The author,
Kevin Nguyen, is Executive Director of the American Civil Rights Institute.
Remember when there was a time when people would argue if the sun revolved around the
Earth or vice versa? In "The Social Construction of Reverse Discrimination: The
Impact of Affirmative Action on Whites," Dr. Fred Pincus engages in arguments based
on an important and valuable debate, but there is a whole constellation of factors, terms
and concerns beyong the narrow lines he has drawn or at least reinforced with his
discussion.
Notions of race, racial
classifications and affirmative action are evolving so relatively quickly that the terms
of the debate Dr. Pincus engages in reflect 20th-century thinking, and it is time to
update and challenge pre-existing concepts.
For example, "reverse
discrimination" paints the debate as essentially a black-and-white situation, and it
is simply not enough to look at affirmative action policies as affecting whites and
blacks, males and females. These policies adversely affect Americans of Asian
descent and benefit them in other situations. Some colleges have compensated for a
relative dearth of males by granting them preference over females. These are just
some examples of the inadequacy of such a term, even if it is merely comfortable or
convenient.
Notions of "whiteness"
and what constitutes "Asian," "African" or "Hispanic"
heritage are fluid and blur the terms of the debate when we are wedded to traditional
notions of everything from classifications and to "affirmative action" policy.
What is "white?" What is "Caucasian?" Are people
from Spain "Hispanic?" Are people from Libya and Egypt of
"African" descent or are they "white?" Are Pakistanis and
Afghanis "Asians?" Are South Asians with dark skin "black?"
And what of the mixed racial and ethnic heritage that most Americans can lay claim?
Terms such as "affirmative action" and "affirmative access"
tell you very little, but "race-conscious," "race-based,"
"racially preferential" or "racially discriminatory" are modifiers
that are needed to determine the true operational mechanism for these policies.
In this shifting paradigm of race
and sex, we need to use more inclusive and universal terms to describe situations when
disparate treatment occurs, and it is enough and appropriate to call disparate treatment
as an exercise in discrimination, pure and simple.
For the debater on either side, it is not enough to say that he or she will fight the
battle on old soil, he or she must carry the battle onto the next level, to reflect a new,
more accurate reality and resist the temptation to use terms of art. We must challenge
static thinking, otherwise we cannot properly weigh the value of such concepts as
"reduced opportunities" or "increased competition." Only after
terms of art are eschewed can we properly engage in such arguments as whether disparate
treatment that may affect "a small number of whites males and an even smaller number
of white females" makes it any less of a moral injustice. Only then can we
expand the discussion to lend greater context and more credibility to the discussion.
Kevin Nguyen
Executive Director
American Civil Rights Institute
UP:
Top |
COMMENT on this article.
Please include the page number to which you are referring in your comments.
You may also wish to"quote" text from the article to include in your comment. |
|
