“The Case Against Awards; Why the Wrong Person Always Wins”
(By Jonathan Chait, published 19 October 2009)
This article presents the view that awards are always given
out to the wrong people. However, while some interesting examples are raised
about how awards are given out to seemingly undeserving people, the writer
fails to prove that awards are ALWAYS given out to the wrong people. He
completely disregards any examples of people who are actually “deserving” and
are “correctly awarded”, such as the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the
organization, “Doctors Without Borders” (Medecins Sans Frontieres), for their
international work in treating the injured and saving lives in war-torn
countries.
While Chait agrees that awards are presented to people based
on a very subjective judgment (“Declaring one great work of art superior to
others is like having an official ranking for best ice cream flavor”), he does
not seem to realize that he himself is being very biased. His language is
sometimes sarcastic to mock the prize committees for their seemingly ill-made
decisions:
· “This year, the committee decided to give it to
Obama because, well, he seems like such a nice young man.” – He clearly
disagrees with the prize committee’s decision and mocks them by making them
seem silly with this comment.
· “What do
people expect? It’s not like they gave the award to Hitler.” – He says that as
long as the prize committee does not award a murderer the peace prize, we
should all just be contented with the outcome, while implying that we should
lower our standards and give up hope that awards will ever be given out to “rightfully
deserving” people.
Actually, in retrospect, perhaps we are all biased in some
way. I agree with the writer that a lot of world-renowned prizes are rather vague
in criteria, such that there is no way to decide on a clear winner from the
multitude of factors that are brought into consideration. For example, the
Nobel Peace Prize is awarded "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have
conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."1 Should the prize
go to a medical researcher who discovered a cure for cancer, an environmental activist
who persuaded politicians to work together in cutting down their countries’
carbon dioxide emissions, or a Prime Minister of a country who managed to
negotiate with others to achieve peace in their war-torn region? Who is to say
which type of work is MOST beneficial to Mankind?
I do not think that there is a perfect solution to this problem. After
all, everyone has differing opinions and for every award, everyone has
different ideas about who is most deserving. (At the 2009 MTV Video Music
Awards, there were people who cheered for Taylor Swift when she was announced
the winner, and there were people who cheered for Beyonce as well when Kanye
West praised her music videos.) Perhaps we place too much emphasis on material
awards and achievements, and this is what we should be more worried about.