Is defining racial identity based on looks a reasonable guideline?
I don’t actually have an opinion about this; I’m only posting this to see the debate that springs up, because I’m curious about the kinds of arguments all sides will develop.
Poor Mariah Carey.
This happens in Government contracting all the time. There’s a category of bid set-aside called the 8(a) program, where people miraculously discover that they have one drop of (whatever) blood that qualifies them for all kinds of advantages. Similar for ANCs… one of which, acting as frontman, got one of the larger resellers, GTSI, in some uber hot water recently for gaming the system.
Many of the owners of 8(a)'s look as white as a country club republican, yet they claim the status to get the bennies. I’m pretty sure it’s self-certifying, they don’t do a DNA test or anything to discover if you are 1/64th negro or eskimo or oompa loompa.
Sorry if this is too far off topic. For me, it’s reason 1,000,006th why AA and similar programs are bad for society.
I think AA should be based on a *personal *history of being previously disadvantaged. Not appearances or incidental membership of a disadvantaged group while being personally advantaged, as is sometimes the case.
I can understand the bureaucratic drive to maximise resources and cut expense by using a more inclusive, generalized net. I don’t agree with it.
This is not Affirmative Action. Her job would have been to promote an Affirmative Action program to Aborigines which means that not looking like an Aborigine is actually a relevant factor to how well she can do the job.
She should have just slapped on some boot polish and gone the ‘black faced minstrel’ route. It’s Australia after all - hardly as uptight about these frivolous things as, say, the Yanks are.
Problem solved! 