My stepmom was upset -- no Latina mothers were attending the PTA meetings at her daughter's high school, and nobody seemed to care. My stepmom is white, but is what you would call a "funky" individual, i.e. she doesn't feel comfortable sitting in stuffy classrooms sifting through bureaucracy. She knew that many of the Latina mothers volunteered to help with the school's community garden, and so suggested that the PTA discuss its business while working there. Turns out, everyone was happier discussing PTA business in a more casual, outdoor setting. 

No, I'm not trying to invoke the "Mexican gardner" sterotype. Rather, I mean to illustrate the central flaw in how we think about affirmative action. The debate surrounding this policy centers on some objective measure of ability. Yes, in recent years some have begun to question whether the SATs are biased toward certain cultures, but the issue is more profound than that.

When studying American Indian education in college, my professor pointed out that in many tribal cultures, one rarely teaches directly; one doesn't point out how someone is wrong or right. Rather, teaching is always oblique -- a hint, a question, or perhaps teaching by example. It is not only rude to point out someone's mistake, it is antithetical to the American Indian understanding of knowledge, which is far more subjective and less objective (importantly, too MUCH knowledge is sometimes considered distracting to an individual). 

It's easy to see how a person raised in the American Indian paradigm (granted, fewer and fewer these days) would struggle with Western education. But the flipside to this is what such a person BRINGS to a Western school -- not just in the form of ambiguous "cultural diversity," but direclty to the education of his fellow students. Just consider the simple fact that many "normal" students don't respond well to the Western mode of teaching; perhaps these children would benefit from having access, however limited, to an alternative paradigm. 

Lastly, there's the pragmatic question. Opponents of affirmative action, aside from thinking it unjust, essentially want a more homogenous US, at least insofar as how we think is concerned. I don't mean these people want racial purity, exactly, but see the world of achievement and knowledge through an entirely objective lens. Affirmative action makes our society (ant colony) less efficient by pushing ahead those people, for WHATEVER reason, aren't as good at those things we've deemed essential for progress. "Progress" is not an open question. 

But on the flipside, one has to ask that EVEN IF WE DID hold a universal notion of progress (or achievement), would it not be quicker to lend a helping hand to those "outsider" cultures. Obviously an American Indian doctor will be much better at reforming (not to mention treating) his fellow Indians than a more technically skilled White doctor. In a couple generations, affirmative action will have done its job and we can be rid of it. 

Of course I'm being facetious. The real problem with an American Indian doctor is that his or her view of medical progress might differ from the mainstream view, however subtlely. What if the Latina's view of justice differs from the White male's? This is a problem, because "justice" is an objective thing, which means that the Latina is just getting it wrong, doesn't it? 

Certain things are objective, at least in a practical sense. But ask yourself how well we're doing, any field, and if we could stand to do better. Practically speaking, who are we putting in jail and why, who are we curing and who are we making worse, what are we inventing, and above all, is the course we are on sustainable? Now, could we use some outside help?