Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination

To my readers:

Alright. I'm back in the States. My latest European adventure was inspirational, but, just like the rest, has come to an end.

Upon my return to the States, I came across a note a friend posted. The following is a paper a couple of classmates (names withheld for privacy--contact me and I'll ask them for permission to share their names if you're interested) and I prepared on affirmative action and reverse discrimination. I post it in response to my friend's comments to the contrary. Please let me know what you think, whether you agree or disagree.

For further reading, I particularly recommend Stanley Fish's article.


Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination

For the first time ever, the US Justice Department is suing blacks for discriminating against whites at the polls. According to an ABC News report, the US Justice Department is using the 1965 Voting Rights Act—a law originally passed to ensure fairness to blacks in voters’ rights—to sue Ike Brown, a prominent African American politician accused of “disenfranchis[ing] whites—challenging their voting status, rejecting their absentee ballots and telling voters to choose candidates according to race” (Tapper & Miller, 2005, para. 5).

While voting rights and affirmative action are not directly related, they deal with the same issue: racism. “Reverse discrimination,” as illustrated by the example above, is one of the byproducts of racial tension in America. Many Americans find this troubling: how is it that while struggling for racial equality we have now looked beyond the mark? The same discomfort arises when considering affirmative action policies currently in place in many job markets and school admissions boards across America.

Stanley Fish (1993), an accomplished literary critic and professor at Florida International University, writes of an experience where he was the victim of reverse discrimination: “I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received official notice that I would not be included at the next level of consideration, and subsequently I was told unofficially that at some point a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities.” He continues, “Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was ‘unfair,’ because the policy was obviously not directed at me” (p. 4). Early in the article, Fish argues that

blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization…. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances (p. 1).

For Fish, there is more than one way to respond to reverse discrimination.

Racism has long been a part of American culture, and black citizens have been dealing with its repercussions from the foundation of our nation, through the Civil War, on through the Civil Rights movement, and even up until today. For a real life example, let us consider a television news special by Diane Sawyer in 1991, where two similar 28-year-old men, Glenn Brewer, who is black, and John Kuhnen, who is white, were followed around St. Louis, Missouri for a day. The men were assigned to shop in the same stores, try to rent the same apartment and apply for the same job, and hidden cameras taped them throughout the process:

At several stores, Mr. Kuhnen gets instant service; Mr. Brewer is ignored except at a record store, where a salesman keeps a close eye on him without offering any assistance. When they go for a walk, separately on the same street, a police car passes Mr. Kuhnen but slows down to give Mr. Brewer a once-over. At a car dealership, Mr. Kuhnen is offered a lower price and better financing terms than Mr. Brewer. Inquiring about a job at a dry cleaner that has advertised for help, Mr. Kuhnen is told jobs are still available; Mr. Brewer is told, "The positions are taken." Following up a for-rent sign, Mr. Kuhnen is promptly offered an apartment, which he does not take; 10 minutes later, Mr. Brewer is told it has been rented for hours. (Goodman, 1991, para. 1-5)

Racism is alive and well in America, but not necessarily in the ways we might think.

Although institutional racism, or segregation, officially ended in the U.S. in 1968, racism still exists in our society, and blacks are still struggling to get ahead. The National Urban League (2005) released a report stating, “Black unemployment remained stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites” (para. 4). It also found that "blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a Black person's average jail sentence is six months longer than a white's for the same crime; 39 months versus 33 months" (para. 7). Sharon Smith (2004), a writer for an online socialist magazine, found that in 2004 African Americans made up 13 percent of drug users, "Yet [accounted] for 35 percent of drug arrests and 53 percent of drug convictions. Blacks [were] also 43 percent of those on death row” (para. 7). The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.) says that an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, far more than will attend college.

Recent studies show that blacks are also at a disadvantage when it comes to education. In 1995 “only 1,455 African Americans received PhDs in the United States. During the same year, 24,608 whites were awarded PhDs” (Ogletree Jr., 1996, para. 4). In 2005, “Thirty percent of white adults had at least a bachelor's degree…while 17 percent of black adults…had degrees” (Ohlemacher, 2006, p A03). In that same year, blacks received the lowest scores on AP examinations compared to all other racial groups.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke clearly to a white world about racism, understood that the country could not just grant blacks their freedom, and then go on with life as if nothing had happened. And most would not consider him to be racist. He once said, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps….We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice (King, 1968, para. 25-26).”

