Written by ‘Classical Liberal’
Critics of affirmative action offer a variety of arguments as to why it is counter-productive or should be discontinued. Some argue that affirmative action hinders reconciliation, because it replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, and may increase racial tension.
Other opponents of affirmative action argue that it is a form of reverse discrimination. Any effort to cure discrimination through affirmative action is wrong because it, in turn, is another form of discrimination. Some critics claim that court cases such as Fisher versus University of Texas, which held that universities have some discretion to consider race when making admissions decisions, demonstrate how discrimination occurs in the name of affirmative action.
Other critics of affirmative action argue that affirmative action devalues the actual accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counter-productive.
Some argue that affirmative action policies create an opportunity for fraud, by encouraging members of non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups in order to take advantage of group preference policies.
Critics of affirmative action suggest that programs may benefit members of the targeted groups that least need the benefit, namely those who have the greatest social, economic, and educational advantages within the targeted group. Other beneficiaries may be described as wholly unqualified for the opportunity made available through affirmative action. They also argue that at the same time the people who lose the most to affirmative action are the least favoured members of non-preferred groups.
Another criticism of affirmative action is that it may reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best. Beneficiaries of affirmative action may conclude that it is unnecessary to work as hard, and those who do not benefit may conclude hard work is futile.
In most cases, it is hard to accurately judge the effects of affirmative action on performance. Does increased diversity really improve an organisation’s performance? Whether members of preferred groups do as good a job as members of non-preferred groups, for example, is hard to gauge. The most obvious exception to this is the ability to accurately measure the performance of preferred groups at universities.
‘Mismatching’ is the term given to the supposed negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a university that is too difficult for them. For example, in the absence of affirmative action a student will be admitted to a university that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching hypothesis, affirmative action often places a student into a university that is too difficult for them, and this increases the student’s chances of dropping out of the university.
Thus, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rates. Mismatching has also been cited as a contributing factor in lowered pursuit and completion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) degrees among certain populations.
Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the US Commission on Civil Rights, in a 24 August 2007 article published in The Wall Street Journal.
Richard Sander concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black lawyers than there would have been if there had been no affirmative action. He states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.
Sander’s paper on mismatching has been criticised by several professors, including Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%.
A 2008 study by Jesse Rothstein and Albert H. Yoon confirmed Sander’s mismatch findings, but also found that eliminating affirmative action ‘would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools’.
These high number predictions were doubted in a review of previous studies by Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim. Their 2016 article found a strong indication that affirmative action results in a mismatch effect.
A 2011 study proposed that mismatches can only occur when a selective school possesses private information that, had this information been disclosed, would have changed the student’s choice of school. The study found that this is in fact the case for the elite Duke University, and that this information predicts the student’s academic performance after beginning university.
A 2016 study on affirmative action in India finds evidence for the mismatching hypothesis. In India, 90% of IIT-Roorkee dropouts are backward caste.
In summary, it is clear that affirmative action is so wrong, on so many levels. Four points in particular are worth stressing.
First, taken to its logical conclusion, a full program of affirmative action would bankrupt even the richest country. For example, as the most radical BLM supporters in the USA have demanded, paying every black person $80,000 in compensation because they have suffered from the legacy of slavery and/or oppression by the white patriarchy. And, who would pay for all of this nonsense: decent, hard-working, white taxpayers; who succeeded on their own merits and never pestered the state for preferential treatment.
Second, affirmative action and the whole climate of political correctness is poisoning political discourse in the UK and causing large numbers of white British people to feel alienated in their own country. Indeed, right-wing extremism (XRW) is the fastest growing terrorist threat facing the UK.
Third, affirmative action is based upon the tenets of intersectionality. Yet, intersectionality is utterly demented. How can we work out who deserves affirmative action and who doesn’t? How can we work out how much affirmative action each individual deserves? Who is more deserving of affirmative action, a gay white man, or a straight black woman, for example?
Fourth, there is obvious inequality in the UK. And, it certainly needs to be addressed if we want people to keep faith in liberal democracy. But, surely, a support program that supports all of those who need help regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc, is better than the nonsense that BLM is peddling. After all, some white people do need help, and some black people don’t. However, we are not all born with equal talents, and the idea that we can create a truly equal society is a dangerous fallacy. We can provide people in need with a safety net until they get back on their feet; unemployment benefit for people until they can get back into work, for example. We must provide people with equal opportunities to succeed on their own merits, most obviously through equal access to education for all.
But, we cannot go too far. In the name of equality, society has a duty to help those in need. Equally, in the name of equity, people have a right to keep what they have earned and not to have to give too much of it away in taxes to subsidise other members of society. After all, if we all had to pay 80% of our incomes in taxes in order to fund affirmative action for lazier members of society, we would either emigrate to escape such a system, or lose any incentive to do any more work than the bare minimum, as happened in the Soviet Union under Communism.
If the silent majority does not find its voice and loudly reject affirmative action, they will be the ones who end up paying for this cultural Marxist dystopia. Find your voice, and shout as loudly as BLM does, or prepare to be robbed!
ANY COMMENTS DEEMED TO BE ‘AD HOMINEM’ WILL BE BINNED.
“Indeed, right-wing extremism (XRW) is the fastest growing terrorist threat facing the UK. ”
You say this as a statement of fact – prove it, explain what YOU mean by extreme right wing terrorism, who is it, what have they done to deserve the label.
