Let’s start with the original meaning of “Affirmative Action.” Know how the federal government likes to make up long, complicated phrases to describe simple things? Like when an Army requisition describes a hammer as “a metallic fastening implementation device”? Well, “Affirmative Action” is just another complicated way of saying something simple. It means “DO SOMETHING!”
Now, forget about the specifics of any affirmative action program you know about or have heard about. Just start from scratch.
Can we all agree that, in the past, there has been racism and discimination that prevented blacks from getting good jobs, from getting into good schools, etc.? I expect even an average Klansman would say “yes.”
Okay, then, can we all agree that it would be nice IF people of all races, creeds and colors lived, worked and studied side by side?
Again, MOST people of most political persuasions would say “sure.”
Well then… DO SOMETHING! That’s what affirmative action originally meant. DO SOMETHING to make that sort of integration a bit more of a reality.
What does that “something” mean? Ah, THERE’S where we get into a LOT of arguments. But suppose we start small. IF a major employer in New York City was looking to hire a large number of people, and he chose to place large, prominent want ads in the Amsterdam News, as well as the New York Times, would THAT constitute “affirmative action” of a sort? Sure. Would THAT type of recruitment bother most white people? I doubt it.
Now, let’s move up a bit. Let’s not worry YET about the lowering of standards and qualifications (I WILL address that later). Let’s say that, right now, 17 year olds from all over America are applying to be in the Harvard class of 2005. (Up front, I concede I have no idea what the REAL numbers are, so I’m making them up!) Let’s say there are openings for 1000 freshmen at Harvard this fall. And, since that’s such a desirable place to go to college, let’s say that 7500 kids from all over America apply to get in.
Well, right off the bat, the admissions office may conclude that 1000 of those kids just don’t have high enough grades or test scores. And 500 of those kids are so brilliant, so accomplished, and so highly recommended, they can’t be kept out. That leaves 500 vacant seats and 6000 kids who ALL have straight A transcripts, 1400 SATs, and solid letters of recommendation. ANY way you slice it, no matter what method you use to choose the 500 lucky finalists… 5500 perfectly nice, perfectly qualified applicants are going to get screwed.
Under the circumstances, if you have a pool of more-or-less equally qualified applicants, is it so awful to give a preference to one because he’s black, or because she’s Mexican-American? Probably not. I mean, is losing your spot in Harvard THAT way any less hurtful than if the Deans pulled names out of a hat, or went “eeny meeny miney mo?”
And, let’s face it, MOST hiring/admission situations tend to work that way. Look at your own life and your own experiences at school and at work. I’m SURE you’re perfectly well qualified for the job you have, just as I am for the job I have. But if you and I didn’t exist, would our jobs have gone unfilled? I doubt it! Fact is, MOST of the time, there are a number of applicants for a job, each of whom could probably do it about as well as the others. And if I hadn’t been accepted at the Ivy League University I went to… or if I’d chosen to go elsewhere… would my place have gone unfilled? Of course not- there were plenty of other applicants on the waiting list who’d have gladly taken my place, and probably would have done about as well academically.
I point this out only to show that “qualifications,” as important as they are, aren’t always as cut-and-dried as the die-hard opponents of affirmative action sometimes seem to think. There’s RARELY one and only one qualified applicant for a job. As I said earlier, IF there are multiple qualified applicants, SOME nice, capable person is going to get screwed no matter how the decision is made. So, since there’s no way to make EVERYBODY happy, is it worse to pick the qualified black candidate over the qualified white candidate? I can’t get too outraged over that.
So, where DO I get outraged? When standards are simply watered down. And make no mistake about it, they often are, especially at colleges. When an admissions program sets aside a percentage of places for various ethnic groups, and then compares applicants solely to other members of the same ethnic group, I’m outraged.
Suppose I went to the Dean of Admissions at one of America’s ELITE colleges and asked, “I have a 17 year old friend who has a B+ average, and an 1180 on his SATs. DO you think he’d be accepted?” I’d all but guarantee the Dean would answer, “That depends. What race is he?”
A B+ average and an 1180 SAT score is quite good, but it’s not good enough to get most kids into an elite college. If the kid is Chinese, there is absolutely no chance he’d be accepted. If he’s white, it’s highly unlikely. But if he’s black… the reality is, he’d be accepted. And THAT’s the point at which I’d protest against affirmative action.
If a prestigious university wants to send out recuiters to inner city high schools, that’s fine. If they want to sponsor tutoring sessions or SAT preparation classes at predominantly minority high schools, I’d say “swell.” If they want to give race SOME consideration, when choosing from a pool of (roughly) equally qualified applicants, no problem (I thought the Bakke decision was reasonable).
Only when “affirmative action” comes to mean “watering down the standards” do I have a real problem. There are numerous ways to “do something” without doing that.