By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.
One of the most controversial topics in our society is the issue of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a measure that was instituted to promote access to education and employment opportunities for socio-economic disadvantaged citizens and minorities. The motivation behind the proponents of Affirmative Action is to cure some of the effects of past discrimination to these “non-dominant” groups for example African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Since the advent of Affirmative Action measures, there has been an increase in diversity in employment and university attendance.
Affirmative Action is often achieved with recruitment programs that target those persons who come from historically oppressed groups. Critics of Affirmative Action argue that Affirmative Action is another form of discrimination in that it is based solely on race and that often times “qualified” applicants are denied positions in favor of “less qualified” applicants. Critics also argue that this is a form of “preferential” treatment and it puts the majority race at a disadvantage.
The critics of Affirmative Action are not all members of the majority race. In fact, growing number of critics of Affirmative Action come from members of the non-majority (or minority) races that Affirmative Action was intended to aid. One such minority critic is Ward Connerly. Connerly is a University of California Regent and he is one the biggest proponents for overturning Affirmative Action measures. Another prestigious African-American opponent to Affirmative Action is United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Clarence Thomas has been an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. He is a Republican (or conservative) justice who often rules on the side of conservatism in his opinions. When questioned about his opinion concerning Affirmative Action, Justice Thomas cites his own personal experiences with Affirmative Action.
Justice Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. Upon graduating, he could not secure employment at the prestigious law firms that his fellow classmates were able to find fairly quickly. In fact, the only position of employment he could secure was a position with the Attorney General’s Office in Missouri. Justice Thomas has stated that he believes that the reason that he could not secure employment at the major law firms following his graduation from law school is because employers viewed all if his accomplishments as a result of “preferential” treatment. In short, he believed that potential employers were of the opinion that he did not “earn” his law degree and that he was socially promoted to academic success. He believes that if there is no Affirmative Action, employers could not hide behind the veil of discrediting the accomplishments of African-Americans and it would force employers to review minority applicants in the same manner as majority applicants.
The analysis of Justice Thomas, while at least somewhat accurate, is incomplete. It is impossible to analyze Affirmative Action without considering the quota system. Quotas are diversity goals that academic institutions and places of employment have instituted to increase the numbers of minorities and women at these institutions. The quota system has been the measure used by these institutions to implement Affirmative Action. The typical diversity initiative will have a diversity goal of 7% to 25% minority placement. Of the total positions, about 2% to 9% are set aside for African-American applicants. This means that when a white applicant applies for a position, he or she is competing for the 75% to 93% of the positions that are set aside for him or her. When an African-American candidate applies for a position, he or she is applying for the 2% to 9% that is set aside for him or her. So, this begs the question, are African-American applicants and White applicants having the same access to these positions under this quota system?
A critical analysis of the Affirmative Action system would lead to a conclusion in the negative. If 100 positions are available and there are 100 qualified African-American applicants and 100 qualified White applicants, do each of the African-American applicants and White applicants have the same chance of getting these positions? An analysis of Affirmative Action by the quota system yields a conclusion that no more than twenty-five (25) of the African-American applicants will be selected for the above mentioned positions and no less than seventy-five (75) of the white applicants will be selected.
The second part of the analysis leads to a very critical question, “If twenty-five (25) African-American applicants do fill the positions, did they take the positions from the White applicants?” This question is at the heart of the Affirmative Action debate. Some would argue that some of the twenty-five (25) African-American applicants were less qualified than some of the White applicants who did not get hired. If so, then these African-American applicants were selected “over” the non-selected white applicants and this is a form of “reverse discrimination.” At first glance, there would appear to be at least some validity to the argument. However, a critical analysis of the situation leads to the conclusion that the African-American applicants and the White applicants were never in the same applicant pool of consideration.
If this analysis is correct, then African-American applicants and White applicants do not have the same access to these positions and the majority race has a distinct advantage when it comes to education and employment. This appears to be the case with Affirmative Action measures in place using the quota system. It appears, however, that Affirmative Action is on its way out of the educational and employment process. California and Michigan have already overruled Affirmative Action measures in education and those states have seen significant declines in minority attendance at their colleges and universities. Several states will have to vote on Affirmative Action in the coming months. Missouri is a state that voted recently to keep its Affirmative Actions practices, angering critics of these measures.
The future of Affirmative Action is in question. For the opponents of Affirmative Action measures, this will not adversely affect minority applicants. For proponents of Affirmative Action measures, this is a step back in the efforts to achieve equal access to education and employment opportunities. Whether you are a conservative or liberal, most readers of this article has an opinion on the Affirmative Action issue. The only question is, when this issue is put on the ballot in your state, what are you going to do about it?
Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.
