Media Flaws

Vicki wouldn’t spill it, and then the Monday Paper dished it… Hmm, now when you break something, right? (are you still with me?), you fix that particular broken something, right? And not things around it that aren’t broken. Let me simplify this further: when you actively disadvantage someone via race, you will then counter or fix that disadvantage via race, right? (or am I wrong?). The basis of disadvantaging and being labelled previously disadvantaged is based on the fundamental flaws created by the architects of apartheid. It is indeed historical and not biological! As much as we would like to delude ourselves into believing that ‘affirmative action involves taking positive steps to avoid discrimination, to ensure that opportunities are open to ALL and that fair standards of selection are used’ it doesn’t work like that YET. At present, it serves to fix/mend the broken something. Apologies for being overly-simplistic, but having subjected myself to Prof. Benatar’s mind-job of an article I can’t help but expatiate superfluously to ensure he too can grasp my drift.

There’s no such thing as being partially previously disadvantaged. Those who were in exile and educated their kids in good schools – were also disadvantaged – hence they were in exile – Jesus, you’d think this was obvious! Most of Benatar’s writing does not reflect any creativity just a vague rhetorical expose – that cleverly depresses and suppresses any form of cogent counter arguments. Staging arguments around the epidemic of how black scholars got to where they are is complete non-sense and speculation. Do you know how many sacrifices were made to advantage/skill those who are now scholars and well educated. No you don’t and can only base whatever arguments on whatever minute random sampling and quantitative research. Whilst were on it, there’s no such thing as self-classification! Such liberal thought will get us nowhere. I never heard of any self classification in the days of apartheid. I’m not saying we should go back to apartheid methodologies to resolve these imbalances but am merely asking if it’s hardly possible to address these imbalances without bringing the underlying theme of race into the equation? Afterall, the actual cause was race-based?

Benatar is a classic example of passively moaning about the state of things, whilst failing to actively seek and address alternative solutions, hence he ends by stating that ‘it might help to focus the mind on more appropriate methods of rectification’?? Where’s the solution in that?

And then there was Prof. Hall – His response: a classic example of placing broccoli in an ice-cream cone and expecting the child to enjoy it. They say birds of a feather flock together – one bird in this case had an armour of euphemisms, whilst heading in the same direction. At least Prof. Hall made more sense than Prof. Benatar. Another point I liked was that ‘The criteria for selection/ appointment are academic and professional excellence, and that any candidate recommended must meet the requirements for appointment in question.’ But then goes to admit that diversity and race will play a role. Huh?... Anyway, Prof. Hall cleverly includes history, which Benatar convieniently disregards and smugishly blows off as a pseudo-science of sorts.

Sidetrack: This is not Investec or some giant auditing/accounting firm. Your selection criteria cannot be heavily based on race, ignoring skill and qualification. In an academic institution – there are standards to maintain. It defies logic to even insinuate that one can be employed solely because of their state of being previously disadvantaged. Same applies for students - they might have had lower entrance requirements but will attend the same lectures be examined equally and gain the same degrees. This whole employing or selecting on race could work for accounting firms because their previously disadvantaged candidates can easily be relegated to minute projects and simple 'ticking and bashing' or balancing balance sheets. But here we are talking about major responsibilities around higher education.

Back to Benator and his retraction: I’ve never seen such selective blindness? I can’t phantom how he even attempted to tackle an issue such as affirmative action, whilst being oblivious to a fundamental feature which he conveniently terms a pseudo-scientific concept. Where’ve you been? And then a tad bit of philosophical thinking on truths and equity emerges along the lines of his arguments. <<Yawn>>

I’d rather watch paint dry than subject myself to such. Or maybe I'm missing the point completely and just reading what I want to hear.