|
One big problem with affirmative action that I've seen is that it creates the belief that discrimination is necessary.
And you can approach this belief from two directions:
(1) affirmative action (a form of discrimination) is necessary to "balance the playing field" because discrimination in the opposite direction is inherent in society.
(2) discrimination is necessary in order to "balance the playing field" in response to affirmative action (discrimination in the opposite direction).
So in other words, the whole idea behind affirmative action is that the two forces balance each other to create "equality". But if the two forces balance each other, need each other and are dependent on each other, then what's the difference between them? Aren't they symmetrical? If one is wrong, isn't the other wrong also?
You could say, once racism is entrenched, affirmative action becomes necessary to balance racism. Or you could say, once affirmative action is entrenched, then you need racism to balance affirmative action.
In any case, you can see where this leads to. We now have a society where discrimination is seen as good and desirable. And a government that keeps track of everybody's race and ethnicity.
|