[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Kate-san and color BLIND meritocracy

(American Heritage Dictionary)
Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race

Josh wrote:
> 
> The problem is...you seem to be answering my argments without making a case
> for your perspective.  You take it as a given that the best way to deal with
> race problems is from a perspective that blinds us to existing race problems.

I have been following this thread off and on, so I may be either
repeating or ignoring
previous posts.  If so, I apologize.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that there are race problems existing
in the status quo.
The choice that remains is do we attempt, to the best of our human
abilities, to make ourselves and our government blind to race or do we
intervene and attempt to right wrongs by giving certain races
opportunities under the justification that they are denied other
opportunities.

I found the answer to this question years ago listening to a tape of
Martin Luther King, Jr. saying that he had a dream "that my four little
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by
the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  I,
therefore, choose the first and will attempt to rebut Josh point by
point.

> My argument is that ignoring race does not create equality in fact it
> officially legitimizes and allows the system to escape from racism.

I have provided the definition of racism at top.
The justification for a quota-type system where certain people have
higher/lower standards than other based on race is that people are not
given sufficient opportunities earlier in life, i.e. insufficient money,
lacking education, racist law enforcement.

1) If these are the problems, then let us address these problems, the
causes of inequality.  This is a worthy endeavour and I support any
solution to make existing institutions color-blind.  Through quotas,
however, you attempt to solve for the effects of the inequality, in
effect, saying that the solution to racism is racism, thus legitimizing
racism.
2) By "solving" for race, you ignore that the first two problems
mentioned above are inherently wealth-based.  Thus, poor non-oppressed
people are not afforded equality under an "ideal" quota system.  Again,
the only solution is to attack the problem at the causes.

> For your argument to work you must prove that minorities are equal in the United
> States not that they are equal in the eyes of the law.....

No.  For the argument for a color-blind society, I must prove that two
things:
1. oppressed groups would be equal in a true color-blind society
and
2. a color-blind society is possible.

The first of these is easy.  A true color-blind society means that race
is not perceived, or if it is perceived, that it is seen at neither
positive nor negative.  By definition, #1 is true.
Number 2 is infinitely more difficult.  This is the point at which
affirmative action proponents say that there will always be racist
people and therefore attempts at ending racism will fail.

This is admitting defeat.  If you say that people will never move from a
color-perceptive (the opposite of color-blind) mind-set, then any
affirmative action program will be permanent, as there will always be
injustice.

It may not be completely possible in the next hundred years, but it is
clear that a color-blind society (one that has as its acknowledge goal
to eliminative racism in all of its forms) is superior to one where
racism is institutionalized, acknowledged as a given, and corrected for
with more racism.

This also rebuts Josh criticism of Kale-san above for taking "it as a
given that the best way to deal with race problems is from a perspective
that blinds us to existing race problems."

> Inequality exists therefore we must address it to allow equality.

Absolutely.  Address inequality and its causes, not its effects.

> When you get around to making a case
> for ignoring the racism that exists I will get around to agreeing with the
> idea of putting a dark blindfold on the judge...Josh

> Joshua B. Hoe

As summary, supporting a color-blind philosophy does NOT ignore racism;
in fact, racism is the sworn enemy of such a philosophy.  This
philosophy says equalize our schools, give EQUAL job opportunity based
on ability, and eliminate those officials who would enforce
differently.  When the desired goal is to eliminate racism, it is best
not to choose a philosophy that would further divide the races and use
them as justification for opportunity.  Any quota system proponent would
have to provide an ideal society view for them, because for me, it looks
like judging people by skin color, no matter your justification.


Nick Ellinger
ellingnd@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu

One last note: I find it interesting that if I were to say that X group
is not as (educated/intelligent/insert your own adjective here) as Y
group, I am a racist.  However, if I frame the argument by saying that
the system makes it so that X group is not as (adjective time) as Y
group and deserves special protection, I am viewed as a proponent of
affirmtive action.

One even more final note: The above is not to make an ad hominem attack
on anyone.  All of us have the same goal--to rid the world of an odious
institution--and I respect those with that goal.  We simply disagree on
method.  If anyone is offended by that as an attact on them, I
apologize.  I just wished to point out what I see to be an inherent
contradict in the affirmative action idea.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page