|
Affirmative Action
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is one of the most
effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s
historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for
leveling what has long been an uneven playing field. A centuries-long
legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated despite the gains
made during the civil rights era. Avenues of opportunity for those
previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action
now more than ever.
According to 1998 U.S. Department of
Labor statistics, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be
unemployed. The unemployment rate is also higher for Latinos than for
whites. Blacks and Latinos generally earn far less than whites. In
2000, the median weekly earning for blacks was $459; for Latinos, it
was $395. In that period, average income for whites was $590. Workers
of color are still concentrated in the less well-paying, unskilled
sector. In 1993, black and Latino men were half as likely as whites to
be employed as managers or professionals and much more likely to be
employed as machine operators and laborers. Barriers to equality also
remain for women.
In 1998, women earned only 73% of the
wages earned by men, according to the Census Bureau. This pay gap
exists even within the same occupation. Indeed, the average woman
loses approximately $523,000 in wages over a lifetime due to pay
disparities. In many sectors, sex segregation bars women from
high-wage earning opportunities. Low-paying, dead-end occupations
such as domestic and secretarial work remain heavily female. Sexism
and racism create a double burden for women of color. In 2000, black
women earned a median weekly income of $458 compared to $523 for white
women and $717 for white men. Latina women’s median weekly income was
even lower, at $373.
Opponents of affirmative action
deliberately distort the definition and goals of this legal
remedy. They contend that the practice is unfair, that it leads to
preferential treatment and reverse discrimination, and that it
relies on quotas. Affirmative action programs neither grant
preferences based on race, nor create quotas. The law states that
affirmative action programs must be flexible, using goals and
timetables, but not quotas; protect seniority and not interfere
with the legitimate seniority expectations of current employees;
be temporary and last no longer than necessary to remedy
discrimination.
Certainly, unfair preferences in
hiring and admission do exist for some groups, but, in fact, such
preferences almost always favor white men. “Preferences” have been
shown for veterans, for children of alumnae, and for the offspring
of managers and peers.
Indeed, the argument that
affirmative action is “unfair” suggests that without such programs,
everyone, including women and people of color, would be treated
equally. Not even the most optimistic – or misguided – observer of
our nation’s history or contemporary society could make that claim
in good faith.
Race and gender should not be the
sole selection criteria (that would be a quota system), but they do
deserve to be among the many factors that are taken into account in
hiring, college admissions, and awarding grants and other types of
financial aid. Harvard University and other schools, for example,
assess race as a factor among others, including geographical region
– provided the applicant meets other admissions criteria.
To Be Colorblind
Foes of affirmative action
frequently misinterpret Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I Have
a Dream” speech. They assert that Dr. King was calling for
color-blind solutions for our nation’s ills when he said, “men
should be judged by the content of their character, not the color
of their skin.” This implication does a severe disservice to the
legacy of one of our nation’s major heroes in the struggle for equal
justice. Dr. King knew, as we know today, that there is no
sidestepping color and gender in our society.
The National Urban Institute proved
this theory recently, when it sent equally qualified pairs of job
applicants on a series of interviews for entry-level jobs. The young
men were coached to display similar levels of enthusiasm and
“articulateness.” The young white men received 45% more job offers
than their African American co-testers; whites were offered the job
52% more often than Latino “applicants.”
Many people of color are keenly
aware of such disparities, although many whites are not. A poll
commissioned by The National Conference, a workplace diversity
organization, found that 63% of whites thought African Americans
have equal opportunity, whereas 80% of African Americans felt they
do not. Furthermore, if one factors in the so-called war on crime,
which disproportionately targets young men of color, and the recent
wave of anti-immigrant laws, it is clear that solid legal protection
from discrimination is our only hope for creating equal opportunity
for all.
Corporate America is for Affirmative Action
Many U.S. companies have adopted
affirmative action policies voluntarily, because they know diverse
workforces are better at tailoring their goods and services for a
diverse national and global market. Diversity, they attest, is good
for the bottom line. On the other hand, businesses that resist
affirmative action often have had such programs imposed on them by
the courts.
Whether a company adopts an
affirmative action policy voluntarily or by court order, the sheer
number of minorities and women is meaningless unless it is
accompanied by a comprehensive and ongoing diversity management
program. Many companies remain riddled with sexual harassment,
racism, and unequal opportunity despite the presence of large
numbers of female and minority employees.
