Quote of the week

It is clear that no legitimate objective is advanced by excluding domestic workers from COIDA.  If anything, their exclusion has a significant stigmatising effect which entrenches patterns of disadvantage based on race, sex and gender…. In considering those who are most vulnerable or most in need, a court should take cognisance of those who fall at the intersection of compounded vulnerabilities due to intersecting oppression based on race, sex, gender, class and other grounds.  To allow this form of state-sanctioned inequity goes against the values of our newly constituted society namely human dignity, the achievement of equality and ubuntu.  To exclude this category of individuals from the social security scheme established by COIDA is manifestly unreasonable.

Victor AJ
Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others (CCT306/19) [2020] ZACC 24 (19 November 2020)
26 April 2007

A little less certainty

A reader argues that my position on affirmative action is fundamentally flawed, because my assumption is that there can be no fair and objective criteria of merit that can apply to both “white” and “black”. So one just has to choose which group one should discriminate in favour of.

I do indeed believe that there can be no absolute objective criteria according to which we can decide who are best qualified for a position. For some jobs one can get closer to that (flying a Boeing, say) than in others, but an objective standard does not exist. Pretending that there are such objective criteria merely helps to hide the prejudices of the powerful behind a façade of neutrality.

If we are striving for fairness, it requires, first, that we take into account the larger political, economic and historical context in which we make judgments about what is fair or not. This will inevitably require us to take note of past discrimination and racial injustice and to accept that such injustices must be addressed in some way or another. Second, it requires us to question anew the prevailing “norms and standards” and to ask anew what characteristics will best suit a specific job and who will contribute most to the well-being of an institution. This can only be done well, if we accept that different voices do not necessarily lead to a lowering of standards.

A little less certainty about things and a bit more critical reflection might help us to think about all the invisible criteria which have always helped to advantage the interests of the in-groups and exclude those who did not fit in.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest