Affirmative action unfair to applicants

One of the Nazis’ first steps in liquidating European Jews
involved establishing a quota system for education and employment
based on population percentages. Under this system any person who
belonged to a constructed group that held too high a proportion of
seats was likely to lose his or her position.

The justification for this scheme used the same logic as is now
used by those in favor of affirmative action: population
percentages must determine end results. In Nazi Germany, when
population percentages did not reflect enrollment or employment,
the Germans called it Jewish manipulation and greed.

Today, in the United States, we label a lack of correlation
between population proportions and end results
“discrimination” or “inequality.”

In the end, regardless of who benefits from these quota schemes,
certain individuals whom society labels as over-represented will
lose positions that they deserve.

Groupism hides beneath any system that uses population
percentages as a means of determining end results. This framework
places aggregate percentages above individuals. When expelling Jews
(and Gypsies, Czechs or any other “race”) from certain
positions in society, the Nazis first had to create the binary of
German and non-German. With this distinction, society could dump
individuals into either category.

For the Nazis, any ounce of Jewish “blood” in an
individual’s grandparents made him or her a non-Aryan.
Everyone applying for a civil service job had to provide German
officials with proof of Aryan descent. If any question about an
individual’s “race” existed, an expert on racial
research would make an “official” determination.

When implementing this law, German officials encountered many
difficulties, as do the bureaucrats of our universities, because
the underlying concept ““ race ““ is so fallacious. The
goal of this scheme was to destroy individuals by forcibly putting
them into artificially created groups.

Race is subtler in America. We talk about Latinos, whites,
Arabs, etc., but rarely do we go to the great definitional lengths
of the Nazis. Yet “race” is a paramount framework for
much of our thinking.

Unlike the police reports that label a person
“black” or “white” for purposes of physical
description, racial frameworks ascribe generic personality
characteristics to vastly varying individuals. Thousands of
reckless connotations come to mind when we speak of a race. Notice
that, unlike culture, race vaguely connects certain traits to
one’s physical appearance and genetic history. This is most
apparent in affirmative action.

With affirmative action an individual is classified by the
notion of race. Law schools use many euphemisms when asking for an
applicant’s race, but, in the end, the idea is
tantamount.

Some institutions dodge the issue by asking applicants what
group they most closely identify with. But it would be highly
unlikely that any of these institutions would allow Eminem to apply
as an African American. What’s more, Egyptians and South
Africans may correctly identify themselves as African American.

Affirmative action cares not for these individuals’
identifications. The assumptions behind affirmative action are
clearly the same as the Nazis’: groups determine
individuals.

The end results of affirmative action are no better than its
assumptions. Simply put, affirmative action limits Jews from the
civil service and institutions of higher learning.

When we a priori give preference to individuals because of their
membership in a certain group, we inherently remove some grounds
for the hiring of another.

In the legal profession, Jews constitute a higher percentage
than they do of the overall population. Because of this (even
though they are members of a “minority” group), all
individuals labeled as Jews receive no preference. With a limited
number of openings available in law schools, these Jewish persons
face a de facto disadvantage to those labeled as black, Latino or
Native American.

Important in the idea of zero-sum decisions is that, even
without direct quotas, any a priori preference has the same effect
as quotas. Even if people labeled Jews are able to still attend law
school, the net effect is a shifting of this group to lower-rated
institutions. The only difference between this and the actions of
the Nazis is of degree and stated goals.

While many individuals make use of racial preferences, in the
long run these preferences will only hurt them and society as a
whole.

The constant, forced shuffling of groups to match population
percentages is never justifiable. Affirmative action does not call
for the liquidation of Jews, but it does exhibit many of the same
assumptions as those of the Nazi regime. Such ideas must cease to
exist if our society is to ever respect the integrity of the
individual.

Rabenn is a fourth-year political science and history
student.