Affirmative action—the words sound so strong and positive, yet they are some of the most controversial words in our language. The phrase, first coined in modern times by President Lyndon Johnson during the 1970s (“Talking,” National Organization for Women), has a tradition of being associated with equality and justice.It dates back to the era of English monarchies, when the popular masses sought equal favor with the king (Antwi-Boasiako 18). In its current form, affirmative action encompasses practices that seek to equalize opportunities for minorities and women.One of the most controversial practices is the reservation of a certain percentage of job or educational openings for minority applicants. Such actions are meant to ensure a diverse and fair social environment, yet critics view these processes as preferential treatment.
While critics have compiled a long list of the negative effects of affirmative action on society, proponents are just as stringent in their defense of affirmative action and its benefits for society. These benefits make affirmative action a necessary tool in the ongoing fight for equal rights and liberty for all citizens.Affirmative action has always been associated with civil liberties; the prospect arose from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In 1962, Congress of Racial Equality founder James Farmer advocated a program known as Compensatory Preferential Treatment to then-President Lyndon Johnson (Ponnoru 7).
The program, designed to increase professional opportunities for blacks, became the predecessor of affirmative action policies. President Johnson promoted the modern form of affirmative action at Howard University in 1965. This proclamation followed on the heels of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred discrimination on the basis of race.Affirmative action would not be fully realized, however, until the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972 created a commission to enforce two executive orders concerning affirmative action.The orders stated that federally funded educational institutions and government contractors must establish racial quotas to ensure a fair representation of minorities (“Affirmative Action,” Yahoo Education). Previously, civil rights activists had to rely on boycotts of businesses to influence hiring processes (Ponnoru 7).
With affirmative action policies, activists finally had a strong advocate in the federal government.Affirmative action advocates tout major benefits. The most prominent of these proposed benefits is the elimination of discriminatory practices by those in positions of power. If hiring managers, college admissions counselors, housing authorities, or any other professionals are mandated to include minorities and women in their respective businesses, little chance for intentional minority exclusion will exist.
Racism and sexism become destructive tools of the past, with no hope of influencing the present and future.As a result, these institutions become more representative of actual society, which includes individuals of all races and origins. If one takes this train of logic a step further, then the businesses themselves actually benefit as well, because they become better equipped to handle the needs of a wide array of potential consumers.In an educational sense, ensuring diversity also benefits students, who will be at a competitive advantage if they have experience in interacting with numerous types of people and cultures (Craig 12-21).The benefits of affirmative action are not merely speculation, however. Ample evidence exists which supports these claims.
In the educational arena, for example, the number of blacks who have graduated from college has risen over ten percentage points since the advent of affirmative action, according to data by The Shape of the River authors William G. Bowen and Derek Bok.Minorities have been exposed to more opportunities in the workplace as well.Before affirmative action, many companies had subtle discrimination policies on the books, wherein black workers were limited to maintenance work or other unskilled labor, while whites secured the jobs most prone to advancement. Since affirmative action laws took effect, such practices have diminished or ceased (Fullwinder, “Affirmative Action”).
Numbers suggest that women can benefit from affirmative action as well. The following sobering statistics should silence any insistence that discrimination no longer exists: 97 percent of individuals in corporate positions are men; obvious discrepancies exist in work pay between men and women (74 cents to every dollar); and only three percent of federally issued contracts are awarded to firms owned by women (“Talking,” National Organization for Women).Without affirmative action policies, however, these numbers would likely be even bleaker. A U.S. Labor Department report recently indicated that affirmative action has aided six million women in their quest for upwards mobility in the workforce.
The survey also claims an additional five million minorities have benefited from affirmative action (Plous 28-29). Even the public appears to see benefits in affirmative action policies. A recent Gallup showed 56 percent of Americans answering the following question in the affirmative: “Affirmative action is necessary to help women and minorities overcome discrimination.”Surprisingly, almost an equal number of whites as blacks support this statement (Paul 23).
