Storming the last bastion of the leftists

[aneeshm]

JNU is the premier leftist, Nehruvian, and socialist (usually pro-communist, too) university in the entire country. They are the sort of people who will fall hook, line, and sinker for any scheme which the leftists project as "for teh peepul!"

Arjun Singh tried to introduce a quota of 27% for OBCs (Other Backward Classes) in educational institutions, IN ADDITION TO the already existing quota of 23% for the SCs/STs. This action would have left only 30% of seats open on merit.

An organisation named "Youth for Equality", which opposes this quota nonsense, filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) against this unconstitutional quota.

A few days back, the Supreme Court of India handed down a stay order, commanding the government and universities across the country to not implement the quota until the trial is over. The next hearing is in August, so for this admission season, the quota WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.

Practically, this is a very big setback for the government's perverse plot to get in the quota, because one of the reasons the court has cited for not allowing it is that the percentage of OBCs was calculated from 1931 census data, which was the last census to enumerate caste as one of the categories.

As the current law bans any further censuses by the government from including caste as a category, no further data can be collected, and therefore, the quota cannot ever be implemented properly. Knowing the government, they will probably try to change the law to allow caste-based censuses, but I have trust that the SC will strike it down, too.





Coming back to the JNU. Arjun Singh went there to speak at a function of the School of Social Studies. From the name, it is quite imaginable how left-biased the field must be. He went expecting a warm reception.

Instead, he received a boycott, and booing. It seems the very last bastion of academic support this nonsense has been infiltrated for good.





Victory is sweet indeed.

 

[skadistic]

"Other backward classes"? Can you elaberate please?

 

[Rhymes]

"Other backward classes"? Can you elaberate please?

Indeed please!

I have trouble linking the acts you mentionned with leftist policies.

 

[aneeshm]

Basically, people like rural landowners, who did not migrate as much to the cities as other castes or classes, because they had land holdings in the villages, because of which they remained backward as compared to others who did migrate.

Note that these castes never faced discrimination under the caste system. They were very much an integral part of the system.

 

[happy_Alex]

So whats your point? Are you defending the caste system?

 

[bhsup]

How are you defining "backwards"? Does farming seem lowly to you compared to, oh, a business degree?

 

[aneeshm]

How are you defining "backwards"? Does farming seem lowly to you compared to, oh, a business degree?

It's not my definition, it's an artificial and meaningless category created by the government to divide people on caste lines and thereby gain votes.

And it is not I who defined low or high, it is again the govt. doing this.


And no, I am absolutely opposed to the caste system.

 

[happy_Alex]

It's not my definition, it's an artificial and meaningless category created by the government to divide people on caste lines and thereby gain votes.

And it is not I who defined low or high, it is again the govt. doing this.


And no, I am absolutely opposed to the caste system.

So what are you saying, that positive descrimination is a bad thing in this case or that it is okay, but should nor be based on data from the 1930s?

 

[aneeshm]

So what are you saying, that positive descrimination is a bad thing in this case or that it is okay, but should nor be based on data from the 1930s?

There is NO SUCH THING as "positive" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, and is always bad.

a) It is done purely to gain votes
b) It is done at the expense of merit
c) It is based on the wrong data
d) It in inherently wrong

 

[Winner]

There is NO SUCH THING as "positive" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, and is always bad.

Amen to that!

Positive discrimination can help one people, but it ALWAYS hurt the others. Therefore, as you said, it is always bad.

Of course, the leftist idealists will disagree and call me a racist if I dare to question their firm belief that it serves the whole society by compensating for the past injustices.

 

[happy_Alex]

There is NO SUCH THING as "positive" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, and is always bad.

a) It is done purely to gain votes
b) It is done at the expense of merit
c) It is based on the wrong data
d) It in inherently wrong

a) Politicians will always promote the agenda of their platform, that is why people vote for them and how they maintain their support.

b) maybe, maybe not. This is only the case when one assumes that all the applicants start from an equal position. Clearly, in any class system, they do not. Additionally, belonging to a higher a class or elite which confer additional benefits, in this case educational advantage. Socialists seek ways to achieve equality of outcome, not just opportunity.

The term 'opportunity' has become a convenient way to answer criticsms of a society that practices descrimination. In application such an appraoch, while successful to a point, grants an unfair advantage to those with extra resources. For example, we all have an equal chance to play the lottery, but only a few will actually win.

I say all of this as someone who has been on the sharp end of 'positive descrimination' being a white, middle class English man, if you know what I mean. However, I've seen plenty of subtle and not so subtle descrimination the traditional way too.

c) well that's a fair point. What efforts have been made to update this data? Have the authorities been challenged on this? Who is responsible for collecting such data? Does India have a census every ten years like in the UK? etcetera....

d) Is it wrong just because it wrongs you or is there some other social context or reasoning?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

India seems much like the United States. Their politicians, just like ours, try to create and exacerbate class and racial differences in order to get votes. Do other representative governments suffer from this problem? I imagine that even in a homogeneous society this would happen.

 

[Kidicious]

There is NO SUCH THING as "positive" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, and is always bad.

a) It is done purely to gain votes
b) It is done at the expense of merit
c) It is based on the wrong data
d) It in inherently wrong

This is all so ridiculous it's meaningless.

 

[Winner]

Funny, people babble about how is equality and justice important all the time, but when it comes to one of the most blatant violations of these concepts, they don't mind.

