Affirmative Actions in Dilema

Summary Outline

This paper is divided into three main parts to address the given question. Part (1) will define Affirmative Action (AA) in historical context so that to enable us understand better why AA becomes necessary in social policies such as education and employment. Part (2) is to attempt presenting some reasons why AA can never be sufficient enough to compensate the loss of the victims of past discrimination and thus, should not be seen as compensation but rather as recognition of the past misconduct. In part (3), it is explained why implementation of AA does not violate the principle of equality. Part (4) provides few examples of AA in practice provides in some countries. Finally, part (5) concludes with a brief summary of the paper.

Part One: Definition of Affirmative Action in Historical Context

In human history, perhaps, there are more dark sides than bright ones as far as racial/gender/sex matter is concerned. For example, white people traded black people as slaves; women were treated as second class citizen, social caste system in India where people from low caste were discriminated for generations. As result, black people were dominated by white people both politically and economically for generations; women were unable to vote and access to higher education; low castes were denied for higher education. These inequalities become the source of political and social tension/conflict.

In realizing the conflicts, a new social policy called Affirmative Action (AA) was introduced in USA in the 1960s. Stanford Encyclopaedia defines ‘AA’ as “positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection - selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity.”

In short, ‘AA’ can perhaps, be viewed as a social policy to offer preferential treatment to the victims of the past discrimination or disadvantaged groups with a hope of enabling them to compete with the mainstream fairly and building more equitable society.

The AA however, has never been free of controversy. Politicians, scholars, social activists have been arguing back and forth about the subject but the debate is far from over. In fact, it seems that debate over AA issue intensifies in recent years. In April 2003, The University of Michigan and The University of California were brought to The US Supreme Court by a few white students accusing the universities of being racially biased when they were rejected for admission. Their case was not only supported by many white republican congressmen but also the president, George W. Bush. However, the court allows the universities to consider racial factor for admission. The officials of the universities said that preferential treatment is the only effective measure to bring multi-ethnic students into the campus.


Part Two: Can Affirmative Action Compensate the Loss of the Victims of the Past Discrimination?

A short answer to this question is ‘No’ because the losses are so great and beyond measure that no AA is significant enough to compensate those losses. If look back history, it will be clearer.

People were sold as slaves, served as slaves for generations without any benefit, died in vain, lost their human dignity, people being treated very badly (attended in segregated school with limited and poor quality resources) and were exploited every possible ways. Women and minorities were treated as second class citizen, their basic human rights were violated and voices were silenced for generations.

For example, South Africa was ruled by minority white people until 1994. Despite they were (still is) being minority, they have total domination in all sectors from education to economy since they were the rulers. White children were able to access to best education of the country from segregated schools (White only schools) and took up all the important professions. On the other hand, black children were prevented from getting quality education and obviously they cannot compete with the whites. Consequently, they were and are still in disadvantaged position due to the past discriminatory policies.

In 2004, I was able to join in a regional conference on human rights in Asia held in Chiangmai, Thailand. I still remember an Indian conference panelist describing a typical story of caste system in Indian society. She said that if you were born to a low caste (also known as untouchable caste) family, it is extremely difficult to access to higher education and find a decent job regardless of your qualification. She added, if you were also happened to be a woman born to such low caste, it is virtually impossible to get education especially with limited resources.

The point is, there is abundance of examples how people were discriminated and exploited. The lists can go on endlessly. The losses are beyond measure. Therefore, it is very inappropriate to look at AA as compensation because no AA can and will ever be sufficient enough to be able to compensate those losses of the victims of past discriminations and ill-treatments.


Part Three: Does ‘AA’ Violate Principle of Equality?

As presented earlier, the issue of ‘AA’ is controversial. It is hard to find an outright answer to argue that ‘AA’ does or does not violate the principle of equality. Critics argue that AA is reversal discriminatory policy and violates the equality principle. On the other hand, supporters of AA argue that principle of equality is not violated in implementing AA and even if there is violation of principle of equality involved, it is fair and good for the whole society for the future. Thus, it would be fair to look at some arguments both for and against the ‘AA’.

Arguments against Affirmative Action

One of the most common arguments against the ‘AA’ is that ‘AA’ creates reverse discrimination against one particular group (e.g., former discriminators or of their new generation). The argument is something like ‘why should I be now punished for the crime I did not commit?’

Jain, Sloane & Horwitz (2003, p-17) also mention a series of some negative impacts of AA (a) it is difficult for civil services to maintain image as impartial and politically neutral because political decisions are constantly made base on ethnic consideration rather objective criteria, (b) AA can perpetuate and even strengthen ethnic division, (c) AA also tends to create conflicts within the preferential groups themselves because only small section of people can benefit from the AA programme, (d) it is argued that once AA is introduced, it becomes permanently rooted in the political system serving the interests of small group.

