>Affirmative Action is not a concession to handicapped or "backward" individuals who lack >merit. 

and again you contradict yourself :

>It is to prevent suppression of merit in a situation of social inequity.

we keep coming back to this again and again - but if we try to get you to define the so-called social inequity you slip away like an eel!

>Under-representation of certain identifiable groups is the problem

the immediate question will then be "why is there under-representation"? 

and your hen/chicken answer will not suffice.

there are always certain things in any society which is coveted by all and people will compete to get them. then it is hardwork and enterprise which decides who gets the prize. everybody has equal opportunity to compete - then it is upto them if they achieve it or not. if it is claimed certain people due to certain inherent disadvantages cannot compete with others, that those disadvantages have to be specified and solutions sought out for that. that's in full reconciliation with all notions of fairplay and justice - not this so called theory of representation which neither makes sense nor is fair.

>It is you who suggest that some specific communities that are eligible for reservations in >Tamil Nadu are in fact NOT under-represented 

i'm merely saying it - but the tamilnadu govt is granting reservation based on this claim for the last 30 years! and you are supporting it. so who is to present the evidence?

Nandakumar Chandran,

You asked, "if they qualified in the general category then why are they classified as "backward"?"

The candidates from reserved categories who got the top ranks from 1 to 612 are those with merit. Who says these candidates are individually "backward"?

Affirmative Action (any where in the world) is intended to help create greater social diversity -- by implementing measures that are designed to increase the representation of under-represented groups in colleges and work places.

Affirmative Action is not a concession to handicapped or "backward" individuals who lack merit. It is to prevent suppression of merit in a situation of social inequity.

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

You are right.  I do support what is "currently going on in tamilnadu" -- as part of the great social transformation in the past 100 years or so!

But what I support in this blog is to the principle that greater social diversity is good for society at large. I do observe that AA has been effective in Tamil Nadu, in this context. But this observation does NOT make this a debate on the merit or otherwise for the inclusion of any particular group within the ambit of AA. How can you seek statistics on this from me?

I may add that all of us know that there is a process to be followed by the government before  including any group for AA benefit (this process includes getting facts/ statistics validated by the Registrar General of Census)  -- and we know that this process itself is subject to being contested in Court. Right?

It is you who suggest that some specific communities that are eligible for reservations in Tamil Nadu are in fact NOT under-represented (or not "backward" in a vague and undefined sense!). It up to you to flash statistics to support YOUR far-fetched claim.

But I am NOT asking you for statistics. If you have these, you may go to court and contest the nomination of these groups by the government. That you do not do so would suggest that perhaps you are talking through your hat...

You rightly said, "....solution/philosophy has to be developed based on the problem."

Under-representation of certain identifiable groups is the problem, and affirmative action helps to address this problem in a modest way. Suprression of merit as a rersult of social inequity is the problem, and working towards greater social diversity is what would mitigate inequity, and help to unleash merit -- with great benefit to all sections of society...

Anand

>19% of 1224 is 232.56 and not 14! But you have not told us why 19% of 1224 needs to be 14!! >What is the significance of "19%" in this discussion?

69% - 50% is 19%

if the govt claims that by giving 14 additional seats they have filled up the 50% quota then we have to wonder where the rest of the 19% is? if they qualified in the general category then why are they classified as "backward"?

>Your complaint is that there has not been a "reservation" of 50% (or 31%) of all avialable >seats that should be allocated, irrespective of merit, to general category students (hailing >from 6% of the population). I see no merit in this complaint!! 

you are making up your own complaint and answering it!

my question is why 50% classified as bc/mbc are classified so where there is no record of their "backwardness"?

anand, best way to settle this issue about AA in the usa, is for you to show us a single mainstream university in the usa where AA has covered 50% of the seats - much less 69%. then we can agree that reservation in tamilnadu can be justified by AA in the usa.

btw i do not agree with your interpretation of AA in the usa. because the obscure document you are showing as evidence is not reflected by the more mainstream articles on AA. so not sure if what is professed in the article is what is practiced. moreover in the usa each state has its own supreme court. so what passes for law in california (even if what you claim is true) is not necessarily accepted in other states. so to claim your spin on AA as "practiced in the usa" is an exaggeration.

>To uphold the principle, I don't need to flash statistics at all

but you are not merely doing that are you? you support what is currently going on in tamilnadu and want other states to emulate it. so don't try to pretend to be somebody who is fighting for the principle only.

>According to the principle of Affirmative Action, "history of >social/economic backwardness" is neither a necessary nor sufficient >condition to consider a group for  eligibility. 

that's only your own spin on it which no practical person would agree to. a person is hungry - he needs to be fed. that's the practical issue for a government or a society. not some vague idea which you cannot relate a problem to.

