Affirmative Action: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Future

Background and Origins of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is described as "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded" ("Affirmative Action"). Affirmative action efforts first surfaced in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which contained "affirmative action" as "a remedy federal courts could impose on violators of the Act. Likewise, after 1965 federal contractors had been subject to President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, requiring them to take 'affirmative action' to make sure they were not discriminating" ("Affirmative Action"). The mandates established in 1964 and 1965 resulted in a much larger policy that came into law in 1972. The 1972 law set the precedent for the affirmative action policies that are still in existence today.

Affirmative action policies have long been controversial because of the perceived benefits they afford certain groups. Their inception in the workplace and in education has been met with mixed opinions. On the one hand, proponents assert that affirmative action is the only way to level the playing field and reverse the damage done by past racism. On the other hand, opponents assert that such policies amount to nothing more than reverse discrimination. Many opponents also argue that affirmative action policies violate the Constitution of the United States.

The key research questions guiding this paper are: What is the purpose of affirmative action? What are the advantages and disadvantages of affirmative action? What has the American judicial system said about affirmative action policies? And what does the future hold for affirmative action policies?

Advantages of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action was created in an attempt to give people who had traditionally been discriminated against in education, business, and the workplace an opportunity to access these fields. In many ways, affirmative action was also designed to ensure diversity in all of the aforementioned areas. In addition, legislators felt that affirmative action policies were needed to ensure that minorities and women were represented in certain fields.

According to Tien (1997), many institutions of higher learning have affirmative action programs in an effort to make education available to minorities who have demonstrated a great deal of potential. In many instances, these minorities have overcome extreme odds caused by institutionalized racism across several generations (Tolbert & Grummel, 2003). In some cases, a student may be the first in their family to graduate from high school or to attend college. Tien further explains that in many instances minorities live in neighborhoods where illegal drugs are more accessible than quality education. Many inner-city schools lack the tools that students need to excel, including current textbooks and computers. In some of the worst schools, heating and air conditioning systems do not function properly. As a result, people who are products of these schools and neighborhoods have a difficult time acquiring a quality education. This difficulty is compounded by the racism these individuals encounter as they enter broader society — a confluence of events that can produce negative attitudes and behaviors with harmful consequences for entire communities.

Making higher education accessible to underrepresented minorities exposes them to new opportunities and can serve to improve communities for everyone. Without this type of access, many underrepresented minorities might remain confined to disadvantaged environments, increasing the likelihood of poor choices that impact the broader community.

Over time, American universities and businesses have become more diverse as a result of affirmative action. The desire to assist promising students is just one of the benefits; providing a collegiate environment in which diversity exists among faculty, students, and staff is also one of the most important challenges that universities face. Students from all backgrounds benefit when their learning environment is diverse. Affirmative action is a policy that not only encourages but also enforces that diversity. As Tien (1997) argues, an education is not complete without it:

"I believe students on campuses that lack diversity can gain just a limited, theoretical understanding of the challenges and opportunities in a highly diverse nation. A lecture on Toni Morrison's novels or the theater of Luis Valdez is not enough. No career or profession will be untouched by the rapid socio-demographic change. For instance, consider how America's diversity will affect those in U.S. colleges and universities. Education students will teach many youngsters born in different countries. Medical students will treat many patients with beliefs and attitudes about medicine that differ from the Western outlook. Students of engineering and business will work for major corporations, where they will be expected to design, develop, and market products that sell not just in the U.S., but in markets around the world. Law students will represent clients whose experience with the judicial system in their neighborhoods and barrios is distinctive from the way middle America regards the law (Tien, 1997)."

In addition to diversity, many proponents of affirmative action argue that such policies are fundamentally fair. According to Crosby et al. (2006), many supporters believe that affirmative action is often unfairly scrutinized when compared to other policies that also show preferential treatment to certain students — namely athletes and legacy admits. The authors explain that "universities, for example, create elaborate rationalizations for why legacy children are three to four times as likely as are other candidates to be granted admission… Further, some university athletes have benefited from special admissions criteria, even though evidence has shown that universities may not profit from athletics programs… Similarly, in employment settings, personnel decisions are often based on habit… or business exigencies… rather than on merit" (Crosby et al., 2006).

Those who support affirmative action do not simply argue that the policy is no less fair than legacy admissions or athletic preferences. Instead, they assert that the fairness argument rests on two basic principles:

First, sexism and racism are still serious issues in society. Studies have shown that both continue to be major problems in America. Although women are no longer underrepresented at institutions of higher learning, they remain underrepresented in the workforce, and mothers face an elevated level of workplace discrimination (Crosby et al., 2006).

Second, affirmative action allows for a more efficient and effective way of decreasing discrimination than other available approaches (Crosby et al., 2006).

Still others argue that affirmative action is fair simply because it is the only way to right past wrongs and address inequalities that persist today. These advocates note that women and racial minorities were purposefully excluded from access to institutions of higher learning and certain professions for centuries. As a result, many areas of professional and academic life remain underrepresented by minorities. Moreover, exclusion from educational opportunities and certain job positions destroyed the ability of many to earn a decent living, leaving many minorities living below the poverty line in under-resourced neighborhoods. This has created cycles of underperforming schools and limited economic prospects. Affirmative action therefore provides these individuals with opportunities that have been afforded to others for generations.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of this paper was to explore the issue of affirmative action. The research found that affirmative action is a strategy designed to assist underrepresented minorities in gaining access to opportunities that have been unavailable to them historically. Affirmative action policies are used in both education and the workplace. The research found that proponents view affirmative action as the only means of recovering what has been lost because of centuries of discriminatory policies.

The advantages of affirmative action include promoting diversity and correcting historical inequalities. The disadvantages include reverse discrimination, the risk of minority underperformance in demanding academic environments, a stigma that achievement is unearned, and increased tensions at colleges and in the workplace. The Supreme Court's rulings on the University of Michigan cases affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action while simultaneously demanding that preference policies be narrowly tailored and applied on an individualized basis.

The research suggests that affirmative action has made institutions of higher learning and workplaces more diverse. It also suggests that affirmative action programs and policies may become more race-neutral in the future, driven by the threat of litigation and shifting public attitudes.

In the future, research must focus on ways to resolve inequities before individuals enter college or the workforce. If society is ever to achieve genuine equality, it will require a real and lasting remedy for the toxic residue of past discrimination. Affirmative action policies only mask the deeper problems that society faces with respect to sexism and racism. Addressing root causes — particularly the persistent inequalities in the K–12 education system — is the necessary next step toward a society in which affirmative action is no longer needed.

"Affirmative Action." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

Brown-Nagin, T. (2005). Elites, Social Movements, and the Law: The Case of Affirmative Action. Columbia Law Review, 105(5), 1436–1528.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding Affirmative Action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611.

Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. Nine Themes in Campus Racial Climates and Implications for Institutional Transformation. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=sharper

Moran, R. (2006). Of Doubt and Diversity: The Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education. Ohio State Law Journal, 67(201), 201–243.

Motileng, B. B., Wagner, C., & Cassimjee, N. (2006). Black middle managers' experience of affirmative action in a media company. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(1).

Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing Perceptions: How Students of Color and White Students Perceive Campus Climate for Underrepresented Groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 43–61.

Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors Influencing Positive Interactions Across Race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White College Students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1–38.

Sander, R. H. (2005). A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools. Stanford Law Review, 57, 367–478.

Tolbert, C. J., & Grummel, J. A. (2003). Revisiting the Racial Threat Hypothesis: White Voter Support for California's Proposition 209. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3, 183–202.