Affirmative Action: Why We Need to Reform

Affirmative Action: Why We Need to Reform It

It is widely believed that the American society is a "melting pot" where members of racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities eventually mold into the mainstream, becoming full-fledged citizens of the country. The reality, however, is much more complicated. While it is true that America offers many opportunities to all its citizens, there is a history of discrimination against minority groups that affects the American society even today. African-Americans were confined to the shackles of slavery for three hundred years and for another hundred years of institutionalized discrimination, while other minority groups and women had to struggle hard to win civil rights and make the American society more egalitarian. The American society has progressed to the point where most citizens believe that everyone should be entitled to equal rights regardless of one's race, color, gender, ethnicity, or religion. And it is because of this belief in equality, the society has implemented various affirmative action programs since the beginning of the Civil Rights Movements in the 1960s to remedy the wrongs of the past and allow minority groups to have equal opportunities in education and workplace. So, there is no doubt that affirmative action programs began with good intentions in mind.

But the way affirmative action has been implemented caused various social problems since then. For example, affirmative action targeting racial minorities and women often privilege already privileged racial minorities and women at the expense of underprivileged white males, leading to a kind of "reverse discrimination." Affirmative action therefore needs to be reformed to better cater the needs of all underprivileged groups, including white males. One way to do this could be affirmative action that targets class, rather than race and gender. And since racial minorities and women are relatively poorer than whites, class-based affirmative action will still help racial minorities and women, while not ignoring the needs and aspirations of underprivileged white males.

The debate over affirmative action is a social conflict but is a form of conflict where perception matters more than the behavior. Social conflict is defined as a "perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously" (Pruitt and Rubin, 2003, p. 4). Viewing affirmative action as a conflict of perception allows us to use Pruitt and Rubin's "strategic choice model, which specifies five basic kinds of behavior that are available when people get into conflict" (p. v.). The first kind of behavior people resort to in times of conflict is contending, when one group tries to impose one's preferred solution to the other. The second kind of behavior is yielding, when one compromises and lowers one's aspirations to reach a settlement. The third and fundamental behavior is problem solving, in many cases pursuit of an alternative that allows both groups to satisfy their aspirations. The fourth kind of behavior is withdrawing, that is choosing to leave the scene of conflict. And the fifth kind of behavior is inaction -- that is, doing nothing. Pruitt and Rubin call these behaviors "strategies" and argue that the successful settlement of a conflict calls for the implementation of a combination of these strategies. And the important ones that can be applied for solving the affirmative action conflict are contending, yielding, and problem solving. Pruitt and Rubin call these three "coping strategies in the sense that each involves some relatively consistent, coherent effort to settle conflict" (p. 3, emphasis original).

The debate over affirmative action is a conflict of perception than behavior. But the conflict may take the form of behavioral conflict and lead to a serious problem involving physical violence and perhaps even a civil war unless it is settled. So, withdrawing and inaction are not viable options when it comes to dealing with affirmative action debate. Rather, contending, yielding, and problem solving are necessary as each of these strategies help us settle the problem. Therefore, this paper first looks at the contending positions. We will look at why advocates and critics of affirmative action try to impose their preferred solution on each other. In other words, what are their contending positions? Then we will see that there are weaknesses in the positions of both parties and it is important that both parties yield. And finally, the paper will call for an alternative solution that can satisfy the aspirations of both groups.

There are many definitions of affirmative action. A broad and elastic definition describes it as "a phrase that refers to attempts to bring members of underrepresented groups, usually groups that have suffered discrimination, into a higher degree of participation in some beneficial program. Some affirmative action efforts include preferential treatment, others do not" (Rosenfeld, 1991, p. 42). Affirmative action, for instance, may impose quotes and goals, such as requiring that a school or a company admits/hires a certain percentage of minority groups. The purpose of affirmative action is to remedy the discriminatory practices of the past and is clearly distinguishable from the form of discrimination based on race or sex. Rosenfeld explains: "whereas the racist presumably wants to disadvantage his victims because of the latter's race, it is not the principal objective of the vast majority of proponents of affirmative action to place whites at a disadvantage because of their race" (p. 43, emphasis original). So, while the consequences of affirmative action may lead to discrimination, its intended goal as well as rationale is quite different from overt discrimination based on race or sex. Another broad definition of affirmative action was proposed by Sterba (2009) who describes it "as a policy of favoring qualified women, minority, or economically disadvantaged candidates over qualified men, nonminority, or economically advantaged candidates respectively with the immediate goals of outreach, remedying discrimination, or achieving diversity, and the ultimate goals of attaining a colorblind (racially just), a gender-free (sexually just), and equal opportunity (economically just) society" (p. 32).