Companies doing business with the
federal government are obliged to meet federal affirmative action
requirements. And several federal programs assist minority-owned
businesses through contract set-asides, procurement goals, technical
assistance, grant and loan programs, and other forms of development
aid. Proactive recruitment efforts, diversity programs, and
safeguards such as the EEOC all help to level an unfair playing
ground, foster improved workplace relations – and provide recourse
for workers who feel they have suffered from discrimination.
Affirmative Action in Education
During the 30 years
following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the university
community took steps to recruit and admit more minorities. In 1955,
one year after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court
decision, less than 5% of college students were black. In the 1978
University of California v. Bakke
decision, the Court
ruled that while “racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are
inherently suspect,” a university could take race into account under
appropriate circumstances.
By 1990, over 11% of college students
were black, close to being representative of the percentage of blacks
in the U.S. population as a whole. Soon thereafter, however, a
backlash against affirmative action in higher education took hold.
The state of Texas scaled back opportunity dramatically in 1996 when
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Hopwood v.
UT that the University of Texas Law School’s affirmative action
program was unconstitutional. As a result of this decision, Latino and
African American admissions plummeted by 64% and 88% respectively in
just one year.
California’s Proposition 209 produced
equally nefarious results in our nation’s largest public university
system: law school admissions among blacks dropped nearly 72%, and
Latino admissions fell 35% following passage of the anti-affirmative
action ballot measure. Overall admissions of blacks, Latinos and
Native American students were cut in half at the UC Berkeley campus.
Though the numbers of minority admissions are rebounding in the UC
system as a whole, a two-tiered system is quickly developing. The
numbers are still decreasing at Berkeley and Los Angeles, the two
flagship campuses, with most minority students being redistributed to
less competitive campuses.
In 1997, the Texas Legislature
adopted a Ten Percent Plan, entitling high school seniors in the top
ten percent of their classes to attend the University of Texas or
Texas A&M – the flagship campuses – or any other state university. In
Florida, Governor Jeb Bush issued Executive Order 99281, ending
affirmative action in state contracting and university admissions.
Instead, the One Florida Plan will guarantee state admissions to high
school seniors in the top 20% of their classes.
However, both plans have their share
of problems. In Texas, the percentage of students of color in 1999
reached the levels that they were in 1996 – pre-Hopwood. But
upon closer inspection, the number of students of color who applied
also increased in 1999. Meanwhile, in Florida, many students of color
attend substandard K-12 public schools that do not offer the courses
required by the state’s university system. Furthermore, the Plan does
not require the state’s flagship institutions to admit the top 20%,
potentially creating a two-tiered system similar to the University of
California.
Standardized tests still carry
disproportionate weight in university admissions, yet many high
schools serving students of color do not provide the resources
students need to achieve on these tests; many even fail to offer
Advanced Placement (AP) courses to their excelling students.
One lawsuit addressing these
disparities alleges that Berkeley’s undergraduate admissions
guidelines discriminate against minority students by giving bonus
grade points for AP classes. The suit points out that many minority
students do not have access to AP courses and cannot earn a grade
point average higher than 4.0. In another suit, the ACLU argues that
the State of California discriminates against students and schools in
minority and low-income neighborhoods by offering far more AP courses
in schools in affluent areas, disadvantaging low-income and minority
students in college admissions. Equal opportunity in education
remains a crucial concern for the future of our nation.
Resources:
George E. Curry, ed. The
Affirmative Action Debate, Harper Collins, 1998.
The Network Newsletter,
The Workplace Diversity
Network. Cornell/ILR and the National Conference. Volume 1, Number
1, April 1995.
U.C. Santa Barbara Affirmative
Actionand Diversity Project website:
aad.english.ucsb.edu
Association of American
Universities Statement on the Importance of Diversity in University
Admissions. April 14,
1997.
American Association of University
Women, “Affirmative Action: Myth vs. Reality,” January 2000:
www.aauw.org.
United States Commission on Civil
Rights, “Toward an Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher
Education: Are They Effective Substitutes for Affirmative Action?”
www.usccr.gov/percent/stmnt.htm
Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights and Leadership Conference Education Fund:
www.civilrights.org
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Work
Experience Summary 1998” and “Usual Weekly Earnings Summary First
Quarter 2000,”
www.stats.bls.gov/newsrels.htm
National Committee on Pay Equity,
“The Wage Gap: 1993.”
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission:
“Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital,”
1995.
Produced by the ACLU.
| 
