Debate: Affirmative action

Is affirmative action good public policy?

Background and context

"Affirmative action" involves steps being taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.

In the United States, the first period of passionate debate on this issue began around 1972 and tapered off after 1980. The second period began in the 1990s leading up to the Supreme Court's decision in the summer of 2003 upholding certain kinds of affirmative action.

See Wikipedia's Affirmative Action article, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for more background.

Justice: Does affirmative action justly compensate past wrongs?

Yes

• Affirmative action justly compensates groups for past wrongs. It is important for injustices to be redressed. Slavery and institutionalized racism have not been redressed yet in America. In order for justice to be served, it is necessary for the main losers of racism in America (blacks) to be compensated for their loses. It is also appropriate that whites assume some burdens in enabling the redress of blacks, as they were the main perpetrators of the crime of slavery. Affirmative action achieves this all, sufficiently compensating blacks for past wrongs, achieving redress, and restoring justice.

No

• Affirmative action wrongly takes from one group to give to another. Punishing one group in order to compensate another is inherently wrong, particularly when the wrongs are generations in the past.

• No group should benefit or be punished for ancestral wrongs. Given that most people in the current generations have never been harmed individually or unequally by government (in the sense of institutionalized racism, it is impossible to compensate them for harms that never occurred to them personally. Affirmative action wrongly attempts to perform such compensation.

Equality: Is Affirmative Action a good way to enhance social equality/integration?

Yes

• Affirmative action is only way to level playing field There are many ways in which society is unequal today, and which cannot change without institutional help: 1. Past historical discrimination severely limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences. 2. Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered. 3. Regardless of overt principles, people in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know or people from similar backgrounds, or both. This means that racism may not change on its own, and requires an institutional approach such as affirmative action to level the playing field.

• Going to top universities is more important than good grades. The basic argument here is that, in order to advance higher in life, the stamp of a top university is more important than the performance of a student in that university. Therefore, it is more important for a minority student to attend a top university even if it means that they will be nearer the bottom of their class.

• Predominantly black schools offer fewer AP classes. An 'A" grade in an AP class is counted as a 4.5 by some universities, making it possible for a student who takes all AP classes and gets all A's to get a 4.5. Yet, predominantly black schools offer far fewer AP classes, making it harder for exceptional black students to compete against the grades that exceptional white and Asian students are able to muster.

No

• Laws should be "race-blind" to counter discrimination: Laws such as affirmative action encourage further descrimination, by institutionalizing it in the government. For this reason, laws should be race blind.

• Affirmative action does more harm than good to minorities. Asian and Jewish Americans are an example of this, where they have been victims of institutional racism (and continue to be victims of forms of racism and prejudice), but whom are harmed by affirmative action since it benefits largely black and Hispanic populations. This disproportionate effect is perverse and counter-productive considering that the intent of affirmative action is to eliminate discrimination.

• Affirm action wrongly considers race over econ/edu factors Economic or educational disadvantages do not necessarily correlate to those of a particular racial/ethnic status. There are many examples of wealthy well educated black youths that have experienced every society advantage there is. There are also examples of white youths that have lived in economic and educational squaller. If it is economic and educational disadvantages that are the problem, why not focus in affirmative action on these criteria instead of race and ethnicity.

• Affirm action mismatches bad students with difficult classes. By admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.[1]

• Affirm action lowers value of degrees earned by minorities: Affirmative action creates an impression or a concern that black individuals that earn a particular degree, do so with the help of affirmative action, rather than by their own merits. This diminishes the value that job-seekers and society place on these degrees, relative to ones earned by non-minorities who did not have the help of Affirmative Action.

Diversity: Is diversity in all areas of society a valuable social good?

Yes

• Greater ethnic representation at all social levels is beneficial. Proportional diversity in all levels of society is very important in establishing a health society, as it entails greater interaction and communication between these groups, and thus greater understanding and reduced conflict. It also enables the sharing of interesting cultural customs. Understanding different perspectives reduces the potential for misunderstanding, racism, and conflict among groups.

• Affirmative action helps create diverse learning environment. A diverse educational environment produces major benefits for students and society.

• Diversity is supplimentary to goal of fairness. While diversity is a good goal, it should be understood as secondary to the more important goal of helping blacks and minorities gain footing in an environment that continues to carry the legacy of instutitional racism. Therefore, while the diversity argument adds to the case for affirmative action, it should be understood as only part of the bigger case.

No

• Minority schools disprove perceived value of diversity. In order for a diverse learning environment to be seen as important or necessary, minority schools (homogeneous) must be demonstrated as a bad idea. Yet, they are a widely considered a good idea, as the engender a comfortable and supportive learning environment.

