My good friend Somapala Gunadheera has made some thoughtful observations (The Island,
10 Sept 2012) on the problems of University admissions, and noted that
in my “ Tamil Language Rights in Sri Lanka”( CPA, April 2012) I had not
suggested ways and means of solving them. My analysis and suggestions
were expressed in some publications way back in the 90s, and that is why
I chose not to repeat them. But since my friend has raised the
question, I will( belatedly) retrace some of what I had written then,
supplemented with an outline of the historical back ground.
Jaffna youth have traditionally depended on education for employment
since other avenues have been lacking in comparison with other
districts. Since Sinhala Only in 1956, Tamil speakers have had even more
problems than previously in finding employment. They have responded
with even greater focus on education and on acquiring superior academic
and professional qualifications, especially in fields such as Medicine
and Engineering in which such qualifications virtually guarantee
employment. Thus the proportions of Tamil youth entering the Medical and
Engineering university faculties progressively increased, posing
political problems for the Government. In particular the intake from
Jaffna, which has long had a disproportionate number of very good
secondary schools was very high. The political problem came to a head in
1970 -71, in the first year of the newly elected Srimavo Bandaranaike
administration.
A hasty (and shortsighted and irrational) decision was taken by the
Cabinet of Ministers to fix different pass marks to students of
different ethnic groups so as to achieve an acceptable ethnic mix in
University admissions in 1971. This was blatantly racist. Predictably,
the impact on Sri Lankan Tamils was traumatic, and a small section of
Tamil youth took to armed rebellion. This “solution” was also widely
critisised by educationists at home and abroad. Modifications were
therefore introduced in subsequent years, for intakes in those years,
but those schemes were also defective and, in any case, the damage done
could not be undone. It was first sought to give a veneer of pseudo
respectability by introducing what was called “linguistic
standardization” which was again ethnic discrimination but in disguise.
No educational or egalitarian or affirmative action / reverse
discrimination principle was served. What it did serve was to instigate a
serious of anti-Tamil pogroms culminating in a very bloody civil war
which, with interruption, extended to 24 years (1985-2009), with a death
toll of many tens of thousands, mostly of non-combatants.
Under “linguistic standardization”, Sinhalese ( Sinhala medium) students
of all socio economic classes and in all schools gained privileged
admissions to Medical, Engineering and some other faculties at the
expense of Tamil and Muslim (Tamil medium) students of all socio
economic classes and in all schools. This scheme was just as racist as
the 1971 scheme. It would be an obscene travesty to describe as
affirmative action / reverse discrimination a scheme that gives a step
up to the child of senior Sinhalese professionals in the Sinhalese
stream at Royal or Visakha or Trinity over a Tamil or Muslim child of
estate laborers or slum dwellers purely on the basis of language
medium. Whereas under affirmative action / reverse discrimination the
under privileged would get a step up over the privileged, under
linguistic standardization, as in the above example the reverse may
take place.
What is affirmative action / reverse discrimination? Its objective is to
give a step up to the under privileged and /or the victims of
discrimination with a view to compensate for the deprivation and/or
discrimination. In India quota reservations are constitutionally
prescribed for Untouchables/ Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes. For lack of space I will not spell out here the
relevant sections of the Indian Constitution. In the USA preferences are
mandated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, however, does not
expressly prescribe quotas nor identify the beneficiaries. In a land
mark ruling the then Indian Chief Justice A. N. Ray affirmed that
“Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of
inequality. Equality of opportunity admits discrimination with reason”
(State of Kerala v N.M.Thomas, 1976). In the USA, in a landmark
judgment, Supreme Court Justice Harry A.Blackmun claimed that “ … in
order to treat some person equally we must treat them differently”(Bakke
v Regents of California, 1978). These quotations, approvingly cited in
my book “Discrimination with Reason? The Policy of Reservations in the
United States, India and Malaysia”, Oxford University Press, 1997, set
out the essence of affirmative action / reverse discrimination.
