There’s a lot more to the recession than meets the eye
15 percent: the national unemployment rate for African Americans (the national rate for all races is 8.9 percent). 5.6 percent: the percentage of the Northwestern University class of 2013 that is African-American (about 13 percent of this nation is African-American).
Some would call these numbers appalling; others would accredit it to “the luck of the draw.” After all, everyone has a fair chance at success in America, regardless of race…right? Of course, this seems hard to believe when you find out that nearly one in four African Americans live below the poverty line.
So why does any of this make the recession racist? Think about it this way: During a recession, poor people are made poorer because their jobs are the first to go. Poorer people tend to be minorities and thus the recession has this unfortunate tendency to lay-off people of color (e.g. African-Americans).
What some people fail to realize is that affirmative action is only worsening the problem. Quite simply, it’s keeping minorities poor, disadvantaged and discriminated against. But to know why affirmative action doesn’t work, we should probably figure out what it actually is.
Affirmative action is simply a collection of policies that aims to promote equal opportunity by taking into account gender, race or ethnicity in areas like employment and education. The goal of affirmative action is to combat the effects of discrimination while proliferating diversity. This all sounds fantastic, except that, sociologically and economically speaking, it’s not helping much.
The first problem with affirmative action is that it unintentionally discriminates against certain minority groups by pretending that there is a cure-all for helping any minority fight de facto discrimination. The truth is, though 25 percent of African Americans live below the poverty line, joining them are the 25 percent of American Indians and 20 percent of Hispanics that also living in poverty. But these groups suffer from socioeconomic disadvantages for reasons that do not apply to the other minority groups (antebellum slavery in the South for Blacks, rampant alcoholism in American Indians, language barrier issues with many Hispanics, etc.).
Similarly, it only seems obvious that women suffer from discrimination not because they were enslaved plantation workers in the South 200 years ago, but rather because deep-rooted patriarchal social tendencies that date back to before the dawn of Western civilization were never forcefully or successfully uprooted in a way that would have prevented gender inequality today. In sum, different minority groups experience different types of discrimination for different reasons, and affirmative action ignores that.
Aside from the movement’s misguided premises, the sociological and psychological impact of affirmative action has cyclically perpetuated the very things it seeks to destroy. By buying into the fact that we need to hire minorities into higher positions to “even the playing field” or accept more minority students into universities to promote diversity, society reinforces ideas of a “racial disadvantage.” It’s essentially letting young minorities know that they don’t have to try hard to gain success, only flaunt their skin color. This also influences others’ perceptions of minorities who may begin to think that a minority only got the promotion or was accepted into an Ivy League school because of his or her skin color and not because of his or her achievements.
What ends up happening is minorities who are objectively unfit to go to a top ten university get accepted because of their ethnicity and then find that they cannot compete with the rest of the student body. Feeling discouraged by their ineffectual performance, they abandon their academic pursuits. Younger minorities seeing this get equally discouraged, and the cycle continues.
When you think about it, affirmative action seems to perpetuate some of the ideas behind “separate but equal;” it upholds the idea that we can hold minorities to a different standard of education or employment because of their skin color or gender. But, as we all know now, separate is inherently unequal, and therefore affirmative action is simply continuing the system of racial inequality.
The current recession looks racist because affirmative action policies have kept the majority of disadvantaged minorities in a disadvantaged condition and in jobs that are prone to lay-offs in tough times. These policies don’t help the minority population as a whole, but a select few who are lucky enough to get picked above the rest. That being said, affirmative action has definitely put a few disadvantaged minorities into positions that they would otherwise have not been able to achieve in face of discrimination, but these policies aren’t helping the problem go away for everyone else.
This is not to say that we should abandon affirmative action motives. We can work to eliminate discrimination, general inter-racial animosity and racial inequality through massive investment on a national scale — in kindergarten classrooms, or more generally, in early childhood education.
Investing in early education has two key benefits in the long run: it helps eliminate racist tendencies and it better prepares students to graduate high school and move on to college. If children (black, white, brown, etc.) are exposed to different cultures and ethnicities early on, the chances that these children form biases later in life are reduced. Observe where that takes the next generation of employers a couple decades down the road, and you see that racial bias in employment can become almost unheard of. Moreover, children who can read, write, and do simple arithmetic at an early age (in other words, have a fruitful early childhood education) end up performing better in secondary and post-secondary education and attain more years of schooling. More schooling means better jobs. Better jobs means better protection from layoffs.
Unlike affirmative action, this initiative is colorblind: anyone and everyone will benefit in the long-run from a smarter populace. People won’t be signing contracts they don’t understand (note the sub-prime mortgage debacle and the subsequent economic meltdown) and won’t be digging themselves deeper into credit card debt without knowing how to get out. But more importantly, you don’t have to be of any specific race to receive the benefits of education.
Affirmative action is essentially a band-aid — it doesn’t heal the wound, but covers it up and hopes it goes away by itself. Investing in education is ultimately more effective than diversity quotas in employment or universities because it not only works to fight against the effects of discrimination, it also helps end discrimination itself. It does more than help prepare the future of America to compete on the global stage; it helps integrate our country (and the world) on a level that goes beyond the color of one’s skin.
| Print
The recession isn't the only thing that has people talking. Or you can return home.
Here’s a quote from the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that touches what I have to say on this subject:
“Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.”
