|
|
|
|
Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study
reviewed by Dutch Martin
20 October 2004
Thomas
Sowell's latest book shows that affirmative action tends to benefit primarily
the most fortunate among the preferred group, often to the detriment of the
least fortunate among the non-preferred groups.
|
|
Affirmative action
has been arguably the most politically divisive topic of the post-Civil Rights
era. President John F. Kennedy originally coined the phrase in an executive
order to eliminate discrimination -- past and present and primarily suffered
by blacks -- based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In
concept, the initial rationale was based on the idea that the affirmative
action policies would be temporary and limited in scope. In practice, however,
they have expanded into a pervasive system of goals, timetables and numerical
quotas to include other "aggrieved groups," with a focus on equal outcomes
instead of equal opportunity. This phenomenon is not unique to the United
States.
In Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study
(Yale University Press, 2004), Thomas Sowell takes a global view in examining
group preference polices in the U.S., India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria.
Whichever term is used -- affirmative action in America, "positive discrimination"
in India, preferences "reflecting the federal character of the country" in
Nigeria, or "sons of the soil" preferences in Malaysia -- Dr. Sowell looks
at the similarities in the rationale behind these countries' policies, and
focuses especially on the actual outcomes.
Among the common consequences of preference policies in the five-country sample are:
-- They encourage non-preferred groups to redesignate themselves as members
of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;
-- They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred
group (e.g. black millionaires), often times to the detriment of the least
fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites);
-- They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to
perform at their best -- the former because doing so is unnecessary and the
latter because it can prove futile -- thereby resulting in net losses for
society as a whole; and
-- They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part
of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been
their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups
who -- without preferences -- consistently outperform them.
This
last point is particularly instructive. Despite the fact that ethnic groups
indigenous to the Indian states of Assam, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh
were granted preferential treatment, they were nonetheless outperformed by
non-indigenous groups or "outsiders" in free market competition, educational
institutions and the job market. Despite starting at the bottom economically,
the frugality and work ethic of the minority Chinese population in Malaysia
enabled them to surpass the native bumiputeras ("sons of the soil")
of Malaysia, despite the latter group's governmentally mandated preferred
status. The professional and educational dominance of the Tamils over Sri
Lanka's indigenous Sinhalese population was the precursor of a bloody civil
war from which the country still has not fully recovered.
One of
the most damaging outcomes of affirmative action in American higher education
is the abysmal graduation rate of minority students admitted to elite colleges
and universities under lowered admissions standards. What makes this phenomenon
even more disheartening is that many of these students would be perfectly
suited to succeed at schools that are academically less rigorous, yet they
are "pervasively mismatched" into schools for which they are not adequately
prepared, and thus are setting themselves up to fail. To quote the author:
.
. . [A]ffirmative action in the United States has made blacks. . .who have
largely lifted themselves out of poverty, look like people who owe their
rise to affirmative action and other government programs. Moreover, this
perception. . .has been carefully cultivated by black politicians and civil
rights leaders, who seek to claim credit for the progress, so as to solidify
a constituency conditioned to be dependent on them, as well as on government.
Dr. Sowell
shows how the notions, rationales and assertions supporting affirmative action
are widely accepted without being tested empirically. When they are put to
the test, they usually do not pass muster, and the mounting evidence of their
negative consequences is either suppressed or altogether ignored. Case in
point: those pesky low-income-yet-high-performing Asian Americans. As Sowell
puts it:
While
there are more data available for making comparisons between blacks and whites
than among other racial or ethnic groups, there is also a vast amount of
data on Asian Americans. However, proponents of affirmative action tend to
avoid discussing Asian Americans, even though Asian American experiences
might be very relevant to testing many of the theories behind affirmative
action. Indeed, the experiences of Asian Americans often flatly contradict
much that is said by those making the case for affirmative action.
Any citizen
desiring an objective, unvarnished understanding of the actual consequences
of affirmative action policies would be served well by reading this book.
Dr. Sowell sheds much-needed light on a critically important -- yet often
ignored -- aspect of one of the most emotionally-charged issues of our time.
Affirmative Action Around the World is available on Amazon.com.
Dutch Martin is a columnist for The Right Report and a member of Project 21, an African-American leadership network based in Washington, D.C. This review originally appeared on TownHall.com.
Email Dutch Martin
Send
this Article to a Friend
|
|