A moral dilemma

[aneeshm]

This was a dilemma I came across while discussing affirmative action and the system of quotas forcefully imposed on India's education system by the government.

To put it in terms with which more people will be familiar here:

Imagine that tomorrow, the US government decides that races X, Y, and Z are "underprivileged", and that 50% of all admission from then on must be only for people from these races. Also that the normal admission criterion do not apply to them - if the quota of 50% is not being filled, then even people who would be ordinarily be excluded and not given admission have to be admitted.

Now imagine that there are some other races, say A, B, and C, who think that this system is very unfair, and they decide to fight it. Now it so happens that X, Y, and Z outnumber A, B, and C, so politicians consider the votes to be had from appeasing X, Y, and Z to be greater than the loss of votes from A, B, and C.

The democratic mechanism being useless here, A, B, and C decide to get organised, and decide to set up a bunch of social institutions which will advantage them, and will, in their eyes, "balance" the effects of they being discriminated against. Something like a system of scholarships accessible only to people from the races A, B, and C, so that even if they are disadvantaged in their own country, they can always go out of the country on the scholarship money and get an education equivalent to the one they missed out on. If the laws of their own country penalise or prohibit it, they will set it up to operate from outside the country.



Would such a system (like the preferential scholarships I described) be wrong in any way? Or is it more complex than simply labelling it right or wrong?

[DinoDoc]

It's called affirmative action. No imagination required.

[aneeshm]

A 50% flat quota (70% in some states) which completely disregards merit is called affirmative action?

But more importantly - what is your opinion of the actions of A, B, and C, in setting up this scholarship only for As, Bs, and Cs?

[SlowwHand]

Maybe it's needed in India, for a time; but the time has come and gone here.

[DinoDoc]

If your problem is about percentages, you're just quibling about numbers rather than the substance of the policy itself.

[Spiffor]

Re: A moral dilemma

Originally posted by aneeshm
Would such a system (like the preferential scholarships I described) be wrong in any way? Or is it more complex than simply labelling it right or wrong?

It's perfectly understandable that the overclass reacts to Affirmative Action by helping its own, when the democratic institutions want to even the odds.

The right thing to do, for the state, would be to further improve the quality of education for the underpriviledged. So that the priviledged's efforts that aim to remain ahead of the general population, become effectively useless.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If your problem is about percentages, you're just quibling about numbers rather than the substance of the policy itself.

My question is not dealing with AA or quotas at all, it's about the moral rightness (or wrongness) of the people who are discriminated against because of said systems getting together and building institutions (such as the preferential scholarships I mentioned) in order to balance the advantage being given to the favoured people by the state.

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: A moral dilemma

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's perfectly understandable that the overclass reacts to Affirmative Action by helping its own, when the democratic institutions want to even the odds.

The right thing to do, for the state, would be to further improve the quality of education for the underpriviledged. So that the priviledged's efforts that aim to remain ahead of the general population, become effectively useless.

Wouldn't that turn the whole thing into a ridiculous race, with the state applying more and more draconian strictures on the people it considers privileged (usually with the intention of getting the votes of the people it itself projects as underprivileged, so as to get their votes), and the non-favoured people creating stronger and stronger institutions to exclude the favoured people, in the end resulting in the fracture of society?

I've seen this fracture occur, even without the "overclass" taking any organised measures at all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
My question is not dealing with AA or quotas at all, it's about the moral rightness (or wrongness) of the people who are discriminated against because of said systems getting together and building institutions (such as the preferential scholarships I mentioned) in order to balance the advantage being given to the favoured people by the state.

Obviously, the "favored people" are just lazy and dumb races. I clearly can't see any other reason why they're unable to fill the 50% by their own merits, since they're the majority.

The state shouldn't favour lazy and dumb races, but should let them fend for themselves

There is absolutely no reason to believe that society is unbalanced at the expense of X, Y and Z, and thus the AA in their favor is clearly an undue advantage

Edit: confused A,B and C with X,Y and Z.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Obviously, the "favored people" are just lazy and dumb races. I clearly can't see any other reason why they're unable to fill the 50% by their own merits, since they're the majority.

The state shouldn't favour lazy and dumb races, but should let them fend for themselves

There is absolutely no reason to believe that society is unbalanced at the expense of A, B and C, and thus the AA in their favor is clearly an undue advantage

You, again, are discussing the merits of AA.

I'm asking you whether there is anything wrong in A, B, and C taking joint action to balance the advantage the state gives X, Y, and Z.

I'll take the situation a bit further.

Imagine the most successful people from among the As, Bs, and Cs get together, and create a system where every child coming from the A, B, and C races is guaranteed a college education. This is possible because of their low numbers, and because they have many rich people among them who support the cause.

Obviously, the state cannot match this. Thus, in the race YOUR state initiated, A, B, and C have "won".

What now?

[DanS]

The more enlightened approach would be to make it possible to increase the total slots available, such that those qualified from races A, B, and C would get an education in-country.

[Spiffor]

Basically, and now with less trolling. (in case of x-post, I'm writing right after post #9)

Every form of AA that I know of is done in order to react to a disbalance in the general society against a social group. This disbalance is obvious in the society you're talking about, because X, Y and Z are a majority of the population, and in an equal-opportunity society they'd be a majority of students too.

A, B and C, as they create their exclusive scholarships, further increase the already-existing disbalance at X, Y and Z's expanse. As such, they are definitely part of the problem, and their actions will result in further AA policies to counteract it.

