From USA to South Africa: Affirmative Action and BEE and a Debate of Merit

Amidst the turbulent winds of the 1960s in the United States, with Black civil rights organizations at the forefront, a race-based admissions process was introduced across the nation's universities and colleges. This process allocated spots to Black students that would otherwise have gone to White and Asian students based on their merits. In this way, White and Asian students saw their opportunities diminish as educational places were earmarked for Black students irrespective of merit.

After 60 years of race-based admissions to US universities and colleges, the Supreme Court ruled just the other day (June 29) that these institutions can no longer consider race as a specific factor in their admissions processes.

This decision overturns a long-established practice that has benefited Black and Latin American students in higher education. The Supreme Court found that the admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause and breached the constitution as they failed to present "measurable" objectives that could justify the use of race in admissions.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court pointed out that the admissions process was based on racial stereotypes and lacked a defined endpoint. He argued that if we are to end racial discrimination, we cannot use race as a basis for discrimination.

The Supreme Court, consisting of nine justices, voted 6 to 3 for the decision. The three justices who opposed the decision - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson - had all been appointed by Democratic presidents.

It is worth noting that Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022, is the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Her appointment was made precisely because of her ethnicity and gender, which directly mirrors the idea behind Affirmative Action.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed to the Supreme Court by President Biden, was primarily chosen because of her ethnicity.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are appointed for life. Their nomination comes from the sitting President and then requires confirmation from the Senate. These lifetime appointments mean that each justice's interpretation of the Constitution has a lasting impact on the nation's legislation and legal practices.

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose lifetime appointments shape the nation's legislation through their interpretation of the Constitution.

It is these justices who carry out the interpretation of the Constitution, thus determining what is legal or not. Having the prerogative of interpretation is more important than what the Constitution actually says. Those with interpretative prerogative can find the pretexts they need to justify any violations of the Constitution - in this respect, the Constitution becomes just a piece of ink-stained paper.

Of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, six have been appointed by Republican presidents, while three have been appointed by Democrats. In connection with this decision, it was precisely the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents who opposed the decision, while the six justices appointed by Republicans voted for it.

It is hardly surprising that it was just the three democratically appointed justices who opposed - An overwhelming majority of Black voters support the Democrats.

Black activists such as Wisdom Cole, the National Director of the NAACP Youth & College Division, and former spokesperson for the student union Afrikan Black Coalition (ABC), called the rollback of Affirmative Action a "dark day in America". The sentiment is that Affirmative Action has been a “beacon of hope” for generations of Black students.

This likely troll account hits a sensitive spot in our society.

But, we should remember that a merit-based society will yield different outcomes for different people. Affirmative Action, which actively targets underrepresented groups with the pretext of reflecting society, presumes that every workplace or educational institution that does not mirror the demographic composition of the society does so due to racism. Another common pretext is that it's about strengthening the place of minorities in the 'majority society'.

The problem becomes particularly evident in societies where there are significant demographic differences, as these differences coincide with unequal outcomes.

When a group, in this case, Black people, underperforms compared to others and then analyze the situation, one explanation for the perceived inequality emerges: they feel they are not represented in accordance with their proportion in the society. They see a common denominator - that they are all Black and there's a lack of, for example, Blacks in elite classes at Ivy League universities - and interpret this as an expression of structural racism. As a consequence, they tend to vote for politicians and policies that promote 'minority rights' and their representation in all parts of society, often through race-discriminatory special legislations like Affirmative Action.

But when Black people make up the majority and thus have complete political control, the discourse changes. In such a situation, they no longer talk about minority rights when questioning merit-based recruitment. Instead, they speak about 'adjusting' for what they perceive as 'past injustices'.

We are all different, with unique genetic predispositions, which does not prevent us from displaying individual excellence. Some of our outcomes are genetically determined, which is clearly seen in sports where certain groups dominate, like sprinting and long-distance running. Here, Black athletes often dominate at world elite levels, despite there being skilled white athletes. Even though these white athletes are very good, they still don't make it to the starting lineup among the very best in the world.

We are all different and in a merit-based system, the results will reflect these differences. If you're not offered a job that requires a high IQ or a certain cognitive ability, it may be wise to first ensure that you indeed possess the necessary skills. Before interpreting the situation as structural racism due to your skin color, or suggesting that the law should force companies to hire you despite you perhaps lacking the individual ability for the specific position, it might be worth considering other possible causes of the situation.

In a society built on merit, outcomes will inevitably vary. Failure to accept this can lead to political movements with representatives like Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, who labeled this decision as "a giant roadblock on our nation's march toward racial justice."

Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate.

But it's crucial to remember that there are numerous factors that affect outcomes within a society, including preferences and the team spirit, or the specific culture and jargon that prevail within companies. These more invisible guidelines, of course, impact the recruitment process and contribute to creating a sense of 'us', and if you don't fit in, you are not allowed to join. This applies to all groups, but it is practically stigmatized for whites to express a preference for their own group, as long as that preference doesn't extend beyond their own group.

However, let's look at South Africa, which has a very small white minority. There, the black majority has escalated Affirmative Action to levels where whites may be denied basic rights, such as access to water.

I recently released a mini-documentary that explores a white township in South Africa, providing an in-depth insight into the consequences of the country's Affirmative Action policy with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). The mini-documentary shows how the black majority deviates from a merit-based hiring process and instead prioritizes hiring based on skin color, which results in enforced poverty for the white minority. The documentary is available via the link below:

And, South Africa provides us with an example of what can happen when such policies are allowed to run amok - they lack an "endpoint" and contribute to an escalating decline in society through the absence of merits. When we whites become a minority, we will no longer have political control and instead will be left to the political will of others. The result could be as bleak as what we now see in South Africa.

Best regards

Jonas Nilsson