this story was taken from www.inq7.net
resent by plaridel_papers

"In fairness"
Posted:11:02 PM (Manila Time) Aug. 20, 2003
By Michael L. Tan


LATELY I've been hearing more Filipinos, especially the younger ones, using phrases like "in fairness" and "to be fair."

I've realized that the phrase's popularity is coming in from movie gossip talk shows, where commentators seem to be dropping "in fairness" every other second. After yakking about the latest dirt in a celebrity's life, the showbiz reporter will add, "In fairness, we haven't asked the celebrity for his side." It's a strange after-the-fact application of the notion of fairness -- almost a way of seeking absolution for gossip and backbiting.

I'm not surprised that we've distorted the meaning of "fairness." Fairness is a difficult concept to grasp, especially in feudal societies like our own, where the powerful define fairness in terms of their own rights being paramount, above everyone else's. Thus, when politicians appeal to the mass media for "fairness," what they actually mean is: "It's okay if you print bad stories about my opponents but don't even think about doing that with me."

Notice we don't even have a strong equivalent Filipino word for "fairness." The other week I was talking with a worker and wanted to know if he thought his salary was fair. I found myself at a loss for the proper word in Filipino and finally used the English term.

When I asked around for the correct Filipino word, people offered "patas." But I don't think it quite captures the meaning of "fair." Patas is "equal" but "equal" isn't the same as "fair." When you ask a laborer if his salary is "patas," the question hangs there because "equal" needs a qualifier. Do you mean equal to one's needs, or equal to one's work output? "Fair" captures many different dimensions in one sweep, a fair salary being one that considers both needs and skills of the worker, as well as the employer's own investments and profit margins.

After graduating from college I worked for a few years with the social action arm of the Roman Catholic Church. We had an amazingly simple salary scale at that time: If you were single, your monthly salary was 600 pesos. If you were married without children, it was 700 pesos, and if you were married with children, you got 800 pesos.

Many of you will probably say that's unfair. Well, as far as we were concerned at that time, it was perfectly fair. It didn't matter that Dr. Tan got 600 pesos and our janitor got 800 pesos because our janitor had greater needs than I had, and therefore deserved more.

Although in retrospect I think that three-level scale was too simplistic, not even quite reflecting the complexity of needs, I still agree with the principle of fairness that was used, i.e., those with more in life should be willing to work for less. Thus, I will in one breath say that our salaries at the University of the Philippines (UP) are unfairly low, but will also say that I think it's only fair
to continue teaching at UP since I've been more fortunate in life and my needs are easily met.

Fairness is not built on a mechanical application of the notion of "equal." Quite often, fairness may mean giving special preference to those who have less to start with. This notion of giving a headstart to people with a disadvantage is at the heart of "affirmative action" in the United States. For example, universities will increase admission quotas for members of cultural minority groups, based on the recognition that they were marginalized for decades and that
society needs to make amends, giving them extra opportunities to pull themselves up.

When I proposed an affirmative action component in our department's admissions policy, I actually met opposition. One faculty member protested, "But we are all minorities. There is no majority ethnic group in the Philippines."

Here's an example of where "patas" falls apart. Sure, Tagalogs and Tausugs and Tagbanwas are all "patas" in the sense that they are all numerical minorities, but we know, too, that there are vast differences in the economic and social status of the three groups, and that a preferential option needs to be given to the Tausug and Tagbanwa.

Note, though, that "fairness" here is not reduced to a matter of ethnicity-final admission will still depend on many other considerations, including a student's capabilities. Neither does fairness end with affirmative action in the admissions policy. Thus, if we eventually accept a student from a cultural minority group, even if his or her grades were not too good, it would be again be unfair to just leave the student to try to survive alone. To be fair, the university needs to give special support to help such students get through university, through scholarships and tutorials.

We need to talk more about fairness in our daily lives. When a driver creates his or her own counter-flow, driving down the wrong lane to get to the next intersection, the principle of fairness is violated, the moron having jumped the queue and, worse, possibly jamming traffic flow coming from the other direction and wasting more precious time of numerous motorists.

"Unfair" behavior is really cheating. When a student copies someone else's work, he or she is being unfair to those who put in time and effort to prepare for the exam. Similarly, on the part of faculty members, it would be unfair to allow mediocre work to pass because this "cheats" students who put in so much more effort into their papers.

Eventually, we have to recognize that fairness is crucial as well for a nation to develop. Our unfair system of patronage in the workplace and in politics is a major reason why so many Filipinos leave the country. There is the perception that one's chances of success are tied to who you know, rather than one's skills or meritorious service. On a macro scale, we lose many potential investments, from both Filipinos and foreigners, because our system is seen as unfair, again based on connections and patronage and rules and policies being changed midway through a project.

It's interesting we adopted the Spanish "patas" to mean "fair" when it's actually a term used in relation to games and sports, referring to a tie or a draw. The correct Spanish word for "fair" is actually "justo" (just). The sooner we develop an ethos around fairness as it should be, tied to justice and equity, the better it will be for our country.

©2003 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

*****

And here's IN FAIRNESS used in a sentence by a native speaker of English:


A near half-century of terror
By Noam Chomsky

The national security pretext lost whatever shreds of credibility it might have had after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though it was not until 1998 that US intelligence officially informed the country that Cuba no longer posed a threat to US national security. The Clinton administration, however, insisted that the military threat posed by Cuba be reduced to "negligible," but not completely removed. Even with this qualification, the intelligence assessment eliminated a danger that had been identified by the Mexican ambassador in 1961, when he rejected JFK's attempt to organize collective action against Cuba on the grounds that "if we publicly declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing."

In fairness, however, it should be recognized that missiles in Cuba did pose a threat. In private discussions the Kennedy brothers expressed their fears that the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba might deter a US invasion of Venezuela. So "the Bay of Pigs was really right," JFK concluded.

¶ 7/22/2004 04:00:00 PM