Sofia wrote:nimh-- I see you got a mini-blizzard response.
Sometimes, when I find myself under a similar snowdrift, it is frustrating to figure out who to respond to. I have found myself in the midst of a heated argument with six angry people
Well, I dont think any of you are angry, so thats quite OK ;-))
No but, yeh, actually, you're absolutely right, and I'm glad you picked up on what I might be feeling. Thanks <nods>. Cause I was already starting to feel guilty about not having answered yet, but at the same time felt a bit weighed down by what I would have to answer.
You see, diversity
is a topic quite close to my heart. Not necessarily AA as such or so an institutional arrangement per se, but the social and yes, governmental, ambition to promote an appreciation of diversity (of whatever kind) and to promote a society where each person has the same opportunities, regardless of social-cultural background.
Some here have already pointed out that all the discriminatory laws of old have been scrapped - that the formal, legal context thus is equal to all now (if I may paraphrase). But discrimination, as we all know, goes way beyond the confines of written and government-imposed rules and regulations. Discrimination is something that is played out in each social context.
Now some, more libertarian-minded people, might argue that if discrimination is a problem of the social context, of the context of human interaction, the solutions to it should also be social, not governmental. If people discriminate, when hiring people, when treating their colleagues or neighbours, when serving their customers or whatever else the context may be, then other people should work to reverse this trend, and the government should just stay out. But in my world, we
are the government, and the government is us; there is no dichotomy between the two. Every law is in the end a measure we collectively take to resolve one or the other social problem. If the social problem is continuing discrimination, then why not keep adopting or maintaining laws that counteract it?
The government should ensure a level playing field for all; in fact, I think most of us agree on this. The first posts here, as I understood them, seemed merely to suggest that AA was simply not
needed anymore, because we already
have that level playing field. I deeply believe this not to be the case. I
dont think the black kid across the street has a chance equal to the chance my children would have. I also think only that black kid would be able to say, really. You dont know what the effect of being black is until you live the experience yourself. (Even just anyone, to mention but a trivial example, who tried to get into the same clubs he usually got into himself without problems with a black or Muslim-looking friend for a change, will know what I mean). Of
course things now are a lot better than they were in the bad old days, absolutely, no issue. The only question is whether its been enough.
George reasonably points out that everyone faces cultural barriers, as people naturally group together and defend each others interests on the basis of profession, subculture, social stratum, etc - its the way of life, and its simply each of ours challenge to deal with it. But I can change, to some extent, my academic interests, my tastes in fashion, sport, music, art, my profession, too. One can not change one's skin colour, one's place of birth, one's family background.
When John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor, warns aspiring reporters about how "Journalism is a nasty, clubby little outfit which judges people on all the wrong sorts of judgements, like who they know, how old they are and what their background is as opposed to what they are themselves", one can take this, as he suggests, as something "you just have to accept and understand". (That's from
www.greatreporter.com). But one can also take this (especially if one is not an aspiring reporter oneself) as a sign that the world of journalism could do with the odd probe from outside and the odd legal parameter, to ensure talents from all communities, no matter what their "background" is, do get an equal shot. It would even do the world of journalism well. The same goes, of course, for any other profession.
As long as even those Afro-Americans, Indian Brits, or hell, women or people from lower class backgrounds who
did make it (yes, I'm including class as well as race and gender here, though I know this will probably put me right out of the debate here), assert that they had to work twice as hard as their colleagues to make it, we owe it to them to give them a leg up. And I have heard so many people reaffirm that this is, indeed, the case. I have read the research which showed that in simulated job interviews, confronted with applicants of different colour but with the same paper qualifications, the employer (or "employer") would still overwhelmingly conclude that the white applicant was better suited for the job - arguing the case with impressions of how he was more dynamic, more communicative, would 'fit better with the working environment of this organisation', seemed more reliable, etc etc etc.
I believe in equal opportunities. If, like george suggests (I think), it is a fact of life that there will always be inequalities of opportunity, then, in my view, we as a community have the obligation to always work to undo them as well. And considering I see the government as the political expression of our citizens' community, that includes that government taking the necessary laws and measures.
This kind of profound belief, (call it that), kinda comes with the territory, for me, which I probably should explain. I work for an NGO that strives to improve the representation of minorities in the media. Most of my colleagues are first- or second-generation immigrants, and they know from first hand how difficult it is for them to get the same chances in the media world a white Dutch colleague would get. My mother worked for the government, and later had her own office, striving to create new training and employment opportunities for women from minority groups. My sister is a producer of documentaries, most of which deal with multicultural issues - her boss is half-black, half-Jewish. My father runs his own project to empower small producers from developing countries in gaining equal opportunities on the world market. Yes, we
are "the multicultural mafia" <big grin>.
So, I feel strongly about the topic, and I knew in this thread I'd be faced with a tough crowd. Now theres only two options, in my mind, in such a situation: defend your case well and propose the best of arguments, data and research links you can find - or stay out. No use to do it half-assed - that would just do a disservice to the case. Considering I'm
really (believe it or not) trying to cut down on A2K, as well as on frustrating experiences in life, generally, I happily opted for the latter, because I knew I wasnt going to want to make the time to make the case as well as I would want it to make.
But just on my one question alone, several of you have suggested articulate, well-considered responses, and it feels a bit callous to then just leave it like it is. Conundrum!
So yeh, thanks for picking up on my dilemma <smiles>. As you'll have seen, I havent been able to
not make at least part of my "equal opportunities" case - be it without the exact data and research links after all. I wont have convinced anyone, but I'm glad to have taken the civility, after all, to respond to all your posts. I'm looking forward to new responses, but please dont mind if I use this half an hour for something else tomorrow night, ok? <grins> Sofia'll be able to explain why! <big smile>
