Chris Scheefer
Cbs5150@psu.edu
LAS Capstone – Diversity
Affirmative Action Un-equalizing Opportunity
In Luke Harris’ essay, “Affirmative Action as Equalizing opportunity” he presents a very thorough
defense of the very controversial policy of Affirmative Action. Through the essay he justifies the policy
by presenting it as misrepresented by the detractors who suggest it provides “justifiable preferential
treatment” to its beneficiaries, an unwarranted social “stigma”, and that is more than just promoting
diversity and other long term goals. The main argument is that though we have legal equality for all
Americans we do not have equality in opportunity and through Affirmative Action we can help equalize
opportunities for groups who confront ongoing forms of institutional discrimination and lack of
substantive equality. I would counter that idea that you can equalize opportunity and truly “level the
playing field” through policies that encourage discrimination and/or preferential treatment based upon
minority status.
Within the first portion of his defense Harris explains that Affirmative Action is necessary because
America, though the White, male majority would like to believe it, is far from a color-blind society. Harris
suggests that we reframe the debate to transcend the color blind approach since this Affirmative Action
itself has evolved to include many other groups who suffer from discrimination and unequal
opportunity. According to Terry Anderson’s “The Strange Career of Affirmative Action”, it started as race
based policy to fight Jim Crow segregation laws and eventually evolved to protect against discrimination
based upon race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. The important transition came when Nixon’s
administration instituted the “Philadelphia Plan” which called for mandatory quotas of minority workers
for government construction contracts. This was an important step because it created almost a landslide
effect with the Carter administration taking it further and created many laws to provide incentives for
minority and female-owned businesses. Both Anderson and Harris bring up the Bakke case of UC Davis
that created a huge media attention due to the idea that they were now mandating that the 16% of the
applicants were to be given admission based upon minority status and not overall merit. Though done
with good intentions of a “more diverse student body” was viewed as giving preferential treatment to
minorities and displacing the other applicants who may not have that status. The Supreme Court ruled
quotas unconstitutional but that race could be used as a consideration in the admission process. Due in
part to that fact that it is indeed every institution’s right to select students based upon their set of
values and criteria. Harris states that many see Affirmative Action still as a white versus Black issue, but
that it now includes provisions to benefit women of all colors and protect people of various sexual
orientations. In some cases Harris states that Affirmative Action even has benefitted the lower class
White applications in obtaining admissions to colleges and openings in various occupations that would
be available to them without the policies. Harris makes a very good point that Affirmative Action based
policies are different in almost every case, from college admissions to anti-discrimination policies at the
workplace, the rules are almost entirely different since not all factors are taken in account. The idea that
the “factors to be considered depend upon the patterns of exclusion” is somewhat paradoxical since
that would mean that policies that fight inequality are not equal and that equality itself is situational. I
found this part of the defense actually detracting from the potential benefits of Affirmative Action.
According to Harris essay, Affirmative Action has done some tremendous good as it has helped triple
the amount of African American college students from 1966 to 1980. However, Harris makes a great
point in stating that contrary to popular belief, it is not a cure for poverty or social injustices. It will not
solve problems like sexual harassment and domestic violence. I would go further to say that Affirmation
Action will not solve racism. I don’t believe that you can solve an equality issue by creating inequality.
There needs to be a balance between managing the value of diversity within our schools and our
workplace and the value of true freedom from discrimination based upon minority status or lack of
minority status. Affirmative Action was designed only to counter the ways in which class, race, gender,
and sexual orientation function in our society and impede equal access and opportunity. Harris reenvisions Affirmative Action as going from being considered “preferential treatment” to “equal
opportunity”. This is a difficult concept when one considers that in other cases, such as with Asian
Americans according to Elaine Kim’s “At least you are not Black”, have attained higher educational goals
and higher incomes because of such policies. Though clearly not perfect, the Affirmative Action policies
have created many new “ladders to the middle class” as President Obama was quoted as saying during
his speech to the Democratic National Convention.
Another portion of Harris argument is that hiring practices, standardized tests, and the current method
of recruitment marginalizes the minorities and women. His argument is based upon the principle of
fairness. Harris states that “entrance exams are a ...defective system that is unfair.” I would offer that
fairness and equality are two very separate things. Several slippery slopes exist when we try to legislate
acts of fairness and what is morally acceptable. Forcing hiring quotas and “goals and timelines” are not
only exacerbates bigotry. I am a thoroughly believe that you cannot combat murder with additional
murders or stop criminals by committing more crimes yourself. This is the Affirmative Action paradox. By
trying to benefit one minority race or group through preferential treatment you will inevitability alienate
the other remaining members, whether they are the majority or not. A great example of this is within
Charles Taylor’s “The Politics of Recognition”, the government started to create several rights and
policies meant to protect diversity and culture of Quebeckers, only to create a cultural backlash and
further alienate the Quebeckians from the rest of Canada. It’s a great example of preferential treatment
and good intentions (or fairness) creating almost duo-citizenship and/or a racially charged society. Ask
many Canadians and the Quebeckian have created a backlash against the government endorsed French
Canadian subculture.
Harris also challenges the idea that Affirmative Action is a compensation or recompense type policy.
The idea that preferential treatment is being given to marginalized groups for reparations and/or
compensation. He mentions a view from Dworkin that rejects the consequentialist or “greatest
happiness principle”, in relation to affirmative action. I have to disagree with Harris and Dworkin, as
every opportunity has a cost and that if you take opportunity from one and you will give it to another;
there is indeed a cost associated with that action. The consequentialist view is in my opinion correct, as
society as a whole benefits greatly from diversity and the “melting pot” effect; it therefore justifies the
trade-offs.
Diversity is powerful; it brings new perspectives, and broadens experiences and value of the social
groups that it empowers. Affirmative Action has done a great deal of good in this country and has
symbolized our political commitment to ensuring diversity throughout America. According to Harris
“Affirmative Action is intended to promote fairness and equal citizenship by affording members of
marginalized groups a fair chance to enter significant societal institutions and attain greater mobility”,
the key issue here is the idea of fairness. What is fair is sometimes not equal. Affirmative Action has
done a tremendous amount of good in the country however we must understand and embrace its flaws
and the inequality it creates. By understanding and accepting the truth about Affirmative Action we can
then create policies necessary to promote diversity in a equal and as “close to fair” method as possible.
But then we must too accept that preferential treatment has a cost and a trade-off and some social
identities may not allow the idea that they are receiving preferential treatment.