Affirmative_action

See also: Affirmative action in the United States and Reservation in India

Affirmative action, in Europe also alternatively known as positive discrimination, refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races). Motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past and current wrongful discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population.

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, and in some cases by preferential treatment given to applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups. Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that it is based on collectivism and merely another equal form of discrimination because it can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need.) Some opponents say that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group they belong to rather than their qualifications.

Opponents

The opponents^{[attribution needed]} of affirmative action say that using it to remove discrimination is counter-productive, both because it requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate in order to work and because it promotes prejudice by increasing resentment of those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy.

In short, opponents argue that affirmative action:

• continues discrimination in the opposite, in what is known as reverse discrimination
• promotes the less-qualified over the more-qualified, rather than simply opening doors to the historically under-represented
• continues the circle repressed groups needing to continue to be underprivileged for their benefit
• hurts mainstream groups for injustices they did not cause or condone

Some^{[attribution needed]} also argue that they are not getting the correct funding and since economic or educational disadvantage does not necessarily correlate with or restrict itself to those of a particular racial/ethnic/gender status, using race, gender or ethnicity to determine disadvantage is inappropriate. Affirmative action opponents^{[attribution needed]} also typically argue that those who suffer on account of affirmative action (i.e. those who don\'t get the job or who don\'t get admitted to a particular university) should not be held accountable for crimes they did not commit; in other words, that most people of the present were not a part of the system that oppressed such minorities. Furthermore, the opponents^{[attribution needed]} argue, since all people have equal rights, no individual\'s rights should be sacrificed to compensate for another person\'s rights being taken away. The opponents^{[attribution needed]} often claim that the groups that are most negatively impacted by affirmative action are Asians, Jews, and Arabs, all of whom are also discriminated against within society, and that this disproportionate effect is perverse and counter-productive considering that the intent of affirmative action is to eliminate discrimination. A study has noted that on some campuses, such as the University of California, Berkeley where affirmative action was abolished by Proposition 209, Asian American students, who already face discrimination on college campuses, would be the predominant victims of a return to race-conscious admissions.Cameron Huey, "The Curse of the Model Minority" originally published in the Daily Californian, September 5 2006. http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=21236. Efforts to repeal Proposition 209 and limit the number of Asians on campus resemble the anti-semitic Numerus Clauses once utilized by colleges and universities to reduce the number of Jews.

Additionally, it is argued^{[attribution needed]} that affirmative action sometimes represses the qualified in favor of the not-so-qualified. This can result in a loss for a nation not working at its full capacity and can also result in undesired effects previously felt by those who were discriminated against. For example, one may be very qualified for a certain job, but may be turned down in favor of a person who is less qualified but is targeted for affirmative action in that certain job. If occurring on a grand scale, the country will lose speed in its advances. Each of those individuals turned down will be repressed and their example might dampen the spirits of those like them, just as it had done to past social groups.^{[original research?]}

Notable opponents include Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, who has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California\'s initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents. Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008.

Notable academicians such as Professor Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, who was a supporter of Michigan\'s Proposal 2, has argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socio-economically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action are permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that lead to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 232003.

Controversy

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity of some minority groups.Richardson, L. Anita. "What is the Constitutional Status of Affirmative Action?: Reading Tea Leaves." Affirmative Action: a Dialogue on Race, Gender, Equality and Law in America XIII.2 (1998). 16 November 2006 http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spr98const.html They may argue that the end result—a more diversified and representative student body, police force or other group—justifies the means, despite the text of the Equal Protection Clause, and regardless of the adverse discrimination against European Americans or Asian Americans.

Philanthropists have drawn comparisons between the current economic state of some non-dominant groups and poverty. Children born, today, to dominant families are clearly not at all responsible for poverty throughout the world. Although these children have in no way caused or condoned poverty, history predicts that some will nevertheless see poverty as an injustice that should be righted if indeed possible. Proponents of affirmative action may believe that genuine residual social and economic injustices continue to affect particular groups; and that these injustices should be righted if indeed possible. Beyond the moral arguments for righting injustices, some proponents claim that immediate reparatory action - rather than delayed action or no action – can prevent the social and economic issues from reaching a stage where they become impossible (or greatly more difficult) to repair.

Much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action’s effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle and upper class minorities at the expense of lower class whites. This argument supports the idea of solely class based affirmative action. America’s poor is disproportionately made up of minorities, so class based affirmative action would disproportionately help minorities. This would eliminate the need for race based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle and upper class minorities.Hurst, C. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Sixth Edition. 2007. 374-377.

Proponents of affirmative action argue that by nature the system is not only race based, but also class and gender based. To eliminate two of its key components would undermine the purpose of the entire system. The African American Policy Forum believes that the class based argument is based on the idea that non-poor minorities do not experience racial and gender based discrimination.The AAPF believes that “Race-conscious affirmative action remains necessary to address race-based obstacles that block the path to success of countless people of color of all classes". The groups goes on to say that affirmative action is responsible for creating the African American middle class, so it does not make sense to say that the system only benefits the middle and upper classes.13 Myths About Affirmative Action: A Special Series on a Public Policy Under Siege. African American Policy Forum. Retrieved on 2008-03-03.

