My Own Social Commentary

Affirmative Action: Destined for Failure

Affirmative action, is, simply put, reverse discrimination. Groups identified to be overtly, institutionally or involuntarily discriminated against are accorded perks in affirmative action because of none other than the fact that they belong to a group that is supposedly discriminated against. The idea is that by treating them better than the rest, it is actually equalising the discrimination they receive with these perks. In this commentary, I shall show that affirmative action fails both in principles and in reality.

Firstly, affirmative action fails intrinsically because the very basic underlying principles are flawed; two wrongs do not make one right and giving additional value to one’s merits just because of one’s social group is exactly what it is trying to counter. In other words, in trying to fight its enemy, it has already become its own enemy.

How so? For example, let’s look at the US, where affirmative action policies aimed at blacks and other minorities are carried out. In the Oscar-winning film Crash, a white owner of a cleaning agency was forced out of business as affirmative action policies dictate cleaning contracts to be given to cleaning agency with minority owners. This is highly ironic as most of his workers are minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. In other words, by giving perks to specific groups, the rest of the population is being discriminated against.

The article on Xinjiang crystallises this as well, where Han Chinese are disadvantaged because Uighurs receive perks such as better public housing and bonus points in university entrance exams. Han Chinese, on the grassroots level, naturally found this unfair and directed their negative feelings towards the Uighurs, which is one of the essential ingredients of the Urumqi riots.

Of course, advocates of affirmative action will claim that the Uighurs are institutionally discriminated against: the value of Mandarin compared to Uighur language is exponential, especially in other parts of China and in governmental administrative posts; yet they can only pick up Mandarin as a second language. Furthermore, the lands of Xinjiang are the Uighurs’ to begin with: giving privileges to the indigenous is naturally justified.

However, this argument is flawed as affirmative action only undermines the merits and accomplishments of the Uighurs’. For example, by awarding bonus marks in university entrance exams to Uighurs, Uighur graduates of the same university as their Han counterpart will be deemed inferior as they are seen (rightly or not) as only capable of entering the university because of the policies in favour them. Uighur graduates who would otherwise not have been accepted naturally would not be as competent when entering the workforce, creating the illusory notion that Uighurs are indeed less competent. For example, it is the general sentiments of Han Chinese that Uighurs are “lazy and unmotivated”.

This devalues the achievements of other Uighurs who could well have secured the university seat without affirmative action as they are also undeservedly labelled inferior in the minds of employers. Thus, a vicious cycle is formed where affirmative action paradoxically serves to deepen the gulf of economic inequality that it is trying to fill. Is it then a wonder for Uighurs to riot against the treatment they receive?

As such, I have shown that affirmative action, in principle and reality, discriminates against other groups who are not deemed worthy of “affirming”. The means itself is ironically at odds with its ends. I have also shown that affirmative action, in practice, does not accomplish the end-goal of equalising the playing field. Instead, it only serves to exacerbate it by devaluing the accomplishments of distinguished minority individuals. To any country considering adopting affirmative action: Do you want to be the next Urumqi?

Ripped Article from Newsweek

Beijing’s Restive Summer

By Melinda Liu

CHINA—The latest victims of the global financial crisis are casualties of the violent unrest sweeping China’s minority enclaves—most recently in Xinjiang, where Muslim Uighurs constitute the largest single ethnic group. China is still booming nationwide, but many export-dependent cities are hurting, so it’s no wonder that last week’s riots had roots in coastal Guangdong, the source of about one third of China’s exports. Earlier this year a Guangdong toy factory shipped in 800 Uighur workers as part of a government affirmative-action program. This angered Han Chinese workers, who did not receive the same access to free room and board as the Uighurs did. In June, a resentful Han worker spread rumors that Uighur workers had raped two Han women, according to state media. In revenge, a Han mob attacked Uighur workers, and as authorities dithered in arresting the attackers, Uighurs in Xinjiang took to the streets in protests that ended in violence.

The recent bloodshed was China’s most serious civil turmoil since 1989, when worries over inflation and official corruption were a key trigger for the Tiananmen protests and subsequent crackdown. Now, even though inflation isn’t a problem, perceptions of inequality are creating deep social rifts in China. The country has seen a sharp uptick in grassroots unrest: in 2008 the state reported 70,000 “mass incidents,” an increase of nearly 50 percent since 2005. In Xinjiang, race-based economic grievances play out across a huge canvas—the region constitutes one-sixth of the country land mass. Many Han believe Uighurs are ungrateful for the treatment they get from Beijing, including preferential job placement, less rigorous requirements on college-entrance exams and less strict enforcement of the one-child-per-family rule.

