Affirmative action

Affirmative action refers to steps taken to eliminate discrimination—whether in employment, education, or contracting—but also to redress the effects of past discrimination. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development. In other words, persons with equal abilities should have equal opportunities.

Some groups who are targeted for affirmative action are characterized by race, gender, ethnicity, or disability status.

History

One could trace affirmative action like policy back to the Reconstruction amendments to the US Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were written to integrate emancipated slaves into American society by prohibiting slavery, guaranteeing equal protection under the law, and forbidding racial discrimination in voting practices.

The Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 is the next example that could be considered affirmative action. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a policy of "separate but equal" treatment for racial minorities was acceptable. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt later signed an executive order stating that there was to be no discrimination in hiring for Defense contracts. The Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 overturned the ideology of "separate but equal," and mandated the same, equal treatment for all. This can be seen as an extension of the 14th amendment.

The phrase "affirmative action" was first used by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1965 Executive Order 11246. The order required federal contractors to "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." Affirmative action does not mean that unqualified candidates are favored over qualified candidates. Affirmative action policies discourage discrimination against qualified minority candidates, and mandate inclusion. In 1967, Johnson expanded this policy to include women.

A famous test case of affirmative action policies is the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which the Supreme Court decided in 1976. Allan Bakke had applied to the University of California-Davis Medical School two years in a row and was denied admission both times. Minority candidates were admitted who had scored lower on the school's admissions criteria. Bakke argued that their admission was an example of a quota for minorities. The ruling eliminated the use of quotas from use in affirmative action policies.

In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or gender in admissions considerations.

Controversy

Arguments in Favor

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. They may argue that the end result—a more diversified student body, police force or other group—justifies the means.

One justification for affirmative action is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness—or simply relying on elites to behave fairly—will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons: Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of "merit" by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences. Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered. Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know or people from similar backgrounds, or both.

Also, affirmative action was designed to rectify past injustices. In the United States, affirmative action was implemented to attempt to even the economic playing field that had been unevenly distributed as a result of a history of chattel slavery and Jim Crow laws, designed to suppress people of color in the United States.

Arguments Opposed

Despite the noble aims of affirmative action, there are many criticisms of the policy. Some say that it is unfair to judge people on race for any reason. Tthers say that race based judgments ignore other types of diversity. Along the same line is the criticism that affirmative action only helps minorities in the middle class. Some say affirmative action has led to people questioning the achievments of minorities. Finally, some critics claim that it is unfair to make members of the dominating group pay for 'the sins of their fathers.'

Opponents claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it factors race into the decision-making process, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and undermines and calls into question the achievements of minorites. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper-class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas. There has recently been a push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions.

Some also claim that, in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatch" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms. Sander's claim that this correlation exists is questionable to those who understand how affirmative action policies work.

How the media portrays affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims that the practice is itself racist or sexist, or both, depending on how one defines those concepts. Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations. Some members of races "assisted" by affirmative action feel that the program is an insult to them, because they feel that they are capable of becoming successful regardless of government's help.

Implementation worldwide

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of states that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." The United Nations Human Rights Committee states, "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "race-blind," in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination. In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action," as opposed to "positive discrimination."

• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are efforts to create quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.
• China. The People's Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9% of the population) to be exempt from the One-child policy, and there is a quota for minority representatives in the National Assembly in Beijing, as well as other realms of government. In addition the certain State run Universities, such as the Central University for Nationalities, located in Beijing, operate on a quota system, with spots reserved for members of all of China's state recognized "Nationalities".
• France. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper ("Armées d'aujourd'hui"), this driving license and rank project was canceled. It is called "la discrimination positive," there. Nowadays, all companies with at least 20 workers have to employ at least 6% of handicaped people.
• Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There were programs stating that if men and women had equal qualifications, women had to be preferred for a job. The Government agreed on the details of an anti-discrimination law (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) in May 2006, that aims at improving the protection of minorities. The draft follows EU-standards and has passed the German Parliament in August 2006.
• India. Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the form of reservation or quotas in government positions, employment and education for lower castes and minorities.
• Indonesia. In Indonesia, affirmative action programs give natives of Malay origin (Pribumi) preference over the Indonesian Chinese in the country.
• Japan. Spots for universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.
• Norway. All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members, must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60%). This affects roughly 400 companies.
• Philippines. State universities implement a modified version of Affirmative Action. Secondary schools, both private and public schools, are each assigned a quota on how many students from that high school are accepted for admission, in addition to each student's score during the entrance examination. This was done to address the situation wherein a majority of the university school population was composed mostly of students who came from well-off families and private schools.
• South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all people of color, white females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.
• United Kingdom. Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK and quotas/selective systems are not permitted. A singular exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which requires that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics as non Catholics. However a number of people are taking the UK Government to EU Human Rights for breaking the Human Rights Act and the Positive Discrimination Act.
• United States. In the United States, affirmative action occurs in school admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate contracts. Its intended beneficiaries are ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. A recent Supreme Court ruling in Michigan against some forms of affirmative action has required some colleges to set new admissions criteria.

External links

• Affirmative Action at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• US Census Bureau: Definition of Race
• Washington Post Section on Affirmative Action
• Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the European Union, Report by Minority Rights Group International

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Affirmative_action  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Affirmative action"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.