Dani and Haan (2008, p-233) point out negative impacts of AA – it is inefficient, only “creamy layer” of the few benefit from the AA, largely remain unbenefit. AA also reaffirms the individual identity as deprived or minority (people may suffer labelling effect).

Arguments for Affirmative Action

Supporters argue that it is fair to give preferential treatment to marginalized groups because they have historically been discriminated. For example, white people today in general are better off than black people because they have been historically able to enjoy institutional supports – able to go to best colleges/universities and get high value professions. They continue to be in dominating position. If the two groups are to compete openly, marginalized people will surely be left behind because of the unequal starting point. AA is to make the starting point equal/fair.

Without AA, disadvantaged/marginalized/minority people continue to remain in disadvantaged positions. Social division or class and income gap will be widened which can result social instability. Thus, implementation of AA is the best interest of all members of society.

US President Bill Clinton is among the strong supporters of AA. He asserts that the job of ending discrimination remains unfinished; strongly defends AA. "Mend it, but don't end it," he says.

Dani and Haan (2008, p-233) conclude that the effect and impact of AA is so great – people many people from deprived group accessed to education and find decent job improve their social status and boost self-confidence.

Part Four: Affirmative Actions in Practice

Nowadays, Affirmative Action (AA) is not only used as recognition of the past discriminatory policy but also as to reduce extreme poverty by providing education and employment opportunity as well as to create social harmony in society in order to reflect cultural and social diversity. In another word, it is used to give equal opportunity to formerly marginalized groups in order to enable them compete with the mainstream. Scholars describe this as nation building or state formation policy – intends to include all members of society into the mainstream. AA may be controversial but many governments are adopting it. The followings are some of the real examples.

Northern Ireland: Schapper and Burns (2007, p-369) Northern Ireland was torn apart for decades by the civil war between Protestants and Catholics. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair orchestrated peaceful settlement programme between the two communities. In order to maintain the fragile peace, it is imperative to draw Catholic candidates into the (Protestants dominated) police force and other civil services. It enables Catholics to find jobs much easier.

South Korea: On 30th October 2008, BBC reported that a South Korean law which states that only the visually impaired can be licensed masseurs has been upheld in the country's Constitutional Court. The Court’s reason is that "Massage is in effect the only occupation available for the visually handicapped and there is little alternative to guarantee earnings for those persons." Such kind of state intervention/ preferential treatment should be welcome because it recognizes the needs of visually impaired and gives them a sense of hope and shows that they are still part of the society. In addition, the law gives blind people a chance to make their living, without such law, they would have extremely hard time to find job in other business fields.

India: Indian constitution guaranteed equal opportunity. Dani and Haan (2008, p-230) “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation” (Directive Principle of State Policy, article 46).

However, people from untouchable class (low caste) were left behind for generations. In 1990, the government launched ambitious reform – preserving and reserving places in government jobs and state fund colleges and universities.

Currently, 22.5% of the seats in state-funded educational institutions are reserved. With an additional 27% of seats set aside, the total caste-based educational quota will be raised to 49.5%.

Currently, 27% of government jobs are reserved. Prime Minster Manmohan Singh has now suggested that companies too should take up this action plan and extend the percentage .

Nethralpal Singh, 29, is one of the millions who has benefited from the reform. He is from low caste group and has accessed to higher education through AA, and is now a lecturer in Dheli University (one of the top universities in the country). He says “people from socially disadvantaged sections are very often also financially disadvantaged. The quota system is the only way they can break free” .

Part Five: Conclusion

Affirmative Action is viewed as one of the most effective social policies in building more equitable society. Many people have accessed to higher education, enable them to have decent jobs and boost self-confidence. AA may not a perfect policy but it is widely reported it has brought millions of people out of the extreme poverty.

However, it is still divided among the supporters and critics of AA. The two groups cannot agree whether affirmative action make things better or worse. One thing is certain - the debate rages on.

References:

Anis A. Dani and Arjan de Haan (editors), “Inclusive States: Social Policy and Structural Inequalities”, The World Bank, 2008.

Ashwini Deshpande, “EQUITY & DEVELOPMENT: Affirmative Action in India and the United States”, World Development Report 2006. (Paper available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/Affirmative_Action_India_Ashwini.pdf)

Harish C. Jain, Peter J. Sloane, and Frank M. Horwitz, “Employment Equity and Affirmative Action: An International Comparison”, M.E.Sharpe, USA, 2003.

Jan Schapper and Prue Burns, “The Ethical Case for Affirmative Action”, Journal of Business Ethics (2008), Springer 2007.

Nic Paton, “Accentuate the Positive”, Personnel Today, 4 November 2008.