Affirmative action, it would seem, is on its way out. Once embraced by liberals as a way to ensure equality established as a goal by the civil rights movements of the ‘60’s and ‘70s, it now has waning support across demographics and political ideologies. The fight is increasingly polarized as people take sides for or against affirmative action with such personally and politically-charged fervor that compromise seems impossible. Ironically, this passion is often supported only by anecdotal evidence and a profound ignorance of what affirmative action actually is.
How, say affirmative action advocates, can so many people fight these programs? The answer, in large part, is that many perceive affirmative action as a system of reparations, a system that holds white college applicants accountable for injustices like slavery so that their black, less-qualified peers may gain an edge in the admissions process.
This view represents a gross oversimplication of the purpose and practice of affirmative action. Racial quotas are illegal; colleges and employers may not set aside a specific number of spots for minorities. What they may do beyond this can be debated, especially when affirmative action, like so many other policies designed for the common good, might be abused. But debate is futile, even irresponsible, if it rests on a foundation of myth and blind suspicion. Affirmative action is multi-faceted, and to rely on one narrow definition only fuels misunderstanding.
Any argument against affirmative action must not assume that it constitutes a single way of achieving the end of equality. It has as its goals an increase in diversity and opportunity for groups that have historically been denied it, but to reach these goals schools and employers use a wide range of recruitment, application and admissions processes. Opponents should consider this variation so they may differentiate between schools that set lower standards for minority admissions and those that, given two equally qualified candidates, choose the one that will add to the diversity of the whole. Affirmative action might also include relatively uncontroversial practices, such as advertising in minority magazines or holding information sessions in predominantly-minority schools.
Opponents should also recognize that as they fight affirmative action they might even be working to their own disadvantage. While most campaigns focus only on benefits for racial minorities, affirmative action is the reason that white women make up the majority of college students in the United States. Even today, they are breaking through old boy networks and gender stereotypes. Few would argue, only a generation after many schools began admitting women, that colleges should stop actively targeting them, especially in areas where they are still scarce such as math and science. Clearly, then, affirmative action is not all about minorities placing guilt on the majority for the crimes of their forefathers.
In his piece attacking affirmative action from the Dec. 7 issue of the Voice, Ryan Callahan spends several paragraphs establishing his familiarity with black people. Going on the defensive, he tries to show that he has made an educated decision about this issue. He is not insensitive, he says; after all, he went to high school with them. He “had long conversations with a Nigerian girl.”
This defensive strategy is common among those arguing against affirmative action, especially when they sense, often correctly, that proponents of the practice consider them racists for opposing it. Information is key here, because, ultimately, those like Callahan cannot make an educated decision about affirmative action without a more sophisticated definition of it, one that dispels myths.
For this to happen, however, the other side, those who warn of a backslide into discriminatory admissions, must stop behaving as if their opponents are uniformly evil and incapable of understanding. They must address legitimate concerns while correcting misconceptions. Only by doing this can they usher in an era where both sides may speak without fear to make changes in the system without eradicating it—and its benefits—completely.
