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.