Affirmative Action- An Analysis of Both Sides

Since the days of Alexis de Toqueville, commentators on American society have tackled the complicated subject of racism in America. Two modern scholars, Glenn C. Loury and Walter E. Williams, have some things in common. Both are African-American men who grew up in the years prior to the civil rights movement. They both hold Ph.D. degrees in Economics, and both are professors at distinguished East Coast universities. But here the similarities end. Although neither are liberals, Laury is a moderate who favors social interventions such as affirmative action policies, and Williams is a dedicated libertarian who rejects affirmative action on principle. In their respective writings, “Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended” and The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, Williams and Laury both address whether or not affirmative action is a valuable tool in combating racism and elevating the status of minorities in America. However, where Laury is able to discuss affirmative action as part of a comprehensive solution to a complicated problem, Williams makes a faulty case against the policy by cherry-picking examples of where the system inevitably fails certain individuals.

Affirmative action policies cannot purchase racial equality instantly. Rather, it is an investment which must be carefully managed with other resources in order to yield fruit down the road. Racism is a complicated issue that affects society at many different levels. Work needs to be done individually, as families, as neighborhoods, as cities, as states, and nationally in order to sow the seeds for an egalitarian future. The key word in a successful approach to race is nuance, which is also the best word to describe Laury’s book.

Laury’s writing style is unapologetically academic, which can mean that his ideas are not accessible to a general reader the way that Williams’ essay is. This is a shame, as understanding that racism is complicated is the first step to overcoming the problem. However, it may not be possible to tackle such a complicated issue without using complex language. His writing makes a strong case for working on eradicating the stigma associated with being black in America. Laury argues effectively that as a society we must have the courage to enact brave policies to right historical wrongs without making a mistaken association between elevating minorities and denigrating whites:

“[T]aking account of race while trying to mitigate the effects of this subordination, though perhaps ill-advised or unworkable in specific cases, cannot plausibly be seen as the moral equivalent of the discrimination that produced the subjugation of blacks in the first place. To see it that way would be to mire oneself in ahistorical, procedural formalism” (Laury 167).

Laury is not afraid to recognize that in certain, particular cases affirmative action may be improperly applied, or it may fail to achieve its goal of equal opportunity. However, as he explained above, we should not be afraid to use a remedy simply because it is not 100% effective, especially when it is highly useful. Conservative arguments against the funding of social programs such as affirmative action as a form of extortion used to fund bleeding-heart liberal largesse is a short-sighted view. Spending money on improving the education and social status of disadvantaged Americans actually saves money and creates wealth in the future in the form of lower crime and greater economic activity. This is especially true when interventions can be made to assist those born to disadvantage earlier in life.

Affirmative action is needed because racism can only be overcome when individual people are sufficiently exposed to diversity in a way that makes a substantial difference. Laury recognizes this and explains that affirmative action can take the abstract concept of human equality and make it easier to grasp by providing a working example:

Suppose one begins with the contrary premise, that there is no “black” or “white” way of thinking. Suppose further that conveying this view to one’s students is a high pedagogic goal. The students being keenly aware of their respective racial identities, some racial diversity may be required to achieve the pedagogic goal. Teaching that “not all blacks think alike” will be much easier when there are enough blacks around to show their diversity of thought.” (Laury 170)

Tokenism is not enough. Academic and professional settings will still continue to think of the thoughts of an individual black person as being representative of the whole so long as there are no other examples of black individuals present. Society cannot truly progress beyond racial stigma until opinions as vigorous and different as those of Williams and Laury can be seen to exist.

Williams does not lack credibility to write on a complicated economic topic such as the effectiveness of affirmative action. However, he does have obvious biases that make his argument seem like a foregone conclusion. “Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended” was published by Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank founded by billionaire Charles Koch, who is best known for supporting political policies that benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the most vulnerable members of American society. Williams regularly sits in as a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh radio program, and is a devotee of Ayn Rand’s philosophies, which argue that there is no point in offering help to the disadvantaged as such actions merely sap the resources of more capable individuals.

This bias is evident throughout Williams’ essay. Rather than analyzing the bigger question of whether or not affirmative action policies help Americans overall, Williams focuses on anecdotal cases where the question of fairness is raised, such as when a black or Hispanic employee is promoted over a better-qualified white worker. His anecdotal example of a white police officer in Memphis who was passed over for promotion while black co-workers were advanced is useless in determining the overall value of affirmative action policies. There could have been any number of reasons why the police officer was not advanced that had nothing to do with affirmative action. Even if this singular case was an example of how one individual was harmed, the error was in this particular implementation of affirmative action, not the policy itself.

