GAAPP Transnational Seminar: Saturday, June 13, 2009:
Afternoon Session: Reframing Affirmative Action Across Borders:
Locating Effective Strategies
(workshop in 2 groups)
Group 1: Representing Brazil
NOTES:
Meritocracy (Against Affirmative Action)
1. quotistas have been as successful as others or better
2. merit in diversity of scholarship/classroom
3. superiorly performing quotistas raise level of academics of institution
4. meritocracy is a myth because need equality for a true meritocracy (equality of resources, access to education, no racism, no poverty, access to opportunity)
5. access to university should be for all (not those considered “smartest”)
6. vestibulars do not test objective intelligence
DEBATE: Lady de Almeida and Thula Pires
Lady de Almeida: Anti-Affirmative Action
Main Arguments:
-Brazilian inequality is structural
-cannot advocate the Affirmative Action policies of Brazil because they do not take into account how the policies will bring about a racialization of the Brazilian population
-in Brazil, there is no racial segregation like in the US; blacks and whites get along very well; Affirmative Action policies will end Brazil’s racial harmony
-the AA policies are also problematic because they ignore meritocracy; we are all equals, we are all humans; I cannot agree with a policy that treats people so differently; AA will bring in unqualified students to universities and unqualified employees to jobs
-therefore, I am in favor of policies that focus on social and economic status to combat things like poverty; Brazil’s social inequality should be fixed through universal policies, not through policies specific to certain races
Thula Pires: Pro-Affirmative Action
Main Arguments:
-the reality is that meritocracy does not give access to higher education to everyone because there is a racial bias in Brazil
-only some groups have access to university education/more professional occupations
-for admittance, Brazil uses a test called the vestibular, but it is not “objective,” like it claims to be; students who were educated in private high schools are much more prepared for this kind of test
-addressing the argument that quotistas (those who benefit from AA) are underqualified, there are many studies that show their tremendous success in universities
FINAL WORD:
-tests like the vestibular exam in Brazil must be modified; they are outdated and subjective; they favor students who have had a privileged primary and secondary education
-criteria for university admission should be reevaluated
-we should not focus on changing things at the primary education level right now; we cannot wait for 10 more years; we must begin instating change at the university level right now
Group 2: Representing India
NOTES: (Against Affirmative Action)
1. It’s not race/caste→its class
-racism is not the issue; it’s because of poverty; once you address this, there is no problem. Everyone is equal. Dalits/Blacks face injustice regardless
2. Introduces unqualified and ramifications
-define “qualified.” What are the parameters before the argument can take place
-eg. AA students in Brazil are doing better than classmates that paid for prep school
3. Creates more division
-Division pre-exists the problem…where is this division? More dialogue, facilitates inclusion
4. Doesn’t do what it needs to
-never suggested it would; there is evidence of success in these areas
DEBATE: Priscilla Ocen and Martin Macwan
Priscilla Ocen: Anti-Affirmative Action
Main Arguments:
-in India, its about poverty; its about class; they don’t have access to jobs→its about resources, its not about being Dalit; this is where we need to focus. Policy based on class will help find a more just and inclusive society instead of reservations that people are composing and imposing
-lets hear an example of a Dalit who is rich that is disadvantaged…also, the Indian constitution says we’re all equal; these rights are on paper; how do we implement them? By addressing the class question; elevating status through economic terms
Martin Macwan: Pro-Affirmative Action
Main Arguments:
-need for integration comes through education; this has been our struggle for centuries; if caste had not existed for thousands of here, there would be no question; for integration, we need reservation
-the idea is: this world is meant for everybody; this is not a debate between caste and non-caste; this is a debate whether everyone should have an equal share or not have an equal share; to be able to do that, we need these reservations;
-Because there is caste system or race system, some people don’t have food (Camden, NJ); no food, no nutrition, at school you sit separately; historic and systemic discrimination that happens; we are trying to address a long process, of thousands of years; it is systemic, for 3000 years
FINAL WORD:
Priscilla : I don’t think that addressing solely this issue is the way to address problems; the Camden example is about poverty; it’s about people not having access to resources; a Dalit that is rich is not disadvantaged in the way that poor people are; so we should focus on Dalits and non-Dalits;
Martin: if Dalits and non-Dalits are ready to have inter-dining, inter-marriage, etc., then sure. I completely agree with you; let’s focus on them both. Until then, there is a problem with the kind of reform policy you are focusing on.
