Affirmative Action: A Time for Change? By Caleb Rosado Professor of Sociology Walla Walla College College Place, WA May 5, 1995 September 10, 1996 Affirmative Action: A Time for Change? By Caleb Rosado* The current debate over affirmative action, like all other hotly contested issues such as multiculturalism, bilingual education, immigration and the like, often ends up disseminating more heat than light. This is largely due to the polar perspectives that people tend to take, in a desire to undermine the other's position. The result is often a failure to see that the truth may lie somewhere in between. There is thus much need for illumination on the subject for an understanding beneficial to both sides of the issue. Affirmative action emerged in the 1960s as a result of efforts by the civil rights movement to get America to honor its original contract, that "all [people] are created equal." In addition the Pledge of Allegiance promises "liberty and justice for all." This idealism is a promise of equal opportunity for all individuals regardless of color, national origin, race, religion and sex, which up to this point in history had not been honored for people of color. While first addressed to the needs of African-Americans, later on the needs of American Indians, Asian-Americans and Latinos were added. For this and other "unalienable rights" the founders and followers of the civil rights movement marched and died, and finally obtained as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, such action by itself, prohibiting discrimination in the present and in the future, did not necessarily correct for past inequities. So what if people now had equal access, the advantage would still go to those who had benefited longest and most from past discrimination. I may have equal access to get in the same boxing ring with Mike Tyson, but that's no guarantee of an equal opportunity of winning. The odds are stacked in favor of failure. Therefore in order to correct for such inequities especially in the areas of housing, education, and employment, steps were taken to ensure that those groups that historically had been excluded or given limited access to societal rewards, were now given an opportunity to catch up. Thus, affirmative action refers to social policies encouraging favorable treatment of socially disadvantaged groups, especially in employment, education, and housing, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in order to reverse historical trends of discrimination and to create equality of opportunity for qualified persons. Keep in mind that affirmative action is essentially a "race/gender solution" to a "race/gender problem," with middle class white women as the greatest beneficiaries. The latter have benefited most as a result of a "minority" status, which gives them a decided advantage over African-Americans and Latinos in obtaining contracts, entitlements, set asides and executive positions, when the concern of those in power is to keep access to privilege in the hands of "whites." This is why the term "people of color" emerged in the late '80s early '90s, to differentiate white women from racial/ethnic groups, since both are designated as "minority." There is no such thing, however, as a race/gender solution to a race/gender problem, since "race" and "gender " are not the problem. If they were then all one would need to do is to change one's race and/or gender. The problem is racism as the deliberate structuring of privilege by means of an objective, differential and unequal treatment of people, for the purpose of social advantage over scarce resources, resulting in an ideology of supremacy which justifies power of position by placing a negative meaning on perceived or actual biological/cultural differences. No African-American person (or any person of dark skin color, for that matter) has ever suffered discrimination because of the color of their skin. There is nothing wrong with the color black. It is not skin color that forms the basis for discrimination, but the negative meaning given to the color of skin. As Roger Bastide declares, "Color is neutral; it is the mind that gives it meaning" (1967:312). Neither are women discriminated against because of their gender. Women are discriminated against because of the negative meaning given to their gender. Therefore the solution is not one of more "race or gender " but a restructuring of society through the elimination of culturally sanctioned strategies that defend racial/gender superiority and pride of position. Here is where justice comes in. Genuine justice is not based on fairness! In fact, a preoccupation with justice as fairness lies at the root of most problems in our society and in the world today, whether between individuals, groups or nations, and is at the center of the affirmative action debate. At the heart of "justice as fairness" lies equal treatment, which wrongly assumes everyone is the same and thus the need for "fair play," which we all learn from childhood. But socio-historical circumstances preclude equality. This is why in some track and field events, the starting blocks are staggered, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity. Affirmative action, then, is equitable measures-short of restructuring society-which seek to make for a level playing field. Why? Because as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals." There are many people today in America's class-divided society that, because of socio-historical conditions or merely accidents of birth, find themselves on the "inside track" and don't always realize that circumstances are stacked in their favor, but think they are playing on a level field. When they see the