Williams has a strong devotion to Libertarian principles of individual rights above all else, causing him to have a blind spot when it comes to the collective good. This attitude is best exemplified by his characterization of affirmative action as a method of punishing individual whites and giving their opportunities to blacks:

“If, as so often is the case, the justification for preferential treatment is to redress past grievances, how just is it to have a policy where a black of today is helped by punishing a white of today for what a white of yesterday did to a black of yesterday?” (Williams 176)

Williams also engages in pointless alarmism by claiming that “racial resentment” will result from targeted policies attempting to elevate minorities, as if there is only so much success to go around. In his view, there must be makers and takers, and it is not possible for society to be elevated collectively. Despite this fear mongering, Williams is unable to provide a single example of how such resentment would manifest. Instead, he engages in generalizations:

“But the dangers of racial preferences go beyond matters of justice and fair play. They lead to increased group polarization ranging from political backlash to mob violence and civil war as seen in other countries.” (Williams 177)

This quote, which seems to belong on a script for the Rush Limbaugh program rather than in the pages of a university textbook, can only cause confusion. To which countries is Williams referring? Of what nature will this political backlash be? To which incidents of mob violence is he referring? There are no examples of civil wars sparked entirely by racial preference. Even the United States Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of whether individual states or the Federal government had the final say over the implementation of the law. Williams’ conclusion is alarmist and unsupported. Williams fails to prove that affirmative action policies hinder the progress of racial equality.

It may not be completely fair to compare “Affirmative Action Can’t Be Mended” and The Anatomy of Racial Inequality because Williams was writing a short essay for a publication aimed at a general reader, and Laury wrote an entire book for an academic audience. For this reason some things, like the time to develop an argument and the ability to support theories, will leave the odds unfairly tilted toward Laury. But even if an affirmative-action style boost were given to Williams’ essay, his fundamental logic is still hopelessly flawed. Because the long-term, comprehensive view seems to offer a more promising solution to the problems of racism, Laury rather than Williams offers a better solution. In 1993 Stanley Fish, who compared racism to cancer and affirmative action to chemotherapy in his article “Reverse Racism or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black”, Fish dismissed rejection of affirmative action based on isolated incidents of where certain white individuals suffered or certain minorities benefitted unfairly. Chemotherapy, he argued is just as invasive and disruptive to normal body function as cancer. A strong disease requires an aggressive remedy if the body of society is to be saved. Williams, in focusing only on a few examples of how affirmative action has failed certain adult individuals, is myopically attempting to reject an effective medicine simply because of a few bad side effects. Laury, on the other hand, recognizes that treatment of a disease as complicated and persistent as racism is a lengthy, complicated, and difficult process, and that although there is no one perfect, instant solution, programs such as affirmative action are an important part of the treatment.

Photo Credit

Op-Ed Discussion- Same Sex Marriage

Since the revolutionary beginnings of the United States of America, not just the idea of political authority but the very idea of social policy has undergone massive transformation. In particular, great strides have been made in civil rights for women, African-Americans, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. In no way has the expansion of American civil rights been more evident than in the legal right to marry. Full fundamental rights to marriage used to belong only to white land-owning males. But in the 237 years since this nation was founded, that right has expanded further and further, and is now on the verge of including same-sex couples.

When this nation was founded, the only individuals who were fully empowered by the institution of marriage were white heterosexual cisgender males. It was not until after the Civil War that African-Americans were guaranteed a constitutional right to marry, although this right did not fully cover African-American women and completely ignored unions between white and non-white individuals. Many years later, women were given the right to be treated as equals in marriage, no longer to be treated as possessions from a dowry. In 1967 interracial marriage was legalized in the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. Now Americans are trying to extend these same rights to same-sex couples. At the root of this the debate lays the essential question- do same sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage? The answer to this question must be reflected in the United States Constitution itself. Despite the insistence of some traditionalists, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the original constitution. Like any issue considered non-essential to the function of the federal government, family law is an issue that has been left to the states to decide. However, like many issues there can be enough inconsistencies in state and local law that eventually federal ruling is required. America must now turn to the fundamental values described in the Declaration of Independence when ruling on this controversial issue.

Our fore-fathers boldly declared “all men are created equal [..] with certain unalienable Rights [..] among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If marriage is considered a civil liberty, and all citizens are equal under the law, it seems illogical for the government to dictate the precise path for an individual to find happiness in life. Personal freedom and self-governance is a fundamental American value. At times, this critical value is misconstrued and overcomplicated in political debates.

Marriage in the United States has always existed in an ambiguous place between religious and state authority. Some regard it purely as a religious ceremony, others as secular. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court has already made decisions expanding marriage rights to certain groups of Americans on a federal level, the argument that marriage is purely a church matter is invalid. It has been made a civil liberty. At the very foundation of the concept of marriage is love. Love is not a concept that can be governed by law or any formula of prediction. To the contrary; the very nature of love is that it is an intensely personal issue that cannot be governed by outside forces. Americans are equal in their right to love who they want. By denying same-sex marriage the country is only degrading the love of people. To say one person’s love is not valid because of their choice of person seems to collide with the notion of respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Many proponents of traditional marriage cry foul under the belief that if the government legalizes gay marriage it will somehow force their religious organizations to incorporate this lifestyle choice as well. This is spurious. LGBT lifestyles are viewed as immoral by some people, just as alcohol and gambling are. However, no churches have ever been forced to open casinos or bars simply because gambling and alcohol are legal. So long as a church remained a private organization it would be free, as it should be, to dictate its own policies. The dictates of a deity, religious text, or spiritual leader to their private followers could never be amended by secular law. Likewise, no secular group, no matter how liberal, could ever change the rules of a private organization composed of private members. Fortunately for all Americans, the United States Constitution was constructed in such a way to allow for this flexibility in the application of public law that protects civil rights and the private exercise of free conscience.

An individual American may not agree with same-sex marriage, but that does not give any one person the right to impose their moral code on others. Many gay couples are religious and feel that the solemn commitment of marriage is an important aspect of their faith. Their doctrinal beliefs may be different from others, but their beliefs are entitled to equal protection under the law as spelled out by the Fourteenth Amendment. Diversity of thought is the defining trait of the American character. Our national motto is E Pluribus Unum — from the many, unity. The United States cannot champion the cause of diversity while denying rights to individuals entitled to the entirety of the American dream.The very root of marriage is love. Not tax breaks, not a ceremony, not a religion. By denying gay couples the right to marry, and in essence the right to love, we only deny our country the great opportunity to expand our acceptance and love of each other.  A couple sitting at home having dinner together isn’t going to tear down the foundations of American values. If anything it strengthens it. There are fewer things that are more American than hard work, commitment, and passion. Fewer things demonstrate those qualities better than marriage. Just as the case of Loving vs. Virginia proved, it is my ardent hope that the United States will recognize that the commitment of two loving individuals can only expand the American dream rather than destroying it.

Photo Credit:

http://cedartreewedding.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gay-Wedding-Photography-West-End505.jpg

The Continuous War in Afghanistan- Effect on the Environment

Afghanistan’s history in the modern era is defined almost completely by war. For the last 11 years, a coalition led by the United States has been waging war in the country. Before that, there were many decades of civil war and conflict with the Soviet Union and British forces. The Afghanistan war has cost the United States more than 578 billion dollars to date, but the total cost of the war may take its toll in ways that are not so easily calculated in terms of currency. It is difficult to find reliable data on the destruction of Afghanistan’s environment that has happened both as a byproduct of war and due to neglect. What research that exists is incomplete or inconsistent. It is ironic that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) called their most recent assessment “post-conflict” when there remains an ongoing state of war. One of the few facts that can by stated for certain is that the level of environmental damage sustained in Afghanistan is a collateral effect of the ongoing cycle of war, destruction of infrastructure, and lack of resources to plan for the future. The absence of an effective central government and a fragmented society ruled mainly by local warlords means that Afghanistan has yet to experience the sort of environmental planning that first world countries can enact. The continuous destruction of wealth, human capital, and infrastructure combined with the hazardous byproducts of war machines are a major threat to the country’s water supply, forests, native species, air, and quality of life.

