"Diversity advocates on the one hand and conservative activists on the other spend lots of time and money arguing about affirmative action, but Michaels knows, even if they do not, that it is all much ado about nothing: "[I]t doesn't matter which side you're on and it doesn't matter who wins. Either way, economic inequality is absolutely untouched." (But surely it matters who wins, for if conservative opponents of affirmative action are successful in turning Americans away from discussions of racial injustice, they will be emboldened to push for policies resulting in greater economic injustice.)" Alan Wolfe
This is a huge assumption- to claim that emboldened conservatives would push for increasing economic injustice (whatever that is)- that does not really align itself with the actual history of the relationship between increasing attacks on the working class and the state led increase of inclusion through affirmative action. Now, I would not put myself on the same side as Michaels here in this false binary to say that it has done nothing, but I think the point still stands that affirmative action has done little to nothing to address class issues and that during the period of affirmative action we have seen increasing economic inequality and exploitation. I also wonder, to invert Wolfe's assumption, what the impact of liberal victories in affirmative action told liberals and Democrats about where to focus their energy (as if they didn't already know to focus on individual rights and inclusion while ignoring class). In general I found the Wolfe article not that convincing. I have been more impressed and swayed by the discussion here.
I am still waiting for someone to write a really good critique that would transcend the divide. One that would include the important points that Michaels makes with a critique based on a strong foundation in the literature on the intersection of class with race and gender.
Brad