Thanks, But No Thanks
I heard radio show host Dennis Prager interview Clarence Thomas recently. Thomas was saying how the perception created by affirmative action made it hard for him to find a job after he graduated from Yale.
Prager noted this was the best argument against affirmative action--that it stigmatizes the intended beneficiaries. This strikes me as being the worst argument against affirmative action.
Why? Let me illustrate in dramatic dialogue form.
Affirmative Action Critic: I oppose affirmative action since it discounts any achievements by those who belong to the group favored by the affirmative action program.
Affirmative Action Beneficiary: Yes, I recognize there can be a stigma attached, but, all in all, I'd still rather have the extra break (a break, by the way, that I deserve).
Affirmative Action Critic: But you don't get it, it makes life worse for you, not better.
Affirmative Action Beneficiary: I understand that's how you feel, and you may even be correct, but if it's alright with you, I'd rather we keep the program in place.
Affirmatve Action Critic: But this is for your own good. I'm helping you.
Affirmatve Action Beneficiary: I appreciate your nobility, but please, I'd just as soon not have your help on this issue.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:58 AM
3 Comments:
Very true. In fact, your technique can be generalized to rebut almost any argument of the form "Government program P was supposed to help disadvantaged group G, but it is actually hurting them, and therefore all the people in G ought to oppose program P for their own good."
This is a common conservative argument, and while sometimes there are pieces of truth in it, it is mostly a hollow argument. Even when the program really is a bad idea, this argument remains flawed.
A parallel rebuttal to the claim "Affirmative action really hurts black people" is to ask, "Well, then, why doesn't the KKK support affirmative action?"
On the other hand, I absolutely hate the liberal argument that "Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action, and therefore it's hypocritical for him to oppose it now." This is the same as somone in the 1950s arguing, "Whites have benefitted from Jim Crow laws, and therefore it's hypocritical for whites to want these laws abolished."
I like your formulation better, LAGuy, but Frank Rich did a pretty good job of showing how Thomas' entire argument (with respect to his own degree) is basically self-pitying whining.
Post a Comment
<< Home