Ending Affirmative Action in Michigan
Affirmative Action Never Helped Me:
Public Response to Ending Affirmative Action in Michigan
Kathryn A. Sweeney, Emory University
Belisa González, Ithaca College
Thank you to the editors and anonymous reviewers at Social Forces, Anne Borden, Cindy Hinton and Paula Jayne for
their comments and suggestions. Direct correspondence to Kathryn A. Sweeney, Emory University, 400 Candler Library,
500 Asbury Circle, Atlanta, GA, 30322. Phone (404) 727-0692. E-mail: ksweene@emory.edu.
The passing of Michigan’s Proposal 2 in November 2006 symbolizes another antiaffirmative action movement victory, further limiting programs for racial/ethnic
minority students in higher education. Analysis of almost 2,000 online responses to
Michigan newspaper articles about Proposal 2 indicates a reliance on colorblind
racial ideology. Findings demonstrate the use of individualistic meritocratic
arguments, racial stereotypes and arguments based on ideas of qualification, zerosum and reverse discrimination. Interestingly, these arguments appropriate the
language of the Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights movement and the concepts and
discourse of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. By better understanding racial
ideologies in the context of affirmative action it may be possible to prevent or argue
against future anti-affirmative action initiatives.
On Nov. 5, 2006 Michigan joined several other states (California, Washington and
Florida) in passing a constitutional ban on affirmative action, further adding to a backlash
against programs originally designed to make up for past discrimination. Proposal 2 asked
Michigan citizens to vote yes or no to “amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action
programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender,
color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”1
The proposal passed with 58 percent approval, ending existing affirmative action efforts in all
state institutions including state and local government, public colleges and universities,
community colleges and school districts. The campaign and the passing of Proposal 2 returns
affirmative action to the forefront of politics and public discourse both in the state of Michigan
and across the country. Although affirmative action programs are not now and have never
been solely based on race, our analysis of responses to the passing of Proposal 2 illustrates
how people’s ideas about race and race relations in the United States are instrumental to the
understanding of public discourse surrounding affirmative action. In this article we
contextualize responses to affirmative action to reveal an emphasis on colorblind ideology
within the general racialized discourse about this issue. We argue that through a better
understanding of the underlying ideologies informing anti-affirmative action arguments,
proponents of affirmative action policies can both better advocate for and defend these
programs.
By analyzing responses to Proposal 2 our research contributes to the scholarship and
general understanding of race in the United States. Analysis of data collected from online
comment board responses to articles published in the Detroit Free Press, reveal how public
arguments against affirmative action are connected to dominant ideas about race and provide
insight into how the movement to end affirmative action has been successful in the midst of
continuing racial inequality. Findings support past scholarship, which shows that respondents
tend to understand affirmative action solely as a race-based policy and primarily focus on its
effects on admission to institutions of higher education. Data from this study support past
findings illustrating how individuals rely on the language of colorblind ideology to argue for the
elimination of affirmative action (Bobo 1998; Bonilla-Silva 2003). Respondents will often cite
the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to construct their colorblind arguments
emphasizing the goal of not seeing race or the color of one’s skin. To frame their arguments,
opponents of affirmative action tend to use ideas of meritocracy and colorblind ideology to
push for race and gender to be eliminated in college admissions as well as argue that
affirmative action policies are reverse discrimination because they give racial and ethnic
minorities positions in place of more qualified whites. Opponents tend to use zero-sum
framing (i.e., if one racial/ethnic group is receiving benefits then another is losing them) to
construct their arguments against Proposal 2 and affirmative action in general. Interestingly,
the language of the Civil Rights movement and discourse of social justice are often used to
bolster arguments against affirmative action.
Race and Inequality in the United States
Racial inequities persist in the distribution of wealth (Oliver and Shapiro 1997), access to
education and occupations (Darden 1997; Aldridge 1999; Cawley et al., 1999; TomaskovicDevey 1993), and residential segregation (Conley 1999). In popular discourse, inequality is
often attributed to an individual’s values and lack of motivation to achieve, rather than
systematic obstacles. This framework coupled with appeals to meritocracy and the idea that
race does not exist create the dominant colorblind ideology (Frankenburg 1993; Gallagher
1997; Bonilla-Silva 2001). The characteristics of colorblind ideology are that people do not
“see color,” that everyone is the same, and that there are no differences attached to skin color
or race (Frankenburg 1993; Gallagher 1997; Bonilla-Silva 2001; Ditomaso, Parks-Yancy and
Post 2003; McKinney and Feagin 2003). Attitudes representing a colorblind ideology dismiss
the continued structural inequities and discrimination tied to racial classifications as individual
level failings.
In responding to race-based politics, people tend to rely on a combination of ideas
including that inequality is natural, everyone has equal access to opportunity, and that there
are differences in behavior and aspirations attached to race (Bonilla-Silva 2003). While people
of color fall back on the language of dominant colorblind ideology (DuBois [1903]1999; hooks
1984; King 1988; Collins 2000; Bonilla-Silva 2003; Condor 1996), they also recognize the
benefits attached to being white, the limited opportunities of people of color, and everyday
forms of racism (Bonilla-Silva 2003; author 2006). White people, however, rely heavily on
colorblind ideology and tend to see only large overt events – not committed by whites as a
group – as racist, such as actively excluding families from white neighborhoods (Frankenberg
1993; Bonilla-Silva 2003).
Whites have been able to use their dominant position to view others as raced while
strategically recognizing themselves as a racial group only when choosing to draw on their
group power (Gallagher 2003; Lewis 2004). Colorblind ideas about race fail to acknowledge
structural privilege and power (McKinney and Feagin 2003). Racial inequality is connected to a
history of unequal opportunities and discrimination preventing, among other things, access to
public institutions. Because race is a social construct, ideas about race are constantly
changing, requiring research that contextualizes contemporary race relations taking into
account the role of racial ideology (Gallagher 2003).
