Christopher Hitchens, former communist and trenchant (if grating) atheist, has recently argued that Henry Gates should have used his 4th amendment rights to keep a nosey constable at bay than to claim the officer was acting in prejudice. Though I would agree with the conclusion, Hitchens provides little more than personal anecdotes of how he himself has been harassed by the police without any justification for the position, so I'll do it for him.
It's pretty obvious that those on top of the North American social hierarchy have missed few opportunities to abuse those below. Cortez whooped the Aztecs, Pizarro did a number on the Inca, economienda and slave-driven agriculture gave privilege to the privileged. This practice has fortunately been losing legitimacy and its legal underpinnings. That the pendulum is swinging back is to be welcomed, but could it swing too far?
Now, I don't want to argue that some amount of institutionalized preference in favour of the historically downtrodden is illegitimate. How are those in a society that rewards education and privilege supposed to pull equal if they are starting from a position of ignorance and destitution? I've raved before about how important I think it is for everyone to have a fair shot and how tricky things get when fairness seems unattainable. There was no racial caveat before, and there never should be. I think, though, that legal interference to redress fair but unwanted outcomes has several negative side-effects. First, it could create a system of reverse discrimination (by the way, when does reverse discrimination mature and become just regular discrimination?). Second, it could lead those receiving the preferential treatment to become dependent on it. The man who gets a fish delivered to his door every day is going to be a lousy fisherman. Third, and maybe most seriously, it reifies the prevailing categories. There is a whole branch of arithmetic devoted to determining what fraction of First Nation blood one must have in order to qualify for benefits under the Canadian Indian Act. If we want a society that is colour blind, or at least colour tolerant such that it becomes a category devoid of normative content, then how are we supposed to get there if we're always thinking of rules and metrics to make distinctions on colour/race/sexual orientation/long list of etc?
I really respected that Barack Obama didn't play the race card during his campaign. He had his folksy moments, but they were as affected as his competitor's. And y'know, I think it worked. He got elected! So how do we maintain the post-racial momentum and capitalize on post-racial gains? I propose that, in cases of potential discrimination where a general right that applies to everyone would achieve the same outcome as a particular one that reproduces the categories that nobody wants anyway, argue generally. Use the 4th amendment. It would be wonderful if the general argument became recognized as the stronger one.
In other news, I've recently run across not one, not two, but three (!) articles expressing sympathy for the "hardships" faced by millionaires (and billionaires) in these tight times. I have little sympathy for a bus driver or telemarketer who overleveraged him/herself to speculate on the value of his/her house, but I have absolutely none for those who did essentially the same thing on a larger scale and will have much softer landings. A rich man might well get into heaven, but he ain't gettin' any sympathy for having to drink domestic beer.
Now, I don't want to argue that some amount of institutionalized preference in favour of the historically downtrodden is illegitimate. How are those in a society that rewards education and privilege supposed to pull equal if they are starting from a position of ignorance and destitution? I've raved before about how important I think it is for everyone to have a fair shot and how tricky things get when fairness seems unattainable. There was no racial caveat before, and there never should be. I think, though, that legal interference to redress fair but unwanted outcomes has several negative side-effects. First, it could create a system of reverse discrimination (by the way, when does reverse discrimination mature and become just regular discrimination?). Second, it could lead those receiving the preferential treatment to become dependent on it. The man who gets a fish delivered to his door every day is going to be a lousy fisherman. Third, and maybe most seriously, it reifies the prevailing categories. There is a whole branch of arithmetic devoted to determining what fraction of First Nation blood one must have in order to qualify for benefits under the Canadian Indian Act. If we want a society that is colour blind, or at least colour tolerant such that it becomes a category devoid of normative content, then how are we supposed to get there if we're always thinking of rules and metrics to make distinctions on colour/race/sexual orientation/long list of etc?
I really respected that Barack Obama didn't play the race card during his campaign. He had his folksy moments, but they were as affected as his competitor's. And y'know, I think it worked. He got elected! So how do we maintain the post-racial momentum and capitalize on post-racial gains? I propose that, in cases of potential discrimination where a general right that applies to everyone would achieve the same outcome as a particular one that reproduces the categories that nobody wants anyway, argue generally. Use the 4th amendment. It would be wonderful if the general argument became recognized as the stronger one.
In other news, I've recently run across not one, not two, but three (!) articles expressing sympathy for the "hardships" faced by millionaires (and billionaires) in these tight times. I have little sympathy for a bus driver or telemarketer who overleveraged him/herself to speculate on the value of his/her house, but I have absolutely none for those who did essentially the same thing on a larger scale and will have much softer landings. A rich man might well get into heaven, but he ain't gettin' any sympathy for having to drink domestic beer.
"It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle."
ReplyDeleteI always quite liked that verse, though my Sunday school teacher tried to tell me it didn't literally mean what it said. I thought she was wrong and said so; still do. Funny how conservatives are all for literal readings of the bible until they find something they don't much like.