|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]
Two weeks ago, my wife, Susan, underwent major surgery for breast cancer. Happily, the cancer was caught so early (via routine mammogram) that it was barely a Stage 1 cancer. The surgeon was confident that the cancer was completely eradicated.
My wife had both the oncological surgery and the breast reconstruction at the same time at a private clinic that specializes in breast cancer and breast reconstruction. It is an elite medical center run by a surgeon who hires the best people money can buy.
In light of that, after the surgery I asked my wife if she’d had a chance to meet the anesthesiologist (we had previously met both surgeons).
Given that the combined surgeries would last about seven hours, the choice of anesthesiologist was particularly important. Knowing the quality of physicians at that clinic, I assumed that whoever the anesthesiologist was, she (all the staff is female) would be among the best in Los Angeles, if not in America. And indeed, my wife could not speak highly enough about the anesthesiologist. The amount of anesthesia was so well chosen and so well administered that, in contrast to her previous experiences with surgery, which left her groggy and sleepy for the rest of the day and overnight, my wife was not only wide-awake and alert almost immediately after the surgery concluded, after seven hours of surgery she was able to edit my column just two hours later.
This world-class anesthesiologist was a black woman, a fact that made me think about affirmative action.
Had I had any suspicion that this was a clinic that engaged in affirmative action, I would have wondered about this anesthesiologist: Was she chosen, at least in part, because she was black? But knowing this clinic, I had no doubt that anyone they hired would be chosen solely because she is an outstanding oncological surgeon, plastic surgeon or anesthesiologist.
How in good conscience can anyone who cares about any minority advocate affirmative action? Isn’t it obvious that wherever affirmative action exists, any member of the affirmed group will always have a cloud hanging over them?
From the very beginning of affirmative action, I maintained that, although blacks deserved special consideration in hiring and college acceptance — given their long history of being discriminated against — affirmative action would only hurt them.
And, indeed, that is precisely what has happened. Affirmative action has been a disaster for blacks and for society as a whole. By lowering standards in order to enroll more blacks at elite colleges, for example, the fact that many K-12 schools fail to provide black students a solid educational foundation is masked, and black students have disproportionately dropped out of colleges for which they were simply not academically prepared. And just as devastating, blacks at elite colleges are regarded with suspicion: Are they at this university because of their academic excellence or primarily because of their color? Affirmative action renders such suspicion inevitable.
Imagine, then, how you would feel if you were a black student at an elite college, knowing how just about everyone regarded you — especially if you were gifted and hard-working and deserved to be there.
It is hard to believe that whites who push for affirmative action actually care about blacks. Like most “progressive” positions, it seems that the primary aim of holding such positions is not to actually do good, but to feel good.
When confronted with this challenge to affirmative action, progressives have no response. Because there is no response. Instead, they point to the white students who have been accepted at elite universities either because their parents are alumni or because their families are big donors to the university. To cite a perfect example, this was the headline of a recent article in the left-wing Guardian newspaper: “Affirmative action is over in the United States, but only for Black people: Don’t worry, privileged white students can still rely on their parents’ money and connections to get into Harvard. Yay!”
That claim is undoubtedly true, but it in no way invalidates the challenge presented here — that of the affirmative-action cloud that hangs over black students at elite universities. If all students at Harvard whose parents’ money and connections facilitated their getting into Harvard were identifiable, they would have the exact same affirmative-action cloud hanging over them. This is easily demonstrated. Imagine that all beneficiaries of parental clout had to wear a badge around campus that said, “Legacy Admission” or “My Parents Are Big Donors.” How would they be regarded? That badge would be the equivalent of black skin.
The moment it is known that any group is favored thanks to affirmative action, people — including members of that group — will wonder how capable that individual is.
That is why Scott Kirby, the CEO of United Airlines, is such a fool in announcing that half the enrollment of United’s pilot school will be reserved for women and people of color. He has ensured that passengers will begin to wonder just how capable their black or female pilot is. Which is not at all the case today. No one thinks twice if their pilot is black or female. We all assume they got to the cockpit on the basis of merit and are therefore perfectly capable. Just as my wife did when she met her black anesthesiologist. Because the clinic doesn’t practice affirmative action.
Those who support this are either following along stupidly or want the racial tension it causes just as you describe. The suspicion then leads to resentment defensiveness and the racial tensions continue as is planned in some corners. You are too kind hearted to see the evil intent, I think.
My very best wishes for good health to your wife. I’m happy she had access to excellent care and has such a loving husband.
Back in the early 1980s I had a procedure that required general anesthesia. The anesthesiologist was black. I didn’t think anything of it and it turned out he was the best doctor treating me. But with today’s evisceration of meritocratic standards in medicine, I would have a hard time letting a black anesthesiologist anywhere near me because I would have no idea whether he got in because of merit or DEI. Thanks a lot, Left. You’ve made me a racist. Congratulations.
I see your point, and I feel the same way. This does bring up the whole definition quandary. I was raised with a different understanding. The way I was taught, your circumstances would be discrimination based on race, not racism. From 3 generations I heard the same explanation: racism is the belief that God did not make us all the same, that some races were superior to others. Recently the leaders of BLM gave us a perfect example. They said God made white people inferior. Genetically we had melanine deficiencies which caused us to be mentally deficient.
Then there was discrimination, which in and of itself is not bad. We all do it (ford v chevy, etc). It is bad when you base it on race.
Then there was prejudice. A pre-disposed assumption based on group identity. The Tiger at the front door example. “If you see a 500lb male tiger at the front door, do you open the door and let him in to see if he is in a good mood and let you pet him, or will he have you for dinner.” what factors determined your decision?
