tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post2590549662753027314..comments2024-03-09T10:58:56.668+02:00Comments on constitutionally speaking: In defence of affirmative actionPierre de Voshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17861888910368295788noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-49872117368590468542007-04-24T14:21:00.000+02:002007-04-24T14:21:00.000+02:00Pierre, you don't engage in any way with what Davi...Pierre, you don't engage in any way with what David Benatar wrote. <BR/><BR/>He said that AA, in its mildest form, "involves taking positive steps to avoid discrimination, to ensure that opportunities are open and available for all are open and available to all and that fair standards of selection are used...Nobody committed to fairness could take exception to AA in this form." <BR/><BR/>What he took issue with was the use of race classification and the favouring of people on the basis of such ascriptive characteristics. <BR/><BR/>As for your second point, you hardly need to be a rocket scientist to see that a vulnerable group at the receiving end of an aggressive racial nationalist agenda are going to find it "deeply troubling".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36284819.post-8355124788505213132007-04-24T14:10:00.000+02:002007-04-24T14:10:00.000+02:00PierrePat Benatar het al heelwat vreemde - en daar...Pierre<BR/><BR/>Pat Benatar het al heelwat vreemde - en daarom ook interessante - idees die wêreld ingestuur, byvoorbeeld in sy boek Better Never to Have Been, waarin hy aanvoer dat dit beter sou gewees het as geen voelende lewe ooit ontstaan het nie!<BR/><BR/>In this case he has a point. En jy ook.<BR/><BR/>His point is that when people are favoured for certain positions on the grounds of their race, it follows that the best candidate may in certain cases not be appointed simply because he or she has the wrong skin colour - which seeems morally questionable. As ek jou aanstel omdat jy swart is, dan is daar ten minste 'n kans dat jy nie aangestel is omdat jy die mees geskikte kandidaat was nie, en dat 'n meer geskikte kandidaat gevolglik dalk nié aangestel is nie.<BR/><BR/>Yet you also make a very valid point: The standards according to which "best" candidates are selected, are not obvious; they are a product of certain habits, outlooks, prejudices etc., and should therefore be examined critically, debated and sometimes contested. "Standaarde" is nie tydlose gegewes nie, maar menslik, al te menslik.<BR/><BR/>Dié punt kan egter nie dien as 'n argument teen die punt wat Benatar maak nie. It cannot serve as a counter-argument to the reasoning behind the claim that affirmative action is morally wrong. The reason for this is simple: When appointments are made, some standards will have to be applied. Granted, those standards must be negotiable, debatable, changeable, but this does not change the fact that some determination will have to be made as to who is, according to whatever standards, the "most suitable" candidate.<BR/><BR/>Unless one believes that membership of a certain race can itself count as a criterion for suitability or excellence, it remains a problem that race is used as a criterion, because it follows logically that suitability, however defined, is no longer the only criterion. Dat standaarde debateerbaar is, beteken nie dat ons sonder standaarde aanstellings kan doen nie!<BR/><BR/>What I like about your perspective, however, is that you suggest that transformation should be applied at a much deeper level than usually happens. What should be transformed, is not the colour of the faces in institutions, but rather the nature of those institutions, including the kinds of standards applying in them. Die standaarde self moet getransformeer word, anders sit jy inderdaad met 'n situasie waar transformasie niks anders beteken as rassediskriminasie nie.<BR/><BR/>To make this concrete: Say an institution makes proficiency in an African language a requirement, or at least a recommendation, for a certain position. in practice this would mean that, on the whole, black South Africans stand a better chance. However, they are not favoured BECAUSE of their blackness, but because they possess a valuable skill that has not, until now, been given the recognition it deserves: Their proficiency in an African language will make them better at the job in certain respects than those (mainly white) candidates who do not possess this skill. Hulle is eenvoudig in dié opsig meer geskik.<BR/><BR/>They are thus appointed on merit, but in the context of a transformed, more rational and humane, set of standards. In this scenario there is no conflict between transformation and faithfulness to the principle of appointing the best candidate.<BR/><BR/>As die onregverdige standaarde van die verlede gewysig word, dan is die voordeeltrekkers juis diegene wat in die verlede benadeel is, maar hulle trek nie voordeel op grond van 'n irrelevante kriterium nie.<BR/><BR/>Many similar examples could be developed. But what do we do in practice? We retain "white" standards, and then look for blacks who meet those standards - as you point out so eloquently in your contribution. We take a skill like proficiency in English, a skill mostly possessed by the pale and the rich, and make that a central criterion of excellence. Hoe onnosel!<BR/><BR/>- Gerrit BrandGerrit Brandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826420723811437044noreply@blogger.com