http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3558 The Global Debate Over Affirmative Action by Thomas Sowell (March 9, 2004) Summary: Most people who are for or against affirmative action are for or against the theory of it -- and pay little attention to the hard facts. [www.CapitalismMagazine.com] A recent issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education had the front-page headline: "The Global Debate Over Affirmative Action." Inside, there were five full pages on group quotas in Brazil, India, and Malaysia. While it is unusual for American journalists to recognize that group preferences and quotas exist in other countries, what was all too usual were the slippery semantics with which affirmative action has been discussed in countries around the world. The Chronicle of Higher Education's discussion of affirmative action in Malaysia, for example, says that it began because "ethnic Malays held relatively little economic power" and because of a "colonial legacy under which the country's more urbanized Chinese inhabitants tended to prosper." In reality, under colonial rule the British provided free education to Malays but the Chinese minority had to provide their own -- and the Chinese still completely outperformed the Malays, both in educational institutions and in the economy. Performance differences are what slippery semantics try to evade, whether in Malaysia or elsewhere, when affirmative action is discussed. One of the architects of the quota system in Malaysia is quoted as saying that before affirmative action "there was a wall in Malaysia and outside of it were the Malays." A wall against Malays in Malaysia? With Malays in charge of the universities and Malays also in charge of the government that controlled the universities? Again, such semantic gymnastics attempt to evade the obvious: Some groups perform a lot better than others, whether in education or the economy and whether in Malaysia or elsewhere around the world. Back in the 1960s, when university admissions were based on academic performance, students from the Chinese minority outnumbered students from the Malay majority. When it came to engineering degrees, the Chinese outnumbered the Malays 404 to 4. None of this was mentioned in The Chronicle of Higher Education. My own research over the years turned up these facts. While quotas changed the numbers in Malaysia, they could not change the performances. After three decades of quotas favoring Malays, the government finally acknowledged that the universities were simply not turning out enough people with the high-tech skills that the country needed. As a result, the Malaysian government announced last year that admissions to the universities would now be by academic records, with computers determining who gets in and who does not, without regard to ethnicity. Although affirmative action programs have often been described as "temporary" or "transitional" in various countries around the world, this is a rare case where such policies actually ended. Most group preferences and quotas not only persist but spread, either covering more activities or more groups, or both. Both in India and the United States, affirmative action applies to groups that add up to more than half the total population of the country. In both Malaysia and Indonesia, preferences and quotas were intended explicitly to apply to the majority of the population because minorities -- notably the Chinese in both countries -- were far more successful. My research has turned up other similarities among affirmative action programs in other countries. For example, even when they are sold as ways to help the less fortunate, they end up helping the more fortunate. That has been true in India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka -- and the United States. Black millionaires have been able to take advantage of various group preferences far better than poverty-stricken people in the ghettos. Among the wealthy black athletes who have benefited are Julius Erving and O.J. Simpson. Most people who are for or against affirmative action are for or against the theory of it -- and pay little attention to the hard facts. My approach has been to examine the facts. My recently published book "Affirmative Action Around the World" is subtitled "An Empirical Study." The time is long overdue to start looking at what actually happens under this program, as distinguished from what people hope or fear will happen. --------------------------------------------
Good find, Padgett. Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the most profound thinkers of our time. But stand by for liberal hatred in one......two........three......
There could be significant differences between the Chinese/Malay issue and the Black/White issue in the United States that make this comparison invalid. But, since it's tantamount to treason to suggest that there may be a performance difference among the races in the United States with respect to college, it's unlikely a real study will ever be done here. I'm not saying Sowell is wrong in his assertion, but I am saying that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises that the situation would be the same "around the world." I believe affirmative action would actually accomplish what it is expected to accomplish far better if it were based on personal/family income instead of race. And what Sowell is talking about here is one of the reasons, though not a major reason, for my opinion. I do not suppport race-based affirmative action because I believe that racism is very, very rare in college acceptances (a comparison of the demographic make-up of college students and the minority population per capita shows that most colleges have a college population representative of the actual population of the United States), but I would support class-based affirmative action - because if you can't afford to go to college, it doesn't matter if you're black or white - you still can't go. But I don't support affirmative action in any form in the pure sense - I propose the class-based form solely as a counterweight to the ease with which the kids of wealthier people can attend school, regardless of their performance. I think, essentially, that all college admissions should be solely based on performance, and if you can perform, then you can go. If you can't, then you can't. (Does this qualify as liberal hatred? It's funny - I don't consider myself a liberal. I guess disagreeing with extreme conservative positions makes you a liberal in the eyes of extreme conservatives. But what if you disagree with many liberal positions as well?)
No, I agree totally that tuition assistance should be based on economic, rather than racial factors. I was just making the correct assumption that soon the hatemongers will descend on Padgett like buzzards on a carcass and call him a racist...etc for daring to swim upstream of the "accepted" opinion of affirmative action.
When I bash Je$$e and $harpton, I'm labeled as a bigot and the posts multiply like a fungus. When I highlight on article by one of the premier thinkers of our time, who happens to be black, that highlights the absurdities of affirmative action, silence. I'll interpret the silence as shameful nodding. Affirmative Action is a ill-founded, results-based shortcut that is insulting to those it is supposed to boost up and that ignores the true root of all these problems - lack of adults taking responsibility for the lives of their children and lack of adequate leadership (not $...leadership) in our schools.
More like shaking our heads in disbelief. Reading your posts leaves no doubt about where you lie on the political and moral spectrum.
You can interpet my silence meaning that the comparison between Malaysian Affirmative Action and the American system is completely ridiculous. P.S. Next time I post an article about bush or whoever, I'm going to write, and this author is White.
My thoughts on affirmative action Reminds me of Chris Rock's O. J. Simpson bit, where he says "I ain't sayin' he should have killed the b****, but I understand." I'm not saying it's right, but I understand.
Man, how blunt does something have to be before it sinks in for some of you guys? Do you people not detect the irony (yosemitesammer is excused from this as his irony meter seems to have permanently malfunctioned back in the early 80's) in stating that affirmative action is wrong, all racial classifications, positive or negative, are wrong, we need to live in a color blind society, etc., and then pointing to an article and saying: "See? This guy thinks so, and he's BLACK!!!!!"
What I find funny is the white man fear that suddenly his education and job market will be taken from him by other races. I find that hilarious because, as a white man, I can honestly say I have never once worried about being excluded from any job, institution or group I was interested in because of my race. For all the conservative talk radio jabbering about how people are too sensitive and they need to stop whining, etc, I find it really hilarious that so many of my white brethren go around crying like little girls when it comes to affirmative action. I'm not really a big advocate of straight up affirmative action and tend to prefer class-based admissions as well, but some of these guys who whine and complain need to grow a sack and stop b****ing about how tough we white men have it. Sheesh.
Just because we disagree with the liberal orthodoxy (who know everything and are never wrong...... ) on this issue does not hatred make. Give me a break. I just mentioned the fact that you libs would pile on because of your hatred and yet.....that is considered "hate?" You are insane and soon....the men in white coats will be coming for you soon. What color is the sky in your world, KC?
