Mugabe is yet another sad example of a dictator who is completely incapable of grasping the import of democracy. It seems that they look at western democratic countries and say "look, they put pieces of paper in a box and congratulate themselves for a democratic election and say 'look how wonderful democracy is.' Then we shall also put pieces of paper in a box, and all of the pieces of paper shall have my name on it, and then they shall congratulate us and accept my rule as a 'democratically elected' government". What these dictators sadly fail to grasp is that an election is not about putting pieces of paper in a box. They sadly think that people putting pieces of paper in a box under duress and physical threat is an election and democracy. Do they think that we are fooled by the charade? What they don't understand is that what is at the heart of an election is the freedom to put any name on that piece of paper and have it count. An election and democracy are not about going through the motion of putting pieces of paper in a box, it's about what is on those pieces of paper.
Mugabe- we are not fooled. A tyrant dictator who forces his people to put pieces of paper with his name on them in a box is still a tyrant dictator and nothing more.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Can We Eliminate Affirmative Action Now?
It's looking like we are headed for the first US President who is Black. It seems that this combined with other aspects of US culture makes an argument of systemic discrimination unsupportable. When proponents are asked why they think we need affirmative action they usually give one of two answers. One is to compensate for discrimination. The other is that many people in society are disadvantaged. Let me address this in three parts: what is affirmative action, discrimination, and disadvantaged.
As implemented, affirmative action is the giving of "bonus points" or preference to various anointed minorities. In a nut shell this has the effect of giving the minority an advantage over the non-minority (or at least the unanointed minority, as some races aren't typically given preference, hmmm, but more on that later). By giving someone an advantage based on race or gender, you in effect, by necessity, put someone else not of that race or gender at a disadvantage. This is simply discrimination or bias no matter how you slice it. But affirmative action proponents don't see it as discrimination when the unanointed are the ones thusly victimized. If they did, that would make them hypocrites for speaking out against discrimination but then defending discrimination that harms a group of people simply because they are viewed as "the bad guy".
I don't think anyone would claim that there is no discrimination. And I don't think any rational person would claim that discrimination will ever be non-existent. But I think most people would say that discrimination is not only not endemic to our culture, but mostly antithetical to our culture. And by culture, I refer to the prevailing values of our society, especially as regarding race and equality in this case. So when discrimination is the exception rather than the rule, how do you justify blanket reverse-discrimination as a compensatory program? This is tantamount to assuming guilt without any requirement of evidence of any actual discriminatory action. It is apparently just to be assumed that wherever race or gender exists there is also discrimination. The proper balanced approach for maximal fairness is to give no preference to any race or gender and deal with discrimination on a case by case basis. We already have anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws in place to deal with discrimination or bias on a case by case basis without resorting to the presumption of guilt - guilt by association: if you are not of the anointed you are guilty of discrimination and if you are of the anointed you are by definition a victim of discrimination. And sometimes the leap is made that by not being of the anointed one is a benefactor of discrimination or that being one of the anointed one has been disadvantaged due to discrimination. How does one know this? Again, this is a blanket assumption of guilt or disadvantage that may or may not be the case on an individual basis and blanket punitive "compensation" is neither just nor fair.
And if discrimination is such an endemic problem, then why does it not seem to be a problem for some minorities? There are some minorities that exist in a "nether-realm." They are minorities themselves yet they have success rates that equal and in some cases exceed those of "whites" and therefore are not recipients of preferences justified based on discrimination. These minorities surely must also endure the same discrimination that the anointed are claimed to be subject to, yet somehow is does not seem to be manifested by the same disadvantages. Many highly prosperous and highly educated fields have disproportionately high representation of certain minorities. Asians and Indians are highly prolific in fields such as medicine and engineering. If these minorities are apparently not held back by their race then what is the excuse for the anointed ones.
