The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to
region. Some countries use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage
of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies must be
reserved for members of a certain group; an example of this is the reservation system in India.
In some other regions where quotas are not used, minority group members
are given preference or special consideration in selection processes.
In the United States, affirmative action in employment and education has
been the subject of legal and political controversy; in 2003, a pair of
decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students while prohibiting the use of quotas. In other countries, such as the UK,
affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all
races equally. This approach to equal treatment is described as being "color blind".
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".
Origins
The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925", signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action
to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or
national origin". It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246
which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to
"hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This
prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged
groups.
In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of
defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to
that of the majority population.
It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated "minority groups"
within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities
including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents
is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination.
Women
Several different studies investigated the effect of affirmative
action on women. Kurtulus (2012) in her review of affirmative action and
the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973-2003
showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black,
Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical
occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During
this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly
than noncontractors because of the implementation of affirmative action.
But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in the
late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced
occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of
affirmative action that started by President Reagan. Becoming a federal
contractor increased white women's share of professional occupations by
0.183 percentage points, or 7.3 percent, on average during these three
decades, and increased black women's share by 0.052 percentage points
(or by 3.9 percent). Becoming a federal contractor also increased
Hispanic women's and black men's share of technical occupations on
average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively (or by
7.7 and 4.2 percent). These represent a substantial contribution of
affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of
women and minorities over the three decades under the study.
A reanalysis of multiple scholarly studies, especially in Asia,
considered the impact of four primary factors on support for affirmative
action programs for women: gender; political factors; psychological
factors; and social structure. Kim and Kim (2014) found that,
"Affirmative action both corrects existing unfair treatment and gives
women equal opportunity in the future."
Quotas
Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste-based quotas are used in India for reservation.
However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer,
university, or other entity may create a set number required for each
race.
In 2012, the European Union
Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive
board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by 2020.
In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic
quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said
that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The
justice minister said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.
National approaches
In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative
action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally.
This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color 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".
Africa
South Africa
Apartheid
The apartheid government, as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned, especially Afrikaner-owned
companies. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results,
but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Skilled
jobs were also reserved for white people, and blacks were largely used
as unskilled labour, enforced by legislation including the Mines and Works Act, the Job Reservations Act, the Native Building Workers Act, the Apprenticeship Act and the Bantu Education Act, creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour.
Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws
that highly restricted the blacks' employment opportunities.
Since the 1960s the apartheid laws had been weakened.
Consequently, from 1975 to 1990 the real wages of black manufacturing
workers rose by 50%, while those of whites rose by 1%.
The economic and politically structured society during the
apartheid ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation and
income within labour markets, which provided advantages to certain
groups and characteristics of people. This in due course was the
motivation to introduce affirmative action in South Africa, following
the end of apartheid.
Post-apartheid – the Employment Equity Act
Following the transition to democracy in 1994, the African National Congress-led
government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct
previous imbalances (a policy known as employment equity). As such, all
employers were compelled by law to employ previously disenfranchised
groups (blacks, Indians, and Coloureds). A related, but distinct concept is Black Economic Empowerment.
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 advancing people from designated groups. The
designated groups who are to be advanced include all people of colour,
women (including white women) and people with disabilities
(including white people). Employment Equity legislation requires
companies employing more than 50 people to design and implement plans to
improve the representativity of workforce demographics, and report them
to the Department of Labour.
Employment Equity also forms part of a company's Black Economic Empowerment
scorecard: in 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.
The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black
Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as
discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as
ineffectual.
These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment. The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer. Moreover, the Supreme Court
has ruled that in principle blacks may be favored, but in practice this
should not lead to unfair discrimination against the others.
Affirmative Action Purpose
As
mentioned previously affirmative action was introduced through the
Employment Equality Act, 55 in 1998, 4 years after the end of apartheid.
This act was passed to promote the constitutional right of equality and
exercise true democracy. This idea was to eliminate unfair
discrimination in employment, to ensure the implementation of employment
equity to redress the effects of discrimination, to achieve a diverse
workforce broadly representative of our people, to promote economic
development and efficiency in the workforce and to give effects to the
obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour
Organisation.
Many embraced the Act; however some concluded that the act
contradicted itself. The act eliminates unfair discrimination in certain
sectors of the national labour market by imposing similar constraints
on another.