Opponents further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it factors race into the decision-making process, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and undermines the achievements of minorities. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper-class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favored minority areas. There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations.Affirmative action ban draws a challenge. The National Law Journal. Retrieved on 2008-03-03. Some research has indicated that as many as 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at some of America\'s most selective colleges are wealthy white teens who failed to meet their institutions\' minimum admissions standards, furthermore these wealthy white teens outnumber students who benefit from affirmative action.At the elite colleges - dim white kids By Peter Schmidt. September 28 2007. The Boston Globe.

Some also claim that, in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatching" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.Sander, Richard H.. Research Areas and Publications. University of California - Los Angeles. Retrieved on 2008-03-03.

How the media portray affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims that the practice is racist or sexist, or both, depending on how one defines those concepts (for instance, the offering of extra college scholarships to black and Hispanic students as opposed to white or Asian students appears overtly racist). Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations.

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 have 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, "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."United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10

An in-depth examination of the legal status of affirmative action, as well as the different kinds of programs that exist and their pros and cons, can be found in a paper written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt. United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council, 17 June 2002

Implementation worldwide

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to 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" or "positive discrimination".

• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are already quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.Plummer, Robert. "Black Brazil Seeks a Better Future." BBC News, São Paulo 25 September 2006. 16 November 2006 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5357842.stm>.

• Canada. The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type polices. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginals 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 disabled peoples. Men receive the lowest priority, P3.GNWT - Human Resources - Affirmative Action <http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/employment/affirmativeaction/>

• Finland. In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for Swedish-speaking applicants. The aim of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of Swedish speaking professionals are educated, thus safeguarding the linguistic rights of the Swedish-speaking Finns. 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. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper ("Armées d\'aujourd\'hui"), this driving license and rank project was canceled. (article: Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire").

• Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. 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. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job. This is typically for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase the percentage of females in this line of work"

• India

See main article: Reservation in India

• Japan. Admission to universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
• Macedonia. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
• Malaysia. The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP is one of the longest and most developed forms of racial affirmative action in the world. It promotes structural changes in various aspects of life from education to economic to social integration. Born after the race riots of 1969, it sought to address the significant imbalance in the economic sphere where the minority Chinese population had substantial control over commercial activity in the country. The dissatisfaction this caused among the native Malay resulted in the race riots of May 13 1969. Tun Abdul Razak who took over the premiership from the country\'s first PM, Tunku Abdul Rahman, initiated the NEP. Since then racial violence has subsided but there are continued and persistent attacks on the policy from the Chinese and Indian community, claiming that it gives Malays an unfair advantage and is self-defeating, as it arguably makes Malaysia less economically competitive compared to its neighbors and entrenches structural privileges not based on merit. According to the government\'s own study, the policy has yet to achieve its target of redistributing 30 percent of national wealth to the Malays which constitute 50 per cent of the population. However, there are studies that contradict this and there are questions pertaining to each study\'s methodology. Malaysia is a multiethnic country, with Malays making up the majority, close to 52% of the population. About 30% of the population are Malaysians of Chinese descent. Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 8% of the population. However, 99% of Petronas directors are Malays, only 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese, only 5% of all new intakes for government army, nurses, polices, are non-Malays, just 7% of government servants in the whole government are ethnic Chinese (2004), drop from 30% in 1960, and 95% of all government contracts are given to Malays.Bumiputra Policy in Malaysia

See also: Bumiputra

• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.UK Commission for Racial Equality website "Affirmative action around the world" http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0l0.RefLocID-0hg01b001006009.Lang-EN.htm
• Norway. All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members, must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60%). This affects roughly 400 companies.
• 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. [1]
• South Africa. 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 not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically dis-advancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all people of color, white females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. However, government’s employment legislation reserves 80% of new jobs for black people and favours black owned companies.Simon Wood meets the people who lost most when Mandela won in South Africa It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By 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.
• Sri Lanka. In 1971 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British colonialists. The British had practised communal favoritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a policy of divide and conquer. This is one of the reasons for the Sri Lankan Civil War.
• Sweden. The Swedish democracy, although very careful about minorities\' rights and integration, does not allow affirmative action. They are considered barely a kind of discrimination, and although aimed at strengthening workers\' rights they are considered not fair. Affirmative actions are also considered to emphasize the minorities\' identity as a different, separate body, actually making weak feel even worse and stigmatized, as they are entitled to something just because of their ascribed characteristics.^{[dubious – discuss]}
• United Kingdom. Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK and quotas/selective systems are not permitted.Personneltoday.com "Is there a case for positive discrimination?" http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/01/17/33430/is-there-a-case-for-positive-discrimination.html A singular exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which requires that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants. However a number of people are taking the UK Government to EU Human Rights for alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act.BBC News "Police recruitment \'will be 50:50\'" 12 September 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1540861.stm
• United States. Affirmative action in the United States occurs in school admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate contracts.^{[citation needed]} Its intended beneficiaries are disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias and has been contested on constitutional grounds. California, Michigan, and Washington have banned various forms of affirmative action by government organizations. According to U.S. Office of Personnel Management\'s annual report "Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program", a total of 48,033 new minority employees (disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans) have been hired by the federal agencies from FY 2001 to FY 2006. During the same period there has been a net decrease of 3,960 white male employees in federal jobs.^{[citation needed]}

See also

Notes and references

External links

• Affirmative Action at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• US Census Bureau: Definition of Race
• Washington Post Section on Affirmative Action
• Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the European Union, Report by Minority Rights Group International

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia