Adam Haupt’s contribution to the discussion about affirmative action (”We dare not erase ‘race’ from debate”, May 11) is riddled with the sorts of egregious errors that have characterised so many responses to my lecture.
First, he assumes that my arguments against racial-preference affirmative action must be a product of my ”race” or of some associated insensitivity. This is an attack on me rather than on the argument, and says nothing about the merits of the argument itself. When is the debate about affirmative action going to rise above these fallacious rhetorical ploys?
Second, Dr Haupt thinks that because affirmative action is an emotive matter, that emotive discussion about it is acceptable. Almost any ethical, religious or political question will arouse emotions, and although those emotions should sometimes be taken into account, clarity is only brought to bear when the discussion itself is not emotional.
Third, where Haupt offers something resembling an argument, his premises do not entail his conclusion that we cannot fix our society without reference to ”race”. For example, we can all agree that class inequalities require attention without thinking that focusing on ”race” (as a proxy for class) is the best way to do that. And we can also all agree that ”race” was the basis for discrimination in the past without inferring that we should continue to use such a bankrupt concept as a basis for public policy now. Affirmative action presupposes a system of assigning people to racial categories. In my lecture I pointed to the absurdities of any such system. It speaks volumes that none of my critics, including Haupt, has risen to the challenge of providing a coherent and defensible system for the classification that is a sine qua non for the policies they endorse.
Fourth, Haupt obviously cannot understand my observation that the ”more weight an affirmative action policy attaches to ‘race’, the weaker a candidate of the desired ‘race’ can be in other ways while still obtaining the position … for which he … is competing”.
This is not rhetoric. It is a simple logical truth that if one factor (such as ”race”) is made to count relatively more, then other factors (such as academic merit) must count relatively less. This does not mean that all black academics are of an inferior quality. UCT has first-rate black academics who were or would have been appointed without affirmative action. But there are others who would not have been appointed in the absence of affirmative action.
On this score, it is curious how defenders of racial preference want to blame the messenger. They do not like the implications of their own policies, but instead of abandoning those policies, they express outrage when the implications are noted. Haupt challenges me to ”identify black academics who are not suitably qualified or skilled”. Given how unspeakably insensitive it would be to identify publicly academics, whether black or white, who are not suitably qualified or skilled, one wonders whether Haupt is offering a challenge or a dare.
Fifth, Haupt is mistaken in asserting that I provide no alternatives to racial preference. Both in my lecture and in my debate with Professor Hall I gave some examples of what might be done instead. They are more refined and nuanced than crass racial preference, which is why they might be less appealing to those who prefer a blunt approach.
Finally, I never claimed to speak for the most disadvantaged. His insinuation that I summarily doom ”these people” to failure is a gross misconstrual of what I said.
It is ironic indeed that Haupt charges me with rhetoric when it is clearly he who is purveying rhetoric in response to my careful arguments.
David Benatar is professor of philosophy at the University of Cape Town