Book Review: The Affirmative Action Myth by Jason L. Riley
Why Blacks Don’t Need Racial Preferences to Succeed.

Jason L. Riley’s The Affirmative Action Myth: Why Blacks Don’t Need Racial Preferences to Succeed is a tour de force that masterfully dismantles long-standing assumptions about race-based policies while offering a compelling, evidence-driven narrative of black achievement and resilience. Published in May 2025 by Basic Books, this meticulously researched and eloquently written work stands as a beacon of intellectual clarity in a polarized debate, delivering a message that is both empowering and profoundly optimistic.
Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Wall Street Journal columnist, brings his characteristic rigor and nuance to the contentious topic of affirmative action. His central thesis—that racial preferences are not only unnecessary for black success but have often hindered progress—is presented with a blend of historical insight, statistical precision, and narrative grace. Far from being a mere critique, the book is a celebration of black agency, highlighting the remarkable strides made by African Americans in the face of systemic barriers, particularly before the widespread implementation of affirmative action policies in the 1970s.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its historical scope. Riley vividly illustrates the pre-affirmative action era through stories like that of the black women mathematicians featured in Hidden Figures, who thrived at NASA during the Jim Crow era. These accounts are not just inspiring anecdotes but serve as powerful evidence of black upward mobility in education, employment, and community-building, even under oppressive conditions. Riley’s data-driven analysis—such as the dramatic drop in black poverty from 87% in 1940 to 47% by 1960—underscores that significant progress predated modern race-conscious policies, challenging the narrative that affirmative action is the primary driver of black success.
Riley’s critique of affirmative action is incisive yet fair. He argues that policies like racial quotas and preferential admissions, while well-intentioned, have often led to unintended consequences, such as mismatching students with institutions where they struggle to compete, perpetuating stereotypes, and fostering resentment. His discussion of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard is particularly compelling, framing it as a pivotal moment that aligns with public sentiment—evidenced by polls showing widespread support for race-neutral admissions. Riley’s ability to weave together legal analysis, sociological research, and public opinion data makes his case both persuasive and accessible.
The book shines in its refusal to shy away from cultural factors. Riley thoughtfully explores how shifts in family structure, community values, and media portrayals—such as the problematic depiction of black characters in 1970s sitcoms like Good Times—have influenced black outcomes. His emphasis on personal responsibility and human capital development is refreshing, not as a dismissal of systemic issues but as a call to recognize the agency and potential within black communities. This perspective is particularly uplifting, as it reframes the conversation from one of victimhood to one of empowerment.
Riley’s prose is engaging and precise, making complex issues digestible without sacrificing depth. The book’s structure, with chapters addressing historical achievements, the reparations debate, and the social retrogression linked to race-conscious policies, is logical and cohesive. His inclusion of diverse voices—from scholars like Thomas Sowell to civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.—adds richness and credibility to his arguments.
As always, I like to share a snippet from the book so there is a glimpse into the “flavor” of the text. Riley’s ends strong on a powerful note.
“When you tell low- income black people that America’s slave past has doomed them to failure, that the police are targeting them for no reason, that their behavioral problems are someone else’s fault, and that they are entitled to what other people have without putting in the same effort and developing the same capabilities, you are not simply filling their heads with lies
You are also the increasing the likelihood that they and their own offspring remain low- income black people. Yet the people who push such dangerous notions have perhaps never been more celebrated in the academy and the media than they are today. If the end of the affirmative action era ought to be cheered, this latter development ought to be of deep concern to anyone who cares about the future of the black underclass.
In conclusion, The Affirmative Action Myth is not just a critique of policy but a clarion call for a new approach to racial equality—one rooted in equal treatment, merit, and the recognition of black potential. Riley’s optimism is infectious, leaving readers with a sense of hope that a future free from racial preferences can foster genuine progress. This book is a must-read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of race, policy, and the enduring strength of the human spirit. It is a landmark contribution that will resonate for years to come.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I didn’t know that the WSJ allowed non-leftists in the building.
Racial grievance industry meltdown in 3… 2… 1…
“Riley vividly illustrates the pre-affirmative action era through stories like that of the black women mathematicians featured in Hidden Figures, who thrived at NASA during the Jim Crow era.”
Not quite. The “Hidden Figures” story does not match reality. The actual trajectory calculations were done by Jack Crenshaw who worked for NASA’s Theoretical Mechanics Division at Langley Research Center. I looked up Katherine Johnson’s reports in the NASA online database. Nothing that I would regard as substantive. Low level stuff. The whole “Hidden Figures” narrative qualifies as mostly fiction. I have not read the book, so I can only comment on this narrow subject.
“.. while well-intentioned, have often led to unintended consequences, …”
I no longer accept this. I don’t think it is well intentioned with unintended consequences. I think that the bad consequences are indeed what is intended.
“You are also increasing the likelihood that they and their own offspring remain low- income black people”.
That was the goal and justification for the War on Poverty.
exactly
they knew that they only needed to change the optics now that tv was the main source of “news”
the whole time keeping the enslavement agenda intact
What was wrong with Good Times? I used to watch that show as a kid.
easiest way to be a slave masta…promote welfare
Unless and until both blacks and whites look squarely and unemotionally at the toxic wasteland that is urban black culture, there will be no possibility of a wider uplifting movement.
By appealing to, encouraging and incentivizing the basest human instincts, that “well-intentioned” desire to make up for the past has instead plunged our underclass into a bona fide hellscape.
Every healthy metric by which black society could be measured; education, substance abuse levels, marriage rates, illegitimacy, home ownership, church attendance, health and death rates, crime, were all on a downward trend until the Civil Rights Act was passed. And since then?
Well, we all know, but societally we have been shamed out of admitting it.
The black “elites” in congress, media, academy, entertainment like their place on top of the black masses. Why would they ever want to change it and face more competition.
Leave a Comment