|
Well, as a white South African, I have experienced a bit of affirmative action, so I'll try and give you an insight into my views regarding it.
Mine was the last generation to live under white rule. When I graduated from high school, apartheid had just ended. I applied to university and although I was granted a place, two weeks before the start of the year I was told that my place had been given to a black student and that I could no longer attend.
Apartheid was never something that sat very favourably with me anyway, so I never mentioned it again. I packed my bags and headed overseas and have never lived in SA since.
Now, while I understand that the imbalances and injustices of the past need addressing, and while I believe that affirmative action has a part to play in all that, I don't feel it is being implemented correctly.
For me, affirmative action should only be about making sure that everyone has an equal chance to succeed whereas too often it is seen as a guarantee of success. Let me give you an example:
In SA we used to have "racial quotas" on our national sporting teams. For instance, the national cricket team had to have at least 2 "previously disadvantaged" players on it at all times (this rule has since been scrapped). This to me is not what affirmative action (hereafter referred to as "AA") should be about. For me, AA should be about providing people with equal opportunities to make the national team by providing them with quality facilities and training at a young age and allowing them the opportunity to hone and exhibit their skills at a domestic level, but after that it's every man for himself. The national team should be chosen on merit and merit alone.
In the economic world this would mean allowing those previously disadvantaged to have more opportunities when it comes to schooling and education, university places and vocational training. But when it comes time to get a job, all applicants should be treated equally. Because the ultimate goal of AA is equality, and while we are treating one group more favourably than another, equality will never be attained.
In fact, too often AA merely highlights inequalities rather than correcting them. To go back to the example of the SA cricket team, in 2001 SA was playing Australia when a young white player by the name of Jacques Rudolph was selected to make his debut. The politicians disagreed with the team selectors however, and insisted that a coloured player by the name of Justin Ontong should play instead. Rudolph was duly dropped and Ontong played in his place. By his own admission, Ontong was embarrassed at having earned his place in the team through political intervention rather than merit and while he performed credibly on his debut, he has never been the same player since and has never again been selected for SA. It was as if the whole world was told he was not good enough to play.
The implementation of AA can also become a crutch, so that instead of utilising the opportunities presented to them by AA, the previously disadvantaged coast along knowing that politicians have ensured their safe passage regardless of performance. Standards are lowered and performance suffers. This is why I think AA should apply only at educational levels and should be abolished by the time individuals reach the jobs market. If you don't make use of the extra opportunities afforded you earlier on, then you will not benefit later in life. AA should not be the free meal ticket it so often is these days.
Sorry my post was so long.
|