With the introduction of Affirmative Action, Black Economic
Empowerment (BEE) rose additionally in South Africa. The BEE was not a
moral initiative to redress the wrongs of the past but to promote growth
and strategies that aim to realize a country's full potential. The idea
was targeting the weakest link in economics, which was inequality and
which would help develop the economy. This is evident in the statement
by the Department of Trade and Industry, "As such, this strategy
stresses a BEE process that is associated with growth, development and
enterprise development, and not merely the redistribution of existing
wealth".
Similarities between the BEE and affirmative action are apparent;
however there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality
rather than taking wealth away from the skilled white labourers.
The main goal of Affirmative Action is for a country to reach its
full potential. This occurrence would result in a completely diverse
workforce in economic and social sectors. Thus broadening the economic
base and therefore stimulating economic growth.
Outcomes
Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some
positive and some negative. This depended on the approach to and the
view of The Employment Equality Act and affirmative action.
Positive:
Pre-Democracy, the apartheid governments discriminated against non-white
races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past
discriminations. Affirmative action also focused on combating structural
racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all
levels of society and sectors. Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.
Negative:
Though affirmative action had its positives, negatives arose. A quota
system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a
work force. This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the
work force, ultimately affecting the free market.
Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian
races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and
elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap
between the lower and middle class, which led to class struggles and a
greater segregation.
Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite
classes, as well as race entitlement. Many believe that affirmative
action is discrimination in reverse. With all these negatives, much
talent started to leave the country.
Many negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the
quota system, drive skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic
growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to
invest in South Africa.
With these negative and positive outcomes of affirmative action,
it is evident that the concept of affirmative action is continually
evolving.
Asia
China
There is affirmative action in education for minority nationalities.
This may equate to lowering minimum requirements for the National
University Entrance Examination, which is a mandatory exam for all
students to enter university. Some universities set quotas for minority (non-Han) student intake.
Further, minority students enrolled in ethnic minority-oriented
specialties (e.g. language and literature programs) are provided with
scholarships and/or pay no tuition, and are granted a monthly stipend.
Israel
A
class-based affirmative action policy was incorporated into the
admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel
during the early to mid-2000s. In evaluating the eligibility of
applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic
origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural
disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high
school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed.
This policy made the four institutions, especially the echelons at the
most selective departments, more diverse than they otherwise would have
been. The rise in geographic, economic and demographic diversity of a
student population suggests that the plan's focus on structural
determinants of disadvantage yields broad diversity dividends.
Israeli citizens who are; Women, Arabs, Blacks or people with
disabilities are entitled to Affirmative Action in the civil service
employment.
Also Israeli citizens who are Arabs, Blacks or people with disabilities
are entitled for Affirmative Actions are entitled for full University
tuition scholarships by the state.
In her study of gender politics in Israel, Dafna Izraeli showed
that the paradox of affirmative action for women directors is that the
legitimation for legislating their inclusion on boards also resulted in
the exclusion of women's interested as a legitimate issue on the boards'
agendas. "The new culture of the men's club is seductive token women
are under the pressure to become "social males" and prove that their
competence as directors, meaning that they are not significantly
different from men. In the negotiation for status as worthy peers,
emphasizing gender signals that a woman is an "imposter", someone who
does not rightfully belong in the position she is claiming to fill." And
once affirmative action for women is fulfilled, and then affirmative
action shares the element, as Izraeli put it, the "group equality
discourse," making it easier for other groups to claim for a fairer
distribution of resources. This suggests that affirmative action can
have applications for different groups in Israel.
India
Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities defined primarily by their caste.
Reservation in India favors the majority of the population with more
than 90% of Indian Citizens eligible for reservation benefits.
59.5% of all college admissions and government jobs are reserved for
this 90% majority but they can also compete for the remaining 40.5%
unreserved quota as well.
Before the year of 2019 only 0.7% of scholarships disbursed by the
government were given on the basis of merit, with over 94% of the
scholarships given on basis of Reservation instead.
Malaysia
The Malaysian New Economic Policy
or NEP serves as a form of affirmative action. Malaysia provides
affirmative action to the majority because in general, the Malays have
lower incomes than the Chinese, who have traditionally been involved in
businesses and industries, but who were also general migrant workers. Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 23% of the population is of Chinese descent, while those of Indian descent comprise about 7% of the population.
