** 2. Discrimination and reverse discrimination * *
Many countries in the world have anti-discrimination laws, such as the United States. The purpose of the "affirmative action movement" in the United States is to make those vulnerable groups get equal treatment.
In order not to discriminate against black and other minority students, many universities have introduced measures to take care of their enrollment. So, what is the result of this policy? Is it because of legal provisions and specific measures that discrimination disappears?
Let's look at it from a specific case.
1978 A very famous case happened in America. It is called "Director of the University of California v. Baker".
The plaintiff (Barker) is an engineer who participated in the Vietnam War. He is interested in saving lives, but he is over 30 years old. Because of his age, he was not admitted to a dozen universities.
At this time, he found that the University of California has a special clause to take care of the disadvantaged groups. Of the 65,438+000 places, 65,438+06 places are reserved for taking care of the disadvantaged groups.
Bucky thinks she is old and belongs to the disadvantaged group. So he submitted an application, saying that he wanted to be admitted as a disadvantaged group. In fact, his grades are only two points short of the admission line.
What he didn't expect, however, was that because he was white, the University of California never regarded him as a vulnerable group. So I told him he couldn't use this clause to enter school.
Bucky felt discriminated against, so he took the University of California to court, and finally the lawsuit went all the way to the US Supreme Court.
In other words, the University of California expressly stipulates that the disadvantaged groups should be taken care of, and the disadvantaged groups do not include whites. Is this clause discriminatory?
Originally, it was to eliminate discrimination against blacks and ethnic minorities, but new discrimination appeared. This is called: reverse discrimination.
3. If you can't treat white people badly, you can only take care of black people silently.
After the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the opinions of nine judges in the court were highly inconsistent, and * * * issued six awards.
Simply put, the mainstream opinion is that it is not unconstitutional for schools to take care of students according to their racial factors. However, it is illegal to implement a rigid quota system.
This means that you can take care of either side, but you can't take affirmative action openly, quantitatively and quota.
Finally, Bucky entered the school.
The most interesting thing about this judgment is that the judge has never understood a truth: since only 100 places are limited, it will inevitably be treated differently and discriminated against. Because resources are scarce, discrimination is inevitable.
4. Discrimination is inevitable, but how to discriminate is the problem.
In this case, due to the scarcity of admission places, students need to be selected, and there is discrimination if there is a choice, so discrimination is inevitable.
From the perspective of affirmative action, neither supporters nor opponents are qualified to say that they are neutral. As long as there is a position, there is prejudice, which is discrimination.
Since discrimination is inevitable, we should turn to two other questions: first, who has the right to discriminate? The second is who will bear the consequences of discrimination?
Because it is a school enrollment, all schools have the right to set standards and bear the consequences. Of course, the employer after graduation, that is, the undertaker of this consequence, also has the right to know.
The essential meaning of "discrimination" is not to look down on, nor to treat one party maliciously and unfairly.
The word "discrimination" is actually neutral.
This is a complicated case. If you are interested, you can find more information to study.
In this case, in fact, most people forget one thing:
Scarcity inevitably leads to discrimination.
Thinking from this perspective, we should not only consider choice, but also consider discrimination, that is, fairness and equality.
There must be fairness in the world, and we should also pursue fairness.
But is fairness and equality that simple?
If even discrimination is inevitable, how can we understand fairness and equality?
Take the national college entrance examination as an example, there is a bonus policy for minority candidates. Is this discrimination against other candidates?
At least from the starting point of policy, it is to pursue the fairness of the result. Because the educational resources in private ownership areas are relatively backward, the enrollment is reduced.
So, is this choice a kind of reverse discrimination against non-minority candidates?
This should be considered in the general environment, at least it is a relatively fair policy.
This also fully illustrates:
Where there is choice, there is discrimination.