A moral dilemma

[aneeshm]

This was a dilemma I came across while discussing affirmative action and the system of quotas forcefully imposed on India's education system by the government.

To put it in terms with which more people will be familiar here:

Imagine that tomorrow, the US government decides that races X, Y, and Z are "underprivileged", and that 50% of all admission from then on must be only for people from these races. Also that the normal admission criterion do not apply to them - if the quota of 50% is not being filled, then even people who would be ordinarily be excluded and not given admission have to be admitted.

Now imagine that there are some other races, say A, B, and C, who think that this system is very unfair, and they decide to fight it. Now it so happens that X, Y, and Z outnumber A, B, and C, so politicians consider the votes to be had from appeasing X, Y, and Z to be greater than the loss of votes from A, B, and C.

The democratic mechanism being useless here, A, B, and C decide to get organised, and decide to set up a bunch of social institutions which will advantage them, and will, in their eyes, "balance" the effects of they being discriminated against. Something like a system of scholarships accessible only to people from the races A, B, and C, so that even if they are disadvantaged in their own country, they can always go out of the country on the scholarship money and get an education equivalent to the one they missed out on. If the laws of their own country penalise or prohibit it, they will set it up to operate from outside the country.



Would such a system (like the preferential scholarships I described) be wrong in any way? Or is it more complex than simply labelling it right or wrong?

 

[puglover]

The United States is based on equality. Making racism part of the education process is foolishness. I don't think the preferential scholarships you describe are right or wrong either way.

 

[Bast]

You mean like affirmative action?

 

[Brighteye]

I don't see anything wrong with it. You just need to make sure that the host country's laws don' forbid the discriminating scholarships.

What is wrong is breaking fundamental ideals about equal opportunities in order to favour X, Y and Z and get their votes. It is here that most democracies distinguish themselves from mob rule.

 

[silver 2039]

Ah the quota system....rather than setting retarted quotas on universities the government should instead make sure that all castes have equal acess to universal primary education before focusing on secondary. This is a country where there is a large illeteracy rate after all, the govt has its priorities completly wrong. Pity..and I suspect that neither the Left nor the Right will be any better.

 

[Che Guava]

The United States is based on equality. Making racism part of the education process is foolishness. I don't think the preferential scholarships you describe are right or wrong either way.

Equality is a funny word; some people put the emphasis on equality of opportunity, others on economic equality. As much as programs like the ones mentioned above can cause some social pains, in the end, I think it's in everyone's interest to spread the wealth around....

 

[aneeshm]

Ah the quota system....rather than setting retarted quotas on universities the government should instead make sure that all castes have equal acess to universal primary education before focusing on secondary. This is a country where there is a large illeteracy rate after all, the govt has its priorities completly wrong. Pity..and I suspect that neither the Left nor the Right will be any better.

The problem here is that it is the left who instituted the system in the first place, to garner votes. The right wouldn't have done that. But because it would be electoral suicide to actually abolish the system, the right doesn't touch the issue at all.

As for better access to primary education - the right is on it!

Ekal Vidyalaya Site
Same site, if you don't have flash

The plan is to have 1,00,000 of India's 5,50,000 villages covered by 2011-2012, and to eventually have the whole of India covered in one form or another. And it seems to me that they may just succeed.

 

[Che Guava]

The plan is to have 1,00,000 of India's 5,50,000 villages covered by 2011-2012, and to eventually have the whole of India covered in one form or another. And it seems to me that they may just succeed.

This is the real path to equality. But for the meantime, I think the burden should be put on those already in priviledged places, to ensure that they stick with it

 

[aneeshm]

Equality is a funny word; some people put the emphasis on equality of opportunity, others on economic equality. As much as programs like the ones mentioned above can cause some social pains, in the end, I think it's in everyone's interest to spread the wealth around....

I don't want this to degenerate into a thread about the moral (or other) correctness of affirmative action or quotas, so I'd request you stick to the topic - namely, is the system which A, B, and C have created to favour themselves, in order to balance the effects of the state favouring X, Y, and Z, right or wrong?

 

[aneeshm]

This is the real path to equality. But for the meantime, I think the burden should be put on those already in priviledged places, to ensure that they stick with it

They (the people doing this, who are basically the privileged ones) are doing this in spite of the opposition they encounter from the leftists and from the state. And remember that this whole thing does not take a single paisa from the state's coffers - the whole thing runs on donations, and they seek to make the system self-sustaining, so that within five years of the setting up of their network (which should be done by about 2020, if current trends continue), they will require no more donations, and the organisation created to set up the network will either dissolve, or try to develop another model for secondary schooling.

 

[Che Guava]

I don't want this to degenerate into a thread about the moral (or other) correctness of affirmative action or quotas, so I'd request you stick to the topic - namely, is the system which A, B, and C have created to favour themselves, in order to balance the effects of the state favouring X, Y, and Z, right or wrong?

As long as they don't interfere with the programs for XYZ. For university spots, for example, I would have no problem if A set up a scholarship for A's, as long as they were 'buying' an extra place in that university. In that way, there are still enough places for XYZ's to take advantage, while A is just exapnding the size of the pool.

 

[silver 2039]

They (the people doing this, who are basically the privileged ones) are doing this in spite of the opposition they encounter from the leftists and from the state. And remember that this whole thing does not take a single paisa from the state's coffers - the whole thing runs on donations, and they seek to make the system self-sustaining, so that within five years of the setting up of their network (which should be done by about 2020, if current trends continue), they will require no more donations, and the organisation created to set up the network will either dissolve, or try to develop another model for secondary schooling.

Heh...privatize the government....tis the only soloution.

 

[Che Guava]

Heh...privatize the government....tis the only soloution.

Except that the government is, by definition, public. SIlly rabbit!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

[MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG]
We can have both at once! Make senators and the like for sale for good, since most of them are corrupt already. This is capitalist, too: instead of "one man, one vote" we get "one dollar, one vote" and senators can give out stock shares for how they'll vote on various issues.

Public government, in that everyone has a bit of a say, private, in that it still has to answer to its paymaster.

Of course, we'd have to issue a minimum stock to everyone at the start.
[/MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG]

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Or we could just have race be a nonfactor when it comes to college admissions, jobs, etc.

I know it's complicated but...

 

[Mise]

If X+Y+Z outnumber A+B+C, then 50% mandatory admission for X+Y+Z isn't enough

 

[warpus]

I would say the whole system you describe is immoral.

Admission to higher education should be awarded based on merit, not based on race or ethnicity.

If there is a problem with a minority not having access to good elementary education in a way that prohibits members of this minority from attaining the required knowledge to get admitted to higher education.. then therein lies the problem, and you must tackle it there. Go straight to the source.

 

[Che Guava]

I would say the whole system you describe is immoral.

Admission to higher education should be awarded based on merit, not based on race or ethnicity.

True, but I thnk we have to remember that an education is a commodity just like anything else. And when someone is starving, you try to arrange some food for them, or better yets, the tools to make food for themselves, like an education

If there is a problem with a minority not having access to good elementary education in a way that prohibits members of this minority from attaining the required knowledge to get admitted to higher education.. then therein lies the problem, and you must tackle it there. Go straight to the source

Again very true, but what about if you discover part of the problem is that the universities, which have a lots of ABC's have lots of non-official support in the form of societies, friends, connections, while the few YXZ's that get through are isolated, have few friends and are more likely to drop out?