed arnworking coalition to establish an extremernsystem of institutional discriminationrnthat favored women and minority facultyrnand students.rnIn case “expanding pluralism” soundsrnlike a worthwhile goal, the corollary ofrnthis is the erosion of the principle thatrnquality alone should serve as the criterionrnfor hiring or ad’aneement. Virtually everyrnhiring and personnel decision in arnmodern university involves at least an elementrnof gender and racial discrimination,rnand if anyone ever states that affirmativernaction simply means givingrnpreference to an equally qualified minorityrncandidate, then he is either ignorantrnor disingenuous. At best, it meansrn”cooking” short-lists so that they alwaysrnreflect “diversity”; at its worst, it meansrnchoosing the least unqualified of thernavailable pool of female or minority applicants.rnTo quote one of the great religiousrnleaders of our time, the late Jim Jones ofrn”Jonestown” once remarked, “Whatrngoes on in here is so [expletive] weirdrnthat nobody’s going to believe anythingrnyou tell them on the outside.” This isrnthe only explanation of what has beenrntolerated in American universities overrnthe last decade or so, as it is inconcciyablernthat either state legislators or tuition-rnpaying parents have the slightestrnidea of the conduct of life within thernSEPTEMBER 1996/39rnrnrn