University of Virginia Library

White Guilt

Professor Sedgwick in his letter
on "Rational Discussion" (Cavalier
Daily 3/10/69) claims that the
"arguments" of Professors Breit,
Culbertson, and Moore (Cavalier
Daily 3/5/69) contain various racist
implications which could be used
by the sluggish university
administration as justification for
not doing anything at all about
changing its racial policies..."
Surely our critic of "rational
discussion" does not imply that,
irrespective of the validity of these
arguments (he never does identify
the serious racist implications),
they are socially unacceptable because
a "sluggish" administration
"could" use them for evil racist
purposes. Since Professor Sedgwick
does not tell us the point of his
assertion, i.e. what should be done
about arguments with such implications,
we are left to conclude that
he means: such arguments should
not have been made in the first
place. I suggest that to ignore the
basic validity of the arguments
about racial quotas and minimum
wages, offered by Professors Breit,
Culbertson, and Moore, is to ignore
the consequences of alternative sets
of means used to achieve stated
ends. That is to subscribe to the old
evil "the ends justify the means."

Professor Sedgwick asks "is it
tragically misguided to demand the
admission of more black students,
more women, and more students
from disadvantaged backgrounds...?"
My answer and the
answer I believe my colleagues
would offer is "NO it is not." His
question, however, is not in the
context of the tragic misguidance
Professors B., C., and M were
referring to. They were concerned
with an admissions policy that
linked the statistical representation
of personal characteristics at the
University with the statistical representation
of these characteristics
state wide or nation wide. I believe
this point was very clear in the B.,
C., and M. letter. Again, Professor
Sedgwick appears indifferent to
distinctions between alternative sets
of means for achieving stated ends
(racial, sexual, religious (?)...etc.
integration of the University).

Finally, to the minimum wage.
There is overwhelming scientific
evidence that minimum wage laws
and unemployment (including underemployment)
are highly correlated.
If a man receiving wages
and income below "the subsistence
level" ($30 per month?) will
conclude that the poor have no
place in society and resort to
criminal attacks would he not be
even more likely to make this
conclusion when he is unemployed
at $1.60 per hour than when he is
employed at $1.00 per hour? This
scientific implication does not
imply that persons earning $1.00
per hour must receive an income
solely from their wages. If their
annual income at a market de-
mined wage rate, is too low by your
(the community) judgment transfer
money, goods, or training to them
in an amount that will satisfy you.
Once again, raising people out of
"poverty" can be achieved in many
ways. Some of the apparent means,
however, have implications that
increase rather than reduce poverty.

I submit that a callous disregard
for the implications of alternative
"means" of achieving stated goals is
to sacrifice social justice for the
absolution of white guilt at any
price.