Water is essential for all forms of life, and the Afghan water supply has been severely damaged by cycles of continuous war. In the capital city of Kabul, water infrastructure has not only been poorly maintained but in many areas it has suffered damage from explosive weapons and misuse by residents. UNEP reported that “[it] loses as much as 60 percent of its supply due to leaks and illegal use. It covers perhaps a quarter of the city’s population and operates for only eight hours a day due to electricity shortages” (UNEP, 2003). A major externality of the war is not only the destruction, but the lack of regulation on the water supply. There is not enough water for the city and the water available is contaminated. Their water supply is “overwhelmed with wastewater infiltration and [is] ridden with E.coli and coliforms. Clean water only reaches between 12 to 23 percent of the urban population” (UNEP, 2003). Without the funds or personnel to run public utilities or safety oversight, Kabul’s water supply is cross-contaminated with sewage. Despite being “supplied by four major well fields . . . none of them have sanitary protection zones near the water intakes – and one is located just 1 km from the city’s waste dumpsite” (UNEP, 2003). Afghanistan’s Taliban regime was more concerned with enforcing religious law than in enacting practical government. After the U.S.-led coalition toppled their leadership the new central government was weak and overwhelmed by the task of peacekeeping. The resulting power vacuum, which is even worse in rural areas, means there is little hope for immediate help. UNEP has, however, created a plan for recovery. Their assessment of the Afghan environment includes the initiatives to stop unmanaged deep well drilling, collect information on existing deep and shallow wells, and survey natural wetlands (UNEP, 2003). Stopping the misuse and contamination of the Afghan water supply is essential. However, due to the ongoing war, the creation government programs and laws have been slow. It was not until 2005 that Afghanistan created the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) which allowed them to begin drafting environmental laws. Furthermore in 2010 the Afghan government had just begun to draft waste management regulations, which is the most essential step in combating contaminated water (UNEP, 2010). Afghanistan is slowly making an environmental recovery but the question remains whether or not it will be quick enough to keep up with the destruction of war, especially when it comes to having clean water. Every living thing depends on water, but unfortunately the human-centric nature of war leads to neglect of the most basic of life’s necessities and the intricate chain of plant and animal life that make up the ecosystem.

Deforestation has been a major problem for decades in Afghanistan. With a country that has been in and out of war for centuries, it is not surprising to see that the constant turmoil of government power has allowed their people to exploit their nation’s natural resources. The United States’ war in Afghanistan has exacerbated a problem that already existed. Afghanistan’s “increasing economic and political insecurity, grazing, dry land cultivation, and timber harvesting” has significantly accelerated the deforestation rate (UNEP, 2003). Most tragic is the country’s own denial of the damage that has occurred. Afghanistan’s internal estimates of the crisis are significantly lower than reality. Government officials reported that only 30 percent of Afghanistan’s forests have vanished. Studies performed the United Nations showed a loss of 52 percent in the past two decades alone (UNEP, 2003). Deforestation not only contributes to increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere, but it also destroys the habitats of numerous animal species, including endangered and endemic life forms.

One of the most concerning things to environmentalists has been the wellbeing of Afghanistan’s diverse wildlife population. Amidst the conflict of humans, Afghanistan’s wildlife has suffered intensely as collateral damage. In 2003, UNEP noted that much of the country’s wildlife was listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ (IUCN) list. Tragically, the presence of United States and coalition military forces has intensified the problem. In the case of the snow leopard, “UNEP observed that snow leopard skins from Badakshan are being sold in fur markets in Kabul, primarily to western aid workers and soldiers. While these buyers may be unaware of its endangered status, their actions may encourage poachers to increase the snow leopard hunt, driving the species closer to extinction in Afghanistan” (UNEP, 2003). Whether the reason is ignorance or blatant disregard for the snow leopard’s status, it is safe to say that the species is close to becoming extinct within the country. The ICUN reports estimates that only 100 to 200 leopards remain in the country today, with their numbers plummeting (Jackson, 2012). In 2009 Afghanistan made a large step towards conservation by releasing their first endangered species list which included 33 species (Platt, 2009). Then, only nine months later, extended the list to include 15 more species including the large-billed reed warbler, often called “the world’s least-known bird” (Platt, 2010).