You sound like Basu or Dickhead. If there is a right wing “threat” I see it as patriots or nationalists sick of what is happening to our country under the left or extreme left wing. As far as I am concerned any rise of “right wing ideologies” is welcome to combat the rapid corrosion of our society.
Indeed Jim.
ANY COMMENTS DEEMED TO BE ‘AD HOMINEM’ WILL BE BINNED.
You are right to say: “Find your voice, and shout as loudly as BLM does, or prepare to be robbed!” Because “we are not all born with equal talents, and the idea that we can create a truly equal society is a dangerous fallacy.”
We cannot all be F1 champions like Lewis Hamilton, or act like Denzel Washington and be as slim a model as Naomi Campbell. But they did it without the BLM! It was a shame no one spoke up for Coulson when his statue, acknowledging his contribution to education, was mindlessly torn down by hooligans.
Don’t forget that slavery in ancient Africa was practised in many different forms: criminal slavery, Debt slavery, enslavement of war captives and slavery for domestic and court purposes were all practised throughout Africa. Britain just happened to be the maritime country with fleets of merchant ships that provided the transport services required for the endemic trade.
People have a right to keep what they worked hard to earn and not have to give it all away in taxes to subsidise other less skilled members of society. Certainly a support program for all who need help regardless of ability, race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality is better than the nonsense that BLM is peddling. After all, some white people do need help, and many black people don’t as they are already at the pinnacles of their profession.
In past decades, tarnishing 50 millions ethnic white Britons as racists is truly intolerant. For thousands of years, generations of their family had toiled to make Britain a beautiful, safe country for their citizens and since 1950’s post-war years, had welcomed newcomers of all colours, race and religions from around the world to enjoy their peaceful countryside and share their hospitable way of life. These Britons had been generous enough to share their world and the least we immigrants can do to reciprocate, is to observe their attitude and try to emulate their goodwill by blending into their society, certainly not to destroy it.
Well said Jean Romsey
Yes Jean, there is so much Inconvenient history about the slave trade that is ignored. We usually only hear about the Atlantic slave trade which went on from the 16th century until the 19th. We rarely hear about the East African slave trade run by the Arabs which went on from at least the 9th century until the 19th century, when it was suppressed by the British navy.
We also rarely hear that only African slave dealers sold African slaves to European slave traders for the Atlantic crossing, at their slave forts on the west coast of Africa. Before quinine was found to treat malaria in the 1880’s the interior of west Africa was too dangerous for Europeans to enter.
British ships were part of the North Atlantic slave trade from roughly 1650 until 1807 when Wilberforce’s Bill abolishing the slave trade was passed into law by Parliament. (Captain Hawkins’ involvement in the South Atlantic slave trade in the 1560’s & 70’s didn’t set a trend for the British).
So British seafarers were involved in the slave trade for about 150 years, and for the next 200 years have been involved in suppressing it. After Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 the British Navy established the West Africa Squadron in the Atlantic to intercept & capture slave ships and suppress the trade.
But I doubt if our schoolchildren ever hear much about the Arab slave trade, or the African slave dealers, or the West African Squadron.
“Affirmative Action” needs to be renamed for what it is: racial discrimination against the native people of our country. One perceived act of such discrimination is being replaced with an actual act of discrimination in most cases.
I am not against immigration per se but when it involves numbers of those who are not only at odds with our way of life but are actually intending, and in many areas succeeding, to replace our culture with theirs then it has to be stopped. Affirmative action only increases the sense of entitlement of the recipients. Try behaving in similar manner in their countries and see what happens!
Colonisation in years past by western nations is no excuse; many civilised countries would likely still be living in the dark ages if it had not happened. Of course we should not ( and would not I hope) sanction colonisation today yet government is quite content to allow the effective colonisation of considerable areas of our country.
‘Find your voice, and shout as loudly as BLM does, or prepare to be robbed!’ How true!
Planned mass unskilled immigration drove down the wages of Britains low income earners affecting their lives, services, education, policing and the character of their communities whilst hardly touching the lives and well being of Britains middle and high income earners. Many, as I recall joined the white flighters and kept their heads down rather than protest loudly at the madness of what was happening.
A small crumb of comfort may be that at least with affirmative action there will be no hiding place for the white flight middle and high income groups and it may be particularly delicious that the right-on liberals, who habitually, parade their burden of white guilt will not be exempt from being replaced as corporations adjust their race quotas. My heart bleeds for them.
I usually don’t like this Youtube channel but in this case they have it spot on and this video mentions some of the above topics mentioned in this article.
“Warning to America: The Greatest Depression of All Times Approaching Worse than 1929 : Be Prepared!”
https://youtu.be/dim53rt7Uww
I sometimes wonder if Donald Trump really wanted to win the last election, who in their right mind would want this nightmare dumped in their lap? It’s ironic, during Trump’s presidency the Left, so it was thought, were desperate to dump this economic collapse on Trump but he may just have turned the tables on them, he may have outsmarted them.
I think that Trump will be back but when it suits him and it probably won’t be for a while. In the meantime, don’t forget that when this SHTF, it’ll take most of the world, particularly the western world with it. What this means for a densely populated country or group of countries like Britain I can only imagine but prepare yourselves for some very wild and unpleasant times. I think that our governments have known about this for quite sometime and that is why they are experimenting with ways to lock us down.
Disaster predictions coming in from all directions. Max keiser is calling US government policy a deliberate move towards a feudal economy. The rich getting super richer. The poor getting worse than poor. A Prison planet future.
Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Just kinda coincides with the growth of socialism and corporatism in America.