Affirmative action IS racist, and not only that, it is without question racist. Its sole purpose is to discriminate on the basis of race.
Yes, as the article pointed out.
It is of course a net evil; not only does it benefit those who do not deserve it, it harms those who have committed no injustice.
No. Not necessarily. It can be applied in non-evil ways; this is not always the case, but it is possible. Let me consider the case of South Africa, a country that is close to my heart (mainly because I happen to live in it).
For some significant time, the country was under a set of laws described, as a whole, under the name of Apartheid. These laws were racist, and evil, and punished the black majority for things that they did not do. In 1994 (yes, only nineteen years ago) this regime was decisively ended. And the black majority gained the vote, making it highly unlikely that it would return.
Affirmative action policies were then promptly initiated. Now, this was not a case of ‘blood guilt’ - this was a case of redressing wrongs that had continued right up until 1994. It wasn’t a case of ‘punish the descendants’ - it was aimed directly at the very same generation who had reaped the benefits of Apartheid themselves. (It’s also the rare case of affirmative action designed to benefit a majority instead of a minority).
Incidentally, the policies in question do state that if there is only one properly qualified person, then that person should be hired (but you should look very hard to make sure and keep the documentation handy). If you have a choice of qualified applicants, then you get to pick.
It’s not without its problems, but the core idea is not evil.
Knowing what we know about human irrationality and xenophobia, affirmative action becomes necessary. Institutions have inertia with respect to their gender and race composition. Suppose for instance that in the past there was aggressive sexism which held women out of science. Suppose furthermore that women and men are perfectly with respect to all relevant psychological traits, such that in a fair world there would be an exactly 50⁄50 gender split. It’s irrational to think that once this overt sexism disappeared, the hiring rate would at once spring to it’s natural rate of 50/50%.
Instead there would be all sorts of inertial effects. People would associate science with men more than women. There would be a lack of scientific role models for women. Women would tend not to end up going into science, and when they did they would face further problems. The people hiring them would have an unconscious model of how a good scientist looks, behaves and communicates. This model would be gender biased. Existing scientists would simply be used to a male environment and a male style of communication, women would make them uncomfortable. Humans like those who are similar to them, and the existing, senior male scientists, would be better able to relate to, and inclined to mentor, male students.
Even in the (unrealistic) Absence of any conscious sexism, or any actual differences between the two groups, it would take god knows how long for the pre existing biases to equalize. This is grossly unfair to individual women born during the equalizing process, and bad on a societal level as well. Deliberate social engineering is justified. To speed the process up you introduce a slight bias in hiring procedures—where there is more than one qualified candidate, you pick the woman. There may even be benefits just from having people with less simliar thoughts doing science. Our ability to choose future winners is poor, and already full of biases. One more doesn’t hurt much, but it does do a lot of good over time. Obviously too much would be a bad thing. Candidates must still be qualified, but affirmative action isn’t evil.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
I think we all know the answer to this in our heart of hearts. They will always claim that they need it to combat bias against them, and because they “deserve” it because their parents/grandparents/whatever were disadvantaged.
As time goes on, the whites will feel that they are being punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, and will grow bitter and racist against the blacks, who have legalized discrimination against them.
Is that really the proper path forward?
An immediate program is one thing. But we both know that it will be held as long as possible by those it advantages.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
That is a potential failure mode, yes. People are aware of it. But one does not refuse to manufacture a car on the basis that it might, one day, hit a pedestrian.
It is not evil yet.
The current affirmative action policies are supposed to be temporary. If they are not, there is an additional line of defense against that failure mode; the policies state that the judicial services (for example) should ‘broadly reflect the demographics of the country’. That means that any group that gets unfairly discriminated against has a claim.
Yes, as the article pointed out.
No. Not necessarily. It can be applied in non-evil ways; this is not always the case, but it is possible. Let me consider the case of South Africa, a country that is close to my heart (mainly because I happen to live in it).
For some significant time, the country was under a set of laws described, as a whole, under the name of Apartheid. These laws were racist, and evil, and punished the black majority for things that they did not do. In 1994 (yes, only nineteen years ago) this regime was decisively ended. And the black majority gained the vote, making it highly unlikely that it would return.
Affirmative action policies were then promptly initiated. Now, this was not a case of ‘blood guilt’ - this was a case of redressing wrongs that had continued right up until 1994. It wasn’t a case of ‘punish the descendants’ - it was aimed directly at the very same generation who had reaped the benefits of Apartheid themselves. (It’s also the rare case of affirmative action designed to benefit a majority instead of a minority).
Incidentally, the policies in question do state that if there is only one properly qualified person, then that person should be hired (but you should look very hard to make sure and keep the documentation handy). If you have a choice of qualified applicants, then you get to pick.
It’s not without its problems, but the core idea is not evil.
Of course, this does not apply to all societies.
Knowing what we know about human irrationality and xenophobia, affirmative action becomes necessary. Institutions have inertia with respect to their gender and race composition. Suppose for instance that in the past there was aggressive sexism which held women out of science. Suppose furthermore that women and men are perfectly with respect to all relevant psychological traits, such that in a fair world there would be an exactly 50⁄50 gender split. It’s irrational to think that once this overt sexism disappeared, the hiring rate would at once spring to it’s natural rate of 50/50%.
Instead there would be all sorts of inertial effects. People would associate science with men more than women. There would be a lack of scientific role models for women. Women would tend not to end up going into science, and when they did they would face further problems. The people hiring them would have an unconscious model of how a good scientist looks, behaves and communicates. This model would be gender biased. Existing scientists would simply be used to a male environment and a male style of communication, women would make them uncomfortable. Humans like those who are similar to them, and the existing, senior male scientists, would be better able to relate to, and inclined to mentor, male students.
Even in the (unrealistic) Absence of any conscious sexism, or any actual differences between the two groups, it would take god knows how long for the pre existing biases to equalize. This is grossly unfair to individual women born during the equalizing process, and bad on a societal level as well. Deliberate social engineering is justified. To speed the process up you introduce a slight bias in hiring procedures—where there is more than one qualified candidate, you pick the woman. There may even be benefits just from having people with less simliar thoughts doing science. Our ability to choose future winners is poor, and already full of biases. One more doesn’t hurt much, but it does do a lot of good over time. Obviously too much would be a bad thing. Candidates must still be qualified, but affirmative action isn’t evil.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
I think we all know the answer to this in our heart of hearts. They will always claim that they need it to combat bias against them, and because they “deserve” it because their parents/grandparents/whatever were disadvantaged.
As time goes on, the whites will feel that they are being punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, and will grow bitter and racist against the blacks, who have legalized discrimination against them.
Is that really the proper path forward?
An immediate program is one thing. But we both know that it will be held as long as possible by those it advantages.
That is a potential failure mode, yes. People are aware of it. But one does not refuse to manufacture a car on the basis that it might, one day, hit a pedestrian.
It is not evil yet.
The current affirmative action policies are supposed to be temporary. If they are not, there is an additional line of defense against that failure mode; the policies state that the judicial services (for example) should ‘broadly reflect the demographics of the country’. That means that any group that gets unfairly discriminated against has a claim.