平权运动正义吗？| 英文原创
这篇类 GRE Issue 英文原创写于2015年4月。当时那期「高级英文写作工作坊」里涉及到了这个主题的阅读和写作，作为工作坊发起人的我也写了一篇。
题目：Is affirmative action a just mechanism? Why or why not?
什么是平权运动？
刘瑜《「平权运动」中的程序正义与补偿正义》
「平权行动」是1960年代随着美国黑人运动、妇女运动兴起的一项政策。由美国总统约翰逊在1965年发起，主张在大学录取学生、公司招收或晋升雇员、政府招标时，应当照顾少数种族和女性。目的就是扳回历史上对黑人和女性的歧视，把他们在历史上承受的痛苦折算成现实的利益。
写作思路：
1.What is affirmative action? What is it for? (What’s affirmative action’s purpose?)
2. Is the purpose legitimate or morally justifiable?
3. If the purpose is legitimate, how is affirmative action implemented or carried out to achieve this purpose?
4. Is there something running counter to the initial purpose? How does this happen? What has changed since the implementation of affirmative action?
5. What is the value of affirmative action?
习作
However many variants it has across the globe, and however differing the circumstances have been, affirmative action can be said to be a preferential mechanism for certain groups of people in a society who are deemed to have been historically wronged and/or are still disadvantaged. Such a scheme per se does not guarantee that it is a just one. As a matter of fact, affirmative action is a well-meaning theory at best and an ill-functioning policy at worst.
The purpose of affirmative action is morally justifiable: it attempts to achieve social good for those at the lowest rungs of the social ladder. People who have been racially discriminated against, as is the case for African Americans, and people who are still struggling socioeconomically, as is the case for many ethnic groups in China, argue supporters, deserve a better chance to succeed personally, academically and professionally. This egalitarian view is praiseworthy as it recognizes the fact that the cause for social inequality comes not from individual ineptitude or sloth, but rather past systematic discrimination, exploitation and collective failure as a society. As a result, society has a solemn obligation to redress past wrongs by way of affirmative action.
Behind the logic of affirmative action lurks a problem, however. Even beneficiaries of affirmative action fret they are judged not “by the content of their character”, to quote Martin Luther King Jr, or how smart they are, or who they are, but by who they are perceived to be. In other words, affirmative action is condescending and demeaning. If only it came with an opt-out button.
Problematic classification in affirmative action also defeats its own purpose. There is a big difference to base the mechanism on race or ethnicity and need. Either out of ignorance or difficulty, affirmative action unfairly assumes that a race- and ethnicity-based plan is compatible with a need-based one. It is not. Yes, blacks were victimized in history, but not wealthy and well-educated Jamaican immigrants in Baltimore and business savvy Nigerian entrepreneurs in New York. The case is not much different in China. A Uyghur or Mongolian Chinese admitted to Tsinghua University, China’s best, based on the preferential policy may have well-connected parents who work in SOEs. Not to mention that over time it creates a reverse prejudice, with Asian and white students with good grades being turned away simply because of their color.
Even if beneficiaries are properly classified, it is hardly possible to accurately gauge “preferential points” to which they are entitled. Does the number of wronged generations, for instance, matter more than the current level of poverty, or vice versa? Without accounting for a detailed recipe, affirmative action is not complete and cannot win trust among the public.
At the very least, affirmative action reflects that we have much to catch up. Relying entirely on affirmative action to address the problems it purports to amounts to scratching the surface. Realizing this has practical implications. Instead of the short-termism, we should take a clinical approach to the social problems and plan strategically. Brainy budget plan and good public services such as libraries and public schools can help ensure that even the most needy can have a decent shot at life. In order that people are no longer subject to systemic discrimination, discrimination of all kinds should be clearly specified and banned, in public or private.
Given the nature of affirmative action, it is not a just mechanism, because it cannot be. Nevertheless, it is a powerful social idea that merits attention and hard thinking.