By: Joel Irving
Welcome to the first installment of our four-part series delving into the complex and often contentious topic of Affirmative Action. This discussion aims to move beyond soundbites and explore the nuanced perspectives surrounding these policies. In this initial piece, we'll examine the core ideal of meritocracy, a vision often championed by figures like Candace Owens, and contrast it with the less-than-perfect reality of human behavior and historical discrimination.
Candace Owens often champions a vision of a colorblind society where individuals are judged solely on their merit. It's a powerful and, in many ways, appealing ideal. The notion that every person, regardless of their background, should have an equal opportunity to succeed based purely on their qualifications, hard work, and talent – whether in securing a job or gaining admission to a top-tier university – resonates deeply with the American dream. In a truly perfect world, this is precisely how things should operate. There would be no need for mechanisms like affirmative action because discrimination would simply not exist. Everyone would indeed be judged on merit, and the playing field would be genuinely level.
And Ms. Owens is absolutely right to highlight the fundamental principle that merit should be the ultimate arbiter. Who wouldn't want a surgeon who is the absolute best in their field, regardless of their race? Who wouldn't want a brilliant scientist leading groundbreaking research, or a dedicated and talented individual running a successful business, purely because they are the most competent? The idea of racial quotas or set-asides can feel inherently unfair, suggesting that someone less qualified might be chosen over someone more deserving simply to meet a demographic target. In a world where fairness and equality were organically present, such measures would be not only unnecessary but potentially counterproductive.
But here’s the rub: We don't live in a perfect world.
The uncomfortable truth is that while we aspire to a society free of prejudice, human history and contemporary reality are replete with examples of individuals and institutions actively discriminating against others. People, unfortunately, "do bad things." They harbor biases, conscious and unconscious, that can lead to unfair treatment. Doors are closed, opportunities are withheld, and judgments are made not on the content of one's character or the depth of one's skills, but on factors like skin color, gender, or origin.
It's also crucial to address a common misconception: there is no empirical data to support the assertion that colleges and universities are accepting unqualified applicants simply to fill racial quotas. In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against rigid quotas, deeming them unconstitutional. Affirmative action, as implemented legally, allows race to be considered as one factor among many in a holistic review process, alongside academic achievement, essays, extracurriculars, leadership, unique talents, and personal background. The goal is to build a diverse class of qualified students who can contribute to a richer educational environment, not to lower academic standards for any group. Universities strive to admit students who they believe can succeed academically and contribute meaningfully to their campus community.
This isn't just theoretical; it's a lived reality for many, and history offers stark reminders. Consider the fascinating, yet heartbreaking, story of Black jockeys in the Kentucky Derby.
In the early days of the Kentucky Derby, a significant number of the winning jockeys were Black. Between 1875 and 1903, Black jockeys won 15 of the first 29 Derbies. Isaac Murphy, a Black jockey, won three Derbies in the 1880s and '90s, a record that stood for decades. These were men of exceptional skill, courage, and horsemanship. They were winning because they were, quite simply, the best.
What's particularly relevant to the "lucrative" aspect is understanding their earnings. Jockeys in this era were among the highest-paid athletes in North America. For example, the legendary Isaac Murphy, at the peak of his career, earned as much as $15,000 to $20,000 per year. To put that in perspective, $20,000 in the late 19th century would be equivalent to approximately $700,000 to $1 million in today's money, depending on the exact year and inflation calculator used. Another prominent Black jockey, Willie Simms, earned a reported $10,500 in 1895, which would be about $400,000 in 2025. These were truly substantial sums for the time, far exceeding the average income.
However, as horse racing became more lucrative and gained national prominence, a disturbing pattern emerged. White owners and trainers, seeing the financial opportunities, began to systematically push Black jockeys out of the sport. This wasn't because their skills diminished; it was a deliberate, often insidious, effort to exclude them. Tactics ranged from outright intimidation and violence on the track to the denial of opportunities, with fewer and fewer mounts being offered to Black riders. Jim Crow laws and pervasive racism outside the track further cemented their exclusion. By the early 20th century, Black jockeys, once dominant and highly compensated, were virtually absent from the sport's highest levels. Their talent and merit were undeniable, but societal prejudice and economic self-interest ensured their removal.
This historical anecdote is a powerful illustration. It demonstrates that even when merit is abundantly clear, and indeed, when one group is demonstrably excelling and earning significant incomes, discriminatory practices can still arise to remove them from positions of advantage.
So, while the ideal of a purely meritocratic system is one we should always strive for, ignoring the persistent reality of discrimination is naive. Affirmative action, in its various forms, was conceived not as a way to undermine merit, but as a temporary and imperfect tool to counteract the deeply entrenched effects of historical and ongoing discrimination. It's an acknowledgment that the playing field isn't level, and that sometimes, proactive measures are deemed necessary to ensure that talent and potential, regardless of background, truly have a fair shot at being recognized and developed.
This concludes Part 1 of our series. In Part 2, we will delve into the arguments for why affirmative action is still considered necessary by its proponents today, exploring concepts like systemic barriers and the continuing impact of historical disadvantages. Stay tuned.
Comments
Post a Comment