It sure seems the definition has changed substantially in the last 50 years. Assuming language is a tool to convey ideas. How is it even possible if what words mean are a moving target? (General observation, not directed at you Kasandra)
Altruism, the moral code of sacrifice and self-sacrifice is the moral code that affirmative action rests upon.
Wanting the best treatment YOUR money can buy for YOUR wife is a SELFISH and SELF-INTERESTED act.
“The meek shall inherit the earth”, “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.” – Corinthians 10:24, “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.” – Luke 6:35, “, “Judge not that ye shall not be judged” – Matthew 7:1
“What altruism demands is the payment of a debt—an unchosen moral debt you owe to others….
If people believe they have unmet needs, you are legally required to meet them. You may not insist that a person’s actual interests are not advanced by irrational means—by coercion, by fraud, by injustice. You may not tell the needy that what they truly need is the opposite: a system in which individual rights are respected, force and deception are outlawed and justice is upheld. You may not admonish them to live off their own efforts rather than mooch off the work of others. You may not tell them they are harming themselves by seeking the unearned. If they believe they are entitled to your sacrifices, it is selfish of you to value your judgment over theirs.” – Peter Schwartz, In Defense of Selfishness: Why the Code of Self-Sacrifice is Unjust and Destructive
We are commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves, not instead of ourselves. Colluding with evil in the name of selflessness is as much a distortion as looking after number one without considering the possibility that there might be a number two.
You are COMMANDED to love your neighbor as yourself?
What if your neighbor is NOT lovable at all? What if he steals your house from you? Are you going to love a neighbor that is out to harm or destroy you?
Because that is precisely what this religious COMMAND actually and literally means.
But will you now say, “Oh no, that’s not what it means at all, you are misinterpreting what the command to love your neighbor as yourself really means”. ?
In that case the Bible is literally wrong and you’re deciding to rewrite it to fit what you wish it to say.
Context, THX. I see no altruism here, but mercy, given in its proper time and proper place. The lawyer, like you, asked “Who is my neighbor?” wanting to justify himself:
Luke 10: 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, [j]when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
“The meek shall inherit the earth” Do you know what this statement means? The original (actual) definition of meek is in short, one who can keep his/her cool. It referred to an individual who had the where with all to exact destruction and violence, but had the stable mind to ‘keep his sword sheathed’ … until such time as action is necessary, then “Katie bar the door.”
It does not mean, those who get walked all over win the day. That is just not accurate.
We have ourselves an INTERPRETER of Holy Scripture.
Who is to decide what Holy Scripture really means and by what means are we to reach certainty about what Holy Scripture really means?
Christians persecuted, imprisoned, excommunicated, killed, and went to war with each other for centuries over interpretation, exegesis, heresy, and blasphemy.
Great point.
The truth is there are lots of problems with translating languages and even more with accurately translating ancient languages. Words and descriptions merely point to a reality. They may or may not be distant and wholly inaccurate; or they may be closer and convey meaning more accurately while never wholly spot on.
“Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s SELFISH interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.
But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.
The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.” – Ayn Rand
How about trying to aim for the middle of that scale from 0-100, where 0 is sacrificing oneself for others and 100 is living a useless and lonely self-centered life?
“Like most “progressive” positions, it seems that the primary aim of holding such positions is not to actually do good, but to feel good.”
This might have been true a generation or two ago, but today the goal is to do evil, and as much as possible.
Affirmative action is in fact the repeal of Brown v Board of Education (1954) and a reinstatement of Plessy v Ferguson (1896). Plessy held that separate facilities were constitutional as long as they were separate but equal. That’s affirmative action in a nutshell. Now we have separate admission standards (which are not even equal) separate dorms, separate curricula, separate commencement ceremonies (lots of them) and now a separate national anthem.
If one wanted to keep African Americans segregated and in continual poverty, nothing would have done it better.
Maybe that was the idea in the first place.
Well, sir, when one considers all the Democrat Party has done for blacks and other minorities, …… it has merely become glaringly obvious recently for those who consider history and their values.
And that is what I saw when this started happening in the USAF as well as the airline cockpits. I flew with a highly capable black captain & can’t praise his ability highly enough. Then I flew with a black idiot. He’d failed numerous check rides and FAA upgrades over & over just to pass enough to move up because he’d parade his NAACP attorney into the company with threats. His antics became known, like running off the end of the runway, not once but twice, or seeing angels on his wing, or going into a bar in his uniform. So when I flew with the competent black pilot most of our flight attendants wanted to know if that was the idiot black pilot as they wanted to get off the trip. When I go to the ER and see a black doctor I’m very cautious.
Forgive me for somewhat raining on this parade, but if that doctor only hires women than those aren’t the ‘Best people that money can buy’, but the ‘Best women money can buy’.
There is a distinction.
The only difference between hiring only women and affirmative action is in this case the doctor hires based on a certain level of excellence, but still limits their candidate pool based on a physical biological attribute.
I won’t be flying American Airlines anymore.
Me neither. Not with any airlines that places skin color over intelligence, hard work, skill development, experience. The best pilots have been former military pilots. Now that the military is woke, that will change too.
Last year I had a colonoscopy.
Everyone knows that is an unpleasant and stressful procedure, even under the best of circumstances.
The doctor who treated me was black and he was excellent, kind, caring and thorough. He spent a lot of time with me before and after the procedure. He did not act like he was in a rush to get to the next patient.
After it was over I told the doctor and the hospital that I wanted him, and only him, to do my next colonoscopy.
I don’t want him because he was black. I want him because he was excellent.
I would have felt the same way if he was white. Race did not matter. The quality of his care did.