Discrimination and Choice

Summary: This article explores the relationship between scarcity, choice, differential treatment, and discrimination. Scarcity necessitates making choices, and the standards for these choices result in differential treatment, which is essentially discrimination. The concepts of scarcity, choice, differential treatment, and discrimination are closely interconnected and unavoidable. The article provides examples of how the scarcity of different resources leads to choices and discrimination and discusses anti-discrimination laws and the phenomenon of reverse discrimination. Through the analysis of the case "Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke," it reveals how anti-discrimination policies can lead to new forms of discrimination. The article concludes that discrimination itself is not the issue; the key lies in who has the right to discriminate and who bears the consequences.

I understand scarcity—when there is not enough of something, you must make choices. Once you make choices, you need standards, and those standards involve differential treatment, which is essentially discrimination.

1. Discrimination is Inevitable

Scarcity, choice, differential treatment, and discrimination are interconnected. The presence of one implies the presence of the other three. Therefore, we cannot avoid discrimination; we can only discuss when it occurs, the conditions for it, who discriminates, and its consequences.

Discrimination is unavoidable. For example:

- Resources are limited: using wood to make pencils means it cannot be used for building houses.

- Time is limited: watching a movie tonight means not staying home to watch TV.

- Money is limited: buying Faye Wong's album means not buying another artist's album.

When I attend a Taylor Swift concert, other artists are discriminated against by me. If you prefer not to call this discrimination, you can call it differential treatment, but it means the same thing.

Choosing to attend Ivanhoe Grammar School means discriminating against other schools in Melbourne and the world.

So, as long as scarcity is unavoidable, choice is unavoidable, differential treatment is unavoidable, and discrimination is unavoidable.

At this point, it seems simple: limited resources necessitate differential treatment. However, many people forget this logic easily.

 2. Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination

Many countries have anti-discrimination laws. For example, in the U.S., these laws aim to ensure that disadvantaged groups receive equal treatment.

Some universities, to avoid discriminating against Black or other minority students, have policies favoring their admission. What are the outcomes? Has discrimination disappeared due to affirmative action?

In 1978, a famous case, Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, addressed this issue. The plaintiff, Bakke, was an engineer who wanted to study medicine after serving in the Vietnam War. He applied to multiple universities but was rejected due to age discrimination.

Bakke discovered that UC Davis Medical School reserved 16 out of 100 admissions for disadvantaged groups. Believing his age made him disadvantaged, he applied under this clause but was rejected because he was white. Feeling discriminated against, Bakke sued UC Davis.

UC Davis's policy of favoring disadvantaged groups, excluding whites, constituted discrimination. The attempt to eliminate discrimination resulted in reverse discrimination.

3. Avoiding Open Discrimination Against Whites Leads to Silent Preferences for Blacks

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where opinions varied widely among the nine justices, resulting in six separate opinions. The main conclusion was that considering race in admissions is constitutional, but rigid quotas are not.

In other words, favoring disadvantaged groups is permissible, but not through explicit, quota-based affirmative action. Consequently, Bakke was admitted.

This ruling highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding: due to scarcity, total admissions are limited to 100, necessitating discrimination and differential treatment. Favoring one group disadvantages another. If explicit discrimination against whites is prohibited, silent preferences for Blacks are the alternative.

As one justice stated, "To treat people equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot, and dare not, let the equal protection clause perpetuate racial superiority." Favoring Blacks while disadvantaging whites seemed fair to some, but others viewed this as reverse racial discrimination.

The justices failed to grasp that selection inherently involves standards, which equates to discrimination. Discrimination is unavoidable due to scarcity.

4. Discrimination is Not the Issue; How We Discriminate is the Issue

Peking University economist Professor Xue Zhaofeng suggested that if he were to decide the case, he would make the following points:

a. Due to scarce resources, universities must select students, making choice and discrimination inevitable. Neither proponents nor opponents of affirmative action can claim neutrality; everyone has biases.

b. Since discrimination is unavoidable, the focus should shift to:

   1. Who has the right to discriminate.

   2. Who bears the consequences of discrimination.

c. Universities, as the entities admitting students, have the right to set any discriminatory standards. They can diversify their admissions, favoring students from disadvantaged groups or those with athletic talents if it benefits the community.

   Universities can establish explicit or implicit affirmative action policies but must bear the consequences of their admissions choices.

d. Employers, who bear the consequences of these admissions policies, should have the right to know whether a student was admitted based on academics, sports, race, or other factors. They should have the right to this information.