The Other Caste System
The Curious Case of Positive Discrimination
I am writing this as a follow-up to my previous piece The New Caste System. In this piece, I aim to address the unexpected consequences of so-called positive discrimination.
Before, I raise too many eyebrows, allow me to indicate that I am strongly in favour of affirmative action/positive discrimination, but only from an economic perspective.
What Is It?
Positive Discrimination, Affirmative Action, Reservations, these are terms used around the world for a system to protect and advance specific groups which have previously experienced institutional harm.
Why Economic-Based Positive Discrimination?
I believe that positive discrimination ought to be based upon economic class, rather than race, for the following reasons:
- Affirmative action ought to create a more ‘level playing field’ for ALL disadvantaged people regardless of race. Therefore the best measure is economic status.
- The best marker of disadvantage is a lack of economic resources. A disadvantaged person, I believe, is one whose parents were not well-educated, they come from a poor background and lack economic resources, lack a strong career network, and he or she went to poorly performing schools in long-suffering areas.
- If, for example, Native Americans are the most disadvantaged group and most deserving group then they would still receive the appropriate protection based upon their economic class. In other words, a poor Native American would still receive affirmative action. Thus, there is no reason that poor white coal-miner’s daughter who would be the first in her family to earn a university education ought to have her admissions displaced by a middle-class minority; it would be unfair and non-redistributive.
- It reaffirms the concept of a meritocracy so no one can question and disrespect a person who has earned her position.
- It is patronising and subtley racist to have to constantly ‘be protected’ and be held to a lower standard as a measure of success. This does not lead to equality or equal treatment.
The United States
In the United States many would argue that Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are deserving of affirmative action in order to redress past harms. However, by looking backwards into the past we create a system whereby a current generation of people are being harmed for the errors of their ancestors or even those whom they had no relation to (if they are also recent immigrants). Moreover, this creates a clear, distinctive, and inevitable resentment amongst the ‘privileged’ or those in the majority, as they not only feel one has come upon his or her current achievement through such positive discrimination, but also, that one could not have done so without it.
Many would dub the need for affirmative action as the ‘subtle racism of lowered expectations.’ The most dangerous issue here, however, is that it is shown according to a Princeton study, that the vast majority of those benefitting in these minority groups are suburban and middle class who are on equal footing with most of their White and Asian peers. This means that poor urban and rural youth from these minority groups (those who need the most protection) continue to be disadvantaged. This leads me to the assertion, that the only form of affirmative action that ought to exist must be based upon economic class.
Edit: I thought it important to add that California, Washington, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nebraska, amongst other states have banned affirmative action based on race or gender.
The Socialist Perspective
In contrast to the United States, in the United Kingdom and in France, university admissions are largely colour-blind. Some positive discrimination does occur by demanding greater admissions from government schools rather than private/independent schools. Nonetheless, a prevailing attitude is that a government ought not to enact positive discrimination because it is considered incongruent with socialist beliefs of treating all peoples in the same manner.
I am of the firm belief that the government ought not to divide us by our race, colour, creed, gender, or ancestry. Yet, it should do a great deal for those who do not have the strong networks, contacts, and resources when pursuing education and career opportunities. While far from perfectly executed, I do believe this European approach is more equitable.
Reservations and Caste
Now, having highlighted and proffered brief arguments in favour of economic positive discrimination; I will turn to an example where the division of people for the sake of gaining advantage has run amok; in India.
As most are aware, orthodox Hindu belief created a caste system. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Sudras, and the Casteless (disgustingly known as Untouchables).The basis for it was originally that each person is of a different mindset (priestly, warrior, merchant, or worker) and ought to perform their duties and responsibilities to society and to their families as such. Over time, this became engrained, being passed down generation to generation until a rigid and horrid system was created. What you may not know is that within the four castes there are tens of thousands of sub-castes with their own perceived hierarchy.
After achieving independence India sought to redress past discrimination by creating reservations for the lower castes. Over time this came to include Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backwards Castes; this soon created a vast amount of reservation. Yet, it is not just mere positive discrimination; these reservations are hard percentage quotas for university admissions, government jobs of all sorts, and even religious institutions. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, 83% of all university admissions and government jobs are reserved regardless of scores and merit. The breakdown is as such:
Schedule Classes — 15%; Schedule Tribes — 6%; Backward Classes — 25%; Physically Handicapped — 3%; Ex-Service Men — 1%; Women — 33.33%. Recall that these are rigid percentage quotas!
At this juncture, it is important to identify that, though it was once the case, one can no longer so easily equate caste with economic class. Particularly in the cities this is becoming less and less so. Make no mistake, there are innumerable poor people of higher castes and a growing number of very wealthy lower caste persons. Additionally, many sociologists would argue that these sorts of reservations have lead to a severe ‘brain-drain’ from India over the past decades as many of the best students are unable to gain admissions into local universities.
Thus, we must ask ourselves how it reached this point. It is quite simple; in order to appease voters and gain power political parties made promise after promise to various subcastes that they would receive reservation if their party came to power. And so, caste politics developed to the point that political parties are formed and voting is done purely based upon caste. Indeed, it is not the most disenfranchised but often the most populous castes that win out.
The case of women in India is peculiar as well. Indeed the status of women has been generally better amongst the higher caste, however, much of the rural female population remains illiterate and discriminated against.
Interestingly, the Muslims and Christians in India who converted from Hinduism still retain their castes and hold to that powerful hierarchy. Moreover, Muslims and Christians often benefit the most from reservations in India (as they are minorities), regardless of the wealth and education many of them hold. This creates a very dangerous idea of giving advantage based upon religion, whether one practices or not.
Again, should not the goal of positive discrimination be redistributive for the deserving, regardless of caste, creed, and religion?
A Tangential Comparison
An interesting consideration would be to compare the concept of caste in India to the Western World. It would be a mistake to believe that this is exclusive to India! Kindly reconsider. Take the surnames Miller, Porter, Smith, and Cooper for example. A person working in a flour mill was once obliged to take on the name Miller as an identification of his position, a Porter was a guard or luggage carrier, a Smith worked as a Blacksmith, whilst a Cooper would have held the duties of making wooden barrels. Read even a turn of the century American novel and you will find it laden with socio-economic bias based upon one’s ancestry. In fact,putting aside the obvious atrocities against Blacks and Native Americans, let us not forget that Jews and Catholics (recall the shock of JFK’s election) in the US were discriminated against even until recently. The only difference is the Western World has, largely, moved past this; whereas India’s democratic ideals are a falsehood.
In Close
Once more I would posit that those from lower income households are at a deep disadvantage in terms of the schools they attended, having to work as teenagers, having less-educated parents to help them with their homework, and a plethora of other issues.
In close, I believe that in India or anywhere else in the world, dividing people by background, religion and previous experience exacerbates resentment and division.Punishing the current generation to rectify past atrocities is also dangerous and damning.
If we are truly committed to levelling the playing field, affirmative action of any sort ought to be based upon low-income.