Affirmative action is an attempt to provide the boots. President Clinton (1995) defined affirmative action as “an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination” (para. 8).

According to this definition, affirmative action is intended to provide opportunities. The Department of Labor (2000) further explains that “placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas” and that “quotas are expressly forbidden.” In other words, if a black man receives a job to fill a rigid placement goal or a quota, the employer is violating the law (para. 6).

Certain critics of affirmative action propose society help those who are in a poor economic state as opposed to granting opportunities based on race or ethnicity. Statistics show, however, that race and ethnicity are strong indicators of poor economic status. In 1992, 46.3% of black children lived below the poverty line compared to only 12.3% of white children. Moreover, blacks make up 10.2% of the workforce but are underrepresented in skilled professions. They make up 3.7% of engineers, 2.7% of dentists, 3.1% of architects, and hold 4.8% of university faculty jobs. Of almost 28,000 degrees awarded in 1992, only 4% were awarded to blacks. (Jenkins, 2001, para. 15)

Furthermore, what is produced by racism and is the consequence of racism cannot be blamed on the group that has been prejudiced. Racism cannot beget racism in that sense. The second term racism must have a different name because it is a different thing. Stanley Fish (1993) likened that idea to assigning the same moral guilt to the Jews that wanted to establish their own nation based on Jewish history and culture after centuries of persecution as to the Nazi’s who killed six million of them during the Holocaust. Fish points out that “only if racism is thought of as something that occurs principally in the mind…can the desire of a victimized and terrorized people to band together be declared morally identical to the actions of their would-be executioners” (p. 1). In the same way that Jews were not racist for seeking their own state as reparations for centuries of injustice, the black man is not racist for taking advantage of affirmative action programs that have been ruled legal and intended temporary, and neither are any who approve of such programs.

The situation immigrants are now facing is similar to what African American’s experienced for a long time. Substandard education, an inferior skill set, and unequal employment opportunities based on citizenship status (illegal, second class) show us what would happen if we stopped affirmative action now without giving it the opportunity to succeed. A recent study showed that immigrant families are worse off than native families and that poverty is getting worse for immigrant families, regardless of race or ethnic lines. Improvements have been made, but we have not gone far enough. The study further showed that the difference is due to native families’ employment and parental education (Van Hook, Brown, Kwenda, 2004, pp. 649-670).

In a 1965 address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson described the situation through an analogy where two men—one white and one black—are running a race. Before the whistle blows, the white man kicks the black man, who falls over, hurt and bleeding. The whistle blows, and the white man takes off. The referee calls the race, brings the white man back to the starting line, puts a bandage on the black man’s leg, and then blows the whistle again. Does the black man really have a chance (Kennedy & Jeffrey, 1997, para. 30)?

Every day we deal with race. We can choose how we deal, but we must deal nonetheless. African Americans do not have the opportunities that whites do every time they go into a bank, a car dealership, or even a store in the mall. Affirmative action is meant to give them an equal opportunity to show they can do as well as whites. Any kind of discrimination is wrong, but affirmative action is not discrimination. It is not aimed at whites, nor at men, nor at any other group to try to disadvantage them. It is aimed at granting African Americans the opportunity to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Should affirmative action end? Yes. Should it end now, before it has had the chance to help equalize African Americans in the eyes of the rest of the nation? Not when white men are 33% of the population are 48% of the college educated work force. Not while they are 80% of tenured professors and 99% of the Senate. And certainly not while they are 99.9% of professional athletic team owners and 100% of U.S. Presidents (Jackson, 1998, para. 19). We must allow affirmative action the most time possible to try in some way to make up for creating a nation where to be black more often than not means time served with the Department of Corrections, a disadvantaged life in the pursuit of happiness, and relegation to poverty.

