Liverpool FC Forum

[Kenny Kan]

Hi Burjennio,

I thought I'd bring this emotive and perhaps even unpalatable discussion we had in the Luis Suarez thread down here in general chat after reading Stanley Fish's write up on reverse racism. The link to it is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... lack/4638/

While I believe many people like Fish believe what they are doing is genuinely a good cause for social injustice, the paper he writes has failed to "convert" me into believing this to be the best solution to a complex issue. And here is why:

Firstly, I'd like to make two points regarding his analogy of reverse racism (which is a euphemism for, discrimination) to that of United Nation's 'leg up' they gave to the Jews in making them their very own Jewocentric state. The use of this discrimination can plausibly and nearly always leave another group of people feeling marginalised no matter the good intentions of such acts. In this case, the Palestinians are on the wrong end of this well intentioned boot and in their view have been marginalised "unfairly" by the existence and formation of Israel. Of course, Fish doesn't critically think or express how this other group of people feel, when they've genuinely been hard done by because a superior authority have undermined their own human rights infringements. And as we continue to look at this analogy Fish opens his argument with, in justifying discrimination on top of discrimination, we can see that this well intentioned solution hasn't brought peace and equality to the lives of many Jews/Palestinians living there. In fact it has arguably been a catastrophic 'balls-up' because for as long as I can remember this kind of "affirmative action" in the middle-east has only caused violence, conflict and death and still persists today. Fish hasn't thought of the lasting effect this piece of affirmative action has had on people, or if he has, he's certainly steered well clear of this poignant point in his article.

Secondly, as to quote a phrase from Ms Dianne Abbot, "white people love playing divide and rule" and this notion couldn't be any truer spoken in regards to the discrimination/affirmative action people like yourself and Fish applaud. This is because when it comes to academic or economic achievement and social injustices affirmative action seeks to put right a wrong based on the race of a person. The grouping and segregation based on anti-discrimination ideals is again discrimination in itself, and doesn't only discriminate against the "affluent majority" but discriminates against those who it seeks to help. This brings me to my second point about Fish's analogy with the Jews, in spite of the persecution, victimization, the holocaust and some of the most appalling acts of discrimination against them, the Jewish people are not exactly lagging behind in academic and economic achievement; in many cases they surpass the white race. Here we have a case of tacit assumption being made by others that because you or your people throughout history have been appallingly treated by society, you will need a 'leg-up' in society today to become a more successful citizen. Many Jews and even Chinese people under their own communist regime have debunked this well intentioned myth.

Policies of affirmative action make no attempt to assess the social disadvantage faced by individuals on a case by case basis. They too simply assume that certain races of people are faced with universal injustices as though their social disadvantages are all the same; making sweeping generalisations about people with different pigments to their own. This is counter-productive. Rather than look at these policies through a 'race' lens, it would be better to look at these disadvantaged instances on an individual basis. Where by for example, a white person who is brought up in a low socioeconomic area who had a poor education gets the same benefits and entitlements as a black person who comes from a similar background does. Wouldn't this be more a proactive avenue to pursue where 'truer' equality exists; without making anyone-other group feeling marginalised (Palestinian analogy inserted here) because they don't benefit from this preferential treatment?

When all is said and done, however, one objection to affirmative action is unanswerable on its own terms, and that is the objection of the individual who says, "Why me? Sure, discrimination has persisted for many years, and I acknowledge that the damage done has not been removed by changes in the law. But why me? I didn't own slaves; I didn't vote to keep people on the back of the bus; I didn't turn water hoses on civil-rights marchers. Why, then, should I be the one who doesn't get the job or who doesn't get the scholarship or who gets bumped back to the waiting list?"

I sympathize with this feeling, if only because in a small way I have had the experience that produces it. I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received official notice that I would not be included at the next level of consideration, and subsequently I was told unofficially that at some point a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities. Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was "unfair," because the policy was obviously not directed at me--at no point in the proceedings did someone say, "Let's find a way to rule out Stanley Fish." Nor was it directed even at persons of my race and sex--the policy was not intended to disenfranchise white males 

Above is an exert from Fish where he claims to have been on the wrong end of affirmative action. Incidently there are comments in there that you yourself stated are "passive-racial-aggressive", the whole "why me" thought process. Fish here justifies this as not being "unfair" because the policy wasn't directed at him etc. He reasoned why he hadn't been chosen for the next level of consideration. The problem I have with this is; how can Fish genuinely believe that every person turned down for a job consideration, for discriminatory reasons, reasons and concludes the way he has done? This, for me comes back to socioeconomic status, where Fish finds himself in the more affluent stratosphere of society, being a well educated lecturer up there in his ivory tower (most academics are so far removed from reality bless them), that he's either making the assumption people with a lower level of intellectualism should rationalise the way he has done here, or he is spreading his well intentioned reasoning's to the people who view his article in an attempt to influence their thinking about this. The latter idea may make a person grapple with their own reasoning where their primal instinct is to say "why me", just like the Palestinians have done; but to expect people to come full circle towards his line of thought is disheartening because at the end of the day he's promoting and reasoning ''two wrongs do make a right'' and discrimination against oneself is fair game. Where in wider society and law especially 'two wrongs certainly don't make a right' but here these rules are arbitrarily reversed to promote even more discrimination and ultimately hinder the pursuit of truer equality.

[Reg]

Kenny, are you implying you penned the above ditty?    

[Kenny Kan]

Kenny, are you implying you penned the above ditty?   :bowdown 

Yes, I did it just then.

[Reg]

Its not a St Mike?   

[Kenny Kan]

Its not a St Mike?   

I took my "vulgar" hat off and put on my "intellectual" one, you seem surprised. 

[Reg]

Surprised is an understatement, its rather like Lakesy having a baby, I didn't know you had it in you.