My anecdotal story is of a co-worker of mine at a job many years ago. She and her husband came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs and not speaking the language. Yet they worked hard to build good careers, a family, and send their daughter to college. If that is not disadvantaged I don't know what is. Yet so many people born in this country and grow up speaking the language (or at least having the opportunity to do so) consider themselves "disadvantaged". Are they any more disadvantaged than that co-worker? Some of the problem is a culture of victimization. The disadvantaged are told that they are where they are by no fault of their own but because they have been victimized by others. The problem with this is that it relieves them of the need to take responsibility for their own actions. Life is unfair and we don't all get dealt a sweet hand. But in poker, it's more about how you play the hand you are dealt than the hand itself. That co-worker was dealt one of the lowest hands yet her family played that hand quite successfully.
Another anecdotal story is about my college education. I was not admitted to the degree program of my first choice. I was however admitted to an alternate program at the same top caliber institution. I crossed paths with one of the anointed who was in my desired degree program. This person flunked at least one core required course multiple times and was on academic probation and used student loans to buy drugs. He eventually dropped out and went to a lower caliber school. I do not know if he ever graduated or with what degree. I, on the other hand, graduated quite successfully and went on to build a quite successful career in the field of my desired degree program. None of the parties involved were helped by affirmative action and all would have been better off had affirmative action not been in place. Of course I am not so presumptuous as to believe that had this person not been admitted to the degree program that I would have been in his place. But it stands to reason that had people of such inferior qualifications not been admitted, more people of my better qualifications would have been admitted.
Now, on the argument in favor of affirmative action because of being disadvantaged, again, I don't think anybody would deny that some are more disadvantaged than others. I am all for helping others help themselves and I think everyone should have the opportunity at the best education. (And that means fixing broken systems, not bussing the chairs on the titanic. Bussing doesn't solve anything but redistribute the problem with no net gain.) But what I don't understand is how helping the disadvantaged translates to giving preferential treatment to the anointed minorities. What is the logic? Is it that only those anointed can be disadvantaged? Is it that you cannot be disadvantaged if you are not one of the anointed? Is it that all of the anointed are always disadvantaged? Even Barack Obama has stated that his children not only are not disadvantaged but enjoy advantages that many others do not. So again, the balanced and fair view would be programs that help the disadvantaged regardless of being of the anointed or not and a blanket program based on race and gender is not the answer.
As much as society is trying to get to a colorblind society, it is hamstrung by institutionalized programs designed specifically to be the opposite and see everything in terms of race and gender irrespective of merit regarding the individual, the problem, or the program. How can we get to colorblindness when our government legislates racial and gender disparity and inequality?
One last anecdotal story. When affirmative action was eliminated in California, I recall reading "man on the street" interviews in the newspaper. One statement was "well I guess I'll just have to work harder now." Really? Welcome to the world of the unanointed.
As implemented, affirmative action is the giving of "bonus points" or preference to various anointed minorities. In a nut shell this has the effect of giving the minority an advantage over the non-minority (or at least the unanointed minority, as some races aren't typically given preference, hmmm, but more on that later). By giving someone an advantage based on race or gender, you in effect, by necessity, put someone else not of that race or gender at a disadvantage. This is simply discrimination or bias no matter how you slice it. But affirmative action proponents don't see it as discrimination when the unanointed are the ones thusly victimized. If they did, that would make them hypocrites for speaking out against discrimination but then defending discrimination that harms a group of people simply because they are viewed as "the bad guy".
I don't think anyone would claim that there is no discrimination. And I don't think any rational person would claim that discrimination will ever be non-existent. But I think most people would say that discrimination is not only not endemic to our culture, but mostly antithetical to our culture. And by culture, I refer to the prevailing values of our society, especially as regarding race and equality in this case. So when discrimination is the exception rather than the rule, how do you justify blanket reverse-discrimination as a compensatory program? This is tantamount to assuming guilt without any requirement of evidence of any actual discriminatory action. It is apparently just to be assumed that wherever race or gender exists there is also discrimination. The proper balanced approach for maximal fairness is to give no preference to any race or gender and deal with discrimination on a case by case basis. We already have anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws in place to deal with discrimination or bias on a case by case basis without resorting to the presumption of guilt - guilt by association: if you are not of the anointed you are guilty of discrimination and if you are of the anointed you are by definition a victim of discrimination. And sometimes the leap is made that by not being of the anointed one is a benefactor of discrimination or that being one of the anointed one has been disadvantaged due to discrimination. How does one know this? Again, this is a blanket assumption of guilt or disadvantage that may or may not be the case on an individual basis and blanket punitive "compensation" is neither just nor fair.