A more controversial defense of affirmative action leads us into the arguments of affirmative action’s opponents. Some defenders claim that minorities and women should be given special consideration as a form of compensation for past injustices (Fullwinder, “Affirmative Action”).In a sense, affirmative action would right the wrongs of the past, such as slavery or voter exclusion. Such a sentiment was even echoed in the words of Lyndon Johnson:“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair” (Craig 37).
Yet how far, opponents might justifiably ask, is such a ‘sins of the father’ approach? Should an entire segment of society be punished for actions in which it had no part? By providing minorities and women with an unwarranted advantage, are we as a society really freeing them from those chains….or tightening the chains further?If one sends the top ten percent of a minority group to compete with the top one percent of a majority group (O’ Sullivan 18), then is one setting up the minority group for inevitable failure (and perhaps esteem issues)?The legal system is congested with cases where a white worker or a white student or a white applicant (or a male worker, student, or applicant) feels that he has been denied his own opportunities for advancement, despite the fact that his credentials may be impeccable. Is such reverse discrimination, opponents argue, truly a reflection of the equality principles which affirmative action claims to promote, or is it a perversion of such principles? If the court cases and split in public opinion are any indication, then affirmative action does not promote diversity; it only invites divisiveness and resentment:“Just as the previous (Jim Crow) discrimination did, this reverse discrimination violates the public policy which defines citizenship” (Fullwinder, “Affirmative Action”).As each side of the affirmative action debate stands firmly entrenched, is mediation even possible? This issue cuts at the core of the belief systems of so many. It is not merely a political issue or a financial issue; it is an emotional issue. Therefore, mediation will not be easy—but it is possible.
While some prescribe to the “If it’s not broke…” philosophy, one cannot deny that a large portion of society sees affirmative action as “broken.” How might we fix it, without destroying it in the process? One possible answer, promoted by the Bush administration, is the development of so-called economic affirmative action.These programs would place the emphasis of affirmative action practices on demonstrated financial and social disadvantage, rather than on race and gender. Such programs have already produced positive results, particularly in the educational arena.“Where once students from a small number of high schools held the monopoly on elite colleges, students from low-income and low-performing schools are now winning admission," said U.
S. Education Secretary Roderick Paige (Roach 39).These programs would benefit inner city schools, which often have high percentages of minority students. The inequality of school funding for inner city schools has often been used as a justification for traditional affirmative action (Dervarics 37).Whichever form of affirmative action is ultimately best, history, logic, and statistical evidence support one undeniable claim: society needs affirmative action in some form.
Our country prides itself on equality and justice for every citizen. If we truly see these ideals as rights rather than baseless propaganda, our government should take every action that will affirm these values….values that represent the backbone of our society.WORKS CITED“Affirmative Action.” Yahoo Education. Accessed November 8, 2007.
Availablehttp://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/affirmatAntwi-Boasiako, Kwame Badu and Joseph O. Asagba. “A Preliminary Analysis of AfricanAmerican College Students’ Perceptions of Racial Preference and Affirmative Action.
”Journal of Instructional Psychology (December 2004): 18.Craig, Matthew. The Mixed Blessing of Affirmative Action. Washington: National Center for Public Policy Research, 2003.Dervarics, Charles.
“Lawmakers Link Affirmative Action, K-12 Funding Issues.” Black Issues in Higher Education (June 2003): 37.Fullwinder, Robert. “Affirmative Action.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Copyright2005. Accessed November 8, 2007 . Available http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ affirmative-action/O’ Sullivan, John. “Affirmative Action Forever?” National Review (July 2003): 17-24.
Paul, Pamela. “The Legacy of Affirmative Action.” American Demographics (May 2003):Plous, S. “Ten Myths About Affirmative Action.
” Journal of Social Issues (52): 25-31.Ponnoru, Ramesh. “Originalist Sin: Conservatives, The Constitution, and Affirmative Action.”National Review (March 2003): 7-12.Roach, Ronald. “Class-Based Affirmative Action.
” Black Issues in Higher Education (June“Talking About Affirmative Action.” National Organization for Women. Accessed November 8,2007. Available http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/