History of Affirmative Action
One of the difficulties in writing about and discussing affirmative action is that it is not a single
policy, law or program. It varies at the federal, state and local level, and does not have a
precise definition. The term was first used in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act to
reference the intentional action employers were ordered to take to correct past discrimination
against union members and organizers (Skrentny 1996). Today, the term affirmative action is
more politically charged and more likely to elicit images of racial/ethnic minorities than union
organizers. Affirmative action, as understood in contemporary debates, was formulated after
the colorblind model of civil rights had become the dominant ideology. The marriage of these
two models was first illustrated in President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Executive Order 10925
ordering employers under contract with the federal government not to discriminate and to
take “affirmative action” to ensure that all employees were treated without regard to race,
creed, color or national origin (Skrentny 1996).
Affirmative action in the Civil Rights era developed in the midst of the 1963 March on
Washington and nationwide demonstrations protesting the continued racial segregation of
public facilities and rising unemployment in Northern urban centers. The 1964 Civil Rights Act
included Title VII, a section focused on employment, which prohibits discrimination in hiring,
firing, and promotion on the basis of race, religion or national origin (Weiss 1997). This Civil
Rights legislation has influenced contemporary affirmative action, which in its most general
application references official and unofficial, public and often institutionalized statements of
nondiscrimination (Skrentny 1996). The colorblind model of nondiscrimination developed into
a model of preferencing and race-consciousness through a series of Executive Orders and
Supreme Court decisions (see Raza et al. 1999 for further discussion). Thus history and current
definitions of affirmative action are far more complex than contemporary discussions often
recognize.
Attitudes and Arguments
From their inception, affirmative action policies have drawn scrutiny from both their opposition
and supporters. One of the most often cited critiques is that preferencing of any kind
undermines the meritocracy upon which the United States was built (Lipset and Schneider
1978; Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Skrentny 1996). Racial groups (primarily black people) remain
the focus of public discussion and media attention regarding affirmative action despite the
fact that the majority of the policies also reference gender (Graham 1990; Skrentny 1996;
Burstein 1998; Williams et al. 1999; Skrentny 2001). Today, affirmative action and racial
preferencing are used synonymously (Skrentny 1996).
Much of the existing research examining attitudes regarding affirmative action uses
quantitative means to examine attitudes about race preferencing, typically in relation to the job
market (Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Steinburgler, Press and Dias 2006). Empirical research
illustrates the influence of racial attitudes on opinions toward affirmative action and other
raced-based policies, finding that whites who hold negative racial attitudes towards black
people are less likely to support race targeted policies in general (Kluegel and Smith 1986;
Sears 1988; Bobo 1991; Bobo and Kluegel 1993) and affirmative action more specifically
(Kluegel and Smith 1986). Interestingly, white people tend to not support “preferential” racial
policies in job hiring or college admissions, but typically are in support of policies designed to
compensate black people for past discrimination or “compensatory” policies (Kluegel and
Smith 1986). These findings are particularly peculiar given that affirmative action policies were
originally conceived to help compensate for past discrimination.
The changing racial landscape in the United States – associated with immigration and
population increases for Latinos and Asians – means that blacks are no longer “the” only racial
minority eligible to benefit from affirmative action policies. Groups characterized by a wide
range of economic and educational variation who in the past were not considered
underrepresented may be covered by local, state, and federal affirmative action policies
(Skrentny 2001). This wide inclusion of various groups further complicates the issues
surrounding affirmative action. Despite these population changes, public debates involving
race relations are often framed within the black white binary (Darder and Torres 2004). Adding
even more nuance to these issues is the fact that groups included under current affirmative
action policies have not necessarily experienced the same historical discrimination that
affirmative action policies were originally developed to rectify (Skrentny 2001). This is not to
say, however, that people in these groups (Asians and Latinos) have not and do not continue
to face discrimination in access to education, hiring and promotion (Aldridge 1989;
Tomaskovic-Devey 1993; Bound and Dresser 1999; Browne and Kennelly 1999) but rather to
illustrate the increasing complexity of the issue.
The Anti-Affirmative Action Movement and the Case of Michigan
A leader in the growing movement to end affirmative action, the American Civil Rights
Initiative is based out of California. ACRI runs the American Civil Rights Coalition, which
assists local and state efforts to put anti-affirmative action measures on state level ballots and
has led action in several states, including the passing of Proposal 209 in California, I-200 in
Washington, One Florida, and Proposal 2 in Michigan. 3 ACRI establishes state level
organizations to oversee measures within each target state.
In 2006, Michigan became the latest state to vote on affirmative action as the result of
the local ACRI group, The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which spearheaded the movement
to put Proposal 2 on the ballot.2 The director of MCRI, Jennifer Granz, is a white woman who
was not admitted into the University of Michigan. Claiming the admission decision was a case
of racial discrimination, Granz took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2003, the U.S.
Supreme Court limited the use of race in admissions, which may have opened the door to
additional attempts to eliminate the use of race all together. The leadership of Granz along
with MCRI and ACRI put Proposal 2 on the ballot in 2006.
Methods
Data are drawn from 1,909 online responses to 38 articles each focused on Michigan’s
Proposal 2 and published in one of Michigan’s major newspapers. The data were collected to
understand the general framework with which respondents frame their attitudes toward
affirmative action. More specifically, data reveal many of the major arguments used against
affirmative action and how those arguments are racialized. This sample represents all online
comments for non-opinion articles published between Nov. 5, 2006 (the date Proposal 2
passed) and Jan. 26, 2007 (a week after the court decision upholding the Constitutional ban).
Article titles predominantly highlight higher education or the University of Michigan specifically
(22) and the government (13), including references to the attorney general and the legal
system. Fewer article titles focused on affirmative action or Proposal 2 more generally (8),
delay in enacting Proposal 2 (3), and/or diversity or race specifically (3).4
Online articles provide the opportunity for any reader to comment via the web to the
specifics of a given article, the general topic or each other through the discussion board.