What Sri Lanka now has is District Quotas, also unsatisfactory in that
it has no rational basis and is divisive on several counts, but an
improvement on “linguistics standardization” in that it is not overtly
racist. What has not been tried out is any solution based on affirmative
action/ reverse discrimination. Those of Scheduled Castes and Other
Backward Classes and Schedule Tribes in India , and Blacks, Hispanics,
Native Americans and few other categories in the USA have claims to
affirmative action /reverse discrimination to compensate for current
discrimination as well as the cumulative impact of centuries of past
discrimination. In Sri Lanka the major ethnic categories, with the
possible exception of “Plantation Tamils”, cannot claim such benefits.
Numerically smaller categories such as Veddahs,Rodiyas and a few
“Untouchable” castes among Tamils may claim such benefits but these
claims are not as compelling as those in India. There could be a case
for reserving small numbers of places in Sri Lankan Universities for
children of such categories. But in any case being located in “backward
areas” cannot generate such claims unless such privileges are tied to
agreements to return to those areas after graduation to teach in under
privileged schools with the view to progressively erasing such
backwardness. In effect, since there are privileged schools in every
district and the elite of those districts send their children to those
or other privileged schools elsewhere, it is they who benefit from
quotas outside Colombo and Jaffna rather than the most backward in those
districts. Thus District Quotas help the rural elite at the expense of
the urban underclass. Moreover, the markup for some Districts is so
high that within each class in the Universities the disparity between
students is unduly large.
In India and the USA, a disproportionate share of affirmative action/
reverse discrimination benefits are appropriated by the elite of the
disadvantaged communities. In fact those countries have attempted to
exclude benefits from such elite by prescribing socio economic cut off
criteria, but this proved to be cumbersome and unworkable. In India
since the caste system continues to operate even among those converted
to Christianity, they too enjoy quota benefits. But among Tribals, since
converts to Christianity gain privileged access to good Christian
schools, Christian Tribals were appropriating a disproportionate share
of the Tribal quota benefits. For this and other reasons the Indian
Supreme Court has ruled that the Tribals who convert to Christianity
cease to be eligible for quota benefits.
Under the currently prevailing district quotas scheme, the under
privileged everywhere in Sri Lanka suffer multiple disadvantages of
socio economics backwardness, poor schooling as well as the bulk of the
district quotas being appropriated by the privileged of those districts.
Their situation is made worse by the fact that the children of the
underclass to which they belong are virtually excluded from admission to
“good schools” to which children of privileged classes find easy
access.
It is not possible to compensate for all handicaps. Moreover, most
handicaps are difficult to define in terms of objective criteria. For
example, if the parents are illiterate or if the situation at home is
not conducive to children advancing in their studies, those handicaps
are real but not easily quantifiable in terms of objective criteria and
are therefore difficult to compensate for. But one handicap that is both
real and definable in objective terms is the quality of schooling.
Perhaps quotas can be justified if they are based on objective criteria
related to a measure of the quality of schooling. It is also conceivable
to use socio-economic criteria, but these would be highly subjective,
especially in countries like Sri Lanka where most people are in the
unorganized sector in which even the rich escape paying income tax. Our
scheme may need to depend solely on an objective grading of schools.
For example schools may be graded 1,2,3,4 and 5 on the basis of the
average of the last three (or four) years of admissions to university
faculties. The total of the marks scored by a student at the university
entrance examinations can be increased by 10,20,30 and 40 respectively
for those attending schools graded 2,3,4and 5 respectively. This ranking
could vary from faculty to faculty since some schools may be good in
Maths science, others in Bio science, etc. The ranking may also change
gradually from year to year as schools improve or decline in respect of
each discipline. This scheme has several important advantages. The
grading is objective, transparent and any student or parent can
understand it. It also addresses real disparities (unlike district
quotas and linguistic quotas) in a meaningful manner. Further, the step
up a child receives is modest so that there is no glaring disparity
within each university class as under the current district quotas
scheme. Moreover, since the step up is modest the incentive for each
school to upgrade itself is not undermined; nor is it likely to provoke a
negative backlash of resentment. It is a scheme such as this that can
successfully replace the district quotas scheme that now prevails. But
a scheme such as this may not be acceptable to the elite outside
Colombo and Jaffna among whom Ministers and Members of Parliament are
well represented and who are well served by the district quotas scheme.
Perhaps this is why the District Quotas Scheme continued to prevail
despite the protests of the Colombo elite, who also enjoy some political
clout, and of the Jaffna elite and the underclass everywhere, who
remain powerless.
DailyMirror