The movement toward ‘affirmative action’ has started in the USA during the 60’s under the president John F. Kennedy. Measures were taken, laws have been voted to permit minorities to accede to higher level of social ladder. Access that minorities otherwise would not have had.

Affirmative action is still widely debated in the US . It comes from a statement of fact, which is the under-representation of minorities in high School, in socially valorised work, and in many public places where only high social stratum, mostly white men,  are represented. Affirmative action policies address and redress systematic economic and political discrimination against any group of people that are underrepresented or have a history of being discriminated against in particular institutions. So its affirmed goal is to counteract past and present discrimination, which has for main symptom social reproduction, thus inequality of chance.    Yet, since it takes the race into account, it seems to go against the Constitution, in particular against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which declares all human being as equal, which points out the equality of chance, opportunity and consideration everyone should deserve regardless of one’s religion, one’s skin colour, one’s particularity.

 Affirmative action is a corrective measure which aims at implementing in reality what is only formal. Consequently, affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education, and in contracting decision.

 Where first it was explicitly implemented to help ethnic minorities, now the affirmed goal tends to be diversity, for the sake of the majority.  

 Affirmation action brings up many controversies, since this measure appeals to some fundamental stakes involving concepts such as ‘right’, ‘race’, ‘equality’, ‘equity’, ‘social justice’, among others; it also questions democracy and its capacity to deal with multiculturalism and diversity.

           Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a mean to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. They may argue that the end result justifies the means while opponents claim that it has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They respond that it may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups.

 In any case, affirmative action generates a lot of debates and controversies.

 Among the prolific productions of articles, thesis, we have chosen five articles that represent the state of the debates over affirmative action.

 Bibliography

-Coleman Selden Sally, (December 2006),  A solution in search of a problem? Discrimination, affirmative action, and the new public service, Public administration review. Read at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00659.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=puar on 12/04/2007

-Fullinwider Robert, (December 2001), Affirmative action, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Read at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action on 15/04/2007

-Kivel Paul (November 1997), Affirmative Action Works! , "Taking action to end racism is the challenge and responsibility of every single person in our society" Published in Motion Magazine. Read at http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pkivel.html on 8/04/2007

 -Qiang Fu  (October 2004), A theory of affirmative action in college admissions,  Social science research network .Viewed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=694441 on 21/03/2007

 -Richard H. Sander (2004), A systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law school, Standford Law review, vol: 57:367

 Relevance

           While many articles criticise or approve the AA measures, Sally Coleman Selden’s article puts light on new focus for further academic studies. Such process highlights the fact that there are still more that remain to be done

            The article of Robert Fullinwider gives us a clear picture of how the affirmative action is being applied in the , its historical and social backgrounds, as well as the different views on the effectiveness of these measures. This article shows the many dilemmas that affirmative action involves.

            Paul Kivel’s article is a clear and committed view on affirmative action. That ‘man in the field’ gives us a more practical article than a theoretical one. Indeed examples are given throughout this article, and the author adopts a wide scope instead of a narrow one focused on one or two specific theoretical points.

            Qiang Fu set forth a theoretical framework for examining the incentive effects of Affirmative Action in college admissions. That author also differentiates the two main opinions on AA practices in college admission: roughly, the critics over the cost of academic quality and the weakening of the possibility to achieve academic excellence on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the importance of diversity and its positive influence on the pedagogical environment.

             The systemic analysis of Richard H. Sander enables us to see the result of AA in American law school through a more scientific approach. Thus, the findings are easily disputable or verifiable. This has the effect of giving more density in the debate for a subject that long has had produced mix feeling among the population. 

            The objective of Sally Coleman Selden’s article is not to answer the question of whether AA’s time has passed or its impact on the society. Rather, it focuses on the public service and on what prior researches tell us about on four important questions: What does prior research tell us about where the public stands on AA? What does it tell us about where AA presently stands in terms of state legislatures, the courts and civil society? What does prior research tell us about what AA has accomplished so far in light of its passive and active representation goals? Does a movement from government centered to mulitsectored workforces compromise the aims of AA if it is dismantled? 

           Robert Fullinwider wants to demonstrate that the application of the affirmative action is subject to conflicts. Throughout his article he aims to showing us the imperfection and the complexity of such a system.

            The objective of Kivel’s article, as the title makes it explicit, is to convince us that indeed affirmative action works, and, moreover, is necessary to counter the effects of discrimination against minorities. Since discrimination in favour of white (men) is a proven reality, measures and policies ought to be implemented to ensure everyone has a fair chance to get an appropriate education and a job.  Affirmative action has been a serious commitment to eradicating racial discrimination. It is crucial that at this stage of backlash against the gains of the last three decades, we do not abandon programs that counter the effects of discrimination.