The term "affirmative action" entered legal language in the United States when President John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order 10925 which made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on the latter's race, color, creed, or national origin. That order, however, could not immediately solve the problem of inequality. Many civil rights advocates therefore called for affirmative action programs that would guarantee equal opportunity to members of underrepresented groups. The rationale for affirmative action was explained by Martin Luther King Jr. "Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror," he said. "The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up" (cited in Wise, 2005, p. 16).

Affirmative action programs were later implemented following a series of Executive Orders issued by Lyndon B. Johnson who defended the program in one of his speeches in the following way: "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. . . . Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in -- by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man" (Johnson, 1965). President Johnson signed the Executive Order 11246, mandating that "each executive department and agency shall establish and maintain a positive program of equal employment opportunity" (Sterba, 2009, p. 16). Johnson later issued another Order that targeted sex discrimination, and the Nixon Administration introduced quotes and goals.

The scope of affirmative action has been broadened -- and restricted -- through a series of Supreme Court decisions. For example, in Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) case, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the rights of African-Americans under title VII of the Civil Rights Act were violated by the Duke Company. But a later Supreme Court with different members overturned this decision. The most important Court decision addressing education was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). A California student petitioned to the Supreme Court that he had been denied admission because of the university's target range for minority students. A majority of the judges ruled that the Davis medical school's use of quotas to diversify student population was in violation of the Civil Rights Act as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Some judges dissented from the majority ruling, and the effect of the Bakke decision was to allow affirmative action but in a very restricted sense (Sterba, 2009, pp. 18-9). Since then affirmative action has been intensely debated in other Court decisions, by government officials, media commentators, and ordinary people, each group insisting on the righteousness of their positions.

According to Rosenfeld (1991), the intensity of the debate stems from the fact that all participants believe that "they are engaged in an important moral debate concerning fundamental notions of justice and equality" and both foes and advocates of affirmative action "loudly proclaim their allegiance to the ideal of equality" (p. 2). Foes of affirmative action argue that all members of the society, including white males, should be treated equally. They argue that preferential treatment of minorities and women is as unjust as the preferential treatment of white males. Advocates of affirmative action counter this by arguing that "equal treatment may be used to perpetuate existing inequalities and that whereas the preferential treatment of white males would exacerbate such inequalities, favoring racial minorities and women would contribute to the elimination of race- and gender-based inequalities" (p. 3). While pursuing these aspirations, parties are locked in what Pruitt and Rubin (2003) call a "stalemate." It is important therefore to point out strengths and weaknesses of each position and call the parties for yielding so that a problem solving alternative can be offered.

Affirmative action can obviously be defended on moral and constitutional grounds. It is morally right to grant all members of the society equal opportunity in the workplace and educational institutions. Centuries of discrimination relegated minority groups and women to a lower social status in the society and it is understandable that affirmative action programs are pursued to decrease and eventually eliminate social inequality. It is also constitutionally justifiable because the Constitution as it is understood today is premised on the same moral stance. And the consequences of past discrimination are still easily observable. Nearly half of all black children in the United States remain under the poverty line. Black unemployment is twice higher than White unemployment, and the median net worth of black families is ten times less than that of white families. In many black communities, infant mortality is twice as high as it is in white communities. Life expectancy for a black male living in the Harlem neighborhood of the New York City is less than it is for an average resident of Bangladesh. And according to United Nations study, "white Americans, when considered as a separate nation, rank first in the world in well-being (a measure that combines life expectancy, educational achievements, and income). African-Americans rank twenty-seventh, and Hispanic-Americans even lower at thirty-second" (Sterba, 2009, p. 7).

Yet there is ample evidence showing that racial minorities are still discriminated against, despite the existence of affirmative action programs. Here is a partial list of many discriminatory policies that are still in place:

According to a study done at the University of Colorado at Boulder, blacks seeking business loans were two to three times more likely to be rejected than whites, and blacks were twelve times more likely to be rejected than whites at the highest levels of assets and collateral.

