Affirmative Action

• What is affirmative action?
• What is diversity?
• Does affirmative action mean hiring or promoting unqualified people just because they are minorities or women?
• Does affirmative action mean quotas?
• Isn't affirmative action really reverse discrimination?
• Doesn't affirmative action perpetuate a society that focuses on race when what we want is a color-blind society? Why do we still need affirmative action?
• Why should women care about affirmative action?
• Asian Americans have made it without affirmative action so why can't everyone else?
• Doesn't affirmative action stigmatize people of color who are seen as getting a job or into college only because of that policy?
• Why don't we change affirmative action to policies that help people based on economic need instead of race or gender?
• What is behind the debate about affirmative action?
• Does affirmative action benefit society as a whole?

Some of the below questions appeared in a special feature of CrossRoads magazine No.52, June 1995.

The roots of affirmative action lie in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At first, affirmative action aimed to eliminate racial imbalance in hiring policies; later the goals were extended to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts. Subsequent provisions extended protections to all people of color, women, older people and people with disabilities. Equal opportunity laws ban discrimination. Affirmative action goes farther by requiring employers to take "affirmative" steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers.

Diversity goes beyond assurances of the presence of persons from underrepresented affirmative action groups to the guarantee of active participation and meaningful contributions to the whole. It is recognizing and blending perspectives of all individuals into an agreeable whole that is the source of diversity.

Most jobs are found by word-of-mouth. Affirmative action pushes employers to try harder, to cast a wider net. Without this extra effort, many employers would do what they have always done: maintain that they couldn't find a "qualified" woman or person of color.

The current conception of merit based on test scores, grade point averages or other measurable standards is too narrow. Many tests are inadequate to predict success. Numerous studies have found that there is only a slight relationship between test scores and performance or professional achievement. (Seattle Times, March 12, 1995). On the other hand, there is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources and test scores. Over-reliance on test results inhibits employers from considering other factors that indicate competence and predict success, such as prior work experience and specialized training. Regarding college admissions, tests are culturally biased in that they tend to reflect the experiences of middle class students and their access to higher quality education than that available to less advantaged students.

And students are frequently admitted on the basis of many preferences that have nothing to with affirmative action, such as personal connections, financial contributions, geographical diversity, athletic skill, or whether an applicant is a veteran. "Far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through 'alumni preference' than the combined numbers of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action." (S.F. Examiner, April 6, 1995).

The University of California sets aside five percent of its incoming freshman class for those who do not meet certain standards but who are members of an underrepresented racial group, athletes or graduates of rural high schools, for example. The University of Washington School of Law receives 2,500 applications. About 900 are considered clearly qualified, but most are not accepted because there are only 165 first-year places. The Law School selects students based on a combination of scores, grades and other factors such as cultural background and special talents to enhance the richness of the student body. (Seattle Times, March 12, 1995). There is no evidence that affirmative action has lowered the quality of any educational institution.

Few reverse discrimination cases have been brought by white males, and even fewer have been found to have any merit. A recent Labor Department report found less than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeal, between 1990 and 1994. Discrimination was established only in six cases. The report found that, "Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant... erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualifications." (S.F. Chronicle, March 31, 1995).

While some white men may feel they have been unfairly passed over, it is a myth that they are losing jobs to unqualified women or people of color due to affirmative action. While white men continue to dominate the upper levels of business, less-skilled white men, men of color and women are all losing jobs as corporations move overseas, down-size, hire part-time workers, automate and computerize.

In a recent poll, 60 percent of white people felt that people of color have the same opportunities as whites, while 70 percent of black people disagreed. (West County Times, October 12, 1994). Talk of a "color-blind" society acts as a smokescreen to diffuse the issues of race facing our nation. Opponents of affirmative action say they want to protect the rights of the individual, and that race and gender are irrevelent. However, the fact is that it has always mattered whether an individual is white or of color, male or female, rich or poor. Opportunities in life have always been conditioned by those factors.

The brutality of racism continues relatively unfettered: African Americans have the highest poverty rate at 33.1 percent; for Latinos it is 30.6 percent; for Asians, 15.3 percent; and for whites, 12.2 percent. (S.F. Examiner, October 7, 1994). In 1992, 46.6 percent of Black children under age 18 lived in poverty, compared with 16.9 percent of white children. Black babies are twice as likely to die within the first year of life as white babies. (S.F. Examiner, January 4, 1995). In early 1995, the national unemployment rate for Latinos equalled that of African Americans for the first time -- both being much higher than the rate for whites. (N.Y. Times, April 27, 1995).