starting blocks being staggered, to give those on the "outside track" an equal chance, they cry out, "unfair," "reverse discrimination," "preferential treatment," not realizing that the playing field of American society is stratified. Short of totally redesigning the playing field of socioeconomic, political structures, affirmative action becomes essential in righting societal inequities. It is based on the "principle of redress," that undeserved inequalities call for rectification. Since inequalities of birth are undeserved, these inequalities are to be somehow compensated for. Thus in order to treat all persons equally and provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those born into or placed in less favorable social positions (Rawls, 1971). This "fair share" approach is a particularistic and not a universal action, since it is an attempt to place particular groups in the position that they would have held had there been no barriers in their paths to success (Willie, 1991). However, this approach places affirmative action in a catch-22 situation. Created on the idealism that the rights of individuals should be respected without regard to color, national origin, race, religion, or sex, it ends up in the dilemma of contradicting this very premise by giving a perceived "advantage" to underrepresented groups. (Keep in mind that since the playing field of our American class-structured society is not even, what affirmative action is doing is not really an "advantage" but an effort to make for a more equitable field.) How then does one solve this supposed "dilemma" at the heart of the current debate? The solution is found in the essence of justice. Genuine justice is based on NEED, not fairness. And since people's needs differ, due to differing socio-historical circumstances, true justice does not spring from what people deserve, but from what they need. It is not fair play but fair share, based on individual need. Many people are opposed to affirmative action because they believe it violates a sense of fairness. But tell me, where was the fairness in slavery? in the genocidal destruction of American Indians? in stealing half of Mexico from Mexico? in placing 120,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps? in our cities operating segregated school districts within the same area with vastly disparate budgets for each? in congress passing laws that benefit the richest one percent of the U.S. population while denying basic survival rights to the poorest twenty percent? Why is it that many conservative Americans are loudly silent on these forms of injustice or preferential treatment based on class? Can it be that this obsession with strict fairness tends to manifest itself only when there is a danger of someone else getting more than what we think she/he deserves, especially when what they get is precisely what we want? Such a question raises a couple of concerns when it comes to affirmative action hires. The first is that the minority person hired probably would not have been hired had it not been for affirmative action. This is often true, since the purpose of affirmative action is to broaden the pool of qualified candidates. The second concern is with that word "qualified." The objection is often raised that a more qualified person was turned down. Thus behind affirmative action is an underlying assumption that any person hired through such efforts is not really qualified, and would not have made it through normal channels except for affirmative action. While some may find a few extreme examples as evidence to support this argument, why is it that the person eliminated-usually a white male-is always seen as the more "qualified" candidate? Why is it that unqualified white people never seem to come up in these discussions? Have people not heard of The Peter Principle? The late Dr. Laurence J. Peter published his principle in 1969, before minorities were ever a factor, because of the overwhelming number of white males in key positions who had risen to their level of incompetence [read "without qualifications"]! What's behind this push for a "qualified" person is a disingenuous belief in meritocracy -the notion that a position should go to the most capable person who has earned it. It is disingenuous in that the push for meritocracy only rises when those who have claimed a privileged status in American society now see it threatened. The means by which to defend this elitist position is by changing the rules. Meritocracy is merely an ideology by which the elite seek to preserve their privileged status. No one is questioning the fact that people should be qualified for a job or position. But don't change the rules in order to maintain privilege and power through a system that denied people not only access but also the qualifications by which to compete on an equal basis. Paul Kivel suggests that, "one indication that attacks on affirmative action are part of a white backlash against equality is that affirmative action in the form of preferences that primarily benefit white people is not being questioned" (1996:172). As long as racism continues to be a structural reality of American society, all talk of affirmative action as reverse discrimination is an "in-your-face" form of hypocrisy, since racism is nothing less than preferential treatment based on affirmative action for whites. First get rid of racism then come and talk about removing affirmative action and creating a color-blind society. Racism is so much a part of the social fabric of American society, that, as Claud Anderson suggests in Black Labor, White Wealth, "The only way America will ever be color-blind is if everyone literally lost their sight" (1994:55). Part of the problem is the number of conservative Christians in this country that don't always see the connection between the gospel and their politics (Rosado, 1995a,b). The result is often an unbalanced approach that, while rightly concerned with saving the lives of the unborn, does not show the same compassion for the countless others who suffer "social" deaths as a result of political policies of neglect and negation. Thus what they "preach" on Sabbath is not matched by what they vote on Tuesday, in the name of "legal fairness." The solution to the affirmative action debate or debacle is to base the program, not on group conditions but on individual need. Just because one is Black, female or of Mexican heritage does not automatically mean that one is at a disadvantage. Many an African-American person, or Asian-American, or Latino is doing quite well in this country, and should not be judged as disadvantaged and automatically deserving of affirmative action programs, simply because of their color, race, national origin or gender. There are many whites in this country that are worse off than most. But because they are "white" are they to be deemed not worthy or deserving of special treatment? If the measure for equity is need rather than race or gender than the apparent problem is resolved. Affirmative action then becomes a program to help the socially disadvantaged-of any hue-based on individual need and not on arbitrary group factors of race, national origin or sex. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. had in mind, as Coretta Scott King reminds us, when "he spoke out sharply for all the poor in all their hues, for he knew if color made them different, misery and oppression made them the same" (King, 1967:vii). Affirmative action, or more correctly "compensatory action," will then come in line with the idealism of our constitution, benefiting individuals and not merely groups. Obviously those who have been most socially disadvantaged because of their race, ethnicity or gender, will also be the individuals greatest in need. In situations where there is a representational need-for greater color, gender, or ethnic balance-color, gender and ethnicity may continue to be factors in correcting for such inequities. Yet even with all this, because of "colorism"-discrimination based solely on color-people of color outside of their professional context will continue to experience rejection, such as the difficulty in catching taxi cabs or followed in stores. Thus, color can never be completely set aside in addressing issues of affirmative action. But again, the focus is on need-the need for greater balance-and not just on race or gender. Such a plan can be easily implemented by using as a measure the vast social science data already available which show people's socioeconomic status in society: income, occupation, schooling opportunity, quality of life and influences in the neighborhood, quality of education received, per student expenditure, family life, whether from a single-parent or a dual-parent home. All these factors are good indicators of socioeconomic need. Utilizing this measure, then, enables us to see the need for a new definition of affirmative action, such as the one by Anamar=EDa Loya, attorney for MALDEF, which moves the concept from group to individual need. "Affirmative action is any measure, policy or law used to increase diversity or rectify discrimination so that qualified individuals have equal access to employment, education, business, and contracting opportunities" (1995:1). Paul Kivel raises a crucial point whites need to ponder. "When whites attack affirmative action-if they are truly committed to American ideals of justice and equality-they should be proposing other remedies for racial inequality in our society. The hypocrisy is clear when white people who say they support equal opportunity attack affirmative action, yet want to leave intact the basic economic and racial injustices it is designed to correct. Ask people who oppose affirmative action how they propose to eliminate racial discriminaton. You can learn a lot about their true beliefs from their answers" (1996:178). Yes, the time has come to change affirmative action. Not get rid of it, however, but to strip it of all political barnacles weighing it down, and streamline it back to its original purpose-to safeguard an equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic, historical, biological or cultural circumstances, whether accidental or deliberate. Affirmative action then will be seen as an "on-ramp" program to bring people up to social speed so that they not get run over in the socioeconomic, political highway of life, but may enter it safely in their societal journey. References Anderson, Claude. 1994. Black Labor, White Wealth (Edgwood, MD: Duncan & Duncan). Bastide, Roger. 1967. "Color, Racism, and Christianity," Daedalus, special issue on Color and Race, Spring: 312-327. King, Coretta Scott. 1967. In "Preface" of Martin Luther King, Jr. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, ). Kivel, Paul. 1996. Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work For Racial Justice (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers). Loya, Anamar=EDa. 1995. "Affirmative Action" Latino Network Newsletter, Vol. 1:1, September 15:1-1. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Rosado, Caleb. 1995a. "Affirmative Action and the Gospel." Message July-August 1995, pp. 4,5,14. Rosado, Caleb. 1995b. "God's Affirmative Justice." Christianity Today November 1995, pp. 34-35. Willie, Charles V.. 1991. "Universal Programs Are Unfair to Minority Groups," The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 4, B2,3.