Affirmative Action: Is it Still Necessary?
By: Nick Snyder
 |
The definition of Affirmative Action, as defined by the Legal Information Institute, is ‘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.’ By this definition, there is (seemingly) nothing inherently problematic about affirmative action, but any programs or movements working towards racial equality have (historically) faced backlash. Affirmative Action was introduced to the United States by President Kennedy, in Executive Order 10925 (1961): "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." This was the first legal appearance of Affirmative Action, but the concept had already been discussed. Programs and policies focusing on equal opportunity for all races/ethnicity are still in place today, and these programs are still controversial, and to some they can even be problematic. But are they necessary?
Before one can determine how effective and necessary Affirmative Action programs are, it is important to understand what they actually look like in practice. Programs were officially implemented in 1965, by Executive Order 11246. The order mandated that government contractors had to submit compliance reports that documented "such information as to the practices, policies, programs, and employment policies, programs, and employment statistics of the contractor and each subcontractor . . . " Essentially, this means that any employer, college or university/Academic Institution, or any other entity that receives federal funding must submit an ‘Organizational Profile’ that is reviewed by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. They can do this using an Organizational Display or Workforce Analysis, both are meant to provide an overview of the workforce at the establishment that may assist in identifying organizational units where women or minorities are underrepresented. The ‘minority’ racial/ethnic groups include: Black/African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives. An important aspect of Affirmative Action programs is ‘Availability’, which is an estimate of the number of qualified minorities or women available for employment in a given job group. What this means is that when the DOL looks at an organizational profile, they are not using the general population, but the ‘Availability’ for each role. They use this information to determine what the expected workforce would be if discrimination were not present. The expected workforce without discrimination is often used as ‘Placement Goals’; or what each contractor should strive for; quotas are not permitted and merit is expected to precede the placement goals. When it is found that women and minorities are not being employed at a rate expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor's affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address this underutilization. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and therefore must utilize affirmative action in their employment and admissions practices.
After understanding the goal behind Affirmative Action, and what the federal government actually does to work towards this goal, one may question how these programs could be problematic; but there are real concerns that have been raised about them. In an article in the Stanford Magazine titled, The Case Against Affirmative Action, David Sacks and Peter Thiel address their concerns with the programs in place at Stanford University. Including an observation by Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell, that found programs have primarily benefited minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. They also explain how admissions, like job opportunities within a company, are a zero-sum game, and for this reason poor white individuals and Asians can be negatively impacted/denied opportunities, in favor of black and Latinx applicants. They also explain how this push for "diversity" has led Stanford to create racially segregated: dormitories, freshman orientation programs, and graduation ceremonies as well as curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies. Overall, they question whether, after 25 years, if these programs have not succeeded in ending discrimination, then are they effective and are they still necessary.
If Affirmative Action programs can hurt low-income individuals and Asians, and have not had significant impact on racial discrimination after 25 years, then are they necessary? Well, black and Latinx students are more underrepresented at selective universities today than they were 35 years ago. A black student enrollment disparity exists at 45 of the 50 flagship state universities, meaning that the percentage of undergraduates who are black is lower than the percentage of high school graduates in that state who are black. Another phenomenon that is important for understanding why income alone, like Sacks and Theil suggest, is not substantial for ‘equal opportunity’ due to the fact that middle-income white households typically have twice as much wealth as their Latinx counterparts and three times more wealth than their black counterparts. As a result, students of color are more likely than similarly situated white students to attend underfunded and high-poverty public schools. Additionally, students of color are susceptible to racial discrimination within their public school system growing up, regardless of income level. For example, students of color are less likely to be referred to “gifted and talented” programs, even after controlling for test scores, health, socio-economic status, and classroom and school characteristics. Schools are also more likely to suspend or expel students of color than white students. Growing up under these circumstances and being as successful as students who did not face these challenges indicates a level of emotional intelligence that could be extremely valuable at a job/university. Race-conscious admissions practices, like affirmative action, attempt to bridge these inequities by encouraging colleges to take a closer look at some of the nontraditional factors that could make a student successful.
I believe that a lot of the criticism Affirmative Action receives is due to the misconception that it involves quotas, which are expressly forbidden. Much of the criticism that Sacks and Thiel raised about the programs at Stanford were referring more to racial preferences, which can also be a common misconception about Affirmative Action programs federally. Preference occurs when a group of applicants are more likely to be admitted than other qualified applicants due to other factors, such as race or ethnicity. Preferences are also sometimes extended towards women, athletes, and children of alumni. Racial preferences are present at 109 of the 577 Public Universities in the US. Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions: Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington, these preferences are not present at the overwhelming majority of institutions and are not mandated federally. The actual goal of Affirmative Action is often overlooked by the defamation that many social movements or policies focusing on racial equality face. Sacks and Thiel do raise valid concerns that are present nationally and on the federal level, especially in regards to admissions. I support Affirmative Action in that we absolutely need to ensure that opportunities are not denied based on race or any aspect of an individual's identity. I do, however, hope to see growth in how we look at diversity when attempting to define what an institution should look like. I agree with Sacks and Thiel that if these programs are meant to create opportunity for underrepresented groups there should be more of a focus on low-income applicants. Low-income individuals are the least represented at every elite student nationally, at 38 colleges in America, including five in the Ivy League, more students came from the top 1 percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom 60 percent. I believe we need to continue to evaluate how opportunities are given, and do what we can to work towards equal opportunity for all people.
Sources
Affirmative Action | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
eCFR :: 41 CFR Part 60-2 -- Affirmative Action Programs
State data on colleges considering race in admissions - Ballotpedia
The Case Against Affirmative Action | STANFORD magazine
5 Reasons to Support Affirmative Action in College Admissions - Center for American Progress
Most people also fail to recognize that the group that has historically benefitted the most from affirmative action is white women.