Uighurs, in turn, see their livelihoods threatened by Beijing’s calls on Han Chinese to “go west” and develop Xinjiang. Since 1949, the Han have grown from 6 percent to more than 40 percent of Xinjiang’s population. Even many well-off Uighurs are now critical of Beijing. Former entrepreneur Rebiya Kadeer—once touted by Beijing as the richest woman in China—says she was a big government backer until she realized official policies were designed to “keep many Uighurs poor and badly educated.” After Kadeer publicly criticized religious curbs and prison abuses in Xinjiang, she was jailed in 1999 on charges of revealing state secrets; when she was released in 2005, she was immediately flown into exile in the United States.

Last week Chinese Netizens vented angrily against the economic breaks given to Tibetan and Uighur minorities, especially now that provinces with large minority are receiving a generous share of stimulus funds. With economic competition intensifying, any hint of unequal treatment is likely to trigger more resentment at the grassroots, regardless of race. This is shaping up to be a long, hot summer for the Beijing Regime.

Comments on Goodness

I generally have no idea what Hamilton's Rule means. Nor do I have any idea what does game theory means. However, according to my contextual knowledge, altruism seems very subjective. To quantify it mathematically seems impossible (to me unless someone proves otherwise) and I personally find the article pointless because it is not exactly making any concrete point (as evidenced by the closing line "If goodness is a problem, then the answer─or at the very least, part of the answer─can be found in evolutionary biology." Note that there is no part in the article that addresses what this answer really is.)

Regardless, allow me to propose my views on goodness. Goodness, as the name implies, is good. It (usually) makes the doer and the recipient feels good. It makes the world a better place.

Did you really believe that? Well, I though I did.

However, at the same time it seems irrational. Expecting reciprocity is fundamentally unsound as "true goodness" is usually extolled as not expecting anything in return and is usually non-binding.

Furthermore, goodness is highly subjective. What is good for one person may not be so for another. If you are good only to a few people out of all the people with similar circumstance, you are biased, discriminating and prejudiced. You can even be applying cronyism, nepotism, and other unpleasant ideologies.

Moreover, most people (if not all) prioritise their own self-interest in front of the interest of others in some (if not all) affairs. This is contrary to the concept of goodness per se, but is the basis for capitalism to succeed. And capitalism is succeeding (despite the recent economic crisis).

All in all, goodness in itself is not viable. It is impossible for humans to completely exert goodness to its fullness on a large scale all the time. Therefore, we should dismiss fantasical ideals of goodness and face reality as it is: self-interest is always placed in front of goodness.

INTRODUCTION: Just for the Teacher

Streaking is okay. Think about it. When you see any (unclothed) animal running along, would you be thinking of expelling it from its lodgings? If not, then why would you want to do the equivalent to humans? Perhaps it is because you are some crazy vegan who thinks animals are superior to humans. Or perhaps it is because deep down inside, you are highly insecure and emotionally unstable and hence become afraid of these confident people who have the courage to streak. Their very act of streaking contrasts starkly and exposes the timidity inside you.

Streaking is Okay

Streaking is okay. Think about it. When you see any (unclothed) animal running along, would you be thinking of expelling it from its lodgings? If not, then why would you want to do the equivalent to humans? Perhaps it is because you are some crazy vegan who thinks animals are superior to humans. Or perhaps it is because deep down inside, you are highly insecure and emotionally unstable and hence become afraid of these confident people who have the courage to streak. Their very act of streaking contrasts starkly and exposes the timidity inside you.

When humans first come into this world, they are unclothed. Only upon entering human society, for practical reasons such as protection or safety or otherwise arbitrary reasons like conforming to religious or cultural requirements, then are clothes necessary. I would say that most rational streakers would take into account of their reduced personal safety and protection from the absence of clothes before streaking, hence that should be a moot point.

In other words, the point of contention is really the violation of religious or cultural rules, which are intrinsically irrational! Secularism has attained political correctness, hence the only point that really matters is cultural expectations. 

Now, let me point to communism and fascism: these ideologies has been criticised due to the authoritarian regime it generates; of how the state decides things for its people instead of vice versa; of how personal choice is being violated. If one were to condemn streaking, one would be essentially agreeing to how the culture of a society can violate the freedom and dictate the actions of any individual. What difference is there between this and communism and fascism? 

