 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
« Burmese Cyclone Claims at least 43,000 |
Blog Home Page
| Bush Disses Obama Overseas »
May 15, 2008 Class-based affirmative action would be worseIn a recent blog at American Thinker the author mulls over the idea that Obama could move to a position of being against our current race based affirmative action program, and support replacing it with a class-based affirmative action program. I have seen this suggestion modification put forward with increasing regularity, often put as: "we shouldn't help rich black kids, we should help poor kids no matter what race they are". I strongly disagree with this notion, now being advance by a nominally conservative publication that "class based" affirmative action is better, or less objectionable than the current system. In fact it is far worse. First let us return to the original justification for affirmative action: society needs to make up to a group, initially blacks, for their ancestors mistreatment by society as a whole. In the case of blacks, that includes enslavement. Thus the current AA system is at least nominally grounded in an historical fact. Sadly AA has now grown to include groups with dubious historical claims to maltreatment, at least in the original case there is some logic to it. What logic applies to using the power of the state to favor the poor over the middle class? Inevitably this supports the leftist intellectual tradition which says that poverty is societies fault, and becomes yet another part of the endlessly increasing culture of welfare payments and dependency. Conservatives used to stand opposed to these notions, and deride them as "cultural Marxism". In fact it is hard to imagine a more perfectly Marxist notion than favoring the children of the poor for admissions over more qualified children of the middle class. It is a signature of the most hated Communist regimes such as Mao's and Pol Pot's to raise the "peasant" class above the bourgeoisie. Leaving aside that the people who administer such programs are going to be the same people administering the current race based system, and likely to use it to reward exactly the same people, you would now be favoring, say, a black kid from the ghetto whose mother lives on welfare over a black kid from the suburbs whose mother is a registered nurse. Now consider for a second that these two mothers are sisters, who shared and identical upbringing. One has worked hard and achieved a middle class existence, the other has made a series of poor choices and now finds herself living in poverty. Why should the child of the poor mom have preference over the child of the successful mom? The absurdity of this system should be self evident. It creates a perverse system of rewards for failure on the part of parents. Basic economics tells us you will get more of what you reward. Consider also that in a society that allows massive immigration the children of immigrants are nearly always less well off than the children of long established families. Under the "class based" AA system children of immigrants would mostly be given preference over children of citizens. A very odd system that punishes the people who have worked their whole life to pay for the state schools so that the new arrivals can step in front of them in line. The traditional American system of families working themselves up the ladder of success over several generations implies, and requires, that some benefit accrue to things like working harder, moving to better neighborhoods, sending your kids to better elementary or high schools. Such as their ability to get into better colleges is enhanced. As always the closer we get to a meritocracy in these things the better for the hard working, and society as a whole. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the American tradition of hard work, a level playing field, and supporting your family for the good of all members. While we might imagine some day bringing race-based Affirmative Action to an end, based on the reasoning that X number of generations of blacks have now gotten a leg up and it is time for them to compete nose to nose, it seems there is no possibility of ending class based AA once it has begun. For all of these reasons "class based" affirmative action is a worse abomination than the race based version it claims to be superior to, and should be vigorously opposed by all thinking Americans. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
It's really very simple. Discrimination based on race is unconstitutional, despite what the majority of the Supreme Court claims (and we all know the SD is never wrong). Discrimination based on class is not. It may be worse from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint (I'm not arguing either way), but it certainly is better from an ethical and constitutional viewpoint. Then again, perhaps the ends justifies the means and what works better has more weight than what is right.
Posted by: DLM | May 15, 2008 05:43 PM
Never really thought about it that way. Very clever. Thanks!
Posted by: RK | May 15, 2008 05:48 PM
the US has been paying reparations since the 13th Amend. Enough is enough. everyone should note when the vietnamese came to the US after the war, they were not given handouts and their children, along with the generations after them, have done nothing but achieve success. The opportunity ladder is in reach for everyone in this country regardless of race, sex, and income.
Posted by: jbess | May 15, 2008 06:06 PM
In my native East European communist country, the same policy was in place, to place children from poor families in schools/universities, over children from more afluent families.
We are headed toward full fledged communism, gang!!!
Posted by: pixie | May 15, 2008 06:26 PM
For someone who is neither descendat from slaves nor raised in a disadvantaged african american environment, Obama has nonetheless been the recipient of affirmative action based advantages. he will never be inclined to allow an equal playing field as he does not believe in it and a significant number of americans are too uniformed to support equality. affirmative action is the contemporary equivalent of the Jim Crow laws and should be abolished. class based preference is moe attractive, but is a positive reward of negative behavior on the part of the parent, so what is the answer? how does one level the playing field for an individual, not a race, class, gender, religion or ethnicity? is it possible without fostering the ills that originally led to the individuals' disadvantage?
Posted by: GG | May 15, 2008 11:50 PM
Actually, discrimination (in the context of this discussion) based on class is unconstititutional; the 1st clause of the 14th Ammendment reads in part "No State...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Any person, not any person of a given race, class, gender, or nationality.
Posted by: JAL | May 16, 2008 09:34 AM
With the growing acceptance of other cultural backgrounds, I believe affirmative action is becoming obsolete and in dire need of redrafting . Is it fair for the minorities out there to still receive preference over the dominant race of America? Not with an ethnic man and a woman running in our presidential election. The time has come for every man and woman to be seen equal. Affirmative action has proved itself an aiding hand in the past, but today it has become the hand hindering America from furthering its advancing society.
Posted by: anastasia | May 20, 2008 08:37 PM