Affirmative Action From the Perspective of Racial Minorities
Overview
Affirmative action is defined by the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute as “a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future” (LII, 2024). These procedures can be applied to the job application process or the college application process. Examples of some affirmative action procedures can be found in the U.S. Department of Labor website in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs section. Procedures include but are not limited to: utilization analysis, identification of problem areas, setting placement goals, and internal auditing (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 2024). Companies and colleges have also practiced affirmative action by creating diversity quotas or recruiting in lower income or more diverse areas.
Affirmative action procedures have become increasingly controversial in recent decades. Those who are not directly benefited by the programs feel that it puts them at a disadvantage. There are also individuals who can benefit from these programs directly, but feel that they delegitimize their hard work and accomplishments.
The most recent controversy regarding affirmative action was the Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions, INC Petitioner v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, students at Harvard and several other universities sued the school for their affirmative action policies, claiming they are discriminatory and violated the Fourteenth Amendment (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 2023). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, setting the precedent for all universities and companies that affirmative action is unconstitutional.
History
From the moment that the first Europeans set foot onto North American soil, race and racism have been pervasive and divisive issues. American Indian boarding schools, slavery, and Jim Crow laws were all American institutions whose effects are still present in society today. The stratification in American society is largely tied to race, so people of color in the United States have been living in disproportionately negative conditions with similarly disproportionate opportunities and economic mobility as compared to their white counterparts. Even if a minority group is not actively discriminated against at a particular point in time, generational trauma can still hinder the success of its members. Affirmative action is a practice that was created to combat these disparities.
A page from the archived websites from the Clinton Administration outlines the history of affirmative action and reveals that one of the first affirmative action policies was implemented when “in 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equality of employment opportunity without regard to race, religion and national origin” (Clinton White House Archives, 2024). This was during the civil rights movement, a time when the issue of racial inequality came to the forefront of politics and political justice.
A graph from a report by the U.S. Department of Education titled “120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait” shows the potential impact of Executive Order 11246 and other similar policies.
As demonstrated in this visual, the percentage of black men and women who completed 4 years of college rose approximately 15% between the years 1960 and 1990. This correlates with the formation and rise in affirmative action programs, suggesting that affirmative action has opened up opportunities for people of color in the U.S. However, not everyone is happy about this. As discussed in a previous section, opponents of affirmative action feel as though these policies put certain races at a greater advantage than others during the application processes.
Positions
Affirmative action is a highly polarized issue in the United States. Although it can affect different marginalized groups in different ways, for the purpose of this paper, I will be focusing on the differences in opinion based on race, instead of gender, religion, etc.
Affirmative action was not created to benefit white Americans. White Americans are historically not discriminated against based on race, leaving them in preferrable socioeconomic situations when compared to minorities. Some feel as though giving minorities preference in application processes leaves them at a disadvantage, and therefore many do not favor affirmative action. According to a 2024 Gallup Poll, 72% of white Americans think that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action is a good thing. In contrast, only 52% of black Americans and 63% of Asian Americans felt this way. Additionally, 36% of white Americans think that the ruling will make applications easier for their own race, while 52% of African Americans think it will make applications harder for them (Gallup 2024). Therefore, many white Americans felt that affirmative action was harmful to them, while black Americans felt that it was important for the ability of their race to enter university.
An interesting nuance of affirmative action is its effect on Asians, which are sometimes referred to as a “model minority”. The model minority myth is described by Pew Research as “the nation’s Asian population [being characterized] as high-achieving economically and educationally, which has been attributed to Asians being hardworking and deferential to parental and authority figures, among other factors” (Pew Research, 2023). This myth has had many negative effects, such as mental health issues in the Asian American community and creating tensions between Asian Americans and other racial minority groups.
Due to these “model minority” stereotypes, Asian Americans are often left out of affirmative action programs or are negatively impacted by them. An article from the Stanford Law Review titled “Affirmative Action for Who?” by Paul Brest and Miranda Oshige describes how Stanford Law School does not apply affirmative action efforts to Asian Americans in the application process, but does apply them to “African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans” (Brest and Oshige, 1995). Asian Americans are clearly a racial minority in the United States and have faced their fair share of oppression, so why are they not treated the same way as other oppressed groups by affirmative action? This double standard goes to show that affirmative action is not an unbiased or foolproof process, which contributes to why it is a controversial subject. Furthermore, the group of students who sued Harvard in the recent landmark Supreme Court case were Asian Americans according to the article “Is Affirmative Action interfering with the Chinese dream in America? Exploring WeChat users’ views on Affirmative Action in U.S. college admissions” by Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero & Kai Zhao (Johnston-Guerreo & Zhao, 2019).
