Friday, July 4, 2003

Affirming affirmative action - THE COMMENTARY

By Joseph Planta

LAS VEGAS, NV – It's timely that I'm in the United States, as their Supreme Court hands down a five to four ruling backing affirmative action schemes in university admissions. Affirmative action, is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Recently in Canada there was a story about the embattled Department of Fisheries and Oceans putting out an ad for a communications job that essentially said that whites need not apply. Americans hump affirmative action, because some believe – both on the right and the left – that it corrects past injustices. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stating her in her contribution to the majority decision, said that diversifying university enrollments is necessary so that "the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

The University of Michigan was charged with rejecting an application of a student who was qualified, if but only for her race – which was white. Seemingly, the University of Michigan has a points system that awards more points to applicants of a visible minority. Though the United States' highest court did preserve the race factor in the 5-4 decision backing affirmative action in general, the court went six to three to strike down the points system. It seems, you can believe in affirmative action, but if you institute a quota, then that's wrong.

I guess I show my conservative stripes when I say, that affirmative action is as dumb as a bag of hammers. (I thank Stephen LeDrew for that colourful analogy.) As some who could be termed a visible minority, the idea of getting a job or getting into a school because of my race is itself a form of reverse racism. We saw this with the recent kerfuffle at the New York Times, where an incredibly incompetent and dishonest buffoon was promoted and kept in the employ of the Times, just because he was black, thus somehow diversifying the news room. Clearly, blacks, Asians and other visible minorities can succeed just as well as anyone else. The arguments for affirmative action seem to say that it's necessary as it corrects past injustices, that have kept minorities largely away from universities and other elite institutions. One could forcibly say, get over it, and get on with it. Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent against the preservation of affirmative action wrote: "Every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all."

President Bush, and conservatives of his ilk, don't like affirmative action schemes for the apparent reasons that in an effort to succeed only a select few, it holds everyone back. But for the President it's a difficult issue to get around, especially when the two top blacks in his administration – Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice – both see nothing wrong with the generalities of affirmative action. Sitting here at McCarren International Airport, waiting for the plane home, reading the judgements is interesting, as well as the graphic that the morning's New York Times has put together. They cite Florida Governor Jeb Bush's 2000 "One Florida" initiative, whereby the consideration of race in university admissions was ended, yet the only determining factor emphasised greater was that of aid only to those in financial need. If your going to have an objective standard, perhaps one's financial background would lend for more diversity rather than one's race.

When one thinks of the evolution, some will say modernisation (some will say bastardisation), of our social mores, one would think one's race wouldn't play so much of a role nowadays. Clearly, it still does matter, as seen with the highest court in the United States having to make a judgement now, on whether a social policy like this is worth having around. 25 years after the Bakke case, where the same Supreme Court struck down having racial quotas in universities, yet allowed for one's race to remain a determining factor, it confounds lawmakers and courts so. And it is sincerely ironic that on an issue where I cannot conceivably understand why the ‘right' side, both literally and figuratively, remains in the minority. What's wrong with a meritocracy, rather than the aristocracy that we're used to now? Sure the universities of the United States are far from diverse, however instituting artificial schemes like the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan and like minded institutions of its ilk, smacks of racism itself, and does no one any benefit. It holds back everyone's ability to succeed. Perhaps if institutions like the University of Michigan focussed on correcting the injustices that minorities face in the inner cities of America, rather than buggering up the admissions process, then perhaps elite America could properly emulate and mirror the real America that everyone loves and bears.

Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca