Skip to main content

In light of the recent report that shows that during this current recession the already-wide racial wealth gap has grown even more wide, I thought it would be appropriate to post a series I wrote in 2007 when I was a contributing editor for the Black Agenda Report. Regrettably, the information is just as prescient now as it was then.

In part four, I delved into the racialized myths and preconceived notions regarding welfare (addressing, primarily, AFDC and TANF programs). Today, in part five, I begin discussing affirmative action and where the actual racial preferences have lied in our nation's history and in our contemporary society.

Misconceptions & Misdirections: Affirmative Action Part One

The phrase reverse discrimination needs to be done away with

This same racial-scapegoating and demonization of Black folk in regard to welfare can
also be seen in attitudes towards affirmative action programs. The term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. It was developed and enforced for the first time by President Johnson. "This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights," Johnson asserted. "We seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

In the "discussion" regarding affirmative action, phrases and words such as "quotas," "reverse discrimination" and "racial preferences" are vehemently and venomously flung about. Here I would like to address what is called affirmative action and what is not; what the dominant culture protests and what they disregard.

I would like to first analyze the erroneous notions that are often connected to affirmative action. To answer the charge that affirmative action means quotas, one would have only to look to the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke of 1978 (I will be addressing more concerning this case further on) when the Supreme Court effectively barred quota systems in college admissions (and thereby barred its use in other venues as well). So quotas are dismissible because they are illegal. What is allowed under current affirmative action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals.

Goals and timetables are set by employers for the employment of people of color and women, along with time frames for achieving these goals. Employers are encouraged to make good faith efforts but there are no legal penalties if they make good faith efforts and are unable to meet the goals.

Regarding affirmative action, phrases and words such as ‘quotas,' ‘reverse discrimination' and ‘racial preferences' are vehemently and venomously flung about.

To the question of affirmative action as reverse discrimination, let me begin by saying the phrase reverse discrimination itself needs to be done away with. Discrimination is discrimination and the reverse (or opposite) of discrimination is equity - the irony is that affirmative action in its conception sought to redress the impact of discrimination.

Nevertheless, how can something be deemed reverse discrimination when White men still hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs - and that's with affirmative action programs in place; when the overwhelming majority of all college scholarship money goes to whites; when whites are more likely than members of any other group - once again, even with affirmative action in place - to get into their first-choice school.

Additionally, in an analysis in 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims. It also found that a high proportion of claims that are filed are found to lack merit. These findings firmly refute the charge that affirmative action has helped minorities at the expense of whites.

Now, let's take a look at the actual racial preferences that do indeed take place. For example, the Jennifer Gratz case versus the University of Michigan in which she protested the 20 admission points awarded to students of color. The University of Michigan has a 150-point evaluation scale for admissions: Michigan awards twenty points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor Blacks don't get forty points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites. Then Michigan awards sixteen points to students who come from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and Honors curriculum.

According to Harvard's Civil Rights Project, Black students are only half as likely as whites to be placed in Honors or AP English or math classes and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites. As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but, because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for Blacks according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project).

Four more points are awarded to students with a parent who attended the U of M - because of past discrimination this is overwhelmingly white. So while Gratz and others focused on the mere 20 points allowed for underrepresented ethnic groups, they ignored the combination of 58 points that were overwhelmingly in favor of white applicants. Ironically and hypocritically, the Gratz case also focused on the few dozen students of color, with lower SAT's and grades who were admitted ahead of her, while disregarding, altogether, the 1400 white students who were admitted who also had lower SAT's and grades - and to their shame, the Supreme Court went for it. What has to be understood is that in a society that is saturated in racism and white privilege, even when policies appear to be race-neutral or color-blind, they are not.

This same distorted view can be seen in the Bakke case as well. Goodwin Liu in his essay, The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic Arithmetic of Selective Admissions," states that "in 1974, Bakke was one of 3,109 regular applicants to the medical school. With the racial quota, the average likelihood of admission for regular applicants was 2.7 percent (84 divided by 3,109). With no racial quota, the average likelihood of admission would have been 3.2 percent (100 divided by 3,109).

So the quota increased the average likelihood of rejection from 96.8 percent to 97.3 percent." Liu goes on to further stress: "But even among these highly qualified applicants, eliminating the racial quota would have increased the average rate of admission from 16 percent (84 divided by 520) to only 19 percent (100 divided by 520). Certainly a few more white applicants would have been admitted were it not for affirmative action. But Bakke, upon receiving his rejection letter, had no reason to believe he would have been among the lucky few."

Further, using 1989 data from a representative sample of selective schools, former university presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok showed in their 1998 book, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, that eliminating racial preferences would have increased the likelihood of admission for white undergraduate applicants from 25 percent to only 26.5 percent. So if we rollback recognized affirmative action programs, while keeping in place the unrecognized and unacknowledged "racial preference" that works heavily in favor of whites we only perpetuate injustice. White preference remains hidden because it is more subtle; more ingrained, and isn't called white preference or privilege, even if that's the result.

There are other racial preferences to consider, such as jobs, mortgages and car loans. A 2005 Princeton University study of nearly 1,500 private employers in New York City,
titled "Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets" showed that Young White high school graduates were about twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified Black job seekers; ex-offenders face serious barriers to employment; a criminal record reduced positive responses from employers by about 35 percent for White applicants and 57 percent for Black applicants. The most profound discriminatory practice revealed in this study was that Black applicants without criminal records were no more likely to get a job than White applicants just out of prison.

