|
I think it's a terrible idea. From a logistical point of view, it's pretty difficult to figure out exactly how much harm was incurred by a specific person. With (for instance) the Japanese internment camps, most of the victims were still alive, and it was relatively easy to quantify a value and be done with it. For Native Americans, it's somewhat less clear, but we could at least come up with a somewhat reasonable standard - although the situation we have now isn't exactly great, it's workable. For descendants of slaves, it seems to me to be a lot harder. The harm done by slavery and racism is at the same time both harder to quantify, and more widespread. Societal harm done to minority groups due to racism is still going on, after all. We're now in a situation where races are equal under the law, which is a pretty good first step.
I think affirmative action has it's place, although it has to be implemented judiciously - the argument of a better-qualified candidate being passed over 'because he was a white male' is hard to refute. Affirmative action should be 'sunsetted' in favor of policies which give people of any socioeconomic background opportunity to excel. Free or subsidized education, healthcare, child care, etc. are all ways of providing social mobility, as well as reducing suffering. Programs that are based on need rather than categories such as race are key here, IMNSHO. After all, if we agree that descendants of slaves are a harmed class of people, and therefore are, as a class, in more dire economic straits, then policies that help people based upon need will by their very nature help them more often than white folks.
Another issue is resentment - which is a powerful recruiting tool for racist organizations, unfortunately.
|