The Death of Affirmative Action

To those of you not otherwise familiar with this insidious invention, it is quite simply a reintroduction of discrimination combined with a sprinkling of doublespeak and a touch of liberal marketing to make the concept attractive to naïve consumers. Postmodernist types advocate for affirmative action by saying that, ‘given the history of subjugation of manifold ethnic minorities by ethnic majorities, it stands to reason that said ethnic minorities should not just strive for equality of opportunity with ethnic majorities but should gain special privileges over them to enable them to truly be equal.’ Seems attractive doesn’t it? But this stance, which has since become politicized, is covering up a deeper agenda. If the solution to discrimination is shifting power to the marginalized identity group so that they can then discriminate on their previous discriminators, then how will we ever eliminate discrimination as a society? Sure some ethnic minorities have had it rough in the past, the Armenian Genocide of 1915, the Final Solution of Nazi Germany, and perhaps the most pervasive of all, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. These acts are all inherently malum in se and without basis, but is not preventing their recurrence and safeguarding the interests of these minority groups sufficient? Why should majorities today suffer from the acts of their ancestors? Why should group/ethnic identity matter more than the deeds of the individual?

---

The American Case

As you are no doubt aware, America has had a long struggle with racism and discrimination, but ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and consequent attempts to create an equal society, I would argue that American society can be considered as providing individuals with an equality of opportunity; a hierarchy of competence; a meritocracy, where the best succeed and not those with the right skin color or gender. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court in "Grutter v. Bollinger" permitted institutions of higher education to consider race as part of their admissions criteria. What followed was affirmative action at the highest degree. Top universities implemented a system of quota’s that reserved spaces for ethnically diverse minorities irrespective of their competence. Essentially, if you were African American and scored lower than a Caucasian on the SAT’s you stood a higher chance of being admitted into a university than the Caucasian did due to the system of quota’s. Is this fair? Harvard was also recently implicated for employing this devious device as they weighted applicants SAT scores pursuant to their race. African Americans were granted higher weightings than Asian Americans and Caucasians, meaning that the latter two ethnic groups had to work twice or even three times as hard to achieve the scores African Americans were attaining.

You may be wondering what the rationale behind this system was, and I can assure you it was anything but rational. The argument was that, even though there was a system of equality of opportunity, certain ethnic minorities could not benefit from the system due to decades of prejudice and suppression rendering them not as capable as majorities. Thus policies would have to be enacted favoring minorities so that they could level the playing field. Colloquially, the argument was that white kids would always outperform black kids because white families had more resources than black families. Thus even though official discrimination ended, white families still had an advantage over black families. Seems convincing doesn’t it? Lets dissect that argument one bit at a time.

Firstly, if white families have more resources than black families then why are there more white people than African Americans depending on social security and Food Stamps in the United States? Why do Asian Americans consistently outperform every other race without the need of affirmative action policies even though they were subject to the kind of discrimination and prejudice that African Americans were subject to? Why is the wage mobility rate higher among Asian Americans than any other ethnic group? Surely, they could not have benefitted from equality of opportunity without special privileges? Oh wait, they did. Asian American’s are living proof that affirmative action isn’t required to level the playing field despite being subject to discrimination in the past. America’s hierarchy of competence is sufficient to guarantee equality.

---

The Malaysian Case

Here is where the veritable death of affirmative action is most prevalent. In America, arguments such as the one I utilized above to invalidate the need for affirmative action are quickly shot down for having no empirical basis by liberal demagogues. However, Malaysia has run the affirmative action experiment for many years and all the predictions ended up coming true. I warned in the beginning of this article that affirmative action could merely lead to discrimination running in the opposite direction, and here I am proved right. Originally article 153 in the Federal Constitution was intended to guarantee the special rights of the Malays as recommended by the Reid Commission in fears that a wave of Chinese and Indian immigration might adversely affect the Malay population. Today, article 153 is still defended as affirmative action by those who are against the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination on all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). However, what once started off as a benevolent policy to protect an ethnic group against adversity has become a discriminatory policy today. It has transcended from a clause guaranteeing protection to one that has amplified the discriminatory powers of the ethnic majority to the extent that it becomes detrimental to other ethnic and identity groups.

This is exactly what happens if affirmative action policies are implemented in the long run. It grants a particular group of people power and advantage over all others, which (although not manifestly present in the short run) creates the conditions necessary for that empowered group to exercise their power to the detriment of others in the long run. Malaysia proves a powerful test case demonstrating exactly how hierarchies of competence and meritocracies can become corrupt and tend towards unjust power distributions, which may create discontent among the population and ultimately eliminate any semblance of democracy and equality. The sad reality however is that this identity politics game is being won at every level and on every stage by proponents thereof, be it anti-ICERD supporters here at home, or radical Liberals abroad, or even socialist governments like Canada. Are we as global citizens doomed to revert to tribalism, where group identity supersedes the individual identity?