Affirmative Action
- Amy Compare
- Nov 14, 2020
- 7 min read
I listened to an episode of the podcast You’re Wrong About on the “Ebonics” controversy. There were a lot of topics that I realized I wanted to look up based on that episode, but somehow ended up on affirmative action action (which I actually don’t think was touched on in that particular episode at all). Some of the other topics I have started to research, but here is what I have learned about affirmative action.
History of Affirmative Action
Affirmation action refers to policies and laws attempting to rectify discrimination and promote equal opportunities. The term was first used in 1961 by President Kennedy in his executive order 10925 in which he instructed federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law which prohibited employment discrimination by large employers (with over 15 employees) regardless of if they had government contracts. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued executive order 11246 which required all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities. In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include affirmative action for women. There are a ton of other policies around affirmative action (both for and against) over the years that you can read about here: https://www.aaaed.org/aaaed/History_of_Affirmative_Action.asp (sorry, there were just so many things!)
Reasons for Support of Affirmative Action
There are many aspects to college entry other than race that are arbitrary, like legacy kids given entry into schools
Disparity in opportunities to access higher education often falls along race/socio-economic lines
“Put bluntly, equality of opportunity does not currently exist, and therefore, neither does meritocracy. In this sense, affirmative action does not degrade meritocracy; it promotes it.”
Racial minority groups have “systematically [been] prevented from social, political, and economic advancement through discriminatory policies, implicit bias, exploitation, and deprivation of rights. (Segregation, voter suppression, and redlining come to mind, all of which have ramifications which still affect society today.)”
While this doesn’t affect all minorities, but across the board, as a group they start with greater barriers to jump through/over
Affirmative action acts as a way to remove barriers to higher education (or in job entry)
“Affirmative action has proven successful in increasing the number of minorities with advanced degrees, thus providing them with unseen economic opportunities. Although African Americans are still indeed underrepresented, affirmative action has aided minorities in increasing acceptance rates into selective universities”
Colleges are still accepting people who are qualified for their universities - if we’re going to talk about colleges accepting people based on certain characteristics, why don’t we go after affirmative action for legacy kids just as hard we go after affirmative action for minorities? (because $$)
Affirmative action should be part of broader education reforms, not a stand-alone tactic
Creates more diverse workplace
Can attract a more diverse, new customer base
Helps folks with disabilities enter the workforce
Reasons Against Supporting Affirmative Action
Degrades meritocracy because entry to a school due to a factor not in applicant’s control
Entry should be based on merit, not race
Affirmative action is a racist policy that assumes all minorities in need of assistance which reinforces stereotypes of racial minorities
Race based affirmative action is reverse-discrimination
Ethnic diversity does not mean intellectual diversity - generalizes racial groups
“affirmative action does not work. Oftentimes, these students are unprepared for such an incredibly competitive educational environment, causing them to struggle, whereas they might thrive at a different college”
By “suggesting that minorities are in need of external assistance, we are simply perpetuating racism by implying they are in some way inferior”
“Though affirmative action may increase the number of minority students at prestigious colleges, it fails to give students the means to develop the skills for success once they are admitted. To do so would involve aiding inequality which begins much earlier in the education system.”
Can create a stigma that minorities hired only for affirmative action and did not merit their jobs
Perception of reverse discrimination
Increase tensions among minorities and dominant group
“Affirmative action policies reinforce separation and division by making it illegal to classify people according to their race or ethnic background.”
“It can prove difficult to establish and administer the basic criteria that outline the recipients and end goals of preferential treatment.”
Although I could not confirm a date for this data (maybe I didn’t look hard enough), only about 19% of public universities use any sort of affirmative action, so it’s not like this is a super common thing.