            Fu’s article propose a simple theoretical framework that models the process of college admissions as an all-pay auction, to investigate two major questions: Is there any theoretical rationale for an AA admissions rule? How do such rules affect college candidates’ incentives to invest in academic effort?

            The article’s principal question of interest is whether affirmative action in law schools generates benefits to blacks that substantially exceed the costs to blacks. R.H. Sander refers as costs the subtle matters such as the stigma and stereotypes that might result from differential admissions standards.

               Articles are organized in several parts. First, information is provided to know exactly what’s under dispute. Then, a crop of arguments with examples, so as to strengthen the chosen thesis. Finally, the concluding remark, and the reinforcement of the thesis.

Most of the authors begin their article by giving some historical references. They first describe the affirmative action and how the plan has blossomed in the USA .

It enables them to open a second point that is the Controversy of the measure. The points they want to put under discussion.  Some of them quote several authors and oppose their opinions and views on the affirmative action as a mean to confront the readers to different views on affirmative action. Doing this, they tackle, notably, the notions of ‘preference’, ‘quotas’, and the danger that reverse discrimination might commit injustice to some whites.

Robert Fullinwider refers to different authors who stress the incoherency of this reverse discrimination in different ways, notably in perpetuating the same past injustice which consist of favouring a priori certain types of people for their skin colour or their gender. However, he ends with Goldman, whose view on affirmative action tends to justify the necessity-the backlash of affirmative action-of reverse discrimination, argued in a subtle and compromising way.  

To link the topic with the real world, the authors use the examples of the workplace and then the university, the two central sites for the affirmative action to be implemented since those places frequently exclude and discriminate.  Fullinwider uses examples and quotes the constitution and several law articles to give a background of the affirmative action implementations. R.H. Sander chose the legal education to underline the burden of AA for both the coloured people and the whites. That particular field is chosen because the law school was the first amongst all to integrate the affirmative action measure within its admission program. And the uniformity of requirements for lawyers makes comparisons within the legal education system much easier.

To criticize AA, authors use descriptions to point out the abuses of some universities during the admission process in the name of positive action and integration.   

           Sally Coleman Selden reviews the four questions stated in the objectives by cutting her article in eight general lessons that according to her, practitioners and researchers should ponder when studying the future of AA in the new governance area. All along her article, she uses many empirical evidences, the findings of many AA researchers and court examples to support her classification. 

Paul Kivel begins his article saying there are thousands of examples of situations where people of colour who were previously excluded from jobs or educational opportunities, or were denied opportunities once admitted, have gained access through affirmative action. Access they would not otherwise have had. He does not say everything is right with AA, that it has eliminated racism, nor that there are no problems implementing some measures, but simply that the overall ‘balance sheet’ is positive.

He rises up against the legal verbiage around affirmative action, and against the “vocal minority” who want to stop affirmative action not only as a legal remedy, but also as a social commitment. Then he gives us a short historical background of affirmative action.

He shows that racism is still pervasive in the USA , and points out the advantages of being a white male, in accordance with many studies.

Then, with rigor and clearness, he exposes each of the arguments of those who are not in favour of affirmative action, so as to pull them apart and show their falseness.

  Findings: what are the results?

            Robert Fullinwider underlines the complexity of the issue by bringing into play many different points of view, and in noting the short-sightedness of most views in themselves. On this point, the long comment of the Court Cases is eloquent.   One possible solution, but still unfinished, would be an individual approach of each applicant.

The Bakke Case is well known on the debates, it is the case of a young white male, Allan Bakke, who sued The Medical School of the University of California for not having been admitted, in 1977, whereas he got a higher grade point average than a number of minority candidates who were admitted. The Court’s divisions were great; Allan has eventually been admitted to the medical school. The Court held in a closely divided decision that race could be one of the factors considered in choosing a diverse student body in university admissions decisions. The Court also held, however, that the use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible.

            On the world ‘preference’, we can now roughly draw the controversy engaged over that word. We can distinguish two main visions. The Thomson one, who argues that preference for women and blacks works as a form of compensation for their past exclusion from the academy and the workplace, thus it is a kind of justice. Opponents to that view say that it is in reality perverse since it benefits individuals least harmed by past-injuries, while it burdens those who are the most victims of the past. Nagel, by contrast, considers preference as a social good, which has none to do with violenting the justice.

            For others the short-run violations of the meritocratic rule (equality of opportunity, of consideration) are justified because its goal is to create a more just distribution. Thus, a temporary breaking of the rules would be necessary for a real equal consideration of interests in the future. In a way, acting in regard of statistics of ethnic minorities would in the future allow going beyond races and statistics in direction of the individuals no matter how dark is his colour, and regardless of his/her gender.

