The US Supreme Court has held universities to be illegal in “affirmative action”, an American phrase for Indian “reservations”. This is part of the court’s war against discrimination on the basis of “race”, an American term for “race”, and to emphasize the “colour-blindness” of the US Constitution, which is American idealistic nonsense. Whose Indian equivalent is “secularism”. The decision was split with a majority of justices in favor of abolition and three dissenting, marking not the end of a war, but a landmark moment in the eternal political contest of two bad arguments.
The argument that prevailed rests on the view that in principle ‘everyone is equal’. Dissociative reasoning is based on the idea that society should lower the standard to help some people get ahead. An argument dear to those who worship ‘merit’ because they mistake their luck for talent. Among those celebrating the verdict was Donald Trump, who was born in Emirati. He wrote, “People of extraordinary ability and everything necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded…” This is almost exactly what would happen if the apex court considered all reservations So how many ‘upper castes’ in India will react. Educational institutions are illegal. There is an implication in this view that their success is the result of their innate abilities. They believe that ‘merit’ starts at the beginning of the entrance exam and not at or before the start. What they cannot see is that being born in the upper class is a system that has 100% reservation for itself. Just look at what happened in some walks of life when a broad section of Indians got some opportunities. There was a time when it seemed only the upper castes could crack the Joint Entrance Examination of the Indian Institutes of Technology, or even the right technique to become a batsman. All this has changed.
The second argument, which is lost, is more human and like all human arguments Equality It is dear to those who are the beneficiaries of inequality. It is also endearing to people of that race or caste or group who are considered to be the “underclass”. Especially the elite among them, who are best positioned to benefit from affirmative action. They justify the trauma of their people, even though they themselves are privileged. When a society lowers the standard to help victims of historical injustice, the people who benefit most are not the weakest in the group, but the best.
I do not say that the African-Americans who benefited from affirmative action were all prosperous, but I do say that they were, in their own way, more fortunate than most people in their community. Even to work hard and become successful, you have to come from the right home. There are African-Americans who got into college “on the basis of merit,” as the Indians call it. They bear the inconvenience of being wrongly selected. This is one of the arguments conservatives have presented for eliminating affirmative action. Not because their hearts ache for “brilliant” African-Americans, but because arguments require moral aspects.
Michelle Obama released a statement on the decision, trying to remind us that she got into Princeton and Harvard not because of quotas, but because she “worked hard” for it; “…I wonder sometimes if people think I got where I am because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake, whether those doubts came from outside or within our own minds.” From the inside.” However, despite some problems, she considers affirmative action necessary. Her husband, Barack Obama, responded similarly: “Affirmative action toward a more just society was never the complete answer. But For generations of students who were systematically excluded from most of America’s premier institutions—this gave us an opportunity to show that we are worth much more than a seat at the table.”
The problem with affirmative action is that it has not realized its goals; It has not freed most African-Americans. So why is there a policy that gives to privileged African-Americans exactly what it takes from privileged Caucasians?
If both arguments on affirmative action are flawed, what is the solution to the fact that some people hold unfair attitudes toward others?
Most conflicts in the modern world arise from narrow paths to economic prosperity. What you love to do or what you are very good at is usually not profitable. Most entrepreneurs, artists and athletes fail to make a good living. A more certain path to a decent life is the corporate bureaucracy, the doors of which are guarded by a club that demands “quality education” for admission. Hence dedication to higher education is not only a spurious solution to social problems but also a creator of new problems. as inequality. It’s a club that seeks to broaden the diversity of its conceits by luring people into imitating straight Caucasian men.
Inequality will always be there because it is the innate object of individual ambition. The central purpose of a normal family is to provide unfair advantage to the children of the family. Economic inequality is far less unnatural than people think. Social equality, meaning that the rich pretend that all people are equal, is possible because collective action is not hard to achieve.
An ideal society would not waste its time in eliminating inequality. Instead, it will attempt to establish a benevolent government that makes a high-quality life affordable for everyone, with the only things like seats in a carbon-fibre submarine left unobtainable.
Manu Joseph is a journalist, novelist and producer of the Netflix series ‘Decoupled’.
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and Breaking News Update on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.
Updated: 03 July 2023, 09:08 AM IST