Generally, quotas are harshly opposed by the groups that have something to lose from them. Not only for pocketbook reasons, but for moral reasons as well. In a state where the law is equal for every citizen, the priviledged tend to see themselves as being more deserving than the underpriviledged.
They don't see the many aspects of life that aren't regulated by law, where their race (or gender, or class or whatever) allows them to get ahead over somedy from the bad group. They also tend not to see how not being in their group stunts opportunities.

This gets increasingly worse when the members of the socially priviledged groups (in your case A, B and C) don't know people from among the underpriviledged (X, Y and Z)

As an example, there was a paper in The Economist some monthes ago, that showed the US society being increasingly unequal-opportunity, and the overclass not being aware of it (and thus thinking they were overclass only thanks to their work and smarts). And the US is one of the most equal-opportunity countries on the planet.
In France, which is much worse in this regard, I've also witnessed this kind of attitude many times.



Edit: the bolded part is the answer to your question. It's understandable that A, B and C wants to keep its edge. But it's bad, in that it repeats the unbalance in society, and makes AA even more necessary to counter it.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Basically, and now with less trolling. (in case of x-post, I'm writing right after post #9)

Every form of AA that I know of is done in order to react to a disbalance in the general society against a social group. This disbalance is obvious in the society you're talking about, because X, Y and Z are a majority of the population, and in an equal-opportunity society they'd be a majority of students too.

A, B and C, as they create their exclusive scholarships, further increase the already-existing disbalance at X, Y and Z's expanse. As such, they are definitely part of the problem, and their actions will result in further AA policies to counteract it.

Generally, quotas are harshly opposed by the groups that have something to lose from them. Not only for pocketbook reasons, but for moral reasons as well. In a state where the law is equal for every citizen, the priviledged tend to see themselves as being more deserving than the underpriviledged.
They don't see the many aspects of life that aren't regulated by law, where their race (or gender, or class or whatever) allows them to get ahead over somedy from the bad group. They also tend not to see how not being in their group stunts opportunities.

This gets increasingly worse when the members of the socially priviledged groups (in your case A, B and C) don't know people from among the underpriviledged (X, Y and Z)

As an example, there was a paper in The Economist some monthes ago, that showed the US society being increasingly unequal-opportunity, and the overclass not being aware of it (and thus thinking they were overclass only thanks to their work and smarts). And the US is one of the most equal-opportunity countries on the planet.
In France, which is much worse in this regard, I've also witnessed this kind of attitude many times.



Edit: the bolded part is the answer to your question. It's understandable that A, B and C wants to keep its edge. But it's bad, in that it repeats the unbalance in society, and makes AA even more necessary to counter it.

Is it wrong in a legally punishable sense of A, B, and C to create a system such as I described? Even though, in your view, it may add to the problem, how precisely do you "combat" a group who, due to their small numbers, can guarantee a college education to each and every one of its members?

Assume that the state takes it up another notch - they create a quota system where the total number of seats available to those from A, B, and C is less than the seats these people have a demand for. Now A, B, and C adapt further, and create a system where people go out of the country to get it, but a college education is STILL guaranteed.

Now what?








Are you saying, by any chance, that trying to better only yourself or your group is a bad thing? If, for example, the Hindus outside India decided to form community-help groups which would ensure that they would be relatively immune to the problems of the country in which they had settled (which would, in a few generations, result in them becoming a de facto "overclass"), would that be a bad thing?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Is it wrong in a legally punishable sense of A, B, and C to create a system such as I described? Even though, in your view, it may add to the problem, how precisely do you "combat" a group who, due to their small numbers, can guarantee a college education to each and every one of its members?

Depends of the situation. If this behaviour can't be prevented (or rendered useless) by softer means, then it should be banned.

Assume that the state takes it up another notch - they create a quota system where the total number of seats available to those from A, B, and C is less than the seats these people have a demand for. Now A, B, and C adapt further, and create a system where people go out of the country to get it, but a college education is STILL guaranteed.

It'd be better if the state could provide for the entire demand, obviously, and thus it should increase the supply. If A, B and C use this policy to further maintaining their edge as a race, I think the State should ban this discriminatory practice.

Are you saying, by any chance, that trying to better only yourself or your group is a bad thing?

Improving yourself: I have no problem with that.
Improving only "your group": I potentially have a huge problem with that, depending on how you define "your group". Explanation below.

If, for example, the Hindus outside India decided to form community-help groups which would ensure that they would be relatively immune to the problems of the country in which they had settled (which would, in a few generations, result in them becoming a de facto "overclass"), would that be a bad thing?

Yes, a very bad thing. Because you're talking about people over several generations.
I have no problem unedrstanding that a migrant, or a first-gen offspring can have trouble adapting to the welcoming land's customs. Also, it's pretty normal for a migrant or a first-gen to keep a feeling of identity toward the old country, and its inhabitants.
Such a feeling is an extremely bad thing after the first-gen however. It creates communities that feel exclusive to each other, and which end up being antagonistic to each other. If the natives feel they get the short end of the deal, and if the "aliens" (who shouldn't be alien anymore, if they had wanted to integrate, assuming the host society isn't exceedingly racist) purposefully maintain their domination as a group, then the whole "alien" group will suffer.

IMO, a community that migrates for several generations shouldn't try to be exclusive at all, but to embrace the society in which they have chosen to live their new life. A community that remains exclusive, that doesn't want to integrate into the common culture, is bound to see a backlash. And this is true both for communities that become "overclass" as for those that remain "underclass".

[Japher]

and that 50% of all admission from then on must be only for people from these races

any system that favor quotas over qualifications is a bunch a BS