Affirmative Action: Why and for Whom?

The need for affirmative action in the United States stems from the overall mistreatment of people based on race and gender. This is not solely attributable to the United States, of course, as demonstrated by merely glancing back throughout documented world history. However, American bigotry is especially cringeworthy, perhaps due to the precepts of freedom, justice, and equality for all that have been touted by our leaders since our country's inception. Our so-called forefathers waxed eloquent on these topics, while many of them were guilty of owning black slaves and treating all women as property. Even after progressive achievements such as the abolishment of slavery in the late 1800's and the enfranchisement of women in the early 1900's, people of color and all women still were treated as second-class citizens.

As president of the United States in the 1930's and '40's, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, strove to correct these wrongs, not only in the United States, but also on an international scale. They were instrumental in the development of the United Nations and the international human rights movement, and attempted to extend the concept of human rights into the United States Constitution, as evidenced in the following excerpt from FDR's speech to Congress in 1944: "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all - regardless of station, race, or creed" (Aka, 2006). Unfortunately, after FDR's presidency, politics intervened, and subsequent presidents were unable to fulfill FDR's commitment to human rights, although John F. Kennedy (JFK), who took office in 1961, did initiate progress in the arena of Civil Rights. In fact, he was the one of the first to use the phrase affirmative action in Executive Order 10925, which mandated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After the assassination of JFK, President Lyndon B. Johnson continued the struggle for civil rights. During a commencement address at Howard University in 1965, he stated the following: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair... This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights... We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result." Affirmative action has been a benefit to many since that time, even while being surrounded by a chaos of controversy.

Part of the controversy stems from the assumption that affirmative action is a departure from the norm; that schools and employers otherwise use only merit in admission and hiring policy, such as in a meritocracy. This is a faulty assumption, as there are many factors involved in college admissions as well as in hiring processes. For instance, often people are hired for jobs based on the recommendation of a friend or an acquaintance. If the decision to hire is down to a choice between two applicants who are similar in skills and knowledge, the applicant who is recommended by someone close to the employer usually has the edge. Concerning college, how many students gain admittance to highly respected universities because their wealthy and influential parents or other benefactors (such as grandparents or close friends of the family) are alumni? Assuming we could eliminate all other factors and choose applicants based solely on merit, it would behoove us to reconsider how we determine merit. Since even proponents of standardized testing admit that it has limited usefulness for predicting success either in college or on the job, perhaps it is time for new and better ideas. Sturm and Guinier, in the California Law Review, suggest some innovative ways of evaluating and training potential students and employees, not only to be more equitable to all races and genders, but also to ensure that schools and employers actually do accept those who will do the best job. In discussing the importance of a diverse workplace, they show that more than racial and gender equality is at stake (Sturm & Guinier, 1996). The workplace has changed rapidly due to advanced technology, bringing challenges that require a broad assortment of skills, such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and perseverance - none of which are predicted by tests.

Vigorous opposition to the affirmative action movement has another basis, as well: the high percentage of the working poor that encompasses all categories of ethnicity, race, and gender in the United States. For those who have struggled all of their lives to make ends meet, yet who do not match the criterion of being either female or of a minority race, the practice of affirmative action based on gender and race/ethnicity can seem blatantly unfair at worst, and resolving only part of the problem at best. A solution may be to extend the reach of affirmative action by returning to the subject of human rights, and look at one of the areas in which the United States falls short. Human rights organizations around the world, except for the United States, include socioeconomic rights as basic to the overall rights of all humans. The government of the United States still prefers the notion that socioeconomic status is a privilege, not a right. As mentioned above, FDR urged Congress to add socioeconomic rights (for all) to the United States Constitution, but so far, this has not been done. All too often, the relatively few who control the majority of wealth in this country are also controlling government officials (as has been so vividly demonstrated within the past year or so with the Abramoff scandals, among others) and framing a story designed to keep "the masses" at bay. I am referring to the tactics used by various powerful people in which they decry the policies of welfare for poverty-stricken families, or affirmative action programs for the underrepresented, all the while profiting greatly from corporate welfare and the "good old boy" system! Perhaps it is time that we start expecting a decrease in the disparity of income between the upper echelons of the business world and the rest of us, instead of taking out our frustrations on those who also are barely making ends meet.

Admittedly, this article has not provided a concrete solution to the affirmative action controversy. However, the first step in solving any problem is to step back and question the status quo. Before we can build a better system, we must deconstruct, at least in theory, the current situation. We cannot move forward and improve, as individuals nor as a society, if we do not question and ponder everything, including the "givens." Open dialogue is essential to growth and learning.

References

P. C. Aka (2006). Analyzing U.S. Commitment to Socioeconomic Human Rights
LBJ Library and Museum. President Johnson's Commencement Address at Howard University: "To Fulfill These Rights." In Public Papers of the
Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. Vol II (entry 301, pp. 635-640). Retrieved April 9, 2007 from URL: (http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp.) Also available through Government Printing Office.

S. Sturm & L. Guinier (July, 1996). The Future Of Affirmative Action: Reclaiming The Innovative Ideal. In Symposium: Race-based Remedies. 84 California Law Review 953.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Executive Order 10925.(Establishing President Kennedy's Committee on Equal Employment
Opportunity). In EEOC - 35th Anniversary. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission URL:
(http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html)