Confucius at Oxford: Filler Time

July 24, 2004

Filler Time

It's been a busy couple of weeks, there's been nothing new and exciting to report, and I haven't had the time to sit down and discuss issues the way I would like to. So here's an old essay I wrote, slightly edited and abridged, for your enjoyment.

This entry is inspired by the release of Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Thomas Sowell (Yale UP), available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.

The book is very well written and well argued, methodically taking the reader through different countries where affirmative action has been tried out. American readers may not be aware but their version of affirmative action is by no means unique- in fact, it is very watered down in comparison to what goes on in Africa and Asia. My favourite example is, of course, our dear neighbour Malaysia. Sowell's conclusion is that, regardless of the moral, sociological, philosophical or economic basis for affirmative action, its results are very similar: the policies, meant to benefit the poor, overwhelmingly benefit the well-off, those who know and understand the system and know how to play it to their advantage. Comparative examples further illustrate: Malays in Singapore and Malaysia, for example, started out at roughly the same level economically but Singaporean Malays have done much better, despite Malaysia having probably the world's most far reaching affirmative action programme. This is a really good book and I urge everyone with an interest to read it.

On to my essay, which I wrote last year. It approaches the issue from an American perspective and so has American references and terminology which may be unfamiliar to those not familiar with the USA. For those of you who like labels, please do not consider me Republican or conservative just because I dislike affirmative action and am generally in favour of 'school vouchers'- that's only two issues. Other than that, read with an open mind and enjoy:

In most civilised countries, judging somebody on the basis of their race is illegal; but not in the United States of America, probably the world’s most diverse country. This past June, the United States Supreme Court in Gratz v Bollinger upheld affirmative action as constitutional. It was a popular decision, and a neat compromise, but it was not the correct decision. Affirmative action is an idea which briefly made sense but has outlived its usefulness. Despite this, the sensitivity with which many Americans regard race means that it continues to linger.

It is undeniable that inequalities exist, and it was to address inequalities that affirmative action was created. However, in the forty years since, the meaning of affirmative action has been forgotten. The original intent of affirmative action was not about discriminating in favour of people on the basis of skin colour. Rather, it was about extending help to disadvantaged people. Given that black Americans as a whole had suffered years of discrimination, reparations to the entire group made sense.

Today, however, affirmative action has become inextricably tied up with race and is primarily about judging people by their colour. Hypothetically, if you have two equally capable candidates, one an upper or middle class minority and the other poor and white, it makes little sense to aid only the former. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, recognised this and thus argued in favour of the more vague rationale of "diversity".

Diversity, however, is hard to define. While perfect language for a compromise, it hardly helps resolve such a contentious issue. In addition, race alone does not guarantee diversity. A middle class Latino and a middle class Asian might have more in common, and be more socially homogenous, than with a poor white southerner.

The biggest problem, however, is that traditional conceptions of race are being overtaken by demographics and the erasing of boundaries. Blacks, the main beneficiaries of affirmative action, are no longer the largest minority in America: Latinos are. Furthermore, the number of people identifying themselves as more than one race is growing steadily. It is impossible to determine if a Latino-Native American is more in need of affirmative action than a Black-Pacific Islander.

In theory, affirmative action is best suited for a country made up of two main races, one forming an overclass and the other an underclass. Such a description suited America in the 1960s. It also applied to Malaysia around the same time. Malaysia instituted the most far-reaching and wide-ranging program of affirmative action in the world to help the Malays relative to the Chinese, but it found that all it did was to create social distortions and disincentives to work. The Malays in general are no better off relative to the Chinese than they were four decades ago. Malaysia’s affirmative action program has been discredited by its architect and is slowly being scrapped.

Finally, affirmative action is all but impossible to implement fairly. In a parallel case (Grutter v Bollinger) decided as the same time as the Gratz case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program because its system of awarding points to minority applicants made it too much like a racial quota. In striking down the system in favour of a “holistic” consideration of each applicant, the Supreme Court effectively forced affirmative action to become subjective. The point-based system had one advantage: it was objective and transparent. A subjective system, bound to the whim of an admissions committee, is bound to please no one but lawyers and the litigious.

My proposed solution is simple: remove race from affirmative action. Return affirmative action to its original objective of helping the disadvantaged. Under a different name (one free of historical baggage), let it influence decisions on the basis of income instead. The people most in need of help are the poverty stricken, regardless of their skin colour. While selling this will not be easy, experience suggests that a clear and straightforward explanation of the system, emphasising the benefits, will do wonders. For example, a name change that emphasised parental choice drastically boosted school vouchers’ popularity. As minorities are the groups with the largest numbers living in poverty, they will continue to benefit more, but now in proportion to their need. Otherwise, to continue with the current situation is to perpetuate a system which has become irrelevant and creates inequalities of its own while doing nothing to address the real needs of most of the 34.6 million Americans who live in poverty.

Posted by pj at 04:04 PM

Comments

PJ, it is very nice to be able to say the rational / logical thing - that assistance be given based solely upon the means test. That's obvious. Unfortunately, in my experience, the emotional aspects of the debate are unavoidable and grow ever more entrenched over time. The tiny calf has grown holy white and is all sacred today. Even for those who are disadvantaged, but are supposed to be the beneficiaries, and vaguely aware that something is not working right, it is difficult to rise above the layers of propaganda that have piled on over the years. They instinctively defend the system solely on emotional grounds.

For those who are "discriminated" against, it has become a habit to work with the system, or rather "work the system". After a while, there is an inner circle of supposedly "disadvantaged" entrepreneurs who in fact are benefiting from the patronage and protection of the system just as much as those in the establishment circle are.

Send e-mail if you want to talk it out further..

Wei Yi spoke on July 26, 2004 11:28 AM

Missed this one - it is not fair to compare the state of the Malays in Singapore to that of Malaysian Malays. Singapore is a much more compact and more heavily urbanised society, which implies that modernisation and hence development should propagate more evenly here than it would in a larger, more rural country like Malaysia. In the same way, it is ludicrous to expect Malaysia's development needs to mirror Singapore's - we need an electricity grid many times longer than S'pore's and more kilometres of roads and water pipes, even after accounting for per-capita basis.

Having said that, pertinent areas of comparison should be - mastery of English, entry into the professions and entrepreneurship. These are development areas that experience more impact from influences outside of geographical size. Respectively, the primary influences of the above are - education policy, career counseling and the availability of enterprise development funds and programmes. Which are controllable factors.

Wei Yi spoke on July 26, 2004 11:40 AM

interesting essay, PJ, but I think you don't address the issue of history-- one would argue that affirmative action, is historically awarded to African-Americans, not because they are poor or because of race, but because they were placed at an unbelievable disadvantage when they were brought to the U.S. as slaves and to this day, they still suffer the repercussions of this. And I think one could argue that we, as citizens of the country who brutally oppressed them, are responsible for helping them if we can. Same goes for the Native Americans who we effectively wiped out.
Any other form of affirmative action based on race becomes difficult because you run into issues like, "why do the African-Americans need help, while the Indians have done just fine?" And affirmative action based on poverty? That's welfare.

cara spoke on July 26, 2004 10:48 PM

Wei Yi- I don't disagree with you that it has become a sacred cow and that the system has become emotionally meaningful to people. In fact, it's become so many different things to so many different people that it is hard to agree on an accepted formula that constitutes "affirmative action". I don't dispute any of that. I know what I am saying will be considered radical. But that's part of my point- affirmative action has strayed so far from what it is supposed to be, that we should get rid of it wholesale and try something different. Is it possible? Will those currently benefiting from the system let this happen? Probably not- at the very least, it's going to be difficult. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it improbable and unpractical.

As for the basis of comparison- I'll let you know when I get to the part of the book where he lays down his criteria. I know he's made the comparison- it's been referenced- but I haven't read the section in depth yet.

Cara- actually, I'm all about history. This is me, the historian, you're talking to. See paragraphs two through five. My point is that the situation has changed, not because African-Americans are no longer oppressed and disadvantaged (of course they are still) but that they are no longer the only ones who are oppressed and disadvantaged, and affirmative action discriminates against these other people, while benefiting African-Americans who don't need it and do very well without it. We should help everyone who needs help, regardless of skin colour. How do we do this? Well, I made my suggestion. I don't think of it as welfare- I know that term has all sort of connotations that I don't know/understand- but a massive financial aid programme.

PJ spoke on July 26, 2004 11:34 PM

A little sidetrack - an excellent article in the Guardian about the segregation / desegregation experience of Milwaukee, regarded as the most segregated city in the US:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1217018,00.html
How, in the end, simple policies on race inevitably fail to account for the real complexities on the ground.

Wei Yi spoke on July 27, 2004 02:25 AM

All right, i'll grant that you have looked at the historical side of this, but let's look at your proposed solution: remove race from affirmative action. return affirmative action to its original objective of helping the disadvantaged.
historically, affirmative action's purpose was never so broad as to embrace helping anyone who might be defined as "disadvantaged." (of course i'm not as well read on the subject, so call me on it when i err.) lots of 'disadvantaged' people are taken care of by different governmental programs-- the disabilities act ensures that people who are physically disabled can lead as normal lives as possible-- were they covered under the original affirmative action program? were single working mothers covered under the original program?
I think the problem is that you're trying to make the case that poverty among immigrant classes is the result of oppression. I disagree-- i think it's part of the process. Traditionally all immigrant groups that come to America start off poor but eventually are assimilated and grow prosperous. Look at the Irish-- in the 1860s they were hated, put in ghettos, and as poor as anything-- what about now? i think they're probably doing all right. What about the Chinese? They came to America in the early 1900s, worked menial jobs, suffered from racism, were exploited-- but now? I read an article today that informed me that 60% or something of America's top high school students in science and engineering were immigrants or the children of immigrants. Please correct me if I'm wrong, about all this, I'm drawing my statements from a variety of sources and just personal experience, but you might have another point of view.
My point is that most immigrant groups who have come to America have historically been able to integrate themselves successfully into our society-- however, not so with the African-americans because they were at a particular disadvantage; something affirmative action set out to address. I disagree with your statement that African-americans are no longer the only ones oppressed-- I would argue that their oppression is most definitely of a different nature than any oppression other immigrant groups of have faced. You can argue for getting rid of affirmative action entirely; but i don't think that it's about equalizing economic disparity-- as i said before, that's what welfare is about-- taking someone who is poor and helping them find work, make a living, survive. And I don't think that affirmative action is about helping the disadvantaged based on race-- I think it's about helping a particular group, who was particularly badly treated in America's history, cope with the legacy of slavery.
does this make any sense? oi. sorry i went on so long; think of it as a tribute to your abiltiy to raise interesting issues.