• Diverse schools receive poor ratings from students "Diversity and Affirmative Action: The State of Campus Opinion". Stanley Rothman, S. M. Lipset, and Neil Nevitte. 2002: The article shows an inverse relationship between the number of minorities on campus and the favorable ratings students give of the quality of their education. Students on majority-white campuses were shown to be more negative about the quality of their education the more blacks the campuses enroll. This study does more than indict affirmative action if taken at face value; it provides a reason for resegregation!"

Burdens: Is it OK to burden some citizens with Affirmative Action?

Yes

• Affirmative Action is justified to ask some citizens to take-up an unequal burden for the sake of a social good (equality): It is common in democracy for different citizens to take up unequal burdens to achieve certain social goods. Progressive taxes are a good example of this. Affirmative Action adopts the same notion of assigning certain unequal burdens to some currently privileged groups in order to achieve a greater level of equality.

• Countering the argument that Affirmative Action unfairly damages poor and unprivileged white males.

No

• The rights of one group should not be sacrificed to benefit the rights of another groups: The opponents argue, since all people have equal rights, no individual's rights should be sacrificed to compensate for another person's rights being taken away.

Meritocracy: Is it OK that Affirmative Action contradicts notions of meritocracy?

Yes

• Affirmative Action actually enables the selection of highly qualified candidates that only appear less qualified due to their systemic exclusion.

• Affirmative Action makes race only a small "plus" for certain candidates among a much larger array of competitive considerations.

No

• Affirmative action contradicts the notion of meritocracy. Citizens should be rewarded on the basis of effort and merit. Yet, Affirmative Action gives partial rewards to individuals on the basis of race, undermining the notion of meritocracy.

Economics: Is Affirmative Action important economically?

Yes

• Diversity is important to a dynamic economy.

No

• Affirmative Action does not mean "Diversity". When most people use the word diversity, they are usually misusing the term and actually are referring to the strength of the concept of Unity or due diligence (which involves getting more than one perspective).

Racial profiling promotes mediocrity by violating the fundamental rule espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King Junior----That people be judged on the basis of their character and not the color of their skin.

In societal terms, a person's character is measured by how moral they are and how valuable your skills are to providing goods and services to your fellow countrymen.

Departure from emphasis on character is a much larger and more fundamental concern than racist policies promulgated by a racist southern democrat which were done to get and retain votes at the expense of stifling the rising tide of black entrepreneurship in 1960s which was the real source of leverage in the Civil Rights campaign.

• Affirmative action results in less qualified and effective candidates filling positions, resulting in lower economic productivity for companies and a nation:

• Affirmative action may damage the ethos of those that are more qualified, yet lose out to affirmative action candidates.

Race focus: Is it appropriate to focus on achieving racial diversity?

Yes

• It is appropriate for organizations to concentrate on specific diversity factors such as race instead of having to give equal treatment to all forms of diversity.

No

• Affirmative Action uses a definition of "diversity" that is too narrow.

US Law: Does US law provide for Affirmative Action?

Yes

• Beginnning with President JFK's Executive Order 10925, which stated mandated, "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Various changes to US law such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Revised Philedlphia plan have given minorities and women more opportunities than other races.

Several Supreme Court cases (Griggs v. Duke Power Comp., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) since then have also shown that affirmative action exists and has ruled against institutions which did not give preference when they were supposed to.

No

• The text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 advocates a "race-blind" approach: Title VI of the Act promised that "[n]o person…shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." While it makes a couple of exceptions for employer preferences on the basis of gender, religion, and national origin, it makes not exception for race in regard to the law being "color-blind".

States: Where do the US States stand on the issue?

Yes

No

• California has been trending away from Affirmative Action since the early 1990s.

Players and academics: Where do the relevant players and academics stand?

Yes

• Thomas Nagel's “Equal Treatment and Compensatory Justice”. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1973
• Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Preferential Hiring". 1973
• Ron Daniels, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights

No

• Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute opposes affirmative action - One of the most frequently cited opponents of Affirmative Action and proponents of a "color blind" society.

US supreme court justices supporting affirmative action?

Yes

No

• Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court Justice, advocates "color-blind" policies

Activist organizations: What are the main activist organizations in this debate?

Yes

• American Civil Rights Coalition
• Affirmative Action and Diversity Project
• National Organization for Women
• American Association for Affirmative Action
• Position:The Urban League supports Affirmative Action

No

• Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences

Countries: Where do countries internationally stand?

Yes

• Countries supporting affirmative action

No

• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution. [2]

Videos pro and con.

Yes

No

• "Affirmative Action: Separate But Equal". (Michigan University). Posted on YouTube May 21, 2007.[3]

See also

• Resolved: Universities should use affirmative action to encourage minority enrollment

External links and resources

• New York Times. "The New Affirmative Action". September 30, 2007

Videos

"Ward Connerly on Fox News School Segregation". Posted on YouTube on July 5, 2007.[4]