(See also Bumiputra)
The mean income for Malays, Chinese and Indians in 1957/58 were 134,
288 and 228 respectively. In 1967/68 it was 154, 329 and 245, and in
1970 it was 170, 390 and 300. Mean income disparity ratio for
Chinese/Malays rose from 2.1 in 1957/58 to 2.3 in 1970, whereas for
Indians/Malays the disparity ratio also rose from 1.7 to 1.8 in the same
period.
The Malays viewed Independence as restoring their proper place in their
own country's socioeconomic order while the non-Malays were opposing
government efforts to advance Malay political primacy and economic
welfare.
Sri Lanka
In 1981 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan
universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for
students from areas which had lower rates of education than other areas
due to missionary activity in the north and east, which essentially were
the Tamil areas. Successive governments cultivated a historical myth
after the colonial powers had left that the British had practised communal favouritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka.
However, the Sinhalese in fact benefitted from trade and plantation
cultivations over the rest of the other groups and their language and
culture as well as the religion of Buddhism was fostered and made into
mediums for schools over the Tamil language, which did not have the same
treatment and Tamils learned English instead as there was no medium for
Tamil until near independence. Tamils' knowledge of English and
education came from the very American missionary activity by overseas
Christians that the British were concerned will anger the Sinhalese and
destroy their trading relationships, so they sent them to the Tamil
areas instead to teach, thinking it would have no consequences and due
to their small numbers. The British sending the missionaries to the
north and east was for the protection of the Sinhalese and in fact
showed favouritism to the majority group instead of the minorities to
maintain trading relationships and benefits from them. The Tamils, out
of this random benefit from learning English and basic education
excelled and flourished and were able to take many civil service jobs to
the chagrin of the Sinhalese. The myth of Divide and Rule is untrue.
The 'policy of standardisation' was typical of affirmative action
policies, in that it required drastically lower standards for Sinhalese
students than for the more academic Tamils who had to get about ten more
marks to enter into universities. The policy, were it not implemented
would have prevented the civil wars ahead as the policies had no basis
and in fact is an example of discrimination against the Tamil ethnic
group.
Taiwan
A 2004
legislation requires that, for a firm with 100 employees or more wishing
to compete for government contracts, at least 1 per cent of its
employees must be Taiwanese aborigines. Ministry of Education and Council of Aboriginal Affairs
announced in 2002 that Taiwanese Aboriginal students would have their
high-school or undergraduate entrance exams boosted by 33% for
demonstrating some knowledge of their tribal language and culture. The percentage of boost have been revised several times, and the latest percentage is 35% in 2013.
Europe
Finland
In
certain university education programs, including legal and medical
education, there are quotas for persons who reach a certain standard of
skills in the Swedish language; for students admitted in these quotas, the education is partially arranged in Swedish.
The purpose of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of
professionals with skills in Swedish are educated for nationwide needs.
The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking
majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these
linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment
for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the
field.
France
No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 French Constitution.
Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on
neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some
schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Priority Education Zones", are
granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also
benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po).
The French Ministry of Defence tried in 1990 to make it easier
for young French soldiers of North-African descent to be promoted in
rank and obtain driving licenses. After a strong protest by a young
French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defence newspaper (Armées d'aujourd'hui),
the driving license and rank plan was cancelled. After the Sarkozy
election, a new attempt in favour of Arab-French students was made, but
Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French
constitution. However, some French schools do implement affirmative
action in that they are obligated to take a certain number of students
from impoverished families.
Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January
2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock
exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the
proportion will increase to 40%. All appointments of males as directors
will be invalid as long as the quota is not met, and monetary penalties
may apply for other directors.
Germany
Article 3 of the German Basic Law
provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or
social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have
equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover,
the disabled should be preferred to non-disabled people. This is typical
for all positions in state and university service as of 2007,
typically using the phrase "We try to increase diversity in this line of
work". 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. Germany's Left Party brought up the discussion about affirmative action in Germany's school system. According to Stefan Zillich, quotas should be "a possibility" to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a Gymnasium (University-preparatory school). Headmasters of Gymnasien have objected, saying that this type of policy would "be a disservice" to poor children.