Readers are able to comment on the article without limitations of grammar, language or
spelling. Discussion boards are an ideal source of data as they serve as a means for
individuals to express their opinions on sensitive issues that are typically avoided in public
discourse. Additionally, this format of data collection allows for responses from a more
general audience than traditional published opinion pieces provide. The online discussions
give a sense of anonymity as people choose their own username or code name which may or
may not be related to their actual name and is not associated to any identifying information.
This sense of confidentiality allows for a more honest – sometimes hostile – response. While
these usernames provide anonymity they also prevent the collection of demographic
information, making it difficult to determine how well this sample represents the general
population.
Their limitations not withstanding, discussion forums provide a unique source of data
representing various conversations taking place about racial inequality, affirmative action, and
Proposal 2. The discussion boards create a space for debate among people who may not
otherwise be in conversation. It also provides an opportunity to gauge public opinion outside
of polls, where respondents may be hesitant to openly reveal opinions related to racial
politics. Using the comment boards allows for completely anonymous expression of racial
attitudes, whether positive or negative, respectful or hostile (Sweeney 2006).
Over 10 million people live in the state of Michigan: 80 percent are white (compared to
73.9 percent in the United States as a whole), 14 percent black (compared to12.4 percent
nationwide), 2.3 percent Asian (compared to 4.4), and 3.9 percent are Latino of any race
(compared to 14.8 percent). Six percent of people in Michigan are foreign born compared to
12.5 percent nationally. Eighty-seven percent of those older than 24 have a high school degree
or higher in Michigan compared to 84 percent nationally, and 24.5 percent have a bachelor’s
degree or better compared to 27 percent nationally. The median household income in
Michigan, $47,182, is similar to the national median, $48,451 (U.S. Census 2006), however
unemployment is the highest in the country at 6.9 percent in January of 2007 (U. S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics 2007).
Coding and Analysis
Responses were copied from online comment boards into a Word file, which was then
imported into the visual data management software Atlas.ti for storage, coding and analysis.
Both inductive and deductive codes were used to code each of the 1,909 comments. Codes
were generated using an iterative process which began with both researchers reading
approximately one third of the comments and generating general codes such as “Antiaffirmative action.” These codes were used to categorize each comment as, among other
things, pro or anti-affirmative action. An overwhelming majority of the comments were coded
as anti-affirmative action by approximately 2:1 ratio. Comments coded as anti-affirmative
action included overt statements such as: “Ps I hope somebody from the RIGHT side (that is
the side that does NOT want them to continue to employ ILLEGAL affirmative action policies)
sues them.” More subtle statements were also included questioning the assumptions of
affirmative action practices:
“I don't have a problem with helping people of all backgrounds who are
socially disadvantaged… however, I do have a problem when society
assumes that just because you are white… you don't have any
problems and you shouldn't be helped. Not all people who are white are
rich. Not all people who are black are poor. Let's start looking at people
for who they are… not what color they are.”
After completing this original round of codes, we decided to focus this paper on a closer
reading of the anti-affirmative action statements in general and the themes that were
emerging around racial ideology. During the second phase of coding, we used overarching
deductive codes drawn from existing theory on racial ideology such as “colorblind ideology”
created to capture when respondents talked about the virtues of not seeing color or the idea
that race does not exist. Quotations coded to “colorblind ideology” include those containing
statements such as “there is only one race,” “the U.S. is a meritocracy,” “racism does not
exist,” “success is based on individual efforts” and “it's time people quit judging others based
on their skin color/ethnic background and judge them on their CHARACTER and
QUALIFICATIONS.” This phase of coding also included a number of inductive codes such as
“zero-sum” a code created to capture when respondents would convey the idea that there is a
finite number of resources and therefore if one group benefits the other, by definition, loses.
Finally, statements using the Civil Rights Movement and discourse from the movement were
coded as “appropriating the language of the Civil Rights Movement.” Quotes coded to this
code often referenced or directly quoted (albeit selectively) Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s
famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
Analysis continued as overarching codes were further examined to reveal subcategories, themes and overlapping areas. For example, quotes coded as “colorblind
ideology” were examined using the network view tool in Atlas.ti. All quotes coded to
“colorblind ideology” were isolated and read again. By concentrating on quotations coded to
one general category we were able to identify sub-themes within respondents’ use of
colorblind ideology. Those themes included meritocracy which was attached to quotations
included one of the following arguments; categories of race should not be used or eliminated
all together, blaming individuals, use of objective qualifications such as test scores and GPA,
or reverse discrimination. This process was repeated for each of the overarching codes.
Quotes used throughout the findings represent examples of patterns in the data. While there
are arguments both for and against affirmative action, the focus of this article is on the main
arguments made against affirmative action. To maintain the style of comment boards, the
language, grammar and format (i.e., bold, words written with all capital letters, etc.) of quotes
in the findings section have not been corrected.
Discussion & Findings
Response focused on the connection between affirmative action and race. Other themes,
such as the role of democracy, voter rights, separation of university governance from State
government, and arguments supporting affirmative action emerged from the data, however
the focus of this study remains on the arguments against affirmative action which tended to
be linked higher education. Findings illustrate a reliance on the language of colorblind ideology
and the use of zero-sum frameworks to argue for the elimination of affirmative action. Despite
recognition of persistent inequality, ideas of meritocracy and individual responsibility were the
basis for arguments against affirmative action. These arguments focused on the need for
college admissions to rely on merit and overlapped with implications that students of color
admitted through affirmative action are taking away positions from more qualified whites.
Discussion focused on the idea that black people in particular are benefiting from affirmative
action at the expense of whites. In addition, respondents used the discourse of the Civil
Rights movement to support their arguments against affirmative action.
Colorblind Ideology:
“Are minorities now saying that just having an EQUAL chance isn't good enough?”
