Affirmative Action – A necessary evil?

Our world hangs in the balance as a battle rages over human rights. In all arenas of human engagement we find continuing conflicts arising out of oppression that at one time or another was perpetrated by one group over another. For example, there are countless examples in history of the oppression of people of color by the White ethnocentric colonialists in the Americas, indeed throughout the world, as there are many examples of oppression even among people of color that have developed into various ethnic groups. In our modern century we have become acquainted with terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing when reminded about events such as the Jewish Holocaust or the ongoing ethnic cleansing occurring in countries in South America, Africa and Eurasia. Discrimination and ethnocentricity are culturally engrained human behaviors that have been in play for thousands of years and passed on from one generation to the next. However, in American democracy we have in constitution and in writing declared that “all men are created equal.” This statement is the principle ideology that gives rise to all the other constitutional declarations. And yet, even though we did have this in writing in our constitution over 200 years ago, as a nation, we didn’t abolish slavery until a little over a hundred years ago.  And we are still grappling with the issues over human rights and inequalities.

Affirmative action was born out of the fact that, at the time, discrimination in this country was rampant even though the government had instituted laws and remedies to try and make amends for past wrongs committed by the Whites who came to North America and established a nation. Affirmative action was an attempt to compensate the people of color, either domestic or imported, exploited in this enterprise. Many people of color were still not being represented fairly in politics, education, and the free market economy of our nation well into the late 1950s. So in 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed executive order 10925 creating the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity to oversee compliance with his instructions to federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." He also was responsible for introducing legislation that was passed into law called the Civil Rights act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination in the workplace and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. To coin the phrase, “affirmative action” would seem to have come directly from Executive Order 10925. This order was followed by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 expanding the affirmative actions of the government to include women and minorities.

There has been considerable progress in this country since the creation of the various committees and commissions responsible for enforcing the legislation. But along with significant progress for women and minorities has come a growing controversy over the issue of affirmative action and its use of what some critics call “reverse discrimination” to ensure compliance with equal opportunity law. The battle lines are being drawn as there are those individuals and organizations in our country who seek to eliminate affirmative action programs entirely from our system of government and education while simultaneously exalting the merits of an as yet unrealized colorblind society. The debate is ongoing and is now touching the lives of most college students who are becoming aware of lawsuits filed by students against the educational institutions they were denied attendance to in order to bring the issue once again to the Supreme Court for clarification; these students charged that they were the victims of “reverse discrimination.”

The first major case, challenging some aspects of affirmative action in higher education to be decided by the Court, was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978, which upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants. A more recent case involves the University of Michigan, 2000, where the Sixth Circuit Court handed down its decision to uphold the constitutionality of using race as one of many factors in making college admissions decisions. This case is still working its way to the top court. However, in the arena of government, affirmative action has lost great strides, with some states having already abolished, or currently seeking to abolish, affirmative action at the state level. California was the first to narrowly pass Proposition 209 in 1996 and the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to this law in 1997 which resulted in the law being allowed to go into effect, without a decision about its constitutionality. The chilling effect that has come from this is that many have seized on its momentum and are now crusading to turn the national tide.

An educated person, well informed with statistical data, would conclude that discrimination in this country has not been eliminated as yet. However, both sides of the issue have extremely compelling and logical arguments to support their positions as to whether affirmative action should or should not be continued. I found the following quote in an article written by Borgna Brunner on a website I consulted on the Internet when researching this topic. In her concluding statements about affirmative action she quotes a college president of San Jose State University, John Brunzel, as stating:

"Perhaps the most important lesson I've learned is that there are no airtight, completely coherent, unassailable, and holistic answers on the question of affirmative action that are not only theoretically perfect, but instrumentally practical. Any intelligent person who wrestles with it is going to be vulnerable and subject to the twists and turns of unintended consequences." (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html)

It seems somewhat of an understatement to say that affirmative action is a difficult issue to take sides on (especially knowing the history of colonization); however, my own personal experience has been one of flip flopping on this issue, having been influenced by each new compelling argument. So, in an attempt to narrow the issues down to a list of pros and cons I present the following lists.

Major Arguments against AA

· AA is “reverse discrimination”

· Favoritism should be economic based not race based

· Many other forms of discrimination are not addressed by AA

· Anthropological Association states that “race does not exist”

· Why favor only certain races?

· Cultural factors not addressed

· “Two wrongs don’t make a right”

· AA Emphasizes groups over individuals

Major Arguments in Favor of AA

· Racism and Discrimination have not been eliminated from society yet

· AA is “corrective justice”

· AA is “just distribution” of opportunities to the disadvantaged

· Race is only “one” criteria among many

· AA minimizes subordination of one group by another

· AA maximizes social utility

· AA protects women, the elderly, and the disabled (including Whites)

· AA empowers previously oppressed and underrepresented groups

Professor Albert G. Mosley reprinted in the text book Taking Sides—Clashing Views on Controversial Moral Issues, Eighth Edition, states in the conclusion of his presentation, writing in favor of affirmative action: 

“Racism was directed against Blacks whether they were talented, average, or mediocre, and attenuating the effects of racism requires distributing remedies similarly. Affirmative action policies compensate for the harms of racism (overt and institutional) through antidiscrimination laws and preferential policies. Prohibiting the benign use of race as a factor in the award of educational, employment and business opportunities would eliminate compensation for past and present racism and reinforce the moral validity of the status quo, with Blacks overrepresented among the least well off and underrepresented among the most well off.”(Pg 241)

            From reading his entire presentation I came to the conclusion that until it can be shown statistically that equality of opportunity has been achieved for all citizens regardless of their race, gender or financial status, the use of race as one factor among many to assist in the equalization process is necessary. It was never the intention of the authors of affirmative action to punish future generations of Whites. However, under representation is still a fact. There remains a compelling need for a mechanism to ensure equal opportunity and affirmative action is the best mechanism we have.

            Whereas, some of those who oppose affirmative action have taken the position that there are two kinds of affirmative action: weak and strong. Louis P. Pojman, from “The Case Against Affirmative Action,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy (Spring 1998) and reprinted in the previously cited text book states:

“The problem of Weak Affirmative Action is that it easily slides into Strong Affirmative Action where quotas, “goals and timetables”, “equal results”—in a word—reverse discrimination—prevail and are forced onto groups, thus promoting mediocrity, inefficiency, and resentment. Furthermore, AA aims at the higher levels of society-universities and skilled jobs, but if we want to improve our society, the best way to do it is to concentrate on families, children, early education, and the like, so all are prepared to avail themselves of opportunity. Affirmative Action, on the one hand, is too much, too soon and on the other hand, too little, too late…” (Pg 252)

            Everyone agrees that discrimination, in any form, is wrong—some would even venture to call it evil. Therefore, framing the discussion against affirmative action as being “reverse discrimination” draws on the characterization of discrimination as evil is designed to appeal to the moral sensibilities of our society and persuade them to abandon affirmative action. However, which is the greater of the two evils—the “benign use of race as a factor” in the equalization process or allowing all forms of discrimination to flourish unchecked? If one wishes to characterize affirmative action as evil, I say it is a necessary evil until we can genuinely say that discrimination has been eliminated from American society.