ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/03/85)
The following excerpt comes from the Ayn Rand Letter, Vol 1 #21, July 17, 1972. If you are interested in seeing more, the collected issues of the Letter are available From Palo Alto Book Service; 200 California Avenue; Palo Alto CA 94306. In this article Rand talks about the idea that representatives to political bodies should be chosen by means of racial quotas; for instance, the idea that the Presidential cabinet should have X blacks, Y women, and so on. However, her ideas apply more broadly than just this instance. --------------------------- The notion of racial quotas is so obviously an expression of racism that no lengthy discussion is necessary. If a young man is barred from a school or a job because the quota for his particular race has been filled, he is barred by reason of his race. Telling him that those admitted are his "representatives," is adding insult to injury. To demand such quotas in the name of fighting racial discrimination, is an obscene mockery. But observe that the demands for "representation" by quotas are not confined to minorities and are not made exclusively on the grounds of race. THe same demands are presented on behalf of a majority: women - on the grounds of age: the young - and on the grounds of economics: the poor. Now observe the common denominator of these groups. The basis of their grouping and the quotas they advocate is not intellectual, but physiological. (In the case of poverty, it is physical: an absence of material means.) This is the sort of doctrine with which today's intellectuals, particularly the academic crowd, would feel profoundly at home - most of them emotionally and subconsciously, and a few of them with full, conscious awareness of all the implications. This doctrine - a product of determinism - assumes that physiology is the determining factor in human life and that the interests of all the members of a given physiological group are identical. Yet it is obvious that an intelligent, efficient career woman has more interests in common with men than with a sloppy housewife who joins Women's Lib and refuses to cook her husband's dinner. A successful, self-made black businessman has more interests in common with white businessmen than with a black mugger. A rational young student, seeking knowledge, has more interests in common with old professors than with drugged young "Jesus Freaks." The quota doctrine assumes that all members of a given physiological group are identical and interchangeable - not merely in the eyes of other people, but in their own eyes and minds. Assuming a total merging of self with the group, the doctrine holds that it makes no difference to a man whether he or his "representative" is admitted to a school, gets a job, or makes a decision. This particular notion is widely believed by the student activists, who clamor for participation in running universities and other institutions, declaring: "We want to have a say about the things that affect our lives" - the "say" consisting in casting one vote out of thousands for some little campus politician, while surrendering the only "say" they have the right to demand: the say about their own lives. It is obvious why the quota doctrine appeals to modern intellectuals: it eliminates the responsibility of thought, judgment and choice. Just follow your group leaders - it advises - they are physiologically predestined to protect you and take care of you. To most of them, this promises the comfort of lethargy, and to a few - a road to power.