Skip to main content

Death of Affirmative Action? Imagined Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine!


Table of Contents

Not too long ago, the media were awash with news and commentaries about how the US Supreme Court ruled against the Bill of Affirmative Action on the basis that it was discriminatory because it was against the fundamental principles of equality under the law.

This essay aims to review the concept of Affirmative Action and its correlations and attempt to imagine a society where Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine is hoisted as the only mechanism of selection to any university, employment, the appointment of judges to any court, or even the supreme court and any decision affecting the people.

What is Affirmative Action?

In the United States, it is a conscious effort by the state, government, and voluntary private programs to improve employment, educational, and federal government appointments to include members of groups who have historically been discriminated against because of their race or gender. The criteria for this affirmative action are based on these characteristics: age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual orientation.

The above are offshoots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination because of colour, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, federal funding, public education, public accommodation, the jury system, race, religion, and so on.

Affirmative action has different names and meaning for different countries. In the UK, it is known as ‘protected characteristics.’ But it has a different meaning in the UK Equality Act 2010. The law protects people against discrimination, harassment, victimization, or bullying in the workplace when seeking employment or admission to any private or public services. They are known as the nine protected characteristics: Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

In the United States, the first form of affirmative action was seen in the Wagner Act of 1935, when workers were given the right to form and join unions.

However, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, affirmative action was established to improve opportunities for African Americans as one of the ways of tearing down the walls of discrimination and breaking the code of colour bar.

Ever since critics of this system have not ceased to argue against it as being unfair and a type of reverse discrimination. Some have argued that it would lead to the hiring of less qualified people and admitting unqualified students into universities.

The Equal Protection Clause

One of the arguments against affirmative action is that it promotes what is referred to as reverse discrimination, which is treating members of majority groups unfairly because of the policies made law to protect members of minority groups. Policies that are often deemed preferential treatment.

When the US supreme court decided on the affirmative action cases from Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC), the court argued that the various programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and as such, they ruled against affirmative action in both cases.

As a nation of laws, the US takes seriously the letters and perhaps, the spirit of the constitution. The clause which came into effect in 1868 states that: “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The question to ask at this point is: Is the equal protection clause argument universal? Because there can be other nuances of affirmative action in the same institutions that can be viewed as a type of cultural chauvinism.

University Scholarship Programs

We understand scholarship awards as grants paid by either an organization, state or federal government, or private citizens to support students in education, and these awards are made because of the student’s academic excellence or other achievements. In most cases, these scholarships are conditionally set not on academic merits but because of a student’s national origin, gender, or even continent.

In some other instances, scholarships are awarded to some students because of their performance in sports, music, or even cheerleading.

The most atypical award at times is made because of a student’s privileged position. The student is admitted to an A-list university because of the numerous donations by their father or mother to the university.

The Equal Protection Clause does not sanction ableism. One can argue that some scholarship programs of some universities tend to discriminate against the out-group members. A scholarship that is meant for students from Asia or Europe or Africa, any student from outside these continents is discriminated against. A scholarship that is meant for cheerleaders or football heroes, any student who is not a cheerleader or footballer is discriminated against. A student is admitted to an A-list university because their father or mother made several donations to the university, any student whose parent cannot and does not donate to the university is not admitted to the university notwithstanding their academic excellence. This is a kind of indirect purchase of a place at a university.

Negative Action

There are even more serious problems that tingle the ears when it comes to discrimination because of ableism. A few years back, it was on the news how celebrity parents were purchasing university places for their children. They bought places for their children in A-list universities, places they would not have secured because they did not merit them. This is discrimination against the poor who otherwise qualified for the places at the same university but are not given the opportunity because the highest bidder has closed the list.

Negative action does not end with parents purchasing university places for their children. Some students have gained admission into A-list universities because the professors or vice-chancellors are blackmailed.

As humans, we are not perfect. At most, we want to be seen as truthful and honest in all we do and at least, we shun lies, hypocrisies, and double standards. How can we maintain and live up to the claim that we are all equal before the law?

Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine

I will propose a machine that is capable of selection based on excellence, merit, and qualifications. This imagined machine is what I call Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine.

This machine is configured in such a way that it is colour-blind, age-blind, language-blind, belief-blind, disability-blind, sex-blind, gender-blind, race-blind, and sexual orientation-blind. Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine has been ingesting data of all types, shapes, and colours for the past 20 years.

When a position is open for example, the position of a bank manager in bank A, interested candidates will apply and send their applications to Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine. Once it receives the applications, it will cut off every personally identifiable information from the application and generate a number identifiable to the application and applicant and send it to the applicant. The machine will process all the applications and produce at least three best candidates for the position based on their merits.

The same machine has a section for interviewing the selected candidates. It will issue invitations to the candidates based on their identifiable numbers for an interview. It will interview candidates following the selection process based on job and personal specifications and pick out one candidate from the three. Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine has no human intervention and thus runs objectively.