Now, of course you may claim that the "state" in those political ideologies are in fact a small group of priveleged politicians, whereas the culture of a society is defined by what the majority of its inhabitants accept. The counter is obvious: popular opinion should not affect what is right or wrong. Once, it was popularly believed that the earth was flat, but apparently that does not make it true.

Lastly, allow me to remind the remaining unconvinced people out there that streaking is entirely non-sexual. So unless you are the 'you' characterised in the first paragraph, why would you have any problem with seeing other people naked?

Argument is Okay, But Quarreling Isn't

"Exposition An argument is a piece of text reasoning trying to persuade its reader of something. It can be utter nonsense or sensible reasoning, which does not really matter as long as it manages to achieve its ends of persuading its reader of something. (I.e. the ends justify the means)

The importance of exposition arguments is augmented in democratic societies. Democracy works on the basis of persuading the majority to support you, hence a good exposition argument (not necessarily the truth) comes in more handily than truth itself. "

Anyway, quoting a dialogue from the movie "Thank You For Smoking", "if you argue correctly, you are never wrong". So here I shall give it a shot.

Support: Schools promote "correctness" over "creativity".

Have you ever have marks deducted in Maths, for a careless calculation mistake? It's not that you don't know the concept, but it is just that you unknowingly pressed a wrong operation when using the calculator, forgot to divide the diameter by half or simply copied the question wrongly.

But, on the other hand, have you ever gotten BONUS marks for using a spanking cool new cool method that your teacher has never taught, which you have never read up, but you just managed to make up on the fly? No? Well, me neither.

The above two scenarios sufficiently shows how correctness is valued over creativity in Maths. But the same applies in the allegedly important school subjects: In the sciences, facts are presented to you in nice packages known as textbooks. Is acing these subjects not a simple matter of understanding and memorising these facts and regurgitate them during the examinations? How often do you get to "find out" these facts on your own? How do chemists know that the world is made up of atoms? How do physicists prove the existence of black holes and other phenomenons? How do biologists know mantis shrimp can see in 12 primary colours?

Sure, you may comment on the sheer impracticality of instructing students to conduct procedures that illustrates all the already established facts taught in school. In fact, you may also claim that questions involving creativity is already part of the examinations.

To the former, I say that students need not conduct these epistemological procedures by themselves but should at least know what they are. Only then does a person truly knows something for a fact. 

When there is a thirst to do something (in this case acquiring and establishing knowledge), and the only way to satiate this thirst is to do something that has never been done before, this is where creativity kicks in. The Meselson-Stahl experiment is an case in point of how the desire to to find out if the nature of DNA replication that a creative and elegant setup is borne. By showing the students the manifestation of creativity in the past, they will be better able to let their own creativity manifests itself as they have the guidance of the past.

To the latter, I shall point to the unequal proportion: how many questions are testing on concepts and facts already taught and how many questions are testing on going beyond the textbook? 

I personally feel that our education system is largely packaging facts and concepts into curricula and simply requiring our students to memorise and accept them blindly. In a way, computers can do this better than us. Humans are great, not because of their ability to memorise correct facts (which is why we record things down), but because of their capacity to imagine and to invent; which is essentially the usage their creativity. This is why schools are not only promoting correctness over creativity, but also why doing so is definitely not in the benefit of mankind.

What is Exposition?

After the class on Aristotle and his philosophy, I shared such a sentiment regarding exposition:

"Exposition is a piece of text trying to persuade its reader of something. It can be utter nonsense or sensible reasoning, which does not really matter as long as it manages to achieve its ends of persuading its reader of something. (I.e. the ends justify the means)

The importance of exposition is augmented in democratic societies. Democracy works on the basis of persuading the majority to support you, hence a good exposition (not necessarily the truth) comes in more handily than truth itself. "

However, after reading internet resources, I learned that exposition is suppose to inform readers of something using facts. Remember the cliche of "show, don't tell"? Well, exposition is simply "tell, don't show". Now, after such a brutal simplification, I start to question the significance of the existence of the word "exposition", when one can substitute it with "tell or inform directly".

I can postulate several reasons (e.g. exposition sounds more sophisticated and concise than whatever I said), but no one really cares anyway.

With that said, always remember that JFK, 35th President of the US, said "Ich bin ein Berliner" during the height of the Cold War to inform that he is a Berliner (sort of). He was assassinated less than half a year later but even until now that is one memorable example of exposition. 

The End

Ich bin ein Affe.