Reflection
I think the binary between either being a minority given unearned access to school/job or given to someone (a non-minority) who is qualified is a false dichotomy. I think there are a lot of folks who are a minority (whether due to race, gender, or socioeconomic status) who are extremely qualified for these opportunities who never get past barriers imposed upon them. I don’t think this has to be (or should be) an argument about whether a school/employer wants diversity or a meritocracy - I think both can be true at the same time. Although some people may see it this way, it seems like affirmative action is not about making colleges easier academically to get into, but making them easier in other ways - it seems like most students who are accepted through affirmative action are not inferior to other students academically, but didn’t necessarily have the opportunities or money to sell themselves to universities or aren’t steeped in the culture of knowledge in how to get into higher education (it’s one thing to have the intelligence/resilience to succeed in higher education and another to know how to navigate the system). I ended up in college with an academic scholarship that paid for at least 75% of my undergrad fees. Although I had good grades and above average test scores, I wasn’t in any sort of category that really distinguished me, like a National Merit Scholar. I’m not sure how my university picked people for that particular scholarship, and it seems to me like there had to have been a lot of people qualified for it who were not awarded it. And while I am very grateful to have been awarded it to save myself from student loans and my parents from paying for my school, I do think I was in a boat where my parents could have helped pay for my school if I needed it. For many folks, this situation would have been impossible, and I do wonder, not if I was qualified for or deserved the scholarship (I think I was - I did work really hard), but if I was actually the person who could have benefited from it the most. I’m going to venture to say probably not.
I also think that affirmative action can and should be used as a tool in tandem with other educational reforms that remove barriers for non-dominant groups rather than as a stand-alone practice. Racial “achievement gaps” start early on in a students’ school career, and attempts to nip these disparities in the bud is probably better in the long run (I know saying that makes it seem like these are easy things to fix when they are quite complex. I also have heard that these racial gaps should not be called achievement gaps, but rather opportunity gaps, something I want to look up for another post, along with the role of standardized testing in forming these gaps). If reforms early on in a school career are able to break down barriers, then perhaps affirmative action wouldn’t be as necessary, but it does seem like it is still a good tool when used properly and in tandem with other tools.
While the articles I was reading were more focused on college admissions, one experience that came to my mind was that of women in wildland firefighting. I think this experience highlights barriers to entry in a field that has historically been, and continues to be, male-dominated. I had read an article once with stories from at least 5 women pioneers in wildland fire who outlined outrageous examples of blatant sexism and harassment they faced in their careers in the 1970s and 1980s (I’m really sad I didn’t save the link to that article). This article pointed out more subtle sexism happening in fire today, including less qualified men being promoted in place of more qualified women and men not listening to women leaders among other things which provide barriers to women that many men do not face and make motivation to stay in a job that you really need to be in for a long time to earn a permanent spot more difficult. It does sound like the Forest Service is offering some neat incentives for women, like providing childcare and year-long office opportunities for folks struggling with serious family issues (like aging parents or sick kids). There are also a slew of women’s only fire bootcamps and crews which I think are a great way to be able to teach women in a safe space. It seems like crew cultures have been and continue to shift to making fire more inclusive all around, which I think is extremely necessary in addition to policies that ensure that women cannot be discriminated against in being hired in the first place (and for the people who think women aren’t physically qualified for a job like this, they’re passing the same physical tests that men do in order to be hired). I think women in fire is a great example of how removing discrimination and barriers requires a multi-faceted approach. In a similar way, affirmative action is a small piece of a larger puzzle.
Thinking about affirmative action in my career field - as a woman in the field of conservation, I am a minority, and I feel very grateful for the organization I work for who is committed to fostering an inclusive culture and actively hiring, supporting, and retaining women leaders in the field. Because of their commitment to building women leaders in a sort of lower-level leadership role (it seems like a sort of self-imposed affirmative action that the organization took on for themselves), I think the experiences I have in working for them can prepare me for a higher-level leadership role in conservation in the future. I feel very grateful for the women who came before me to make my life so much easier in this field. When I think about an organization hiring a person of color instead of me, although that may suck for me at an individual level of not being hired for a job, I know that the field as a whole is sorely lacking this diversity, and I see this as an advancement of the field as a whole rather than a loss for me. I can suck up something like that, especially as one of my career goals is to help diversity the field.
Resources:
Comments