Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Why Quotas/Affirmative Action is Racist/Sexist

I have previously described the damage created by affirmative action in America and Malaysia. I will now adress the hypocricy and injustice of such policies.

Although supporters of such policies claim to be anti-racist and anti-sexist (in the case of gender quotas), they really are racist and sexist. The South Park episode Chef Goes Nanners illustrates why that is in a very good way. The episode is about how the black Chef deems the town's flag racist as it features some white guys killing a black guy, whereas others view the flag as part of the town's heritage ( A obvious reference to the Confederate flag controversy). Stan and Kyle, who thinks the flag is controversial because it involves killing defends the flag like this:

"Kyle: Our main point is that the flag shouldn't offend anyone, because killing has been around since the bieginning of time. All animals kill. And the animals that don't kill are stupid ones, like cows and turtles and stuff. So people should not be so upset about killing. [returns to his seat amid a smattering of applause]

Chef: [stands up] Whoa whoa whooaa! You just missed the point entirely!

Kyle: Huh?

Chef: I'm not mad because the flag shows somebody gettin' killed, It's because it's racist!

Kyle's Team: [minus Stan] Racist??

Chef: Children, don't you even know what this argument is about?! That flag is racist because a black man is being hung by white people.

Kyle's Team: [minus Stan] Ooooooohhh.

Chef: Ooooooohhh?!

Kyle: W-we really didn't see it that way.

Chef: But that's a black man up there!

Kyle: Y-yeah, but… the color of someone's skin doesn't matter.

Chef: Well of course it matters when- [catches himself] …Oh my God. Wait a minute. You children didn't even see the flag as a black man being hanged by white people, did you?

Kyle's Team: [minus Stan] No.

Chef: [deducing, marveling] Why, that is- that is the most beautiful thing I have ever heard.

Mayor: What?

Mr. Wyland: What?

Chef: Don't you see? All this time I thought these little crackers had turned racist, when actuallih they were so not racist that they didn't even make a separation of black and white to begin with. All they saw when they looked at that flag was five people.

A Few People: Awww.

Some KKK members: Awww.

Kyle: Yeah.

Chef: I'm sorry, children. I was wrong about you. But I still the flag needs to be changed. But now I realize that I almost let racism turn me into a racist."

In the case of affirmative action/quotas, its supporters are making the same mistake as Chef. A true anti-racist and anti-sexist shouldn't care whether or not some ethnic groups or gender is over-represented or under-represented anywhere. The only thing they should care about is whether or not the most qualified get the position. Only if they are shut out on account of their race or gender should we get upset. And , ironically, this is exactly what affirmative action/quotas will do: shut out whites or Chinese (In Malaysia) or men just on account of their race or gender. The alleged anti-racism of the left have made them into racists. As the test scores of blacks/Malays before university and the far higher failure rate of those admitted under affirmative action illustrates, their under-representation simply reflects that they are under-represented among those who are qualified.

While white racists use that under-representation to argue for rejecting all blacks -even those who are qualified-, black racists and white leftists use it to reject qualified whites. While in today's society, only white racists are recogniced as racists, black racists and white leftists are really just as racist, only they are anti-white rather than anti-black as the white racists. Both adhere to the racist principle of rejecting someone better qualified just because of their race.

In Sweden, we have luckily so far largely escaped the kind of ethnicity-based affirmative action we've seen in America and Malaysia, but because of the strong position of feminism, there have been an increasing use of gender quotas. And now, if the left-wing alliance retains a majority in this September's election, there is a strong risk of Sweden getting a law imposing gender quotas on corporate board rooms, like we've seen in neighboring Norway.

Most opponents of the quotas have conceded the view that there must be more women in corporate board rooms, only they say the means of restricting the property rights of share holders in deciding how their companies should be run is immoral. While I certainly agree that the means are immoral, I think we should also challenge making increased female representation a end. Why should that be of any concern to you unless you are a sexist who judge people on account of their gender? What should be focused upon is whether or not competent people -whether male or female- or shut out in favor of less competent people.

Are there a lot of competent woman unjustly excluded from corporate board rooms? Yes, there clearly are, but there are probably just as many competent men unjustly excluded from corporate board rooms as they for example do not know the right people or as the people choosing board members focus on irrelevant characteristics or simply don't know about them. A true anti-sexist should be no more concerned about the competent women who are being excluded than the competent men who are being excluded.


Post a Comment

<< Home