 |
|
|
 |
|
In principle, I favor the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ricci vs. the city of New Haven, CT. I agree that New Haven's decision to discard test results on which minority members of their fire department did poorly was "race based," and in principle I am against race-based decisions, whether they involve discrimination or reverse discrimination. In principle, too, I lamented the Court's ruling in the Bakke case of 1978 which, while forbidding the use of quotas, approved of the use of affirmative action. And, in principle, I was not in favor of the Court's 2003 ruling, in regard to admissions practices at the University of Michigan, that affirmative action could be employed to help achieve a diverse student body. In practice, however, I believe that affirmative action has been a boon to society. It has raised the majority's consciousness and enabled minorities to inch forward.
The phrase "affirmative action" first appeared in 1961 in a John F. Kennedy Executive Order, but its original intent--to prevent discrimination--gradually came to mean racial preferences. I believe in equality of opportunity but also believe that employers should hire or promote, and colleges should admit, the persons best qualified to do the job or undertake the academic program. Granted, this principle is unfair to many of the "disadvantaged," in that the cultural deck has historically been stacked against them, but to hire or admit them on the basis of race (or gender, or whatever, outside of competence), also would be unfair, just as it would be unfair to place less talented white basketball players on NBA rosters solely to achieve racial balance in that league. In principle, I am against giving "scholarships" to athletes (minority or not) who seem to be unqualified for college study and who would not attend if not for athletics. That policy is unfair to those who are qualified but cannot get in because they can't afford to or because there is no room for them. In principle, I don't believe that colleges should hire athletes or even compete for students or dollars. The community should demand and then support the college's academic and vocational programs. If the demand and support are not sufficient, the college deserves to fail.
In practice, however, I concede that the prejudice shown to "disadvantaged" students and athletes has had socially beneficial results. Even if they don't graduate, they acquire a modicum of skills, sophistication, culture, awareness, poise. And if they happen to graduate and join the educated work force or, in a few cases, become highly paid professional athletes, there is usually even more leavening. Money doesn't bring wisdom or sensitivity (consider George Steinbrenner and Donald Trump) but it makes possible a wider variety of experiences and opportunities for the student and his family and entourage. Paradoxically, then, what is unfair for many leads to what is more fair overall--social betterment. Also paradoxically, I must in principle be against what is ultimately most fair. Fortunately, through affirmative action, the country was able, in the second half of the twentieth century, to overcome the principles held by me and many others and improve itself in the process.
|
|
|