The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has not only taken a toll on the country’s animal population, but its civilian population as well. The mortality rate of the civilian population has skyrocketed due to indirect fire and bombings. It has been reported that one in four children do not survive beyond the age of five years- one of the highest child mortality rates in the world. Over 200,000 women have been made widows by the war, leaving remaining women and children without economic or social support in a society dominated by patriarchal tribal rule (UNEP, 2003). These statistics can only paint an indirect and abstract tragedy of the individual hardships that can lead to poor stewardship of Afghanistan’s environment and culture. The rugged, isolated landscape of Afghanistan “thwarts surveys, and a lack of journalists on the ground makes rigorous media-based casualty counts ‘extremely difficult’” (Bohannon, 2011). Politics also have prevented transparency of their negative externalities. For publicity reasons, “it seemed that the military kept no record of [casualties]—that is, until last year when WikiLeaks showed otherwise. […] [The] leaked documents note 4024 Afghan civilian deaths” (Bohannon, 2011). Without accurate information about the damage being done to Afghan society, little can be done to accurately plan for the nation’s future. Conflict has not only been an indirect cause of environmental and societal degradation. The presence of unexploded ordinance, improvised explosive devices, and hazardous waste has made entering areas in need of conservation too dangerous to enter. Afghanistan’s Band-e-Amir National Park is one of the leading examples. UNEP reported that it “was one of the front lines for fighting between Taliban and resistance forces during much of 2001.” Innumerable mines dot the landscape, especially the road that leads from the city of Bamiyan to the park. 13 civilians aboard a passenger bus died in July 2002 when it triggered an anti-tank mine buried in the road. The UNEP has declared the entire south side of the park’s lake system too dangerous to access, meaning that no work can be done to reverse damage or allow the public to enjoy the site (UNEP, 2003). Without a serious effort to remove weapons of war from the land, Afghanistan will continue to suffer direct death and destruction when humans and animals encounter explosive devices as well as the indirect damage dealt when sensitive sites are too perilous to enter, even to perform conservation work.

Afghanistan has suffered from a continuous cycle of war through the centuries that has continued to this day. Although the current war continues to take its toll, the fledgling democracy is taking steps toward environmental recovery. Perhaps the cycle of war can be broken, for the first time in history, as this nation is the focus of intense international efforts at modernization and infrastructure development. Many programs focus specifically on improving Afghanistan’s ecosystem, such as the USAID Accelerating Sustainable Agriculture Project. This program is “designed to revitalize and improve global competitiveness of Afghanistan’s agriculture sector” while specifically teaching and encouraging environmentally responsible practices (ASAP, 2012). The Wildlife Conservation Society has engaged heavily with the Afghan government, particularly in dealing with the problems troubling Band-e-Amir National Park as well as the threatened status of the Snow Leopard (WCS, 2012). Programs such as these offer critical aid to the people and government of Afghanistan when they stand at a crossroads between continuing a cycle of war or entering a modern age of peace and sustainability.

Works Cited

“Accelerating Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP).” USAID Website. Nov 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. <http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/USAID/Activity/1/Accelerating_Sustainable_Agriculture_Project_ASAP&gt;.

“Afghanistan Post-Conflict Environmental Assesment.” United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Environment Programme, Jan. 2003. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/afghanistanpcajanuary2003.pdf&gt;.

Bohannon, John. “Counting the Dead in Afghanistan.” Counting the Dead in Afghanistan. Science Magazine, 11 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256.full.pdf&gt;.

Jackson, R., Mallon, D., McCarthy, T., Chundaway, R.A. & Habib, B. “Panthera Uncia.” Ounce, Snow Leopard. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22732/0&gt;.

Platt, John R. “Afghanistan Names Its First Endangered Species | Extinction Countdown, Scientific American Blog Network.” Afghanistan Names Its First Endangered Species | Extinction Countdown, Scientific American Blog Network. Scientific American, 9 June 2009. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2009/06/09/afghanistan-names-its-first-endangered-species/&gt;.

John, Platt R. “Endangered in a Dangerous Land: Afghanistan Expands Its Protected Species List, including the world’s Least-known Bird | Extinction Countdown, Scientific American Blog Network.” Endangered in a Dangerous Land: Afghanistan Expands Its Protected Species List, including the world’s Least-known Bird. Scientific American, 6 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2010/03/06/endangered-in-a-dangerous-land-afghanistan-expands-its-protected-species-list-including-the-worlds-least-known-bird/&gt;.

“The UNEP Programme in Afghanistan: Annual Report 2010.” United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Environment Programme, July 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/portals/155/dnc/docs/afg/Afgh_AR10_web.pdf&gt;.

“World Conservation Society – Afghanistan.” World Conservation Society. Aug 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. <http://www.wcs.org/where-we-work/asia/afghanistan.aspx?gclid=CJ-KybPy4bMCFQhyQgodgmgA2w&gt;

Photo Credit

(http://www.phantomreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/small-war-afghan-landscape.jpg)