When he was a boy, Terence adored E.T., that irresistible little creature from outer space. Unprompted, he would chirp “Eeee Teee,” which was fair enough, and “Home,” which I naturally found endearing. When he solemnly intoned, “I’ll… be… right… here,” I even cherished hopes for his political development. Right here is right on.
Regrettably, those hopes have been dashed. Time has revealed him to be, if not left wing, then certainly parlour pink. This, you will appreciate, is a parlous situation.
In common with E.T., Terence has a habit of appearing on our doorstep uninvited, unannounced and, to be blunt, extraneous. This happens so often that I have privately dubbed him the Extra Terrential. Normally I object, but on this occasion, I found, to my slight surprise, that he had much to contribute.
After the usual pleasantries, my boy unveils a new challenge for Seth Allot, the dear academic who has been with us long enough to be styled “Professor in Residence.”
“When last we spoke,” says Terence, “you demonstrated that Employment Equity is racialist since, under its quota system, whites, if underrepresented, have as much right to demand preference as blacks. I found the argument convincing.”
He is getting a bit uppity, I think, but Seth is unperturbed. In a modern university, uppity students come with the territory.
“Good,” says Seth. “Let me remind you that racialism, as distinct from racism, is ethically neutral. It must be judged instrumentally: does it achieve its stated aims? In our country, I think it works badly, but our bosses disagree.”
“Its merits are a debate for another day,” says Terence, now uppitier still. “If you don’t mind, prof, I want to focus on BEE. It provides preference for blacks alone, so it can’t be dismissed in the same way. Its title proclaims its object: ‘Black Economic Empowerment’ means empowerment for blacks. Is this racialism, racism, or something else?”
“It is a form of racialism,” says Seth. “Like affirmative action, its object is to prefer, not to denigrate. It shares the same structure as the White Preference policy of the 1920s, which singled out whites for advancement.”
“Worlds apart”
“Identical in form they may be, but they are worlds apart in context,” says Terence, now at his uppitiest. I must bear the blame, I suppose — after all, it was I who brought him up.
“Is the context so different?” asks Seth. “In both cases, the state identifies a group it believes disadvantaged in the marketplace and intervenes to correct the imbalance. Then, whites were thought to need help competing with blacks. Now, blacks are thought to need help competing with whites. The structure and rationale are the same; only the beneficiary changes.”
“That is facile,” says Terence. “In the 1920s, whites were perfectly able to compete with blacks. They needed no protection, but received it from a government anxious about social stability. Today, we cannot expect blacks to compete unaided. They do need protection, if only to promote social stability.”
“Why do you say blacks cannot compete?” asks Seth, in full Socratic mode. “You may say ‘because of Apartheid,’ but after thirty odd years, that argument is wearing thin.”
“No, I’m not saying that. Not necessarily. I am thinking of research that suggeststhat blacks on average have a much lower IQ than whites. You know as well as I do, prof, that IQ correlates strongly with competence in our modern world.”
I am horrified. Is this my darling boy?
But Seth remains composed. “You’re saying research suggests that blacks are, on average, less competent than whites. Some might say that is, in fact, the implicit premise of any policy of preference on the grounds that one does not give preference to those who do not need it. The question is not whether the premise exists, but whether the policy built on it works.”
“So,” says Terence, “why reject a policy designed to create equitable outcomes?”
“Because the intention is not realized and, truth be told, cannot be,” says Seth. “Policies that rely on discretion invite favouritism, partisanship and corruption. BEE has produced precisely these results.
“Consider Professor Gumede’s observation — let me find it — here: ‘Since the early 1990s, forty six largely politically connected individuals secured 60% of all the Black Economic Empowerment mining, becoming billionaires or multimillionaires overnight.’”
He continues: “Your point about social stability has some force, but even there I have doubts. BEE places individuals less able to perform in positions where performance matters. The work expected of them is often intended for the benefit of society, typically the poor. As service delivery falters, the poor suffer, grow restive, and may revolt. That is not social stability; it is its opposite.”
“So the argument comes down to utility,” says Terence. “Giving blacks a leg up may be a good idea in theory, but it’s lousy in practice.”
“Race based measures generally are,” says Seth. “Given the passions they arouse, utility may be the most reliable standard. But moral considerations cannot be ignored, and the poor suffer when service delivery collapses. To insist such measures are nevertheless justified when they serve only the interests of a politically connected bourgeois class of people — even supposing they are all black — is unconscionable.
“Unconscionable” is damning. Does Seth go too far, I wonder. “Hard to support” I could accept, or even “untenable”. But hey, he’s the professor, and I’m so lay I can hardly stand up.
So he must say what he will say. He does, by continuing thus. “Last but literally not least, we have a Constitution to consider. It outlaws race based measures not firmly tied to past discrimination. These laws cannot be justified on such grounds – they are designed to give blacks a benefit irrespective of past disadvantage, and they will remain in place when the effects of apartheid have long since evaporated.
“Being designed to give them a leg-up, influential blacks will want them at least for so long as their kind cannot properly compete in the market-place. Even then, the measures will be hard to reverse. People, whatever their colour, don’t readily relinquish advantages they receive, and black people won’t do so here.”
“So why are these measures not challenged in the Constitutional Court? “ Terence asks. “The Constitution is designed to protect us. It supplies us with clear rules on the issue, and from what you say, the case should be a winner.”
“Let me answer that,” says Noah. “I have some experience here. The wording of the Constitution plainly says the author of a racially discriminatory measure must prove that it falls squarely within the exception supporting affirmative action. In the leading case on this issue, the Constitutional Court said the lawgiver could never have intended such a result. Instead, it said, the object must have been to respect measures overtly intended to promote blacks, and overturn them only on showing that in fact they have no real relationship to past discrimination.”
Normally right
“Is that proposition right?” I ask Seth. Noah is normally right on such matters, not others obviously, but I would like to be sure in the present case.
“Yes,” says Seth. “In effect, the court, responding to gut feeling not logic, wholly reversed the incidence of the onus of proof. This signalled to anyone with the wit to understand that a constitutional challenge to black empowerment would be rejected. The signal has been heeded: no general challenge against these measures has ever been launched.”
“Do these laws have no Sunset Clause?” I ask.
“No, says Seth. “We are stuck with them. They come at terrible cost, but I suppose many blacks will want them at least for so long as they cannot or don’t feel they have to properly compete. Even then, the measures will be hard to reverse. People, whatever their colour, don’t readily relinquish advantages they receive, and black people won’t do so here.”
That night in bed, I say to Noah, “Why were you so quiet? I’m sure you had something to say.”
“I could ask you the same,” he replies. “But I won’t. I enjoyed the exchange between the two of them, and frankly, I thought Terence did splendidly. I was proud of the upbringing I gave him,” he adds, with a twinkle.
“Harrumph!” I expostulate. I seem to be harrumphing rather a lot these days, though whether they amount to expostulations rather than ejaculations depends on the circumstances.
“Terence does make poor Seth sing for his supper,” I remark, before sleep overtakes me. Noah nods — though it may be that he has nodded off. A Noah’s noodle nods unknowingly, just like other bods’.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend