[478] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
re: in defense of affirmative action
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas G Cadwell)
Thu May 3 02:38:00 2001
Message-Id: <200105030637.CAA23445@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 02:37:27 -0400
From: Thomas G Cadwell <tcadwell@MIT.EDU>
>remember, AA was put in place to rectify past injustices to an entire
>segment of our population. the premise is that the world would be a
>better place if all races were on equal footing, and that getting there
>requires active government support, including but not limited to AA.
I really have trouble with this notion that large-scale public-policy of
any sort, govt or not, is at all effective. Change comes at an individual
level. Government doesnt win idealogical wars, nor does it sway people
to believe something new, or take faith in something new. People and leaders
do this. People accept now that racism is something to be avoided. That
had almost nothing to do with the govt. passing civil rights legislation,
and everything to do with the cultural war of the 60s, and those in favor
of equality prevailing through force of superior argument.
Secondly, I think this whole classifying people by race is incredibly irrelevant,
especially in the context that our society strives to be racism-free and not
race dependant, but rather, fair to people based on individual merit. Aff
action theoretically is supposed to even the gap caused by years of racism,
but in so attempting is keeping racism alive. Comments like "oh he got
in because hes hispanic" lend anectodal ammunition to people with racist
dispositions, and lend legitimacy to the idea that race really does
matter. It really doesnt -- people are people. You can draw some statistical
correlations given racial samplings, but you can draw MUCH MORE significant
statistical correlations given parents level of education, income level,
etc.
Thirdly, I think it is rediculous to think that aff action is actually going
to work (or is working). Many immigrant populations (irish, italian) have
come into this country, faced FAR worse discrimination than hispanics and
blacks do today, or did in the 60s, and are now very prosperous. Consider
much of this happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They were pretty
well integrated into the culture and prosperous by the 50s (any of you
history people want to clarify this one a bit?). America has a long history
of groups of people with no skills, no money, no knowledge becoming very
successful.
We've been treating various underrepresented minorities equally for 40
years now, and things certainly have improved some, but not nearly like they
would with an average immigrant population that comes in. Why? I think
its because some subgroups/subcultures of the various minorities
have lost much of their will to succeed as a result of the
past evils you site. But the only cure for that is a renewal in their faith
in America, and their belief that they can in fact succeed. And that is only
going to happen if the opportunities exist, and fairness exists, and success
stories slowly spread into the cultural memory, which they are.
I think aff action is contrary to this goal, because its
existence essentially says "Well you need our help to succeed. But we
sure do feel pity for you!". That doesnt build self-motivation, and it
cetainly doesnt build self-confidence. It just builds dependance on the
government, which is utterly contrary to the self-dependance that all of
America's success stories are built upon (except for govt contractors and
politicians >:>)
>if your opposition to AA is simply that it is inconsistent w/ other
>possible programs that we don't have, well, that's not very compelling.
AA can be attacked from so many different angles its not even funny...
as we are all seeing on this list. Its unfair on so many differnet levels,
and doesn't even accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. Its just a
magnimonious gesture of "we really feel bad guys that our ancestors were such
insensitive powermongering jerks! Please accept our apology
in the form of this expensive, though ineffective, gift".
>i agree, given an ideal world where opportunity is equal. we're not
>there yet.
The world is never going to be equal, but I think inequality in treatment
to people of various races is minute compared to inequality in treatment
to people of various socioeconomic backgrounds, or world views, purely
because the assumptions you can make about someone based on race are pretty
insignificant compared to the assumptions you can make about them after
talking to them for 5 minutes, or the assumptions you can make about
them given a few quick facts about their history.
Tom
