Affirmative Action
Now that an African-American has risen to the highest office in the land, is affirmative action an obsolete policy? Or, is Obama's ascendancy a one-off event that exaggerates the magnitude of racial/minority group progress?
If affirmative action is truly about opportunity and access—if it is about increasing inclusion of historically excluded groups in the workplace, in our schools, and in business, then shouldn't it be an enduring policy?
At first blush, the answer would appear to be yes. Most would agree that diversity has benefits, particularly when it does not come at the expense of merit and competence.
Society as a whole is advantaged when biases are chipped away. Discrimination has tangible costs. Those costs are often economic in nature—resulting in enormous governmental expenditures targeted at assisting the disadvantaged. The sum total of those outlays are a drain on our national productive capacity, and they threaten long-term economic flexibility and vitality.
It's not that simple, though. Many believe that affirmative action reinforces minority stereotypes—that it ostensibly harms the very groups that it intends to help.
Ultra conservative African-American former ambassador and presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, says,
"Preferential affirmative action patronizes American blacks, women, and others by presuming that they cannot succeed on their own. Preferential affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country."
I would give that argument more weight if were not so absolutist. Considering the scale of discrimination 20, 30, 40+ years ago, it's difficult to give credence to a position that seems to say that government action wasn't necessary at all—that severe and systemic discrimination could be avoided if minorities would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That's exceptionally naive.
It is a legitimate question, though, to wonder if we've reached a tipping point. A good deal of progress has been made. Has the progress been significant enough that affirmative action can be eliminated because its stigma is more harmful than its requirements are helpful? That's possible.
In the final analysis, though, I see affirmative action as quite consistent with a basic American ideal—access and opportunity for all. Elimination of the policy will not remove its stigma; it has been too engrained in the American psyche. That can only occur naturally as more and more minorities ascend to positions of power and influence and achieve success.
Let's think of affirmation action as nothing more than a reiteration of that most fundamental American principle—equal opportunity.
For more discussion on the topic, check out: http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/do-we-still-need-affirmative-action
If affirmative action is truly about opportunity and access—if it is about increasing inclusion of historically excluded groups in the workplace, in our schools, and in business, then shouldn't it be an enduring policy?
At first blush, the answer would appear to be yes. Most would agree that diversity has benefits, particularly when it does not come at the expense of merit and competence.
Society as a whole is advantaged when biases are chipped away. Discrimination has tangible costs. Those costs are often economic in nature—resulting in enormous governmental expenditures targeted at assisting the disadvantaged. The sum total of those outlays are a drain on our national productive capacity, and they threaten long-term economic flexibility and vitality.
It's not that simple, though. Many believe that affirmative action reinforces minority stereotypes—that it ostensibly harms the very groups that it intends to help.
Ultra conservative African-American former ambassador and presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, says,
"Preferential affirmative action patronizes American blacks, women, and others by presuming that they cannot succeed on their own. Preferential affirmative action does not advance civil rights in this country."
I would give that argument more weight if were not so absolutist. Considering the scale of discrimination 20, 30, 40+ years ago, it's difficult to give credence to a position that seems to say that government action wasn't necessary at all—that severe and systemic discrimination could be avoided if minorities would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That's exceptionally naive.
It is a legitimate question, though, to wonder if we've reached a tipping point. A good deal of progress has been made. Has the progress been significant enough that affirmative action can be eliminated because its stigma is more harmful than its requirements are helpful? That's possible.
In the final analysis, though, I see affirmative action as quite consistent with a basic American ideal—access and opportunity for all. Elimination of the policy will not remove its stigma; it has been too engrained in the American psyche. That can only occur naturally as more and more minorities ascend to positions of power and influence and achieve success.
Let's think of affirmation action as nothing more than a reiteration of that most fundamental American principle—equal opportunity.
For more discussion on the topic, check out: http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/do-we-still-need-affirmative-action
Comments