AFFIRMATIVE ACTION – THE MAGNIFICENT FAILURE THAT KEEPS ON FAILING
This needs no detailed background report. We should give credit where credit is due. Affirmative Action (AA) is not simply a failure: It is a magnificent failure. I defy you to name another program with such universal approval, government support, total lack of opponents, unlimited financial backing and, finally a complete and absolute lack of success.
From day one, rational persons who approve of AA in principal, have tried to bring attention to the simple fact that, as presently tasked, AA is a classic case of irrational behavior. Consider the following proof:
A. Two men apply for a job; a black man and a white man. The black man is better qualified but the white man gets hired. This is wrong. We all it racial discrimination.
B. Two men apply for a job; a black man and a white man. The white man is better qualified but the black man is hired. This is equally wrong, but we applaud the decision and call it Affirmative Action and we are proud of ourselves.
We have appeared to have achieved a result that every educated person recognizes to be a logical impossibility. We have taken two wrongs and we claim to have made a right. Of course, we have done no such thing. We have convinced ourselves that we see a right because it is politically correct to do so. Like ingesting a small dose of some controlled substance, we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we have reason to feel good.
What have we really accomplished? I don’t think that you want to know, but I will tell you anyway. Let’s see how many wrongs we have actually committed in our misguided search for a right. We have:
1. Shown both applicants that fairness doesn’t apply to them.
2. Lowered the quality of work to be expected from the anointed also-ran.
3. Convinced the employer that maybe out-sourcing is the way to go. China doesn’t have Affirmative Action. They simply hire the best qualified applicant. Case closed.
4. Convinced the employer that, if he can’t hire the best qualified, maybe he should avoid black applicants altogether. One of them may, in fact, be the best qualified. We may never know, because the employer may have been required to hire a lesser qualified person before the good guy shows up. One black businessman told me, (in confidence, of course) that, “When I am ordered to discriminate against white people, I am also being ordered to discriminate against myself and my business. Of course, the Congressman assured me that I should not worry about quality because she will get me a minority set-aside grant. Should I be happy being a profitable, unfair failure?
5. How about the simple concept that someone in this scenario should be trying to advance that concept of right and wrong? Nah! Too old fashioned.
I could go on, but we all know that truth in O. W. Holmes’ observation that, “A page of history is worth a volume of logic.”
Let’s glance at the history of AA. It has been around for 60 years. How many of us can say the same thing about ourselves? This means that we have been following this illogic for our entire lives. Is there any way to get off this merry-go-round of absurdity? Can we just stop it? The dog says, “GRRR!” I guess this means that we can’t.
Are we being told that white employers are irredeemably evil? Or are we saying that blacks are genetically inferior and will never be able to compete on a level playing field? The first has been proven to be invalid. How? Look at the other non-whites among us. They have accepted that the rules are stacked against them and they have succeeded incredibly well. So much for the “evil” argument. As much as we dislike saying it, the blacks are the only ones claiming to be discriminated against.
If you are not convinced of the one-sided nature of this silly program, let’s go back to the 60 year time frame. Let’s suppose that you are asked to evaluate the program in the context of “continue or end”. To do so, it would be necessary to establish a parallel situation where we do not have the same level of hysteria. Let’s suppose that you are selling a medication to hospitals. You have a good sales pitch and the hospital gives you a trial order. They then try your medication on appropriate patients and notice no marked improvement in their symptoms. You tell them to try it a while longer and longer and longer. After 60 years, the buyer for the hospital says, WTF. How do you convince him to try for another 60 years? Can you really conjure up a need for your nostrum?
Actually, you don’t have to demonstrate a need. Remember, you are the dog with a bone. You don’t have to convince anyone of your need for the bone. You simply growl at them and they will leave you alone. The argument is settled (as long as you back off). The other side has accurately gauged your cowardice. Case closed.
AA forever!! How about a cabinet level department of AA? How about an AA political party? Oh, wait. We already have something better. We have the NAACP.
AA fans should not read any further.
How about we simply do the right thing and tell everyone that they will be required to take the same tests and live by the same rules as everyone else? Did you ever dream that you would like to see all people judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin? I have. And, I admit that I am not the first person to do so.
Unfortunately, some of our friends believe that such dreams are racist.
Think about it. Let us know if such a dream will ever become a reality.
The Reb Nachum Syndrome
The Reb Nachum Syndrome
Watching C-SPAN recently, I was treated to a real live example of the Reb Nachum Syndrome in action. In case you have forgotten, Reb Nachum is the name of the Beggar in the great Fiddler On The Roof.
The eponymous syndrome describe’s Reb’s economic theory. His method of supporting himself consisted of wandering the streets of Anatevka, presenting an empty palm to one and all. His compassionate fellow citizens usually deposited a coin or two.
It happened one day that Tevye, the hero of Fiddler, was having a variety of problems. He tried to explain to Reb that he, Tevye, was having a very bad week. Reb replied, “So you’re having a bad week. Why should I suffer?”
Thus, the Syndrome:
“If you are having difficulty paying your bills, that does not excuse you from your civic duty to pay mine.”
Sound familiar?
The C-SPAN discussion involved a Congressional effort to apply a modest reduction to a long-standing hand out program. Just reduce it a bit.
The reaction from several members of Congress was borderline hysterical. ‘How dare you try to reduce this program that we have come to rely on?’ Not up to Reb’s standard of eloquence, but Reb had better writers.
The argument against reducing the give-away program was the classic, “such reductions will fall disproportionately on the poor.” Well, duh – oops – strike that. With all due respect, Gentle Congressperson, we should remember that, that which is coming down, once went up. What I mean is this: When we are discussing a give away program created specifically to benefit poor people, any and all prior funding, by definition, disproportionately benefited poor people. Any reduction in funding, to be fair, must mirror the previous increases in funding. That is, any reduction will disproportionately be detrimental to the poor. Does anyone, rich or poor, fail to understand that? Put your hand down, Congressperson.
As you can see, the problem that we are facing (that is, the real problem - A permanent underclass) is not something our current Congress or current Executive is even considering. We suspect that they will make their arguments on the current budget on C-SPAN and then go into some back room and come out with a compromise which does nothing but kick the problem down the road.
As noted elsewhere, politicians worry about the next election while public servants worry about the next generation. The gentle Congresspersons opposing reduction in Pell grants or any giveaway program will doubtlessly be re-elected. The constituents who survive only by reason of ‘entitlements’ will continue to beg and will become increasingly impatient with working people who want to keep some of the money they earn.
The Gimme, Gimme, Gimme generation is not a fad. It is a permanent and ravenous underclass and it is well represented in Congress.
I think I should sign off now. I am beginning to scare myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment