Here’s what I’ve got so far. I’m not quite done with it…I still have to cite my sources and whatnot, I might rearrange a few things, and I need some form of a conclusion, but I think I have all the ideas that I wanted to include. This is my first attempt at an Objectivist-style writing, so it probably isn’t great, but I welcome any constructive criticism and suggestions on how to make it better. Thanks.
Introduction
Ever since John F. Kennedy first coined the phrase in 1961, Affirmative Action has been one of the most controversial subjects in American politics. Put simply, Affirmative Action is the practice of using personal factors (most commonly race) in the hiring or admissions process with the intent of righting some past wrong against a particular group of citizens. The most common example of this is the idea that the government should take a more active role in assisting African-Americans in academia and the workforce, as a way of compensating for the unjust treatment they received from institutions such as slavery, segregation, and other forms of institutionalized racism.
The nature of racism
To understand the arguments in support of Affirmative Action, it is first necessary to understand the definition and nature of racism. Racism is the notion that one’s self-worth or the worth of one’s ideas is somehow connected to his/her ancestry. This is not the way people typically think of this topic. Most people, when asked what racism is, would reply with an answer that mentions “the color of someone’s skin,” or something similar. However, are factors such as skin color not directly related to a person’s ancestry?
All African-Americans share a common ancestor, and when people use racially derogatory words such as “spear-chucker,” what they are essentially doing is taking a modern black man and attributing to him the perceived undesirable traits of his ancestors. Because Africa has historically, for whatever reason, been poorer and less industrious than the Western world, many racists believe that all people who are descended from the continent of Africa are innately non-productive or even overtly destructive. This same notion is seen in the rhetoric of some anti-Semitic groups who believe that modern day Jews are somehow responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Support for Affirmative Action
Racism has undoubtedly been the cause of some horrible situations in American history, as well as the history of the rest of the world. The most salient example of racism in American history is slavery and, because of this, further discussion of Affirmative Action will use blacks as an example. Proponents of Affirmative Action hold that past racial injustices must be recognized and rectified in today’s society. Only a true racist or someone who is completely ignorant of history would argue that there have been no racial injustices in the past.
It is commonly accepted that blacks, considered as a whole, do not have the same standard of living as whites. On average, whites have a higher income, live in more high-class neighborhoods, and are better educated. Almost certainly, this is a direct result of the racial injustices of the past. Slavery has been abolished for less than one and a half centuries, and it takes longer than that for a group of people to overcome such an oppressive institution. Supporters of Affirmative Action argue that today’s society must act to rectify the past injustice of slavery. They argue that society should do all it can to level the playing field.
The true nature of Affirmative Action
This is precisely what society should do. The playing field should be level for all individuals. Having said that, the practice of Affirmative Action is racist and equally as repulsive as the warped political agendas of the Ku Klux Klan and the Creativity Movement. The idea that society should level the playing field for all individuals does not mean that all races have to be equally represented in all walks of life. A level playing field means nothing more than the absence of preferential treatment by the government. If the government steps in and mandates that handouts be given to ethnic minorities, the playing field has become unleveled, because there is nothing that a white man can do to overcome the fact that he is white. He will never receive such a favor from the government.
The very definition of “minority,” as defined by society, should also be called into question. What is a minority? What is a race? Race is an arbitrary concept and has no scientific validity. Why are descendants from the continent of Africa considered a “race” while descendants from the British Isles are not? They are considered merely a part of the white race. Once again we are left with the fact that “minority” is arbitrarily defined by a person’s ancestry and is in no way related to the value of that person’s ideas. As Ayn Rand once put it, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
In a world where Affirmative Action is the law of the land, many blacks are hired, not because they are the best qualified for the job, but precisely because of their ancestry. Whites are denied employment, not because they are unqualified, but because of their ancestry. How is this not racism? Is someone not being denied a job on the basis of his/her skin color? How many times must a modern white man pay for being white? How many times must he suffer for the sins of his ancestors–sins that were committed before the time of his great-grandfather? How many times will blacks be told that they are not good enough to get a job without a government mandate?
Affirmative Action is racism in reverse. If someone is turned down a job opportunity in the interest of fulfilling some arbitrary racial quota, a grave injustice has been committed. Anyone who supports such a practice must, by the same token, be willing to look that man in the face and say “because your ancestors did not endure the same hardships as Applicant X’s ancestors, Applicant X deserves this job more than you do.” By what logic will racism end when an unemployed white man knows that the only reason he did not get his desired job is because the other applicant was black?
Affirmative Action will serve no other purpose than to elevate tensions between the races. Every society should strive to view all people as part of the same race. How can this happen when so many leftists are proclaiming that there really is a difference between the races? People on the right end of the political spectrum are often accused of racism, yet it is the political left that insists on grouping people based on the color of their skin. By what logic can racism be ended by perpetuating the myth that the races are different and grouping people into categories based on skin color?
Affirmative Action perpetuates the myth that ideas are somehow tied to ancestry. One of the left’s pet causes is multiculturalism. All too often, this is about race rather than culture. Many of today’s universities are actively seeking to increase the number of minority applicants in the interest of “cultural diversity.” Imagine a scenario where the Assistant Provost for Diversity (an actual position on the faculty of some universities) is looking to increase cultural diversity and must choose three of the six following students for admissions: Eminem, Bill Cosby, John Walker Lindh, Michelle Malkin, Ward Churchill, and Alberto Gonzales. The default liberal position would be to select Bill Cosby, Michelle Malkin, and Alberto Gonzales, because they are all members of racial minorities. However, their views are in line with the stereotypical white man. They are wealthy and conservative. Out of this scenario, the only way to increase the diversity of ideas would be to select Eminem, John Walker Lindh, and Ward Churchill. One is a white man who tries to be black and obviously has a lower class background, one is a Marxist who blames the United States for all the troubles of the world, and one is a traitor who actually joined the Taliban and fought against the United States. The question is: which will do more to increase cultural diversity, three minorities who do not act like minorities or three white men with radical ideologies? The choice is simple, and most liberals would make the wrong one.
The support of Affirmative Action rests on a number of false premises, another of which is the idea of a collective consciousness. Any respectable psychologist knows that only individuals have consciousness, and if one accepts the brute fact that there is no such thing as “racial consciousness,” the true absurdity of Affirmative Action is revealed. Only by believing that each race has some sort of consciousness of its own, can one support Affirmative Action. The idea that there is some collective black consciousness is the driving force behind the idea that blacks must be paid reparations for slavery. The idea that one’s race has a consciousness of its own is what drives Affirmative Action, as well as the Creativity Movement and other white supremacist ideologies. This idea was vomited onto an unsuspecting world by G.W.F Hegel and was used as the basis for Adolf Hitler’s dream of a master Aryan race.
The basis of Affirmative Action: Multiculturalism
If there is one basis upon which Affirmative Action stands, it is the principle of multiculturalism. The very goal of multiculturalism is wrong. This goal is to place American society on the same level as every other society in the history of the world. Warring tribes in Africa and the fascist countries of the Middle East are said to be morally equal with Western society. By what standard are these societies equal to American society? Standard of living? Literacy rate? Average life expectancy? By any measurable standard, Western civilization is superior to Islamic society and African tribal society, yet multiculturalists wish to place them on equal moral ground with the last remaining semi-free nation on earth.
Multiculturalism denies the fact that there is objective truth. All ideas are not created equal. Some ideas are objectively right and some ideas are objectively wrong. The idea that A equals A is objectively right and the idea that A equals non-A is objectively wrong. Tribalism is just as good as laissez faire capitalism, proponents say. Regardless of their thoughts on capitalism, few liberals would trade life in a capitalist society for life in Iran or Syria. Unless one is willing to deny that reality exists, the position that all societies are equal is indefensible. To say that American society equals Iranian society is tantamount to saying that A equals non-A.
Supporters of multiculturalism do not apply their ideas consistently. It is not at all uncommon to hear a supporter of multiculturalism preach about how Islamic society is equal to American society. It would be a rare thing indeed to hear a supporter of multiculturalism preach about how Nazi-era Germany is equal to American Society, or about how slavery-era America is equal to modern day America. The reason for this inconsistency is not particularly clear. It could be because Nazi Germany has been dead for six decades and Islamic society is where the current American conflict is centered. It could be that leftists simply prefer to side with whatever enemy the United States is currently facing. Perhaps modern liberals would have equated Nazi Germany with the United States, were they to suddenly be time-warped back to 1942. If all societies are equal, then leftists should be content to leave the United States as it is and not make it any better. After all, if all societies are equal, then semi-capitalist America is just as good as the typical leftist’s dream of a socialist Utopia. Why fix something that is not broken?