And if discrimination is such an endemic problem, then why does it not seem to be a problem for some minorities? There are some minorities that exist in a "nether-realm." They are minorities themselves yet they have success rates that equal and in some cases exceed those of "whites" and therefore are not recipients of preferences justified based on discrimination. These minorities surely must also endure the same discrimination that the anointed are claimed to be subject to, yet somehow is does not seem to be manifested by the same disadvantages. Many highly prosperous and highly educated fields have disproportionately high representation of certain minorities. Asians and Indians are highly prolific in fields such as medicine and engineering. If these minorities are apparently not held back by their race then what is the excuse for the anointed ones.
My anecdotal story is of a co-worker of mine at a job many years ago. She and her husband came here with literally nothing but the clothes on their backs and not speaking the language. Yet they worked hard to build good careers, a family, and send their daughter to college. If that is not disadvantaged I don't know what is. Yet so many people born in this country and grow up speaking the language (or at least having the opportunity to do so) consider themselves "disadvantaged". Are they any more disadvantaged than that co-worker? Some of the problem is a culture of victimization. The disadvantaged are told that they are where they are by no fault of their own but because they have been victimized by others. The problem with this is that it relieves them of the need to take responsibility for their own actions. Life is unfair and we don't all get dealt a sweet hand. But in poker, it's more about how you play the hand you are dealt than the hand itself. That co-worker was dealt one of the lowest hands yet her family played that hand quite successfully.
Another anecdotal story is about my college education. I was not admitted to the degree program of my first choice. I was however admitted to an alternate program at the same top caliber institution. I crossed paths with one of the anointed who was in my desired degree program. This person flunked at least one core required course multiple times and was on academic probation and used student loans to buy drugs. He eventually dropped out and went to a lower caliber school. I do not know if he ever graduated or with what degree. I, on the other hand, graduated quite successfully and went on to build a quite successful career in the field of my desired degree program. None of the parties involved were helped by affirmative action and all would have been better off had affirmative action not been in place. Of course I am not so presumptuous as to believe that had this person not been admitted to the degree program that I would have been in his place. But it stands to reason that had people of such inferior qualifications not been admitted, more people of my better qualifications would have been admitted.
Now, on the argument in favor of affirmative action because of being disadvantaged, again, I don't think anybody would deny that some are more disadvantaged than others. I am all for helping others help themselves and I think everyone should have the opportunity at the best education. (And that means fixing broken systems, not bussing the chairs on the titanic. Bussing doesn't solve anything but redistribute the problem with no net gain.) But what I don't understand is how helping the disadvantaged translates to giving preferential treatment to the anointed minorities. What is the logic? Is it that only those anointed can be disadvantaged? Is it that you cannot be disadvantaged if you are not one of the anointed? Is it that all of the anointed are always disadvantaged? Even Barack Obama has stated that his children not only are not disadvantaged but enjoy advantages that many others do not. So again, the balanced and fair view would be programs that help the disadvantaged regardless of being of the anointed or not and a blanket program based on race and gender is not the answer.
As much as society is trying to get to a colorblind society, it is hamstrung by institutionalized programs designed specifically to be the opposite and see everything in terms of race and gender irrespective of merit regarding the individual, the problem, or the program. How can we get to colorblindness when our government legislates racial and gender disparity and inequality?
One last anecdotal story. When affirmative action was eliminated in California, I recall reading "man on the street" interviews in the newspaper. One statement was "well I guess I'll just have to work harder now." Really? Welcome to the world of the unanointed.
An Evil Plot
It seems many people don't get the United States. Let's take a step back and look at what America is about. America is about people living in peace, freedom, and prosperity, with liberties, human rights, and equality and free from oppression and tyranny. Definitely an evil plot that we should want that for everyone in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)