In a study by the Urban Institute equally qualified, identically dressed, white and African-American applicants for jobs were used to test for bias in the job market for newspaper-advertised positions. White and African-Americans were matched identically for age, work experience, speech patterns, personal characteristics, and physical build. The study found repeated discrimination against African-American male applicants. The White men received three times as many job offers as equally qualified African-Americans who interviewed for the same positions.

According to a 1998 study conducted by the Fair Housing Council in Washington, DC, minorities in the United States are discriminated against 40% of the time when they attempt to rent apartments or buy homes.

Another study revealed that African-American and Hispanic-American job applicants suffer blatant and easily identifiable discrimination one in every five times they apply for a job.

African-American men with bachelor's degrees earn as much as $15,180 less than their white counterparts. Although native-born white males make up only 41% of the U.S. population, they comprise 80% of all tenured professors, 97% of all school superintendents, and 97% of senior managerial positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service companies. African-Americans hold only 0.6%, Hispanic-Americans 0.4%, and Asian-Americans 0.3% of the senior managerial positions. . . .

In studies done in New York City and Milwaukee whites with prison records were more likely to be hired than black men without prison records.

A study of Bay area employment agencies found that white job applicants were preferred three times as often to equally matched black applicants. . . .

The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission found that Asian-American men earned between 83 and 90% of what white men with the same credentials earned. The figure was about 60% for Asian-American women.

In elementary and high schools, according to a national study even when blacks demonstrate equal ability with whites, they are still far less likely to be placed in advanced classes. Even when children from lower income families, who are disproportionately of color, answer correctly all the math questions on a standardized test, it turns out that they are still less likely to be placed in advanced tracks than kids from upper income families who miss one-fourth of the questions on that test. . . .

Blacks constitute about 13% of drug users in the United States but they make up 58% of those sent to prison for drug possession. In Illinois, blacks are jailed for selling or using drugs at a fifty-seven times the rate of whites (Sterba, 2009, pp. 7-9).

One can easily observe that there are similar discrepancies in terms of equality of opportunity between men and women. Women on average earn three-fourth of what men earn. While women hold seventy percent of white-collar positions, they hold only ten percent of managerial positions. So, advocates of affirmative action programs are not necessarily out of touch with the reality. Their position is reasoned, morally justifiable, and intended to help the society attain full equality.

Affirmative action that solely targets race and sex, however, is often misleading. It does not account for class differences in the society. Race- and sex-based affirmative action, for instance, may grant the same form of preferential treatment to upper-class black males that it grants to working-class black males, although the former are already more privileged than the latter. In the same way a black female from a middle- or upper-class family may receive preferential treatment by virtue of being black and female in addition to her economically privileged position in the society, whereas a black female from a working-class family may receive the same kind of treatment but be hampered by the unfortunate fact of being born in a poor family (which is beyond her control). The only groups of people who are totally left out of all affirmative actions programs are poor white males. There are affirmative action programs that target all other groups, including rich white males.

There is no officially granted affirmative action that targets middle-class and upper class white males but representatives of these groups are privileged enough to have equal, and even greater, access to educational and job opportunities. In universities, for example, rich white males receive preferential treatment through various mechanisms. Consider the following data provided by Sterba (2009):

Although the median U.S. family income today is a little over $54,000 per year, but almost 90% of Harvard students come from families with greater incomes, and almost 75% of Harvard students come from families with incomes over $100,000.

Although fewer than 2% of U.S. families have incomes more than $250,000, 20% of first-year students at Northwestern University come from such families.

Of the students attending Notre Dame, Northwestern, Penn, Harvard, Princeton, Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis less than 10% come from families earning less than $40,000 a year so as to qualify for Pell grants.

At top elite colleges, only 3% come from the bottom quarter of U.S. family incomes (p. 80).

White males coming from rich families have benefited so much from the policies at higher education institutions that mechanisms used by universities to attract white students from upper-class families may be described as the "affirmative action for the rich" (Kahlenberg, 2010). According to Michael Dannenberg, the director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation, "[t[here are more white students admitted to top ten universities after having benefited from a legacy preference than African-American or Latino students admitted after having benefited from affirmative action policies. In some elite institutions of higher education, there are more white legacy students than African-American and Latino students combined" (Brittain & Bloom, 2010, p. 124).