cara spoke on July 27, 2004 04:35 PM

a few points bro:
i like to echo wei yi that malays in singapore are different from malays in malaysia on the whole.
one good comparison is between the urban malays and those from singapore -- i can assure you that malay urban malays are doing very well. and material comparison is not the only thing. the state of mind; of no being perpetually look upon as a second class citizen and expected to not perform well (and expected to play football well) etc. read stuff by alfian saat if you want to glimpse at the pysche the singapore malay; you
can also talk to the singapore malay who after A-level come to UM/UKM to study medicine. they are plenty of those.

a further point: in the 1960s, my dad generations,
almost all professionals in KL and Penang were Chinese and Indian. Now, you visit a yuppy coffee
shop in KL like starbucks, i can sit down and have a conversation with a malay accountant (maybe he did not get a first at UCL) and discuss an article
from the economist.

in singapore, the relative gain of malays is still
pale compare to the chinese. in arguments about affirmative action, relative gain should be the primary driver.

yeong shang spoke on July 27, 2004 08:03 PM

Cara: you've got a point there about how the African-American community seems to be stuck in a rut, while others seem to be moving up the value chain in the states. So a case could be made that race is a key determinant.

Having said that, it is also clear that the affirmative action policies of yesterday, while well-intentioned, probably do not work, since identification of race with poverty still happens.

Take for example high-schools - in places like San Francisco, affirmative action actually works against the interest of local Chinese students because they hog the highest percentiles of the district grades and therefore, if measured solely on merit, they would be disproportionately dominant in the best schools in the district.

While I can imagine that they're parents would be happy with this situation. it cannot be good for the school that there are so many Chinese and so few blacks for these kids to interact with. No, there is no neat solution, but the important thing is to at least be aware of where it's at.

Where it's at is: 1) old school affirmative action quotas do not work 2) at the same time, a strict merits test deprives young people (or workers at the workplace) of the opportunity to interact with peers more reflective of the world beyond the school compound.

The very questions at the root of the debate need to be well defined, like is Affirmative Action for the good the so-called deprived ones or is it a tool of social appeasement or patronage and therefore serving the interests of the advantaged to control a potentially restive minority. It took more than half a century to shake off slavery in America (after the debate arose in the first place, not from its inception). Like slavery, affirmative action has been institutionalised and entrenched in all of these places and it will take a long time to even light a fire on the whole matter.

Wei Yi spoke on July 28, 2004 03:36 AM

Okay, firstly- Yeong Shang! Good to see you are still reading my blog, bro. Anyway, I'm not sure about anecdotal evidence but I don't deny that groups of Malays have gotten more affluent in both countries. In fact, it's precisely affluent (urban) Malays who have gotten more affluent- but not rural Malays, whom the bumiputra policies were supposed to help. Let's not forget that when Mahathir made his case in "The Malay Dilemma" he also drew a distinction between urban and rural Malays and argued that it was the latter group which needed help. Say- do either of you know any rural Malays with opinions on the matter? I'd be really interested as to their opinion. Anyway, the point is not about those who are already well off. I don't dispute also that the Chinese in both countries have done better than Malays in both countries, but that's not entirely the same issue.

Which brings me to my point: I'm arguing that affirmative action is meant to help everyone have a fair chance at making a living. To extend Cara's point, it's about giving every a fair chance to survive and to succeed. I know the Chinese seem like big success stories in the USA but last I checked, most CEOs, politicians and other people of power and influence were white or Jewish men. Everyone else faces some sort of discrimination, African-Americans face the most, but how do we measure something so abstract without introducing more distortions into the marketplace?

I once argued in a paper that one of the problems about race is that we put so much emphasis on racial awareness and sensitivity that it actually makes the issue worse than it should be. We keep emphasising the differences between races to the point where they become ingrained and inevitable. I would like to see a policy that is race blind, but need-sensitive, and see how that works.

As I once said to Cara, I believe race is something which will become irrelevant in the next few centuries. Genetically, we are all alike. What we call 'race' is, after all, nothing more than a few genes which determine pigmentation and slight variations in shape, none of which are exclusive but only manifest due to breeding being limited to a certain geographical area.

PJ spoke on August 1, 2004 11:26 PM