Given these conditions it is not surprising that an American Council on Education survey found that Black and Latino students are less likely to complete high school and attend college than whites. Prospects for minority students in substandard schools remain dismal. About 96 percent of Latino and 95 percent of African American high school students cannot meet the University of California's admissions requirements. (S.F. Examiner, March 17, 1995). With tuition increasing, and competition for scholarships growing (along with a legal attack on race-based scholarship programs), higher education will soon be out of reach for an increasing number of students of color.

The Glass Ceiling Commission, a bipartisan group of legislators, labor experts and executives, was formed to identify the barriers to career advancement by women and people of color. In its 1995 report, the Commission found that white men, who constitute about 43 percent of the workforce, hold over 95 percent of senior management positions. White men comprise 80 percent of tenured professors and 97 percent of school superintendents, while Black men constitute four percent of middle management and three percent of physicians and lawyers. The Labor Department report revealed a "pattern of injustice" that has been only slightly remedied by affirmative action and would be worse without it.

Until this picture changes, affirmative action will be vital in any efforts to address poverty and achieve equal opportunity. We need more affirmative action, not less.

However, women have yet to achieve equality in the work place. Women tend to work in a narrow range of low- paying, low-status jobs. They are under-represented in many occupations and are only 6.2 percent of directors of the top 500 corporations. Women occupy 44 percent of all federal jobs, but only 13 percent of top jobs. (Figures compiled by The Feminist Majority, March 14, 1995). In 1993, women and minority-owned firms received only 12 percent of the contracts awarded by the state, a mere four percent more than in the mid- 80s. (S.F. Chronicle, March 29, 1995). In addition, the gap in wages continues, as women earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by men.

Many working and middle class families could not survive without both parents working; 59 percent of women now work outside the home. Some polls indicate that young women, in particular, do not realize what it took for them to have the opporunities they take for granted today. Up until the 1970s, there were few women in law schools, few women professors except at women's colleges, few opportunities to go outside of jobs traditionally reserved for women.

Unfortunately, that myth does not serve to spare Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders from racist attacks or discrimination on the job. Like women and other people of color, Asian Americans continue to face the "glass ceiling" and to be underrepresented in many mid- and upper-level jobs.

It is also a myth that Asian Americans have not benefitted from affirmative action. Asian Americans are included in federal employment affirmative action policies which apply to most employers who receive federal funds. However, they are not considered an eligible minority for many of the federal student aid programs and their eligibility for special college admission programs varies with the educational institutions. In relation to affirmative action policy, Asian Americans are placed in a kind of buffer zone, sometimes treated as a minority and sometimes not. Their "model minority" image is used to undercut the demands of other people of color, yet Asian Americans continue to be subjected to racist stereotyping and scapegoting.

Sometimes this makes people of color feel as though they would be better off without affirmative action programs so that it would be clear they "deserve" to be where they are. However, affirmative action was developed in the first place because many people refused to recognize people of color as deserving an equal chance to demonstrate their abilities.

This debate is taking place in the larger context of the fight for the identity of the nation. It's no surprise that California is the first big site of the discussion. California will soon become the first state (other than Hawaii) to be majority non-white; the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and some counties already are. Many people fear losing control over the economic, political and cultural direction of the state, particularly to people from unfamiliar cultures.

Higher education has also benefitted from affirmative action. The former President of the University of California, Jack Peltason, recently stated: "Equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity programs have been indispensable both to our educational mission and to our ability to achieve a diversified community of learning." Private corporations have embraced affirmative action, knowing that it is good business to have a work force that reflects the demographics of the community.

Elizabeth Toledo, coordinator of California NOW, believes "We have to change the question from 'Is affirmative action good or bad?' to the question 'Does the government have the responsibility to address discrimination and bias in the work place, and does it have a duty to attempt to create a level playing field?"

The Dean of the University of Washington's Law School summed up why it does: "In an increasingly multicultural nation with a global reach, a committment to diversity -- to broadening the boundaries of inclusiveness of American institutions -- is economically necessary, morally imperative, and constitutionally legitimate."