Analysis of blog responses reveals a reliance on ideas of colorblind ideology. While it is not
surprising that people rely on this dominant ideology, examining how this idea is utilized in
this context sheds light on both current ideas about race and why campaigns against
affirmative action have been successful. The use of colorblind logic was most evident when
coupled with appeals to meritocracy and individualism. The majority of arguments focused on
people being admitted to college or receiving a job based on merit alone, indicating that when
people of color benefit from affirmative action, they are sub-standard. Comments supporting
the theme of meritocracy were intertwined with colorblind logic, as evidenced in the following
quote:
“Affirmative Action IS racism. People should be selected for a University
by their scholastic qualifications only. What the state needs right now is
highly educated people regardless of skin color. If you can't compete,
move!”
This person stresses that college admissions should be based on merit alone or “scholastic
qualifications” and further more insinuates that merit-based admissions and affirmative action
policies are mutually exclusive. Another person said:
“Why should you get preferential treatment? In this day and age, tough
crud if you don't have your stuff together. I am tired of supporting a
bunch of lazy bums. And seriously, there is nothing in the constitution
that affirmatively grants you the right to have affirmative action. Times
have changed and people have spoken and they want a fair playing field
now. We gave other races the opportunity to "get ahead" for the past 30
years. If you squandered this, then you have only yourself to blame.
Time to make the field even ’my brotha.’ "
Statements often represent individuals who do not think they benefit from affirmative action
and believe they are financially supporting racial/ethnic minorities, actively giving these groups
an advantage over whites. This is indicated in the comment “We gave other races the
opportunity to “get ahead.” Respondent comments stress the elimination of race and gender
criteria from university admissions and job applications and often include specific references
to and stereotypes of black people. Example are the use of the phrase “my brotha” and “a
bunch of lazy bums,” to stress that affirmative action has been in place for ”30 years” and if
people of color have “squandered” the opportunity, it is their own fault. Comments highlight
individualistic aspects of a meritocracy by blaming people for their circumstances.
Respondents argue that measures considered objective determinants on merit should be
used in university admissions, a pattern illustrated in the following quote: “Any time that you
move from using objective criteria such as test scores and inject subjective factors, you will
run the risk of discrimination, however well intentioned.”
In addition to connections to meritocracy contributors utilizing colorblind logic often
called for the elimination of racial classifications all together. The assumption is that getting
rid of racial categories will lead to equality while maintaining and recognizing racial
classifications creates inequities. One person supporting this pattern wrote:
“By continuing to demand preferential treatment simply due to the color
of your skin, YOU are the one preventing MLK's dream of a color blind
society from coming true, because YOU keep separating yourself from
the rest of us.”
Those supporting this theme typically used the word “colorblind” to argue that race should not
be used in any capacity, that race does not exist, that racism is the fault of those that are
oppressed, and that racial inequities are perpetuated by the categories themselves. A later
section will specifically address the use of Civil Rights language and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. in arguments against affirmative action.
Reverse Discrimination:
“AA is legalized racism aimed at white men.”
Arguments against affirmative action proposed that such policies discriminate against whites,
especially in regards to college admissions. Respondents focused on themes of reverse
discrimination, stating that affirmative action leads to fewer whites gaining college
admittance. Comments representing this theme present three main arguments; (1. that they
as individuals have not benefited from affirmative action, (2. that affirmative action should be
class-based and not race-based, and (3. that affirmative action is reverse racism against
whites. Suggestions of class-based alternatives further indicate that the issue does not lie
with preferences alone, but rather racial preferences as noted by the following respondent:
If there needs to be any sort of legislative corrective program it should be based on
levelling the field economically, not racially. Because economics knows no color. Here, the
respondent suggests that class-based policies are the way to level the playing field appealing
to the colorblind nature of economics. In this next quote we see the assumption that whites
are being punished for being white or what was often referred to as reverse discrimination.
“No more reverse discrimination toward whites, which is what AA is all
about. Just because your a minority doesn't mean you deserve special
treatment. Now if your a minority and you get admitted based on your
grades and merit, then you deserve it. You succeed by your actions, not
by your race, sex, age, whatever you want to blame it on. . . In the 21st
century the people are no longer going to tolerate special treatment for
people based on their skin color.”
Quotes supporting this theme imply advantages in college admissions for people of
color and that “skin color” is never a factor for white people. According to these arguments,
success should be based on individual hard work and actions.
“I think it is about time AA stopped. Yes the blacks WERE oppressed at
one time... not in my lifetime. Why should I have to pay for what was
done in the past? Why should my kids pay? Do you really think it’s fair
for someone who doesn't have the skills to get the treatment that
comes along with having the skills? AA supports and fuels racism. Does
this mean that anyone who supports AA also supports racism? Why not
tear down the racial barriers little by little. Or do you enjoy this barrier? If
you do enjoy it, how do you oppress someone who is happy with their
environment? Bottom line, you have to tear down the supports for
racism, this is one of the steps. If you really want things better for your
kids, help out and don't be a part of the problem.”
Supporting ideas of reverse discrimination, this person implies that people receiving benefits
from affirmative action are not as qualified as others (i.e., whites) as illustrated by the
question: “Do you really think it’s fair for someone who doesn't have the skills to get the
treatment that comes along with having the skills?” This passage also illustrates the tendency
to distance oneself from past racial oppression highlighted by the emphatic use of the past
tense “WERE oppressed” and then clarification that that oppression did not occur in the
writer’s lifetime. Finally, this quote represents the larger pattern of blaming black people for
the continuation of racism when the respondent said, “Why not tear down the racial barriers
little by little. Or do you enjoy this barrier?” and concludes with, “If you really want things
better for your kids, help out and don't be a part of the problem.”
Qualifications:
“Get in on merit, or go elsewhere.”
Another prevalent theme is using claims of reverse discrimination to argue that the need for
affirmative action means people of color are not as qualified as whites. Within the “equal
playing field” framework where everyone has the same opportunities to succeed, giving
anyone different treatment is equivalent to saying those people cannot achieve success
without extra help. One example of this pattern is the following:
“Opponents of Prop 2 are in essence saying that blacks and Hispanics
can’t compete with whites and Asians academically and thus they need
to be handicapped. Is that a stigma that you want to continue
promoting? How are we ever to become a color blind society if we
continue to use race as a factor? You mention ’that blacks and other
minorities go to schools that aren’t as good,’ and I would ask why blacks
and other minorities don’t demand better schools?”
The above quote provides another example of the use of stereotypes, blaming individuals and
blaming groups for their position in society. Arguments based in this logic appear throughout
the data, represented by comments such as “if you don’t like it, leave” or “fix it yourself.”
Ideas that people of color are not qualified, but are getting positions based on their
underrepresented racial/ethnic status further reinforces the idea that affirmative action allows
unqualified racial/ethnic minorities to obtain undeserved positions in college or in the
workforce. For example, one person said:
“If I'm in the hospital for a serious medical problem I don't give a hoot
what color my doctors are or what town they come from. All I care is
that that they're the best and brightest the area has to offer and that
they can make me better! BAMN (By All Means Necessary, a Michigan
group fighting against Proposal 2) and their fellow travelers seek to keep
me in doubt every time I visit a minority doctor or every time a minority
applicant seeks employment where I work.”
Respondents both imply that racial/ethnic minorities can only be successful because of
affirmative action and therefore they must not be qualified or as qualified as whites in the
same position. They also place inequality and racism in the past, reinforcing the idea that
whites are no longer responsible for previous discrimination. According to this last comment,
the respondent’s prejudice is attributed to BAMN not his/her own racism.
Continuing this theme, many people emphasized a belief that there is no longer a
relationship between respondents and historic or continued inequality. This outlook was
defended by focusing on the length of time since slavery and Civil Rights legislation as evident
in the following:
“Please stop with the self pity and ’to give assistance to a group
(minorities) that has been systematically and historically discriminated’
crap. You have never experienced slavery and neither did your parents…
get over it. Higher learning institutions have been admitting blacks for
much longer than 30 to 40 years.”
Another example is in response to arguments that support affirmative action by pointing to the
legacy of racial discrimination, slavery and the short time period since the end of Jim Crow
and legalized equality. One person said:
“They think about 40 years ago like it was yesterday? It's no wonder a
race doesn't move forward; they choose to complain about the past.
Where's the ’you white folk’ oppressed us and made us slaves 400 years
ago comments? LOL, what a joke.”
These comments illustrate how people (whites) distance themselves from overt racial
oppression, the lack of recognition of covert racism, and a lack of recognition of white
privilege. Respondents focus on contemporary society, believing that any racism of import is
in the past and whites have already “paid for” their mistakes. Therefore, affirmative action is
not needed because everyone has the same opportunities and any lack of success is, again,
the fault of the individual.
Zero-Sum:
“AA never helped me.”
Ideas of reverse discrimination include zero-sum arguments, or ideas that racial/ethnic
minorities benefiting from affirmative action were not only less qualified, but actually taking
the position or benefits away from whites. These sentiments were expressed both explicitly
as in the following, “U-M still seeks diversity of skin color at the expense of some white folks
and Asian folks” and implicitly as represented by this longer discussion:
“Anyone who thinks Affirmative Action is necessary does not have faith
in his or her own ability to accomplish the requirements to obtain a
college education. If you have to rely on crying racism in order to push
and shove your way into college, you must not have put forth much
effort in high school… Anyone can learn, anyone can have a brilliant
mind, anyone can become a neurosurgeon or a physicist. Anyone. And
I'll be damned if it's acceptable to tell a Caucasian student that s/he
cannot attend a certain university in order to make room for a subpar
student of a different ethnicity, in the interest of diversity.”
Utilizing the appeal to meritocracy referenced earlier, this person uses a zero-sum framework
to assert that affirmative action policies allow “subpar students of a different [read non-white]
ethnicity” to take the place of a Caucasian student. Interestingly the same meritocratic values
are not placed on the generic Caucasian student who was told that “s/he cannot attend” a
university. Instead it is assumed that that same white student is qualified, unlike his/her nonwhite counterpart.
Those against affirmative action and for Proposal 2 often used hypothetical situations
where white students suffered because of racial preference. The zero-sum trend is illustrated
by one person who said:
“If you let people in because of their skin color then you have to be
rejecting someone else because of their skin color. It's common sense.
If you only have five seats in a class and two are given to people just
because of their race then there has to be two people who didn't get
chosen just because of their skin color. And that amounts to racism.”
Those arguing for Proposal 2 focused on racial/ethnic minorities receiving benefits due only to
their race and not their merit or qualifications. This illustrates the zero-sum assumption that
each person of color admitted to college took the place of a more qualified white person.
Another example of this zero-sum theme is evident with the following quote:
“Take two kids, one black, one white. Both are equal in all things except
economically. Grades equal, test scores equal, extra-curricular activities
equal, etc. Grades, test scores, etc. are stellar... both kids are model
students, exactly what U-M is looking for. Except that the black kid
comes from a rich family in Birmingham (yes, rich black families do
exist), and the white kid comes from a lower middle class family from,
say, Lincoln Park or maybe Melvindale... So, in the scenario I've
described above, how well the white kid did in school is absolutely,
totally irrelevant in the admissions scenario pre-Proposal 2 at U-M,
because the black kid gets an instant boost on the admissions criteria (I
think blacks get an automatic 20 "points" for being black) while the white
kid does not. That's discrimination, pure and simple. There's no
defending it, there's no paraphrasing it, diluting it, hiding it. U-M awards
more points to people based on skin color even when they don't need it
(or shouldn't need it) for getting admitted.”