>Affirmative Action is NOT based on "grievances" at all! It is intended to >widen the diversity within campuses and work places -- today. It is felt that >this CANNOT be achieved (not today) by giving people "free books" and >"free tuitions". 

i guess we can look at this when we are at the level of the usa in terms of economic prosperity. for the present, people without employment or food is the more pressing issue to address.

you are basing your whole argument on the principle of AA. but a problem is not solved based on a philosophy. but a solution/philosophy has to be developed based on the problem.

i guess you can go back to your ivory tower and come back when the society is ready for your philosophy (if ever)!

Nandakumar Chandran,

Let us have a look at the question by you (that you say are "crucial"):-

Q 1. where are the statistics for the representation of various castes in elite institutions?

A 1. The answer to this question is indeed "crucial" to the government (such as the Rajasthan govt) while recommending or nominating any group for AA benefits. This is crucial to a court, while validating the nomination of a group for AA benefits.

This question is NOT relevant when addressed to some one like me who merely supports the principle that "gross under-representation" ought to be the only the basis for Affirmative Action.

To uphold the principle, I don't need to flash statistics at all!

Q 2. why should communities who have no history of social/economic backwardness still be termed as backward and given reservation?

A 2. According to the principle of Affirmative Action, "history of social/economic backwardness" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to consider a group for  eligibility. Any group that is grossly under-represented today is eligible. I agree that the governments and the courts should rely on available statistics and facts to decide the issue of gross under-representation

Q 3. where is the necessity for additional AA beyond addressing actual grievances/causes for backwardness? ie you can give people free books, free tuition etc but where is the need to give them seats on a platter without effort/achievment?

A 3. Affirmative Action is NOT based on "grievances" at all! It is intended to widen the diversity within campuses and work places -- today. It is felt that this CANNOT be achieved (not today) by giving people "free books" and "free tuitions".

The aim of AA is to give representation today to otherwise eligible members of under-represented groups -- by deliberately providing some vacancies for which they do not have to compete with those from grossly over-represented groups

As I said earlier, please stop asking me IRRELEVANT questions. And you need to answer my questions, and you need to substantiate your own sweeping statements (as the one about "such is only for minorities").

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

You asked a mysterious question, "is 19% of 1224, 14 seats?"

19% of 1224 is 232.56 and not 14! But you have not told us why 19% of 1224 needs to be 14!! What is the significance of "19%" in this discussion?

The FACTS are as under:-

a) The SC ruling is that 50% of all available seats must be allotted to candidates purely based on merit list -- and not based on reservations. (This ruling is intended to ensure that no candidate with higher merit ranking, irrespective of community, would be denied admission).

b) In 2004, there were 1224 available seats for the 12 Government Colleges of Tamil Nadu. Thus, as per the SC ruling, all candidates with ranks from 1 to 612 had to be given admissions (612 being 50% of 1224).

c) The admission list was first prepared based on reservations -- so as to ensure that 69% of available seats (844 seats) were allotted based on merit ranking within the eligible categories, and the remaining 31% (380 seats) to candidates irrespective of category, based purely on ranking in the merit list.

d) When this first list was scrutinised, it was found that 598 seats were allotted to those (both from open and reserved categories) who attained ranks from 1 to 612; but 626 of the allotted seats went to reserved category candidates with ranks worse than 612. This meant that 14 candidates could not get admissions despite getting ranks from 1 to 612 -- only because they were from the general category. This was in violation of the SC's "50% ruling".

e) To comply with the SC ruling, all these 14 open category students were also admitted --  by increasing available seats by that number.

If your "complaint" is that the general category candidates did not get 50% (or even 31%) of the 1224 seats available, you are right! But this had to be so, as that many numbers of candidates from the general categories were not in the merit list from 1 to 612.

Your complaint is that there has not been a "reservation" of 50% (or 31%) of all avialable seats that should be allocated, irrespective of merit, to general category students (hailing from 6% of the population). I see no merit in this complaint!!

About AA is the US, you claimed:-

"such is only for minorities"

Who told you this? You are WRONG. To be eligible for AA benefit is the US, a group need NOT be a minority. This condition is neither necessary (women are eligible, though not a minority) nor sufficient (Asians are a minority, but not eligible for AA in colleges).

The necessary and sufficient condition for AA benefit is current under-representation.

Please STOP asking irrelevant questions to me! You answer a few questions yourself.

Anand

and while you try to pin me down on AA in the usa and 50% implementation in tn, you have not answered the important questions i had raised repeatedly in this issue :

1. where are the statistics for the representation of various castes in elite institutions? (this should be the basis of any attempt at reservation - but strangely doesn't seem to exist!).

2. why should communities who have no history of social/economic backwardness still be termed as backward and given reservation?

3. where is the necessity for additional AA beyond addressing actual grievances/causes for backwardness? ie you can give people free books, free tuition etc but where is the need to give them seats on a platter without effort/achievment?

pls answer these crucial questions in this issue.