Norway
In all public stock companies (ASA) boards, either gender should be represented by at least 40%. This affects roughly 400 companies of over 300,000 in total.
Seierstad & Opsahl in their study of the effects of
affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women
directors in Norway found that there are few boards chaired by a woman,
from the beginning of the implementation of affirmative action policy
period to August 2009, the proportion of boards led by a woman has
increased from 3.4% to 4.3%. This suggests that the law has had a
marginal effect on the sex of the chair and the boards remain internally
segregated. Although at the beginning of our observation period, only 7
of 91 prominent directors were women. The gender balance among
prominent directors has changed considerable through the period, and at
the end of the period, 107 women and 117 men were prominent directors.
By applying more restrictive definitions of prominence, the proportion
of directors who are women generally increases. If only considering
directors with at least three directorships, 61.4% of them are women.
When considering directors with seven or more directorships, all of them
are women. Thus, affirmative action increase the female population in
the director position.
A 2016 study found no effect of the ASA representation
requirement on either valuation or profits of the affected companies,
and also no correlation between the requirement and the restructuring of
companies away from ASA.
Romania
Romani people are allocated quotas for access to public schools and state universities.
Russia
Quota systems existed in the USSR for various social groups including ethnic minorities (as a compensation of their "cultural backwardness"), women and factory workers.
Quotas for access to university education, offices in the Soviet
system and the Communist Party existed: for example, the position of
First Secretary of a Soviet Republic's (or Autonomous Republic's) Party
Committee was always filled by a representative of this republic's "titular ethnicity".
Modern Russia retains this system partially. Quotas are
abolished, however, preferences for some ethnic minorities and
inhabitants of certain territories remain.
Slovakia
The Constitutional Court
declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing
advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being
against its Constitution.
United Kingdom
In
the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and
ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal
for any reason in education, employment, during commercial transactions,
in a private club or association, and while using public services. The Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.
Specific exemptions include:
- Part of the Northern Ireland Peace Process, the Good Friday Agreement and the resulting Patten report required the Police Service of Northern Ireland to recruit 50% of numbers from the Catholic community and 50% from the Protestant and other communities, in order to reduce any possible bias towards Protestants. This was later referred to as the '50:50' measure.
- The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allowed the use of all-women shortlists to select more women as election candidates.
In 2019, an employment tribunal ruled that positive discrimination had been directly discriminatory,
in a case where a "well prepared white heterosexual male" candidate
seeking to join the police was passed over by a police force. The ruling
stated that the organization "had used 'positive action' to recruit
people with different characteristics, but in a discriminatory way", and
that "while positive action can be used to boost diversity, it should
only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were all equally
well qualified for a role".
North America
Canada
The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15
states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program
or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of
disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are
disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".
The Canadian Employment Equity Act
requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give
preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, persons with
disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.
Less than one-third of Canadian Universities offer alternative
admission requirements for students of aboriginal descent. Some
provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies.
For example, in Northwest Territories
in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs
and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal
people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there
are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.
United States
The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination. Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy
on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, creed, color, or national origin" and "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".
On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925
and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full
realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive,
continuing program in each executive department and agency". Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375
which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex"
to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's
original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the
nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities,
or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under
different laws.
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.
Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial
groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have
lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200)
have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions,
including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within
their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that
colleges quietly use illegal quotas to increase the number of minorities
and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.
Oceania
New Zealand
Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded improved access to university courses, or have scholarships earmarked specifically for them. Affirmative action is provided for under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
South America
Brazil
Some Brazilian universities (state and federal) have created systems
of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and
Amerindians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are also
quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for people with disabilities
in the civil public services. The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of the University of Brasília for "resurrecting nazist ideals", appealed to the Supreme Federal Court against the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves for minorities. The Supreme Court unanimously approved their constitutionality on 26 April 2012.
International organizations
United Nations
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 countries that 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 that "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."
Support
The
principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through
the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people.
Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as
oppression or slavery.
Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has
sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment
and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional,
and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society;
redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular
addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and
slave laws.
A 2017 study found that affirmative action in the United States
"increases the black share of employees over time: in 5 years after an
establishment is first regulated, the black share of employees increases
by an average of 0.8 percentage points. Strikingly, the black share
continues to grow at a similar pace even after an establishment is
deregulated. One could argue that this persistence is driven in part by
affirmative action inducing employers to improve their methods for
screening potential hires."
Polls
According to a poll taken by USA Today in 2005, the majority of Americans support affirmative action for women, while views on minority groups were more split. Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do.
However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative
action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of
preferential treatment.
More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 finds that 55% of
Americans feel that affirmative action in general should be
discontinued, though 55% support it for people with disabilities. A Gallup
poll from 2005 showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white
Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49%
opposing), with support and opposition among Hispanics falling between
those of blacks and whites. Support among blacks, unlike among whites,
had almost no correlation with political affiliation.
A 2009 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
survey found 65% of American voters opposed the application of
affirmative action to gay people, with 27% indicating they supported it.
A Leger poll taken in 2010 found 59% of Canadians opposed
considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.
A 2014 Pew Research Center
poll found that 63% of Americans thought affirmative action programs
aimed at increasing minority representation on college campuses were "a
good thing", compared to 30% who thought they were "a bad thing". The following year, Gallup
released a poll showing that 67% of Americans supported affirmative
action programs aimed at increasing female representation, compared to
58% who supported such programs aimed at increasing the representation
of racial minorities.
Criticism
Critics of affirmative action offer a variety of arguments as to why
it is counterproductive or should be discontinued. For example, critics
may argue that affirmative action hinders reconciliation, replaces old
wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and
encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if
they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more
privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class white people).
Some opponents of affirmative action argue that it is a form of reverse racism,
that any effort to cure discrimination through affirmative action is
wrong because it, in turn, is another form of discrimination. Some critics claim that court cases such as Fisher v. University of Texas,
which held that colleges have some discretion to consider race when
making admissions decisions, demonstrate how discrimination occurs in
the name of affirmative action.
Some critics of affirmative action argue that that affirmative
action devalues the actual accomplishments of people who are chosen
based on the social group to which they belong rather than their
qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive.
Some argue that affirmative action policies create an opportunity
for fraud, by encouraging non-preferred groups to designate themselves
as members of preferred groups (that is, members of groups that benefit
from affirmative action) in order to take advantage of group preference
policies.
Critics of affirmative action suggest that programs may benefit
the members of the targeted group that least need the benefit, that is
those who have the greatest social, economic and educational advantages
within the targeted group. Other beneficiaries may be described as wholly unqualified for the opportunity made available through affirmative action.
They may argue that at the same time the people who lose the most to
affirmative action are the least fortunate members of non-preferred
groups.
Another criticism of affirmative action is that it may reduce the
incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their
best. Beneficiaries of affirmative action may conclude that it is
unnecessary to work as hard, and those who do not benefit may perceive
hard work as futile.
Mismatching
Mismatching
is the term given to the supposed negative effect that affirmative
action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult
for him or her. For example, according to the hypothesis, in the
absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college
that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of
graduating. However, according to the mismatching hypothesis,
affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too
difficult, and this increases the student's chance of dropping out.
Thus, according to the hypothesis, affirmative action hurts its intended
beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.
Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a 24 August 2007 article published in the Wall Street Journal. The article reported on a 2004 study that was conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and published in the Stanford Law Review.
The study concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black attorneys than
there would have been if there had been no affirmative action. The study
was titled, "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law
Schools". The article also states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.
Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including Ian Ayres
and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative
action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%. A 2008 study by Jesse Rothstein
and Albert H. Yoon confirmed Sander's mismatch findings, but also found
that eliminating affirmative action would "lead to a 63 percent decline
in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at
elite law schools".
These high numbers predictions were doubted in a review of previous
studies by Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim. Their 2016 article
found a strong indication that affirmative action results in a mismatch
effect. They argued that the attendance by some African-American
students to less-selective schools would significantly improve the low
first attempt rate at passing the state bar, but they cautioned that such improvements could be outweighed by decreases in law school attendance.
A 2011 study proposed that mismatch can only occur when a
selective school possesses private information that, had this
information been disclosed, would have changed the student's choice of
school. The study found that this is in fact the case for Duke University, and that this information predicts the student's academic performance after beginning college.
A 2016 study on affirmative action in India fails to find evidence for the mismatching hypothesis. In India 90% IIT-Roorkee dropouts are backward caste.