We also should take in consideration that any general notion, for instance of equality, is useless in the debate, since it can be employed as much to defend affirmative action (and the so called social inclusion it effects) as to condemn it (and the racial non-neutrality it involves).

We can assess, as the author, that the universities have been applied the positive action measures while failing to understand the real reason behind it, that is to break the chain of self-reproducing societal discrimination. They rather talk about the valuable experience of their students experiencing racial and ethnic pluralism in the classroom.

            The ‘integration rationale’ is the argument based on the belief that minorities in high school would permit leaders to integrate a broader view and a more correct representation of the society in which they will evolve as responsible leaders, so it is not only a ‘plus’ for the University, but also it will allow future leaders to enrich their vision. But still, it acts mainly in favour of the whites, and studies indicate that in order to be a real springboard for minorities, those one have to integrate the top ten schools. Moreover, real integration rarely exists since most campus-climate is hostile to those newcomers from ethnic minorities.

Concerning the advantages of AA for the schools, Richard H. Sander found out that Law school admission preferences impose enormous costs on blacks and create relatively minor benefits. Despite the serious failings identified, he suggested that some good arguments for more narrowly targeted use of affirmative action by law schools should remain.

Because the admission preferences extended to blacks are very large and they do not successfully identify students who will perform better than one would predict based on their academic indices. Consequently, most black law applicants end up at schools where they will struggle academically and fail at higher rates than they would in the absence of preferences. The author hints that in the legal education system as a whole, racial preferences end up producing fewer black lawyers each year than would be produced by a race-blind system.

            Fu proposes two theorems. Theorem 1 concerns on the college candidates’ strategies, it establishes that the equilibrium admissions rule that best addresses the interest of the college turns out to take the form of AA. And the academic quality of the college tends to be compromised if AA is banned in admissions practice and the college adopts a color-blind admissions rule. Theorem 2 is related to the incentive effects of AA. The equilibrium (AA) admissions rule uniquely maximizes both candidates’ expected academic efforts. The academic quality of the incoming class is maximized if and only if the admissions rule perfectly offsets the initial advantage of the non minority candidate.

           Sally Coleman Selden concludes that perhaps the most important lesson for society more broadly is that AA is not a solution that is chasing a problem from a bygone area. Today’s residual problem will likely require redefinition and new solutions.  As the Unites States moves from a government-centered to a multisectored model of public service, a refocus is necessary.  Changes in existing AA programs to address the remaining vestiges of institutional disparities are likely inevitable but are still in need of precise formulation and testing for their effectiveness.

To Paul Kivel, it is clear that nowadays affirmative action is today under various attacks. However, we still are in a racist society. Indeed, there is still a huge over-representation of white people, men and people of middle, upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in well-paid jobs, and in the socially valued professions.  Racism is self perpetuating; indeed the disadvantages to people of colour and the benefits to white people are passed on to each succeeding generation unless remedial action is taken. For example, most job opportunities are heard about through informal networks of friends, family and neighbours. Since the results of racism are segregated communities, schools and workplaces, this pattern leaves people of colour out of the loop for many jobs, advancement opportunities, scholarships and training programs. Federal law now requires widespread and public advertisement of such opportunities so that not only people of colour, but white women and men, who are outside the circles of information, have an equal opportunity to apply for these positions.

He also analyses some arguments of the adversaries of AA. Arguing that AA means that the best qualified will not be hired is a kind of non-sense, since it has been demonstrated many times in hiring and academic recruitment that test and educational qualifications are not necessarily the best predictors of future success.  Motivations and merits are very important factors that have to be taken into account.

Every one of colour has experienced discrimination. On that ground, AA benefits not only the already well off or less unfavoured but everyone of colour. Access to job training programs, vocational schools, and semi-skilled and skilled blue-collar, craft, pink-collar, police and fire-fighter jobs has increased substantially through affirmative action programs.

Reverse discrimination is ridiculous compared to discrimination towards minorities, so that argument opposed to AA is irrelevant. It cannot reasonably be argued that white males are discriminated against as a group if they are overrepresented in most high status categories.
The author is against quotas to measure the compliance of measures taken. Quotas set the minimum, where the maximum should be done. Numerical goals are what we need to promote democratic access to education, jobs and job training.

Attacking affirmative action is self-destructive for all of us except for the rich. According to the author, to be against affirmative action is a hypocrisy since those people who oppose it are well-off and do not propose any other efficient way to correct racial injustice.

Expending job opportunity for people of colour means expanding not only their access to existing jobs, education and housing (affirmative action), but also removing the obstacles that cause these resources to be limited (social justice).

Each one has to work so as to fight racism and discrimination, laws are not enough, it is up to the responsibility of each individual to struggle racism.