Also on the job front, another recent study revealed that dark-skinned African-Americans face a distinct disadvantage when applying for jobs. The University of Georgia study found skin tone more important than educational background for blacks seeking jobs, even if they have resumes superior to lighter-skinned black applicants. This research is believed to be the first significant study of "colorism" in the American workplace. The evidence concluded a light-skinned black male can have only a bachelor's degree and typical work experience and still be preferred over a dark-skinned black male with an MBA and past managerial positions, simply because expectations of the light-skinned black male are much higher, and he didn't appear to be as 'menacing' as the darker-skinned male applicant - so there appears to be a pecking order within Black applicants, with the greatest plums being reserved who are positioned, in terms of skin color, closer to whiteness.  

Black applicants without criminal records were no more likely to get a job than White applicants just out of prison.

Add this to the 2002 General Social Survey that found that 71 percent of the people polled considered whites to be hardworking - just 37 percent thought the same about  blacks. About two in three people believed whites to be "well-educated." Just a little over one in three believed the same about blacks. Let us also consider the MIT University of Chicago study that sent resumes to employers who had help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston. Some applicants were given "white" names, such as Greg; others were given "black-sounding" names, such as Tyrone. The resumes with "white" names got 50 percent more callbacks, and well-qualified Black applicants drew no more calls than average Black applicants.

Even the lower-skilled White applicants got more callbacks than the highly skilled Blacks. It is interesting that foreign-born workers in America (either legal citizens or those here on a work visa) are not penalized for their East Indian, Nigerian or Japanese names. On the contrary, their work has been sought and applauded by a great many companies - even to the point where "highly-skilled" immigrant workers would receive greater consideration than the "lower-skilled" laborers in the original draft of the almost dead-in-the-water immigration legislation. How can we continue to say that racism is a thing of the past? How can we continue to deride affirmative action measures and turn a blind-eye and muted-voice to these pressing discriminatory practices?

Note: Part Two of Affirmative Action will be posted tomorrow

Originally posted to Slavery in the United States - History on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community and White Privilege Working Group.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  racism lives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Rhymes, sberel

    at least partly because there continues to be geographical and social segregation. I think you'd find different statistics in diverse communities.  But that 'solution' requires African Americans to be the 'educators' of European, Hispanic and Asian Americans, and that's just another way of making it the fault of those who receive this kind of idea discrimination.  Sure it affects who gets hired and who gets promoted.  

    I don't like dissing Barack, he has a hard job, and maybe he's right that there would be too big a backlash if he stopped enforcing draconian immigration laws at the federal level and actually spoke about the particular circumstances of African Americans instead of lumping all the poor together and assuming the problems of one group are the problems of both, but it seems to me there is room for leadership.  

    Just facts might be useful?  

    Just say it: Medicare for All

    by anna shane on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

    •  I've seen more diverse communities and the concern (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna shane, sberel

      is always not diversity in numbers, but rather diversity in power-sharing. Ultimately, from what I've seen, diverse communities have the same ole dominant group in control.

      In regard to President Obama's leadership on issues regarding the poor of this country, I too believe there is room for improvement.

      •  I am thinking more on the lines of ... (0+ / 0-)

        I guess younger people, in California, who actually grew up together and who had parents who at least espoused tolerance and appreciation and who are less likely to have personal racist beliefs.  Some American communities have no diversity at all.  

        But your point is that there are crazy ideas that some people cling to, belied by facts, and that's simply true.  

        But for sure, in communities where power is shared, and where teachers and police officers and bank managers and business owners are as likely to be people of color, that's where racism is least evident.  But still possible.  

        It used to be socially acceptable to say the worst things, and then in the 60's it wasn't acceptable, and it's now for some weird reason acceptable again, and it's depressing.  

        Just say it: Medicare for All

        by anna shane on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 12:06:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Goodwin Lui is spectacularly unconvincing. (0+ / 0-)

    His argument is essentially that, while there definitely were whites turned away due to affirmative action, there's no proof Bakke was one of them.

    This is, of course, completely irrelevant since Bakke had no way of knowing this, nor did the supposed people effected have any way of knowing so they could actually be plaintiffs.  So his argument is essentially reduced to an argument on standing.

    The second prong of his argument is equally ridiculous, in that the average white suffers little harm due to affirmative action policies due to the relatively low numbers of blacks benefited.  Thus, he takes the rather odd position that affirmative action is inoffensive simply because it is largely ineffective.

    "But such a conception is accurate only for a category of white applicants who are very few in number and not particularly prone to complain in court." basically, as long as they don't complain, it's totally cool to keep stiffing them.  Peh.

  •  I remember the Bakke decision well. (0+ / 0-)

    It was front-page news in Berkeley, where I grew up. I remember being PO'd that he dared drag the town and the university through this in the first place; I thought his argument ridiculous. So did most of the other people I was in high school with at the time, and I and many others who felt the same way were white.

    I disagree vehemently with the conclusion at which MGross arrives above. I certainly wish racism were not still a part of society, but realize that it is ingrained and will still take generations to weed out. I have been appreciating this series; thank you for continuing to post it.

    Organ donors save multiple lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me and in others. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate and sign up to give others the gift of life.

    by Kitsap River on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 10:23:11 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site