In this quote we see a more implicit use of zero-sum framing being used to argue that lesser
qualified people of color are preventing whites from being admitted to school. Implicit uses of
zero-sum framing are more difficult to defuse. Notice the respondent never comes out and
says that the fictional white student was not admitted but rather that the black student was
awarded “points” based on his/her race that he/she didn’t need. Earlier the writer states that
“how well the white kid did in school is absolutely, totally irrelevant in the admissions
scenario” and yet dismisses the “stellar” academic performance of the black person by
reducing his/her admission to the “points” added for being black. Zero-sum framing is
effectively communicated in this and the previous quote by using references to finite
resources such as number of hypothetical “seats” and mythical “points.” Those arguing
against affirmative action also relied on examples of successful people of color to highlight
their ability to be successful within the current structure. Along with individual knowledge of
racial/ethnic minorities that have been successful and “worked hard,” comments referenced
famous individuals as “proof” that racism no longer exists. This quote serves as one example
of this token success and the continuation of racism:
“Ultimately… if white America was as racist as you think, you would still
be picking cotton. However, the vast majorities of whites knew than and
know, that slavery, bigotry and segregation was wrong and corrected it.
Are there whites that hate someone only because of the color of their
skin? Yes! However it’s a much smaller number than you think, just as
there are blacks that hate someone only because of the color of their
skin. Common… do you think that Opera or M.J. would make the
millions that they do if the country was as racist as you think?”
Imbedded in this attempt to convey racial equality in the United States are overt racial
stereotypes including “if white America was as racist as you think, you would still be picking
cotton.” Although the respondent recognizes racial discrimination still exists, the person
suggests that it is perpetuated among only a small minority of whites and likens those whites
to black people who dislike other people (read whites) for the same reason. Additionally, the
writer uses examples of a few black individuals to support the idea that the United States is
indeed a meritocracy where anyone can succeed if they try hard enough.
Arguments tend to focus on black and white people, except when referencing
examples of success (e.g., Asian Americans as the model minority), immigrant groups that are
now considered white (e.g., Irish, Italian, Jewish), or groups that are viewed as less vocal
about racial disparities (e.g., American Indians). Groups outside of the black/white binary were
used selectively to demonstrate the idea that some groups have overcome oppression
through hard work, their values (e.g., comparing the perceived educational values of Asian
Americans to black people), and perseverance.
Appropriating Civil Rights Language to Support Proposal 2
Surprisingly, findings throughout each of the described themes demonstrate the use of
language appropriated from the Civil Rights movement as a means to justify ending
affirmative action. The data was collected before, during and after Martin Luther King, Jr. day,
which may have had an impact on some of the responses. However, these comments appear
throughout the arguments against affirmative action, including repeated statements such as,
“Free at last, free at last!,” “We Shall Overcome” and “Freedom!” Those commenting use the
discourse of the Civil Rights Movement to liken the history of racial oppression in this country
that led to the Civil Rights Act to the relationship of whites to affirmative action – further
suggesting reverse discrimination.
These arguments are particularly important and egregious because they use the
familiar language of the Civil Rights movement and social justice activism to support antiaffirmative action arguments. One person said:
“What was it he said, oh yea, ‘I have a Dream that someday people will
be measured by their character not by the color of their skin!’ or
somthing like that…”
This example illustrates the use of common language and phrases from the Civil Rights
Movement, “I have a dream . . .,” to infer that race-based affirmative action policies are
counter to the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. because of their acknowledgement of race.
There was an additional focus on the definition of colorblind and the role of the Civil Rights
Act, calling into question who is oppressed in the United States and stating that affirmative
action is itself a mechanism for the oppression of whites. Consider the following:
“The Civil Rights Act has one purpose and one purpose only and that is
to prevent discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion or national origin. Affirmative Action has no legal standing and
programs such as the University of Michigan admissions policy clearly
violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Here we see specific reference to Civil Rights legislation used to not only argue that
affirmative action is reverse discrimination, but to again suggest that it is against the spirit of
the Civil Rights Movement. However, this and similar comments by other respondents fail to
acknowledge the systemic inequities that led to these changes in the law. The words of Rev.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were used to argue against racial preferences in particular.
“What I'm hearing is that minorities want equality but feel they need
preferential treatment in order to achieve it. DUH!! I don't recall Dr. King
ever fighting for preferential treatment. Are minorities now saying that
just having an EQUAL chance isn't good enough And for you fools that
can't figure it out, it had to be put to a vote to stop the illegal practice of
giving preferential treatment to women and minorities in certain
instances where better qualified individuals are turned down.”
This example further conveys ideas of meritocracy and individualism, but intentionally uses
the memory and ideas of King, calling for racial equality. This is problematic because it distorts
the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and the logic of affirmative action, and neglects
historical and continued inequities linked to race. Discourse from the King’s most well-known
speeches were used to argue for a colorblind society where racial categories do not exist.
These arguments neglect existing inequities tied to categories of race, assuming that the
legacy of slavery, appropriation of land from American Indians and Mexicans, the use of
certain groups for cheap labor, etc., is no longer relevant to the position of people of color
today.
Well known portions of speeches and the memory of King’s legacy were also used to
argue that the use of affirmative action is the cause of racial discrimination and racial
“tension.”
“In my opinion a race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's
dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity
they cause is a source of acrimony and tension.”
People appropriating Civil Rights discourse took ideas about equality and applied them to a
policy that is in place to try to create more equality in the face of continued structural
inequities. Arguments against affirmative action and for Proposal 2 relied on ideas of
meritocracy and colorblindness, focusing on reverse racism and zero-sum arguments while
appropriating the language of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Civil Rights movement.
Conclusions & Implications
Findings illustrate how dominant ideas about race are used in the context of public arguments
against affirmative action. Colorblind ideology based in meritocracy and individualism is
upheld by those arguing against affirmative action with a focus on race-based preferences.