In this imagined Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine, what do you think will happen in different workplaces, congress, supreme court judges, and other judges’ appointments? The machine will select the best qualified, the best judge, the best congressmen, and women, and the best people running the country.

Because of the competence of Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine, judicial biases are removed from the judicial systems, the morons are no longer elected to office as congressmen/women or presidents, and swindlers and looters are no longer selected or appointed as managers of banks or ministries. The society is stable because there won’t be careless or ill-thought legislation, and financial crises will be things of the past because banks have the best-intentioned people running them; there will be fewer riots and demonstrations on the streets because the decisions that affect the people are the correct and consultative ones. Miscarriage of justice will be no more because only those who truly commit crimes are put in jail, no more unjust convictions. The universities will be very diverse because they followed Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine selection for the admission process.

With Uncle Sam’s Merit Machine, affirmative or negative action will be things of the past and the true meaning of equality under the law will be enacted by the machine.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s A Rebel? Camus’ The Rebel and the NigeriaSphere

In the contemporary Nigerian landscape, the word "rebel" is often weaponized by those in power. To the state, a rebel is a transgressor of the Cybercrimes Act, a "disturber of the peace," or an agent of destabilization. However, if we look through the eyes of Albert Camus, the 20th-century philosopher of the absurd, we find a different definition; one that validates the citizen’s cry for good governance not as an act of subversion, but as an act of profound affirmation. The Camusian "No": An Act of "Yes" Camus begins his treatise with a startlingly simple observation: "What is a rebel? A man who says no." But this "no" is not a denial of order. When a Nigerian citizen takes to social media to demand transparency or decry the absence of the rule of law, they are saying "no" to a specific limit that has been breached. Camus argues that in saying no, the rebel is simultaneously saying "yes" to the existen...

The Self-Alternating Theory: Why We Can Never Truly Be the Other

We live in a culture obsessed with the exercise of perspective-taking. We tell ourselves to "walk a mile in another person’s shoes," if our core self: our moral compass, our intellectual agility, our refined tastes, and our personal ethics remains intact during the journey. We imagine slipping into the lives of others like costume changes in a play: maintaining our internal "I" while operating the external machinery of someone else's life. The Self-Alternating Theory challenges this fundamental illusion. It posits a sobering premise: you cannot be the other, whether in their best or worst selves. If you were truly transplanted into another person’s existence: inheriting their exact neurobiology, trauma, muscle memory, history, and social incentives you would not reform their life from an enlightened, outside perspective. You would either collapse under the weight of an alien context or become the very thing you previously judged, admired, or misunderstood. ...

The Self-Alternating Theory (Part II): The Fractured Mirror of Context

In the first iteration of the Self-Alternating Theory, we dismantled the illusion of portable identity. We demonstrated that if you were transplanted into the life of a failed leader, a sex worker, a saint, or an elite athlete, you would not reform or master their world from an enlightened external perspective. You would either crumble under the weight of an alien context or absorb their exact trajectory. Part II extends this radical lens across the fundamental fault lines of human experience: relationships, race, geopolitics, physical embodiment, and the outer boundaries of species existence.                        The underlying principle remains absolute: we do not take our intact "I" into another person's reality. The reality reshapes, overwrites, or breaks the "I." Relational Systems: The Model Partner vs. The Toxic Household We routinely look at fractured marriages...

Names, Visions, and Imageries of the Crow tribe of Native Americans

Table of Contents The Crow: Who are they? Names, Visions, and Imageries Apsaalooke (or Absaroka) The Separations of the Bands The Mountain Crow (Ashalaho) The River Crow The Kicked in the Bellies Chiefs, Their Names and Meanings Chief Long Hair (Issheuhutskitu) Chief Sore Belly (Arapoosh) Chief of the Camp (Ashbacheeitche) Chief of Plenty Coups The rich cultural heritage of the Native Americans is subject to different interpretations beyond the actual meanings as understood by the natives. The Crow tribe’s names, visions, and imageries are not spared from these relative interpretations. It is claimed that these names, visions, and imageries denote exaggerations, triumphalism, or cultural symbolism. Also, their name can visually reveal the true meanings of descriptive language and metaphors or similes in words and expressions.   The objective of this writing is to examine these names and imageries to differentiate the Europeans’ interpretations of the names and lifestyle of the Cr...

Accessibility: from Philosophical Perspectives

Introduction This article aims to examine the concept of accessibility from some philosophical principles: Utilitarianism and the principle of ‘one and many.’ Doing this will bring to the fore the reason why accessibility is the cynosure of inclusivity. Understanding Accessibility Accessibility refers to the design of products, devices, services, or environments that are usable for everyone. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their abilities or limitations, can effectively interact with and benefit from a product, technology, environment, or service. The term ‘accessibility’ has its origin in French. It can be said to be borrowed from the French “ accessibilite ,” meaning “the quality of being able to be reached or accessed.” This French term might have been influenced by the late Latin accessibilis , from Latin accessus (past participle of accēdere , meaning “to approach”, “to enter”, “to access”, or “to log in.” According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the ...