Overseas, at least, there’s no confusion about what affirmative action means in practice.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday said the government would reserve jobs for backward caste candidates in the private sector and asked India Inc to do so voluntarily. “There cannot be any resistance to this move … any more. It is an idea whose time has come,” Singh said….
Defending the move to reserve jobs in the private sector, Singh said merit alone could not be a criterion.
He said there were many first-generation students who had opted out of educational institutions because there was no tradition of learning in their families. It was unfair to condemn these people to backwardness, Singh said, and called for affirmative action.
I should add, perhaps surprising some readers, that I do not automatically condemn this policy … in India. I don’t like it, obviously, but it is up to Indians to determine the principles that govern their society. Here, for reasons that I believe were both historically determined and morally sound, the notion that every person has a right to be judged without regard to race or religion emerged as a core, foundational value of our society, albeit one that has now been under siege for the past generation.
Although I find most of your writing on affirmative action and related issues to be very compelling, I wanted to question the conclusion (chronologically, if not logically) of this post.
I don’t think that it is publically settled that “the notion that every person has a right to be judged without regard to race or religion” is substantially more under attack now in the United States than it has been in the past. Although our current problems are always maginified by their proximity, I was under the impression that the notion of religion/race blindness or equity has always been, to mangle a phrase, that which was true in theory, but does not apply in practice.
Craig – I think that’s a fair (but to me, still unpersuasive point). It is certainly true that the “without regard” principle was not handed down intact from the Founding Fathers (Mothers, cousins, etc.); it emerged, as I argued in the cited earlier post, as a result of our history. It is equally true that even as the principle came to be accepted in theory (as it were) it was violated, and severely violated, in practice — leave aside slavery, we need look no further than segregation and the subsequent discrimination. But, as Gunnar Myrdal argued so eloquently in the 1940s that it would, the principle of colorblind equality has worked like an acid, slowly dissolving discriminatory practices. What is new to our time — not to the originators of “affirmative action,” who argued that it was a temporary expedient — is the rejection in principle of the principle of colorblind equality.
The caste-system “affirmative action” is somewhat different since it is not based strictly on racial or religious factors alone. Caste was a combination of religious and economic factors – to the extent that India’s policy allows for the program to benefit anyone (regardless of their religious-component caste status) from a poorer environment or educational-opportunity poor environment, I’d consider it morally permissable. Note, higher caste members could qualify for such a program in rare situations (it be rare).
John is right that national sovereignty is, in this case, a more compelling interest than the US having any role in the decision (although our historical example may have a legitimate role in their choice) – however, it doesn’t present of us from analyzing their system (especially for our own comparative purposes) and even judging it (in fact, we should judge it for our own comparative purposes).
I’m all for India screwing themselves this way. Where do you suppose the productive but non-PC caste Indians go? America welcomes them with open arms.
(Yes, many go to the UK as well, but we get more than our share.)
John,
PM Manmohan Singh is a politician, like many Indian politicians they understand the political sidesteps that they must take to placate the fractious and diverse constituents that they face.Many people in the world would not object to the idea of giving preferences for the poor, but giving preferences for considerations due to race, alumni legacy, geographical etc. is downright repugnant to many people. From what I had read and had been told, politicians in India understand the benefits to their political careers in manipulating these “affirmative action ” programs for certain castes and groups in the subcontinent.Pure self – interest is what guides these politicians in their demands for qoutas in law, engineering and medical schools in the universities.
It is not uncommon for university deans come enrollment time to barricade themselves inside university buildings from howling mobs egged on by unscrupoulos politicians demanding qoutas for their constituents. And yes John, Indians of the non -favored castes
have fled abroad to escape this wretched yoke in order to get a university education.
‘I’m all for India screwing themselves this way. Where do you suppose the productive but non-PC caste Indians go? America welcomes them with open arms.’
Then those Indians will have to wait their turn, because they aren’t the ones who’ve been getting screwed by white racism for hundreds of years in America. African Americans, Hispanics, and women are long overdue for our piece of the pie in college admissions and contracts, and if wannabes from India now want to jump onto the bandwagon and mooch off the gravy train, they’re gonna have to get in line. If any Indian is stupid enough to think he can just waltz into this country and take a seat at the table from the minorities who have been here much longer than they have, then they’re idiots. Pick a number and get in line.
Have you read Thomas Sowell’s Affirmative Action Around the World? It identifies various problems with caste-based affirmative action, one of which is that it mainly benefits the most advantaged subcastes of the disadvantaged caste, people who really weren’t “disadvantaged” at all to start out with. This is analogous to the observation that middle- and upper-class blacks and Hispanics are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in the United States. This is the fundamental problem of doling out individual preference based on group disadvantage. I would support some mild form of socioeconomic affirmative action – corrective preference for those who have personally been disadvantaged.