j reacts to affirmative action (with a canadian legal analysis)

i don't like affirmative action, either, frankly. it has an absolutely valid critique from the left. but, i think it's a kind of a short term necessity. i've made both arguments about whether this necessity has run it's course, and don't really have a strict opinion on it. i would love to wake up one day and say "we don't need affirmative action anymore". what is clear is that this day is not upon us. what is less clear is if we've made progress or not, and whether this is really the right approach. if we cannot expect progress to come from it, i think the approach should be abandoned and we should try something else.

as a social libertarian, i simply can't agree that this is ideal or an acceptable structural concession to the way society ought to operate. i think that it's best to break this down into three options.

1) the status quo, into perpetuity. that is: society is permanently racist, and we need permanent structural means to balance it out. that would mean we should have affirmative action forever. i absolutely reject this in the most forceful terms possible.

2) society is temporarily racist, and affirmative action is helping us make things better. we're not at the point where we can get rid of it yet, but we're seeing some progress and we should stick with it a little longer - so long as we keep in mind the the end goal of eventually abolishing it. i can live with this, if the evidence upholds it.

3) society is temporarily racist, but affirmative action is not helping us make things better. there has been no appreciable change in social attitudes or hiring practices. employers simply see it as a burden, try to circumvent the law as much as possible and ultimately want to go back to openly racist hiring policies. well, then why are we holding to it if it doesn't work? seems like we need to try something else.

the first option is wrong - that's just ideological. i refuse to accept that racism is normal or inevitable, so i refuse to accept the perpetual necessity of a policy that is only even worth discussing because it is ameliorative. i'm a social libertarian. i'm sorry. if it's working, it's a necessary evil - but i won't stop stressing it as evil.

it's two and three that i'm torn between. the court made a choice. i'm not convinced the evidence upholds it. but, i don't see anybody talking about any better ideas, either.

normally, when you put a policy in place, it comes with an assessment period at the end of it. what have the effects been? has this policy been effective? if so, what have we learned that can improve it? if not, what other ideas exist that might work better?

this issue is just stuck at the political phase. opponents never really accepted it, so advocates have never really stopped fighting for it. but, we're decades into it, now. it's time to stop and evaluate.