In the past week, probably due to MLK Jr. Day, there’ve been several anti-Affirmative Action threads started (and one pro-AA thread), and in every thread it seems that the anti-AA people are outraged by the misapplications and perceived unfairness of group preferences in hiring and in college admissions. The pro-AA people (and I am firmly in this camp) insist that such remedies are not inherently unfair to whites, but are necessary for the correction of a historical underrepresentation of women and minorities in schools and various professions. As the discussion goes back and forth on the several fronts, it occurs to me that the fundamental difference of opinion is caused by one major ideological difference between the pro and anti groups.
That difference, as I see it, is that those who favor Affirmative Action seem to focus more on the needs of society than on the desires of each individual. We see great social injustices caused by ubiquitous intolerance and exacerbated by deeply entrenched policies favoring white males over all other subsets of the American population. We believe that in order to remedy those injustices we must not only eliminate institutional bigotry by removing the discriminatory policies and punitively dealing with discriminatory practices, but we must also take positive steps (Affirmative Action) to “level the playing field” for women and minorities, or else those equal opportunities we aspire to for all Americans will never arise.
Those who vehemently disagree with Affirmative Action see injustice in the requirement that schools and businesses base their admission and hiring decisions, in part, on the race or gender of the applicant. They believe such preferential treatment fosters resentment among white males against protected classes, and that too many times employers and colleges practice reverse discrimination in the guise of preferences. They believe that the cure for this is to eliminate AA entirely. Some believe further that the simple decree of “no discrimination” in hiring and admissions will, on its own, remedy the underrepresentation. In any case, all opposed to AA seem to feel that the injustices inherent in the idea of group preferences outweigh any possible benefits to society as a whole, and that government should not attempt “social engineering” with a free citizenry.
Here then is my topic for debate: Which is the larger duty of government; to attempt a remedy for inequality, or to establish rule of law without trying to indirectly change unequal situations? Is it better to force the social improvements our higher ideals require, or should we shy away from these “painful” manouvers, relying on social change to occur through “natural” forces? Does government have either the right or the responsibility to try and change the social order?
Please, to keep this thread on track, if you have an argument dealing exclusively with AA, present that argument in one of the AA threads. My aim here is to promote a discussion on government social actions in general, not on specific programs or policies, except where they help to inform an argument for or against such actions.
Well, I’m no social scientist, so I can only go from my feelings, but I’ll at least try to stay on your track with the first post.
You ask: Which is the larger duty of government; to attempt a remedy for inequality, or to establish rule of law without trying to indirectly change unequal situations?
I support the latter. I do not support affirmative action for two basic reasons: 1. it is a clear example of two wrongs attempting to make a right and 2. ultimately, it does not support those it claims to support, in fact, it keeps them down.
You then ask: Is it better to force the social improvements our higher ideals require, or should we shy away from these “painful” manouvers, relying on social change to occur through “natural” forces?
We should rely on social change, unhindered by artifice. Social change is a dynamic, almost organic, evolutionary process. For government to get involved in it has no more chance of success than any other type of interference in the natural ecology.
Finally, you ask: Does government have either the right or the responsibility to try and change the social order? Government has neither the right nor the responsibility to change the social order. The entire aegis of the government in this area should be to prevent the application of any unjust discrimination - initial or reverse. Only if the government stays out of it, and requires employers, educators, and other controllers of opportunity to refrain from unjust discrimination, will the natural, level playing field which we all desire become a reality.
Thank you for your response, Screwtape. I would like to ask a few things based on your replies. Can you enumerate the reasons for your belief that Affirmative Action “keeps [those it is trying to help] down”? Why do you consider government action to be interference, where other organized social actions are part of the evolutionary process of social change? Is there any conceivable social ill which you think would justify long term government action?
Again, thanks for your response. I ask these questions merely to get a better understanding of your thinking.
“Does government have either the right or the responsibility to try and change the social order?”
I would find it easier to say yes to this, if you could give us a guarantee that only those who had “good” ideas about the social order would ever be in charge of the government. I’m trying to imagine W, after several SC appointments, with Reps controlling both houses; and that government using its power to bring about the kind of social order changes that they think are good. I don’t see that as a good thing.
Really? That’s a pretty remarkable statement. Not to be glib, but does this mean the government erred in enacting the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments?
Or do you think that we’re enough enlightened now that a level playing field has become inevitable? If so, why? How long, in your estimation, will such a thing take absent government interference?
I’d argue that social change is necessarily “hindered by artifice.” To the extent that society is made up of institutions of varying scope, purpose, and influence, social change is what results when institutional dynamics interact. It seems strange that by removing one dynamic from the many, you feel able to pronounce the process suddenly organic. There is no natural social ecology, in my opinion, save that of inertia–and government involvement in society is “interference” only as much as is the involvement of “employers, educators, and other controllers of opportunity” themselves.
Well, I agree with you in principle, but I have faith in the American republic to prevent a great imposition of social order; I think social changes take enough time to achieve that one administration will rarely have the ability to affect such change. If, however, we have an administration which attempts such changes and is popular enough to retain power through a second presidential term, with the same representation in Congress, then this probably indicates a popular mandate for those changes, which in turn implies that they have not been imposed upon the public but rather have been attempted as a response to public will.
That, of course, will not happen with the Bush administration.