Arguments of reverse discrimination by whites imply that affirmative action allows less
qualified racial/ethnic minorities to take the positions of more qualified whites. Along with an
expected use of individualistic meritocratic ideas rooted in colorblindness (including reverse
discrimination and zero-sum arguments), it was surprising to find the language of the Civil
Rights movement in this context to justify the ending of affirmative action. Respondents used
familiar phrases, speech references and the Civil Rights Act to justify the elimination of race as
an identifier and argue against racial preferences. Themes present in the data indicate that
racism is no longer a factor in contemporary society and that even when inequality is evident it
is not the problem or responsibility of whites.
These findings are problematic because they indicate the affective use of dominant
racial ideology, appropriation of Civil Rights language, and the icon Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., by anti-affirmative action groups. While most recognize white supremacist groups as
dangerous, few would categorize the anti-affirmative action movement as a threat, yet data
indicate that they use the same tactics of exploiting common ideas about race (Ferber 2001)
to further their political agenda. The exact role of organizations like ACRI and MCRI is not
clear, however past success implies intentionality in their pursuits.
Early in 2007, ACRI announced to the Heritage Foundation that they have chosen nine
possible target states, five of which they intend to get anti-affirmative action proposals on the
ballot in 2008.5 These target states – including Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah – have no significant demographic
characteristics (e.g., percent of people in poverty, racial demographics or unemployment
rates) in common, except for a higher than average percent of the population that is white.
However, they are not all among the whitest states in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
Future research should investigate similarities between these states in terms of immigration
patterns, degree of racial segregation, and recent racial climate.
However target states are chosen, it is clear that ACRI plans to continue the movement
to end affirmative action, which has serious implications for the status of racial/ethnic
minorities as programs that are in place to help reduce inequality. It is not our intention to
suggest that affirmative action has been the end-all solution to the historical legacy and
continued racial inequality in the United States, but rather to argue that without implementing
alternative solutions, ending affirmative action will eliminate much of the progress that has
been made in these areas and may further increase inequality. With changes and legal
challenges to affirmative action by whites who believe they have experienced reverse
discrimination, increasingly universities are opening supplemental programs (i.e., those in
addition to academic and social assistance offered to all students) aimed to assist
underrepresented students.6 This is problematic because systemic inequities that create an
uneven playing field are not taken into account. While whites are pushing for the elimination
of race-based policies they have ironically – if not mockingly – created white race-based
preferences. For example, Insidehighered.com reported on Nov. 11, 2006 that:
“The College Republicans at Boston University are protesting minority
scholarships by offering the $250 Caucasian Achievement and
Recognition Scholarship, CBS4 reported. The scholarship, being
criticized by some on campus as insensitive, is restricted to those who
are at least one-fourth white and who write two essays – one on their
background and one on “what it means to you to be a CaucasianAmerican today.”7
It is unclear what these changes mean for institutions of higher education trying to
increase access, success, and graduation rates of students of color. Future research should
address how the changes in law and challenges of legal action may be (1. scaring schools
away from trying to be socially responsible and (2. leading institutions who want to maintain
or develop a more diverse student body to create even more mystery around race-targeted
policies and programs. While legal action and pressure need to be monitored, there are
models for increasing racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. For example, the University of
Michigan (University of Michigan 2007) and UCLA (Schmidt 2007) have adopted more holistic
admissions policies which take into account opportunities that students did not have and
relies on measures outside of the traditional grades and test scores.
Negative attitudes towards other racial groups and whites’ lack of understanding
historical and current racial oppression and result from social isolation and are with students
as they enter college (Matlock, Gurin and Wade-Golden, 2002. An extensive study at the
University of Michigan reports “no support in our study findings for the popular criticism of
diversity efforts on college campuses that they cause a "backlash," particularly among white
students (Matlock et al., 2002). On the contrary, the changes that do occur in their ideological
positions after four years at Michigan indicate that white students become more supportive of
those policies they are supposedly most reacting against – “the affirmative action policies on
entrance requirements and financial aid that increase the access of underrepresented
students of color.” (Matlock et al. 2002:16-17) This, coupled with our findings, indicates the
need for intervention both in college, but most importantly during the pre-college years.
Findings suggest the need for additional efforts to educate the public about the history
of racial oppression in the United States and the legacy of racism. Arguments must also be
made to combat zero-sum ideas and differentiate white poverty in economically depressed
states such as Michigan. School curriculums should address how inequality is rooted in
historic legacies tied to race. The way respondents in this sample relied on the discourse and
ideas of the Civil Rights movement may be linked to the lack of information taught in school.
Findings also suggest that affirmative action policies need to be out in the open. Recent
lawsuits and action against universities limit the ability of universities to provide programs,
which may further mystify the role of affirmative action in higher education. Available
information on policies and programs, along with the reasons they are in place, is necessary
so that the public knows what it is, how it is used, and most importantly why it is in place.
Private sponsors have started to react to anti-affirmative legislation, however private
funding will not adequately support access and retention programs, and does not convey the
needed institutional commitment to racial diversity. While beyond the scope of this paper,
future research should focus on the nuanced arguments against affirmative action based on
legitimate problems with the implementation of such policies (e.g., how well programs assist
various socio-economic groups, if accurate institutional support is available for academically
under-prepared students, etc.), and examine arguments in support of affirmative action to
further develop strategies to maintain and improve race-targeted policies. Additional research
should continue to address policy changes and implications, changing dominant ideology in
various contexts, and use the rich data available through internet comment boards.
Notes
1. See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Statewide_Bal_Prop_Status_145801_7.pdf.
2. See http://www.michigancivilrights.org/.
3. See http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/11/20/olwell and the American Civil Rights
Institute, acri.org.
4. Article titles were examined and counted based on the emerging trends. Article titles may
fit into one or more of the given categories, therefore the total is greater than the total number
of articles used in the study.
5. http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/14/qt.
6. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/15/dow.
7. See http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/22/qt.
References
Aldridge, Delores P. 1989. “Black Women in the Economic Marketplace: Continuing Struggle.”
Journal of Black Studies 20(1):129-54.
