Time to scrap affirmative action# Parenting - 为人父母
l*9
1 楼
An article from Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21576662-governments-should-be-colour-blind-time-scrap-affirmative-action
ABOVE the entrance to America’s Supreme Court four words are carved: “
Equal justice under law”. The court is pondering whether affirmative action
breaks that promise. The justices recently accepted a case concerning a
vote in Michigan that banned it, and will soon rule on whether the
University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions policies are lawful. The
question in both cases is as simple as it is divisive: should government be
colour-blind?
America is one of many countries where the state gives a leg-up to members
of certain racial, ethnic, or other groups by holding them to different
standards. The details vary. In some countries, the policy applies only to
areas under direct state control, such as public-works contracts or
admission to public universities. In others, private firms are also obliged
to take account of the race of their employees, contractors and even owners.
But the effects are strikingly similar around the world (see article).
The burden of history
Many of these policies were put in place with the best of intentions: to
atone for past injustices and ameliorate their legacy. No one can deny that,
for example, blacks in America or dalits in India (members of the caste
once branded “untouchable”) have suffered grievous wrongs, and continue to
suffer discrimination. Favouring members of these groups seems like a quick
and effective way of making society fairer.
Most of these groups have made great progress. But establishing how much
credit affirmative action can take is hard, when growth also brings progress
and some of the good—for example the confidence-boosting effect of
creating prominent role models for a benighted group—is intangible. And it
is impossible to know how a targeted group would have got on without this
special treatment. Malays are three times richer in Singapore, where they do
not get preferences, than in next-door Malaysia, where they do. At the same
time, the downside of affirmative action has become all too apparent.
Awarding university places to black students with lower test scores than
whites sounds reasonable, given the legacy of segregation. But a study found
that at some American universities, black applicants who scored 450 points
(out of 1,600) worse than Asians on entrance tests were equally likely to
win a place. That is neither fair on Asians, nor an incentive to blacks to
study in high school. In their book “Mismatch”, Richard Sander and Stuart
Taylor produce evidence that suggests affirmative action reduces the number
of blacks who qualify as lawyers by placing black students in law schools
for which they are ill-prepared, causing many to drop out. Had they attended
less demanding schools, they might have graduated.
Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than
their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American
federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by “socially and
economically disadvantaged” people. Such people can be 87 times richer than
the average American family and still be deemed “disadvantaged” if their
skin is the right colour. One beneficiary of South Africa’s programme of “
Black Economic Empowerment” is worth an estimated $675m; he is also the
deputy president of the ruling party. Letting members of certain groups
charge more and still win public contracts is nice for the few who own
construction firms; less so for the many who rely on public services. The
same goes for civil-service quotas. When jobs are dished out for reasons
other than competence, the state grows less competent, as anyone who has
wrestled with Indian or Nigerian officialdom can attest. Moreover, rules
favouring businesses owned by members of particular groups are easy to game.
Malaysians talk of “Ali-Baba” firms, where Ali (an ethnic Malay) lends
his name, for a fee, to Baba (a Chinese businessman) to win a government
contract.
Although these policies tend to start with the intention of favouring narrow
groups, they spread as others clamour to be included. That American federal
programme began by awarding no-bid contracts to firms owned by blacks,
Hispanics and Native Americans; now it covers people with ancestry from at
least 33 countries. In India 60% of the population are eligible for
privileges as members of scheduled castes, tribes or “other backward
classes”. Such policies poison democracy by encouraging divisions along
lines drawn by discriminatory rules. The anger thus stoked has helped stir
bloody conflicts in India, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. And such rules, once in
place, are almost impossible to get rid of. In 1949 India’s constitution
said quotas should be phased out in ten years, but they are now more
widespread than ever. America’s policies have survived decades of legal
pushback, though not unscathed.
The content of their character
The University of Texas (UT) justifies discriminating in favour of black
people not on the ground that society owes it to them, but because, it
claims, a diverse university offers a better education to all its students.
That is a reasonable argument—some companies benefit from understanding a
variety of customers, for instance, and the police probably keep order
better if enough of them share a culture with the neighbourhood they patrol
—but it does not wash for most institutions. In UT’s case, although
colleges benefit from a diversity of ideas, to use skin colour as a proxy
for this implies that all black people and all Chinese people view the world
in a similar way. That suggests a bleak view of the human imagination.
Universities that want to improve their selection procedures by identifying
talented people (of any colour or creed) from disadvantaged backgrounds
should be encouraged. But selection on the basis of race is neither a fair
nor an efficient way of doing so. Affirmative action replaced old injustices
with new ones: it divides society rather than unites it. Governments should
tackle disadvantage directly, without reference to race. If a school is bad
, fix it. If there are barriers to opportunity, remove them. And if Barack
Obama’s daughters apply to a university, judge them on their academic
prowess, not the colour of their skin.
