Philosopher views
GUINIER’S IDEAS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- GUSTAVO ESTEVA
GUINIER’S IDEAS WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE1. THE SOLUTION IS TO MEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, NOT GIVE UP AS GUINIER DOES Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. The problem is that "for more than two decades, affirmative action has been under sustained assault," as Sturm and Guinier write in their opening sentence. Though they do not say so explicitly, they seem resigned to the fact that the Supreme Court, which has already eviscerated affirmative action through a series of decisions, is now poised to deliver the coup de grace. Against this background, Sturm and Guinier declare that "it is time to shift the terrain of debate." The entire thrust of their argument is to explore alternatives to affirmative action that will broaden access of minorities and women to jobs and universities. At first blush, this strategy may appear to be a sensible concession to political reality. However, two troubling questions arise. First, are Sturm and Guinier capitulating to the anti-affirmative action backlash and prematurely throwing in the towel for the sake of an illusory consensus? Second, would their proposed reforms of the selection process, even if enacted, provide the access to jobs and opportunities that are today secured by affirmative action? The logic of Sturm and Guinier’s brief can be stated as follows: 1. Affirmative action is assailed by critics as violating cherished principles of "merit." 2. On closer examination, the "testocracy" that is used to assess merit is neither fair nor functional. 3. Therefore–alas, here the syllogism runs into trouble. Sturm and Guinier could have concluded that the case against affirmative action is specious and therefore affirmative action should be upheld. As the saying goes, "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."
Instead Sturm and Guinier make a case for overhauling the selection process that evaluates candidates for jobs and college admissions. To be sure, there are compelling arguments for abandoning standardized tests that favor privileged groups who, aside from the advantages that derive from better schooling, have the resources to pay for expensive prep courses. Sturm and Guinier also make a compelling case that it would be fairer and more productive to judge applicants on the basis of performance criteria, rather than scores on "paper-and-pencil" tests. The problem, though, is that they implicitly advocate these reforms as a surrogate for affirmative action policy. They may tell themselves that they are driven by realpolitik, but they end up acquiescing to the reversal of hard-won gains and falling back on reforms that are unlikely to be enacted in the foreseeable future. Their ideological enemies will revel in this retreat to a second line of defense by two law professors who are identified with the cause of affirmative action. Nor will Sturm and Guinier get the concessions they are bargaining for. Is this not the lesson of Bill Clinton’s ill-fated proposal to "end welfare as we know it"? 3. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GUINIER’S PROPOSALS WOULD WORK Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth and Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy BOSTON REVIEW, December 200/January 2001, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.6/steinberg.html, accessed May 1, 2002. What evidence is there that overhauling the selection criteria would open up avenues for women and minorities? In most large-scale organizations–corporations and universities alike–employees are routinely evaluated by superiors on an array of performance criteria. Is so-and-so a "team player"? Does she do her job well? Does he have good communication skills? Does she make the tough decisions? Does he demonstrate leadership? Such judgments are easily tainted by personal prejudices, especially when the people doing the evaluations are white and male and the people being evaluated belong to stigmatized groups. Indeed, studies have consistently found that performance appraisal ratings of women and people of color are prone to bias. GUSTAVO ESTEVALIFE AND WORKGustavo Esteva was born in the mid-1900s in Oaxaca region of Mexico. As a child, his mother seeking to “free” her children from their indigenous ancestry banished his grandmother, a Zapotec Indian, from his home. Meanwhile, his father reminded his son of their once elite status in Mexico under the dictatorship and presidency of Diaz. Of his childhood, Esteva remarked, “I was very confused with these two contradictory and diverse traditions in my house.” However, as Esteva notes, “then came development.” Taken in by the promises of economic growth and the opportunity to give back to the community, Esteva held lucrative positions with IBM, Proctor and Gamble and several Mexican Companies. However, he soon quit his work because “I refused to do what they asked of me, to cheat the workers and the community”. Next, Esteva entered a more political life. First, he worked with guerilla movements inspired by Guevara, Marxism, and the Cuban Revolution. Following his work with these efforts, Esteva took a post with the populist presidency of Luis Echeverría Alvarez (president: 1970-76). Utilizing the power he had garnered as a successful businessperson, Esteva helped lead government administered aid and development programs throughout Mexico. In 1976, on the brink of becoming a Minister in government in the next administration, Esteva left his work with the government because he was convinced of two problems with his work. First, he felt the programs designed to help were doing significant harm to their supposed beneficiaries. Second, he felt that that the interests of the people and those of government didn’t coincide all too often. As he explains, “I had a very good balcony with Luis Echeverría. I was next to the place where they were taking decisions and I saw very well that that logic of decisions is not the logic of the people or in the interests of the people. So I quit.” In the time since, Esteva has embarked on an extensive and prolific grassroots organizing and political action career in both Latin America and internationally. Esteva has held posts at the UN, advised and negotiated in aid of the cause of the Zapatistas, and served as Vice-President of the Inter-American Society for Planning. He has also developed and aided in the creation of hundreds of NGO’s designed to help improve the quality of life of indigenous and other marginalized people. In addition to this political action, Esteva has pursued the life of a “de-professionalized” intellectual giving lectures, teaching classes, and writing prolifically on the topic of development. One of his most noted works, Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Culture, with Madhu Suri Prakash, offers one of the most pointed and cited critiques of the modern development paradigm in the field. Additionally, his resume includes over a dozen other texts and a litany of other articles that articulate his argument. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|