 
Works Cited

“Criminal Offenders Statistics.” US Department of Justice. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm)

Fish, Stanley. “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black.” theatlantic.com. Nov. 1993. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199311/reverse-racism)

Goodman, Walter. “Review/Television; Looking Racism in the Face in St. Louis.” 26 Sept. 1991. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DD163DF935A1575AC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)

Jackson, Jesse L. “Affirmative Action Is Beneficial.” Current Controversies: Minorities. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010055221&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)

Jenkins, Wilbert “Affirmative Action Has Furthered Civil Rights.” Opposing Viewpoints: Interracial America. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University- Utah. 30 Oct. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodID=OVRC&docId=EJ3010148221&source=galegale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)

Kennedy, Brian T., and Douglas A. Jeffrey. “A Citizen's Guide to the Affirmative Action Debate.” The Claremont Institute. 1 Jan. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.491/pub_detail.asp)

King, Jr., Martin L. “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” National Cathedral, Washington DC. 31 Mar. 1968. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html).

National Urban League. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.nul.org/PressReleases/2005/2005PR185.html). Ogletree, Jr., Charles J.

Ohlemacher, Stephen (2006, Nov 14). Persistent race disparities found: Minorities still lag in income, education, census data show. The Washington Post, p. A03.

“Placement Goals.” Department of Labor Online. 13 Nov. 2000. United States Department of Labor. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-2/41CFR60-2.16.htm)

Smith, Sharon (2004). The terrible toll of racism in the U.S. socialistworker.org, Retrieved Nov 15 2007, from http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/491/491_07_RacismUSA.shtml

Tapper, Jake, and Avery Miller. “ABC News: Reverse Racism?” ABC News.Com. 28 Dec. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1449254)

“The Case for Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/for.html)

Van Hook, Jennifer, Susan L. Brown, Maxwell Ndigume Kwenda. Demography, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Nov., 2004), pp. 649-670.

Stopping to smell the roses

Well, the semester in Paris is finally over. I'm back in the States at my parents' place in Connecticut, and the hum of the washing machine is lulling me to sleep. If Jeff reads this note, I'm sure he'll understand why the laundry machine is still running at midnight.

My last few days in Paris were a great change of pace from the last few weeks of the semester. Even after leaving for southern France, I was as busy as I've ever been trying to keep up with work and school. I've been running from point A to point B for about 6 to 8 weeks now, and the lack of sleep is starting to catch up with me. I really did try to make the most of my Paris experience, and now it's time to catch up on sleep.

I'm actually looking forward to a relaxed spring term at school for this very reason. After our program ended on the 17th, my grandparents, who are both 82 years old, arrived in Paris for their first visit to France. What a great time my sister and I had showing them some of our favorite places, foods, and things about life in the romantic capital of the world.

When I met them at the airport early Friday morning, I was sure they would want to take a taxi to get them to their hotel in Paris, especially since they had their suitcases with them. They have always had plenty of energy and are in good health, but they still are 82 years old. To my great surprise, they suggested taking a combination of the train and the metro into Paris, which is certainly the cheapest--but by no means the easiest or most comfortable--way to get into Paris.

After hauling their bags across the city and into the hotel, we went out for lunch. Over the course of the next 3 days, my sister and I guided them all over Paris like a couple of college-aged backpackers, visiting the Louvre, Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Versailles, the Seine... you name it.

Despite the amount of ground we covered, I did notice one thing: their travel speed is much slower than mine. The trucked through the metro stations, but at about half the speed I would have. For some, this might have tested patience, but I was grateful for it. I learned the important lesson of stopping to smell the roses.

You miss so much in life when you're constantly running from place to place, trying to do this, that, and the other. There's been an ongoing debate in my mind the past few months about the appropriation of time. I sometimes have the impression that I could be doing so much more, but I'm beginning to realize that the hastiness required to check off every item on my to do list often leads to missing some of the more savory moments of life.

Does "doing more" mean living a fuller life? I suppose that depends on what we're doing. I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather pay more money for food and eat less of it if it means I can eat better food. We Americans have a tendency to eat to much as it is, so I figure why not just eat better and less?

I'm beginning to think that life is the same way. When we try to do too much, it's almost like we're feeding our faces at the dinner table to rush off the the evening's extracurriculars. Call me old-fashioned, but perhaps a little more time at the table and fun with the family are an order. Why not enjoy food eaten and time spent together?

What I realized when I was with my grandparents was how much of Paris I had missed while I was busy on my way from A to B. For C to D, I'm planning to take the scenic route.

What are your thoughts?