______. 1999. “Black Women and the New World Order: Toward a Fit in the Economic
Marketplace.” Pp.357-79. Latinas and African American Women at Work: Race,
Gender, and Economic Inequality. Irene Browne, editor. Russell Sage Foundation.
Bobo, Lawrence 1991. “Social Responsibility, Individualism and Redistributive Policies.”
Sociological Forum 6(1):71-92.
______. 1998 “Race, Interests, and Beliefs About Affirmative Action: Unanswered Questions
and New Directions.” American Behavioral Scientist 41(7):985-1003.
Bobo, Lawrence, and James R. Kluegel. 1993. “Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest,
Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?” American Sociological Review 58(4):443464.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Lynne
Rienner.
______. 2003. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial
Inequality in the United States. Rowman B. Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bound, John, and Laura Dresser. 1999. "Losing Ground: the Erosion of the Relative Earnings
of African American Women During the 1980s." Pp. 61-104. Latinas and African
American Women at Work: Race, Gender, and Economic Inequality. Irene Browne,
editor. Russell Sage Foundation.
Browne, Irene, and Ivy Kennelly. 1999. "Stereotypes and Realities: Images of Black Women in
the Labor Market." Pp. 302-26. Latinas and African American Women at Work: Race,
Gender, and Economic Inequality. Irene Browne, editor. Russell Sage Foundation.
Burstein, Paul. 1998. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics. University of Chicago Press.
Cawley, John, James Heckman and Edward Vytacil. 1999. “Meritocray in America: Wages
Within and Across Occupations.” Industrial Relations 38(3):250-96.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought, 2nd Edition. Routledge.
Condor, Susan. 1996. “Sex Role Beliefs and ‘Traditional’ Women: Feminist and Intergroup
Perspectives,” Pp. 97-118. Feminist Social Psychology: Developing Theory and Practice.
Sue Wilkinson, editor. Open University Press.
Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in the Red. University of California Press.
Darden, Joe. 1997. “Racial Inequality of Enrollment in Selected U.S. Institutions of Higher
Education.” Equity and Excellence in Education 30(1):47-55.
Darder, Antonia, and Rodolfo D. Torres. 2004. After Race: Racism after Multiculturalism.
New York University Press.
Ditomaso, Nancy, Rochelle Parks-Yancy and Corinne Post. 2003. “White Views of Civil Rights:
Color Blindness and Equal Opportunity.” Pp. 89-198. White Out: The Continuing
Significance of Racism. W. Ashley Doane and Eduardo Bonilla Silva, editors. Routledge.
DuBois, W.E.B. [1903]1999. The Souls of Black Folk. Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Terri Hume
Oliver, editors. Norton & Company.
Ferber, Abby L. 1998. White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness.
University of Minnesota Press.
Gallagher, Charles. 1997. “White Racial Formation: Into the 21st Century.” Pp. 6-11. Critical
White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic,
editors. Temple University Press.
______. 2003. “Playing the White Ethnic Card: Using Ethnic Identity to Deny Contemporary
Racism,” Pages 145-58. White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. W. Ashley
Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, editors. Routledge.
Graham, Hugh David. 1990. The Civil Rights Era: Orgins and Development of National Policy.
Oxford Unversity Press.
hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press.
King, Deborah. 1988. "Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black
Feminist Ideology." Signs 14(1):42-72.
Kluegel, James R., and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality: Americans’ Views of
What Is and What Ought to Be. Aldine de Gruyter.
Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. “’What Group?’ Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of ‘ColorBlindness,” Sociological Theory 22(4): 623-46.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and William Schneider. 1978. “The Bakke Case: How Would it Be
Decided at the Bar of Public Opinion?” Public Opinion 1(1):38-48.
Matlock, Gurin, and Wade-Golden. 2002. The Michigan Student Study: Students’ Expectations
of and Experiences with Racial/Ethnic Diversity. Accessed march 19, 2008 at:
http://www.umich.edu/~oami/mss/downloads/synopsis0103.pdf.
McKinney, Karyn D., and Joe R. Feagin. 2003. “Diverse Perspectives on Doing Antiracism: The
Younger Generation,” Pp. 233-52. White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism.
W. Ashley Doane and Eduardo Bonilla Silva, editors. Routledge.
Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth / White Wealth: A New
Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge.
Raza, M. Ali., A. Janell Anderson and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr. 1999. The Ups and Downs of
Affirmative Action Preferences. Praeger.
Schmidt, Peter. 2007. “UCLA’s ‘Holistic’ Admissions Policy Increases Blacks’ Share of Next
Fall’s Freshman Class.” http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/04/2007040604n.htm.
Sears, David O. 1988. “Symbolic Racism.” Pp. 53-84. Eliminating Racism: Profiles in
Controversy. Phyllis A. Katz and Dalmas A. Taylor, editors. Plenum.
Skrentny, David John. Editor. 2001 Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for
America. University of Chicago Press.
Skrentny, John.1996 The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America.
University of Chicago Press.
Sweeney, Kathryn A. 2006. “The Blame Game: Racialized Responses to Hurricane Katrina.”
DuBois Review 3(1):161-74.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources &
Consequences of Job Segregation. ILR Press.
University of Michigan, 2007. “Diversity Blueprints: Final Report.” Accessed March 11, 2008
at: http://www.diversity.umich.edu/about/bp-summary.php.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment
Summary.” Accessed Feb. 17, 2007 at:
http://www.bls.gov/xg_shells/ro5xg02.htm#unemp.
U.S. Census. 2005. American Community Survey 2006. Accessed on March 11, 2008 at:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoCon
text=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US26&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=
on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010.
Weiss, Robert J. 1997. We Want Jobs: A History of Affirmative Action. Garland Pubishing.
Williams, David R., James Jackson, Tony Brown, Myriam Torres, Tyrone A. Forman and
Kendrick Brown. 1999. “Traditional and Contemporary Prejudice and Urban Whites’
Support for Affirmative Action and Government Help.” Social Problems 46(4):503-27.