ABOVE the entrance to America’s Supreme Court four words are carved: “
Equal justice under law”. The court is pondering whether affirmative action
breaks that promise. The justices recently accepted a case concerning a
vote in Michigan that banned it, and will soon rule on whether the
University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions policies are lawful. The
question in both cases is as simple as it is divisive: should government be
colour-blind?
America is one of many countries where the state gives a leg-up to members
of certain racial, ethnic, or other groups by holding them to different
standards. The details vary. In some countries, the policy applies only to
areas under direct state control, such as public-works contracts or
admission to public universities. In others, private firms are also obliged
to take account of the race of their employees, contractors and even owners.
But the effects are strikingly similar around the world (see article).
The burden of history
Many of these policies were put in place with the best of intentions: to
atone for past injustices and ameliorate their legacy. No one can deny that,
for example, blacks in America or dalits in India (members of the caste
once branded “untouchable”) have suffered grievous wrongs, and continue to
suffer discrimination. Favouring members of these groups seems like a quick
and effective way of making society fairer.
Most of these groups have made great progress. But establishing how much
credit affirmative action can take is hard, when growth also brings progress
and some of the good—for example the confidence-boosting effect of
creating prominent role models for a benighted group—is intangible. And it
is impossible to know how a targeted group would have got on without this
special treatment. Malays are three times richer in Singapore, where they do
not get preferences, than in next-door Malaysia, where they do. At the same
time, the downside of affirmative action has become all too apparent.
Awarding university places to black students with lower test scores than
whites sounds reasonable, given the legacy of segregation. But a study found
that at some American universities, black applicants who scored 450 points
(out of 1,600) worse than Asians on entrance tests were equally likely to
win a place. That is neither fair on Asians, nor an incentive to blacks to
study in high school. In their book “Mismatch”, Richard Sander and Stuart
Taylor produce evidence that suggests affirmative action reduces the number
of blacks who qualify as lawyers by placing black students in law schools
for which they are ill-prepared, causing many to drop out. Had they attended
less demanding schools, they might have graduated.
Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than
their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American
federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by “socially and
economically disadvantaged” people. Such people can be 87 times richer than
the average American family and still be deemed “disadvantaged” if their
skin is the right colour. One beneficiary of South Africa’s programme of “
Black Economic Empowerment” is worth an estimated $675m; he is also the
deputy president of the ruling party. Letting members of certain groups
charge more and still win public contracts is nice for the few who own
construction firms; less so for the many who rely on public services. The
same goes for civil-service quotas. When jobs are dished out for reasons
other than competence, the state grows less competent, as anyone who has
wrestled with Indian or Nigerian officialdom can attest. Moreover, rules
favouring businesses owned by members of particular groups are easy to game.
Malaysians talk of “Ali-Baba” firms, where Ali (an ethnic Malay) lends
his name, for a fee, to Baba (a Chinese businessman) to win a government
contract.
Although these policies tend to start with the intention of favouring narrow
groups, they spread as others clamour to be included. That American federal
programme began by awarding no-bid contracts to firms owned by blacks,
Hispanics and Native Americans; now it covers people with ancestry from at
least 33 countries. In India 60% of the population are eligible for
privileges as members of scheduled castes, tribes or “other backward
classes”. Such policies poison democracy by encouraging divisions along
lines drawn by discriminatory rules. The anger thus stoked has helped stir
bloody conflicts in India, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. And such rules, once in
place, are almost impossible to get rid of. In 1949 India’s constitution
said quotas should be phased out in ten years, but they are now more
widespread than ever. America’s policies have survived decades of legal
pushback, though not unscathed.
The content of their character
The University of Texas (UT) justifies discriminating in favour of black
people not on the ground that society owes it to them, but because, it
claims, a diverse university offers a better education to all its students.
That is a reasonable argument—some companies benefit from understanding a
variety of customers, for instance, and the police probably keep order
better if enough of them share a culture with the neighbourhood they patrol
—but it does not wash for most institutions. In UT’s case, although
colleges benefit from a diversity of ideas, to use skin colour as a proxy
for this implies that all black people and all Chinese people view the world
in a similar way. That suggests a bleak view of the human imagination.
Universities that want to improve their selection procedures by identifying
talented people (of any colour or creed) from disadvantaged backgrounds
should be encouraged. But selection on the basis of race is neither a fair
nor an efficient way of doing so. Affirmative action replaced old injustices
with new ones: it divides society rather than unites it. Governments should
tackle disadvantage directly, without reference to race. If a school is bad
, fix it. If there are barriers to opportunity, remove them. And if Barack
Obama’s daughters apply to a university, judge them on their academic
prowess, not the colour of their skin.