For black Americans, a similarly complex reaction to the policies. According to an article from the American Bar Association on the topic by Philip C. Aka, black Americans such as Hobart Taylor, an appointee of President John F. Kennedy, who coined the term “affirmative action”, helped implement the programs. Yet, on the other hand, “black opponents of affirmative action complain that these policies stamp a “badge of inferiority” on beneficiaries, and that they reinforce stereotypes that blacks, particularly African American professionals, cannot compete without these helps” (Aka, 2009). These exhibitions of complexities within the black American's perspective on affirmative action is also apparent in the Gallup poll mentioned earlier. Although 50% of black Americans felt that the recent Supreme Court ruling would have negative effects on higher education, a surprising 33% said that they thought it would have a positive impact (Gallup, 2024). It is interesting that a group of people who a social program was meant to benefit, would feel positively towards its termination.
As with any divisive issue, there are a plethora of opinions that can be seen in all groups, political or racial. Race does not determine one's opinion of affirmative action or how they feel it has affected them.
Personal Opinion
My opinion regarding affirmative action has wavered overtime, but stayed centered around being a proponent. I feel that it is necessary to help lift up marginalized groups in order to level the playing field with those who have not been oppressed. University is an opportunity that can change the course of one’s life, and providing greater access to historically disadvantaged communities can help lift them up, which will then benefit every area of American society.
However, I do see many issues with the way that affirmative action has been used. As shown in the Stanford Law Review article, there are certain oppressed groups that are overlooked by affirmative action due to stereotypes regarding success and wealth. In order for affirmative action to accomplish the purpose that it was founded for, there needs to be a way to provide complete fairness to the process.
Additionally, I find it dangerous to group people together by race or any other factor. The fact that one’s race is more or less common, historically oppressed or oppressed, does not provide a direct correlation to their lived experiences and traumas. Applications should instead focus on the individuals values, ethics, experiences, desires, potential, etc.
This issue is not black and white, and neither is my opinion. Much like many of the institutions currently operating in this country, I do not feel that affirmative action should be considered unconstitutional or be abolished, but it needs to be reformed in order to establish actual equality. It also is not the cure for racism or oppression. Centuries of generational trauma cannot be undone by four years in college.
Public Policy Theory
A public policy theory that could be applied to the concept of affirmative action is “social justice theory”. This theory is difficult to define, but it involves making the allocation of resources a more equal process in order to promote equality. A visual that demonstrates this concept well is the bicycle image.
Allowing anyone to apply to college would be considered equality in this context. Everyone has the same access to the application portal. However, there are certain requirements that one may not be able to fulfill due to any number of circumstances, including but not limited to race, socioeconomic status, immigration status, etc. The goal of affirmative action is to provide people with equity, the ability to have an opportunity by exerting the same amount of effort as others. Several other government programs aim to have the same effect, such as unemployment payments, public housing, disability payments, etc.
Conclusion
Because affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, universities and companies are now looking for creative solutions for maintaining diversity within their students and staff. One way is to recruit at low income or disadvantaged areas. Another is to hire based on personality or potential, rather than facts such as where someone graduated from. In terms of how to move forward in proving that affirmative action is necessary and fair, the courts will need to be able to see that affirmative action has not negatively impacted students and that it has created a more equitable society. However, these efforts will be fruitless if the political parties in power are fundamentally against equality. More conservative judges and politicians are not likely to allow Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts in their jurisdiction, as we have seen in southern states such as Florida and Texas.
To undo the centuries of racism and trauma that society has created for minorities and marginalized groups will take a lot more than affirmative action. This is a process with no singular answer and will take decades if not centuries. But, figuring out how to give all people access to higher education is a good first step.
References
“3. Asian Americans and the ‘model Minority’ Stereotype.” Pew Research Center Race & Ethnicity, Pew Research Center, 30 Nov. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-the-model-minority-stereotype/.
“Affirmative Action.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action. Accessed 11 Mar. 2024.
Aka, Philip C. “Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America.” American Bar Association, American Bar Association, 1 Oct. 2009, www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol36_2009/fall2009/affirmative_action_and_the_black_experience_in_america/.
Brest, P., & Oshige, M. (1995). Affirmative Action for Whom? Stanford Law Review, 47(5), 855–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229177
Clinton Administration. “2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HISTORY AND RATIONALE.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html#:~:text=In%201965%2C%20President%20Johnson%20issued,added%20to%20the%20protected%20categories. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-the-model-minority-stereotype/. Accessed 11 Mar. 2024.
McCarthy, Justin. “Post-Affirmative Action, Views on Admissions Differ by Race.” Gallup, Gallup, 7 Feb. 2024, news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx.
Nexis. STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE . 29 June 2023. Nexis.
“Sample Affirmative Action Program (AAP).” U.S. Department of Labor, www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ofccp/regs/compliance/AAPs/Sample_EO11246_AAP_final_01.03.18_Contr508.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.
Snyder, Thomas D. “120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait.” Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar. 2024.