Positive discrimination is wrong, because it is unjust. It gives some people advantage over other people not because of their achievements or abilities, but simply because they have certain skin pigmentation or they pray to certain God(s), or they are different in some other way.

When the majority populace dicriminate against the minorities to get better jobs, more money for their work or better access to education, it is called racism.

When the minority populace do the same to get benefits, it's called... justice?!

How the hell can anyone believe that? It is wrong no matter who's doing it.

 

[happy_Alex]

Funny, people babble about how is equality and justice important all the time, but when it comes to one of the most blatant violations of these concepts, they don't mind.

Positive discrimination is wrong, because it is unjust. It gives some people advantage over other people not because of their achievements or abilities, but simply because they have certain skin pigmentation or they pray to certain God(s), or they are different in some other way.

When the majority populace dicriminate against the minorities to get better jobs, more money for their work or better access to education, it is called racism.

When the minority populace do the same to get benefits, it's called... justice?!

How the hell can anyone believe that? It is wrong no matter who's doing it.

You're not really saying anything here other than that it is wrong on and individual basis, which I don't consider to be true. In an entrance policy in which all are treated equally, some will have achieved better entrance criteria through educational advantages conferred on them by their class. So in that sense, it is 'wrong' on the people who don't get in because they might come from an underpriviledged background.

In regards to race, I think you are confusing 'race' with 'class', after all in this case it is not about race we are talking about the class system. Anyway I'm not even sure how useful the term 'race' is.

It might not be perfect, but the alternative are political and educational institutions that are completely unrepresentative of their nations/counties/humanity. This is okay if you want to build an elitist society on vectors of ethnicity and class but not if you want an inclusive and egalitarian society. Judging by the way gypsies are fleeing your part of the world and people are coming here for work, I suggest that the latter is happier, more economically proserus and more popular.

 

[Winner]

You're not really saying anything here other than that it is wrong on and individual basis, which I don't consider to be true. In an entrance policy in which all are treated equally, some will have achieved better entrance criteria through educational advantages conferred on them by their class. So in that sense, it is 'wrong' on the people who don't get in because they might come from an underpriviledged background.

You're not quite getting my point.

I don't say such injustice as you described doesn't exist (there is a sort of "underclass" in almost any country), I say that positive discrimination is the worst thing the society can do to correct this injustice.

Why? Because the very principle of the modern liberal state is not to discriminate against anybody. Positive discrimination goes against this principle.

You may say "but it is done for a good reason!". True, the intention behind it may look good, but it doesn't make it right. Should we also set up a category of "right" murder? What if an abused and regularly beaten wife murders her tyrant husband in his sleep? Is that OK, because she was a victim?

No. The problem exists, but the positive discrimination is a wrong solution.

In regards to race, I think you are confusing 'race' with 'class', after all in this case it is not about race we are talking about the class system. Anyway I'm not even sure how useful the term 'race' is.

Positive discrimination is applied in many cases, sometimes it is there to "help" certain race (black people for example), sometimes it is there to "help" an ethnic or religiou group (Muslims, gypsies), sometimes it is used to protect a gender groups (women, homosexuals).

It doesn't matter what kind of group is "protected" this way, it is always wrong.

It might not be perfect, but the alternative are political and educational institutions that are completely unrepresentative of their nations/counties/humanity. This is okay if you want to build an elitist society on vectors of ethnicity and class but not if you want an inclusive and egalitarian society. Judging by the way gypsies are fleeing your part of the world and people are coming here for work, I suggest that the latter is happier, more economically proserus and more popular.

I am afraid I don't get your point, anyway, I maintain that "positive" discrimination (which is when minority discriminates against majority) is as wrong as the "negative" one and both should not be used.

One more point: it is also inconsistent: if we had a minority of people (say certain religious group) which was richer on average than the majority, should they be discriminated against for the sake of the deprived majority? Would that be fair? I don't think so. Success isn't a crime that should be punished.

 

[bhsup]

It's not my definition, it's an artificial and meaningless category created by the government to divide people on caste lines and thereby gain votes.

And it is not I who defined low or high, it is again the govt. doing this.


And no, I am absolutely opposed to the caste system.

Good answer, and very glad to hear it! Btw, I do agree with you that it's just discrimination, period. Let people in on their merits.

 

[Brighteye]

You're not really saying anything here other than that it is wrong on and individual basis, which I don't consider to be true. In an entrance policy in which all are treated equally, some will have achieved better entrance criteria through educational advantages conferred on them by their class. So in that sense, it is 'wrong' on the people who don't get in because they might come from an underpriviledged background.

It might not be perfect, but the alternative are political and educational institutions that are completely unrepresentative of their nations/counties/humanity. This is okay if ... but not if you want an inclusive and egalitarian society.

So your society has a problem, in that there are poor people who are not getting a good education, and therefore suffer further into life when they want jobs or university places.
The solution is to force people to take these worse candidates, thereby reducing the productivity of the company, or reducing the education the university gives to everyone in those classes (because teaching happens at the rate of the slowest)?
No, the solution is to deal with the lack of education the poor are receiving initially.

Why is egalitarian good? Why is 'an entrance policy in which all are treated equally' wrong, but yet egalitarian good? Isn't there an inconsistency?
Surely if everyone should be equal (rather than be treated equally, as 'an entrance policy in which all are treated equally' does), then we should start conducting brain surgery to cut out parts of the brains of intelligent people?
Or perhaps equality isn't such a good thing. Maybe 'positive' discrimination is wrong, and we should instead worry about equal opportunity.