Dear Editor,
To repeat the obvious, and again highlight national laundry secrets, the dirtiest, ugliest issue facing this land is the politics of race. Sometimes denied (feebly), many times incited (invisibly), and other times embraced (carefully), this is the ecstasy of triumph and the agony of the wilderness. Everything and nothing; winners on the inside at the overflowing banquet table of sumptuous fare; and losers on the outside with teeth bared against the glass pane of defeat and misery and rancor.
This has been/is the plight and scourge of our peoples burdened with the memories of a lifetime; three score and ten years it has been, counting from around 1950. There has been little flourishing; only stunting, and not much else. But parochial Guyana has surprising company: there is that roiling matter now before a US Federal Court. It pits mighty venerable Harvard U against troubled angry Asian students, in a case alleging discrimination in admissions to this most prestigious of learning institutions. I find it confirming many things already experienced or known; as well as enlightening on still others. It should be similarly instructive for thoughtful Guyanese: it is a revealing biography that is very much a part of our story, too. The emphases are on the objective and the subjective, and the contentiousness they unleash. Just like here.
The case has many things some parallels, some revelations. It is about the cold embarrassing objectivity of numbers and the tales they tell, depending on who reads them and how read. SAT and other scores, and upper percentiles, and the mismatch of those accepted from rarified academic ranks versus stepping down and reaching out for others less gifted, less visible, less performing. The scales of fairness are influenced unfairly, it is claimed; justice and rightful place denied, at least from the perspective of pure numbers. Now justice is sought for the alleged distinctive inequity of an unacceptable reality. Guyanese should be able to associate effortlessly: jobs and contracts come first to the mind. I have heard also not-so-loud whispers about CAPE and UG and valedictorians. Disgruntled, one might say. I would settle for unhappy and seething, because depending upon the year and place (and who is in power), the discrimination of today will be sure to be furiously responded to as the reverse discrimination (or equivalent) of yesterday. In other words, today the favoured amounts to: black in the pack and on the right track; on the other hand, it is brown go down and be not around. Yesterday, it was brown stick around and take the crown; while, it was black stay back and then come back. I wish this could be more courteously articulated in a less jarring manner; but Guyanese can identify and all too fluidly. Thus, political fortunes switch the order of access, presence, and influence; and with those the hard, suspicious observations, perceptions, and conclusions. Resentments flare; animosities intensify; divisions harden. Some of this is unfolding at pristine Harvard. There is rankling and raging discontent.
But there is another side to the suit brought by the Asian plaintiffs, as corroborated by Harvard’s own records and reluctant verbal admission. Beside the unyielding objectivity of statistics and demographics revealed by the numbers, there is the subjective. These are the soft, easily manipulated, thus distrusted, elements embedded in the scoring of such mysteries and corporate (now academic) camouflage of “likeability” and “courage” and “kindness” as reported by the New York Post. According to the plaintiffs, this is biased against highly qualified Asians and favours heavily underrepresented minorities. My interest is not to question the accuracy or danger of such contentions; but to extrapolate, compare and weave into the Guyanese narrative and anguish over race. Over the prevalence and impact (favourably or unfavourably) on the things that matter the highest in this society. In this torn society, the equivalent euphemisms and cover stories (codes), as perfected over the seasons might very well be the intangibles, hence unprovable, of: the best person for the job, strength, versatility, promising and strategic, and adaptability, among others. A peculiarity of such exercises is how far apart perceived sensible, honourable interviewers can be on their scoring sheets. That is a sociological case study begging for the exploring. Here and everywhere else.
As if to confirm traditional fears, and in view of electoral and political outcomes here, the majority of one era is relegated to the minority in another, and with all the subjectivity and suspicious behaviour and decisions accruing in the changed power equation. Meaning that the racial colour scheme undergoes, shall we say, rehabilitation. This is the changing statistics of the workplace, procurement place, learning place to name a few. Twist it or turn it, this is reality that follows triumph the glaring, flaring realpolitik in a sharply honed, bitter society. And with the anger and conflicts that simmer. Having unbottled the genies of expectation and promise, what else can there be?
On the one side, hard numbers speak; percentages thunder from the rooftops; on the other, human judgements, practices and results stand as testimony to sensitive (many times inexplicable) choices and controversial deeds. The latter I rate according to similarity, identification, loyalty, prejudices, appearance, and so on. This is our unforgiving history. After all analyses and arguments, pretense can be stripped away, leaving the voice of conscience, and the steely resolve to manage background, outlook, quotas, cosmetics, and politics. Reduced to the simplest terms: who am I as decisionmaker? Who am I as observer and commentator and seeker of what is right and fair? Have I positioned myself by acting impartially and honourably, so I can confront naysayers unambiguously? Or do I maneuver circumstances to fit a particular premediated goal, and then defend doggedly but unpersuasively?
These are some of the undercurrents and parallels (lessons, too) that I glean from the Harvard adversarial proceedings. I suggest that Guyanese use this as guide and mirror to take a look as the striving (at least on paper and in proclamation) for meritocracy continues in fits and starts right here. If it can happen there, then how much more here…
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
