Affirmative Action: Myth or Reality?

Ohhh...that title is sure to get a reaction. I know that the words used in this post are explosive, and my intention is not to insult or belittle. My purpose is to lift up and give momentum. So stay with me, please.

For purposes of brevity, I won't go into all the details or statistics (though I can provide them if you like) behind this little thesis, but there seems to be a large amount of evidence indicating the futility and even harmfulness of affirmative action programs. The studies I've read have taken place in countries all over the world, so this is not simply an American issue.

Let's start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarded as the hallmark of AA and the beginning of a new dawn where we could begin the long, uphill battle toward equality in America. I submit to you that the language in this Act specifically sought to end any type judgements based on race. It's purpose was to stop putting people in categories and designing policies around these abstractions. Instead, those who wrote it wanted each person to be valued for what they were individually.

The problem is not whether or not we agree on my statement. It's the fact that we never even talk about that statement. AA is supposed to be accepted, as if it were something that always existed, or something that cannot be questioned. We never even discuss if it was intended by the people who set these wheels in motion.

AA policies usually start out as temporary measures structured to bring balance, to make amends for some wrongdoing in the past. By definition this is not possible, since we are not dealing with the flesh and blood individuals between whom the actions took place. We are dealing with abstract sections of society.

Boil it down to simplest terms. Can I, with any hope of actually succeeding, bring balance to my marriage by going back and recording every wrong or perceived wrong that my wife has committed against me, and then imposing some action to redress it? How would I ever make progress? Moreover, how would our relationship ever grow? You may sigh if you like, but AA is nothing more than that.

Let's say we're going to account for the inequality of whites as CEO's of companies, and we make a black man a CEO. Ok, but that's just one. If equality is the goal, then we need an exact number of every white CEO that ever was, and then we must have the same number of black CEO's. One won't do. But then, what if a man was half-black, or two-thirds black? Must we then find someone who is one-third black to make a whole one? It would never end.

If the phrase "whole one" is offensive to you, then think about the very idea of making human beings into categories and numbers to be equalized. Acting as if the highest achievement a group can make is some sort of mathematical parity with another group based upon a wholly subjective, external judgement system is ultimately degrading.

And if fairness is the goal, how do we judge that? Should a wealthy black man get admitted to college over the son of a poor, white farmer? Would that be equality? It's not fair to society to lower entrance exams on police academies simply to add numbers of females. That only makes us all less safe, including the female officer. The arrogance and elitism inherent in the assumption of being worthy to make these kinds of judgements is sickening. Besides, investing the power to "equalize" society in a select group automatically bestows upon them a level of power that makes a mockery of the orginal ideal.

A brilliant man once told me that in life, you can only turn on light. Walk into a dark room, and there is no switch to turn off darkness. Light is the only way to dispel the shadows. In other words, unselfishness itself is not a virtue. That is only the absence of greed, in theory anyway. Charity is the virtue being sought, so that it is giving to another person and meeting their needs, not merely abstaining from want that is the action. Clear as mud?

The studies show that AA programs never reach their goal, they can't. But they make great speeches for politicians acting as the pied piper.