I think it’s funny that when minorities are given a leg up in something after hundreds of years of unspeakable horrors, that people [mostly white] will fight against it and want it stopped. I challenge you [the author] to write about how unfair it is that legacies at top universities get a boost admissions, I challenge you to write about how unfair it is that donors who contribute large sums of money to a university have their children given an extra boost in the admissions.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm
The funny thing about it is that these students who are rich tend to be white. The students who are legacies tend to be white.
cssProdigy
May 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
I agree with the argument somewhat, but not on it’s overall approach. The problem here is admitting to the liberal’s objective: that representation in academic institutions amongst races, and in good jobs amongst races overall, must be equal. You admitted to this objective–and then–said affirmative action is not an effective way to get there.
The problem with this approach is that affirmative action has proven to be an effective way to get there. There are fewer disparities in educational attainment amongst races (however fraudulent this “attainment” may be) than before affirmative action; there are fewer gaps in income amongst races than before.
The approach I like better is one that recognizes that the policy did have its desired effect, but that it has made life less, not more, fair by focusing on only one variable. Black people do get affirmative action–but short guys never–or at least almost never–get promoted. Look at your graduating class–especially if you majored in business. The short guys will be the last hired for any management job.
The difference is even more noticeable a few years after everyone starts their careers, after promotions have happened. In most companies, guys under 5′5″ occupy less than 1% of the management positions despite accounting for over 10% of the population.
What does this have to do with affirmative action? Well, by ignoring who is ACTUALLY disadvantaged and focusing only on whom liberals SAY is disadvantaged–affirmative action has made short guys worse off. If they are white and had something else going for them besides their height–a high SAT score, or good grades–they were told to sit on the back of the bus, to give that advantage up. And yet, in the workplace, they seem to face an even greater amount of discrimination than those they are required to help out.
In order to actually make life fair, we would have to do a regression analysis on every variable (other than intelligence I guess) known to predict income–starting with height, weight, gender, and race. We could include personality type and overall attractiveness as well; however some would claim these variables are not simple traits but rather a form of merit.
Then once this regression analysis is done, and we can accurately predict a 16 year old’s future income based on his genetic traits, we can then determine, accurately, how much help he or she needs.
See where I’m going? Our one-sided focus on race completely misses the mark. Yeah, the correlation is there, but it’s not very strong. And focusing on this one, weakly correlated variable produces policies and results that are VERY unfair.
A better approach would probably be to stay out of the “life must be fair” business altogether. We started life with a genetic lottery with literally thousands of different variables. NOONE got all the good, or all the bad stuff–although some, admittedly did appear to get very lucky.
Recognizing there is NO way to accurately predict success by factoring in all variables, and recognizing that most people hover around the mean overall, we should stay out of the “make life fair” business altogether. Ban any outright discrimination when it is seen; hold organizations accountable when discrimination (including height discrimination!) is statistically suspect and a complaint has occurred–but do not mandate results as affirmative action does.
If enough qualified candidates with a given trait cannot be found–meaning equally qualified, not a “close tie”–then the company or school did all it could do, and should not be required to implement any further affirmative action.
Test Test
May 25, 2009 at 10:34 am
This solution sort of ignores a major factor in the problem. Disadvantaged kids are more likely to be born into a family that doesn’t value education. As a result, they are less likely to learn in school, no matter how much money is poured into it. This sort of solution would just leave everyone where they started off, with a whole lot of victim blaming heaped on top.
The problem is a cultural one. And the idea that you can eliminate racism by giving tolerance lessons to kindergartners is about as probable as eliminating drug use through DARE.
Tom
May 25, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Makes complete sense to level the playing field earlier on – early education. A comprehensive effort should be made to enpower a CHILD to start and sustain him/her through his/her journey of life.
However, I think it is also important that once the field has been leveled – affirmitive programs should be available to the socio-economically disadvantaged!
RajuP
May 26, 2009 at 9:04 am
I must comment on the misguided notion that affirmative action was intended to be a panacea for all of the problems affecting minorities, women or the poor or even short people. As the quote from Dr. King indicates, giving a person an opportunity to run a race after he has been hobbled by chains is not being fair. Anyone who denies that members of minority groups have suffered disadvantages and discrimination historically, and in many cases, continue to suffer such disparities is not facing reality. Affirmative action is a means to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity, in the workplace, education and business. It is not hiring by quotas, as some have suggested, but eliminating tests and other selection processes that adversely affect minorities and women; providing equal pay and removing the glass ceiling so all can compete in the executive suite. In higher education, it is promoting diversity so that students who can handle the curriculum but who did not have the opportunity to attend a prestigious prep school can have the chance to compete. Affirmative action removes preferences that some have enjoyed for centuries like the sons of Harvard and Yale alumni (President Bush included.)
Recessions do not harm affirmative action’s intended beneficiaries. In fact, employers have to ensure that minorities and women are not unfairly dismissed when layoffs occur. The operative word is opportunity and affirmative action continues to be necessary today. Witness the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. President Obama nominated her because she was qualified to serve but also because there had never been a Hispanic and only two women on the Supreme Court. That is affirmative action in its purest form. Visit the website of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if you think that discrimination has disappeared to such an extent that affirmative is no longer necessary: http://www.eeoc.gov. For more information about what affirmative action IS, go to: http://www.affirmativeaction.org or to the website of ther agency that enforces Executive Order 11246 signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp.
ShirleyJ
May 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm