From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series of articles on Discrimination General forms Racism · Sexism · Ageism Religious intolerance · Xenophobia Specific forms Social Ableism · Adultism · Biphobia · Classism Elitism · Ephebiphobia · Gerontophobia Heightism · Heterosexism · Homophobia Lesbophobia · Lookism · Misandry Misogyny · Pediaphobia · Sizeism Transphobia Against cultures American · Arab · Armenian Australian · Blacks  · Canadian · Catalan Chinese · English · European · French German · Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish Israeli · Italian · Japanese · Jewish Malay · Mexican · Native Americans  · Pakistani · Polish Portuguese · Quebec · Roma Romanian · Russian · Serbian · Spanish · Turkish  · Whites Against beliefs Atheism · Bahá'í · Catholicism Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism Mormonism · Islam · Neopaganism Protestantism New religious movements Manifestations Slavery · Racial profiling · Lynching Hate speech · Hate crime Genocide (examples) · Ethnocide Ethnic cleansing · Pogrom · Race war Religious persecution · Gay bashing Blood libel · Paternalism Police brutality Movements Discriminatory Aryanism · Hate groups · Kahanism Ku Klux Klan · Nativism Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party South African National Party Supremacism Anti-discriminatory Abolitionism · Civil rights Women's / Universal suffrage LGBT rights · Feminism Masculism · Men's / Fathers' rights Children's rights · Youth rights Disability rights (Inclusion) Autistic rights · Equalism Policies Discriminatory Race / Religion / Sex segregation Apartheid · Redlining · Internment Anti-discriminatory Emancipation · Civil rights Desegregation · Integration Equal opportunity Counter-discriminatory Affirmative action · Racial quota Reservation (India) · Reparation Forced busing Employment equity (Canada) Law Discriminatory Anti-miscegenation · Anti-immigration Alien and Sedition Acts · Jim Crow laws Black codes · Apartheid laws Ketuanan Melayu · Nuremberg Laws Anti-discriminatory Anti-discrimination acts Anti-discrimination law 14th Amendment · Crime of apartheid Other forms Nepotism · Cronyism · Colorism Linguicism · Ethnocentrism · Triumphalism Adultcentrism · Gynocentrism Androcentrism · Economic Related topics Bigotry · Prejudice · Supremacism Intolerance · Tolerance · Diversity Multiculturalism · Oppression Political correctness Reverse discrimination · Eugenics Racialism · Discrimination Portal This box: view • talk • edit

See also: Affirmative action in the United States and Reservation in India

Affirmative action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minorities or women). Motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past and current wrongful discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population.

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, by preferential treatment given to applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups and in some cases through the use of quotas.

Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that it is based on collectivism and merely another form of discrimination because it can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need.)

Contents 1 Justifications 2 Opponents 3 Controversy 4 Implementation worldwide 5 Consultations 6 See also 7 Notes and references 8 External links

[edit] Justifications

Some groups who are targeted for affirmative action are characterized by race, gender, ethnicity, or disability status. In India (where the term used is "reservation"), the focus has mostly been on undoing caste discrimination. In South Africa, the focus has been primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that other groups are said to have had (such as through institutional racism or institutional sexism or historical circumstances). Opponents counter this argument by demonstrating that some groups who have been victims of institutional racism, such as Asian Americans, are directly injured by affirmative action programs.

Proponents argue affirmative action is the best set of principles to eliminate unfair decision-making. Other forms that rely only on race-blindness, gender-blindness or other "blind" faith relying on elites to behave objectively and without power abuse aimed to meet individual self-interests, will not result in optimal or fair decision-making for several reasons:

• Past historical and current discrimination severely limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences.^[1]

• Ostensible measures of "merit" may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.^[2]

• Regardless of overt principles, people in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know or people from similar backgrounds, or both.^[3]

Finally, a less commonly advanced argument is based on mathematical probability and on an assumption that individuals' qualifications are indeed unrelated to factors such as race: Affirmative Action actually ensures that, on average, the best candidate is selected precisely because affirmative action systematically includes individuals from groups that are otherwise systematically excluded. That is, since individuals in such groups are — in the absence of affirmative action — systematically excluded, and since the groups are composed of individuals that are otherwise equal to others, such groups have a higher proportion of qualified candidates precisely because they are normally excluded. Therefore selecting candidates from the excluded groups yields, on average, a greater number of qualified individuals. Accordingly, the increased mathematical probability of generally selecting more qualified candidates from the groups targeted for affirmative action will decline as candidates are recruited from the targeted groups. [citation needed]

[edit] Opponents

The opponents of affirmative action counter that using affirmative action to remove discrimination is counterproductive, both because it requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate in order to work and because it promotes prejudice by increasing resentment of those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy.

Some also argue that, since economic or educational disadvantage does not necessarily correlate with or restrict itself to those of a particular racial/ethnic/gender status, using race, gender or ethnicity to determine disadvantage is inappropriate. Affirmative action opponents also typically argue that those who suffer on account of affirmative action (ie. those who don't get the job or who don't get admitted to a particular university) should not be held accountable for crimes they did not commit; in other words, that most people of the present were not a part of the system that oppressed such minorities. Furthermore, the opponents argue, since all people have equal rights, no individual's rights should be sacrificed to compensate for another person's rights being taken away. Such people often claim that the groups that are most negatively impacted by affirmative action are Asians, Jews, and Arabs, all of whom are also discriminated against within society, and that this disproportionate effect is perverse and counter-productive considering that the intent of affirmative action is to eliminate discrimination. Many have noted that on some campuses, such as the University of California, Berkeley where affirmative action was abolished by Proposition 209, Asian American students, who already face discrimination on college campuses, would be the predominant victims of a return to race-conscious admissions. ^[4]. Efforts to repeal Proposition 209 and limit the number of Asians on campus resemble the anti-semitic Numerus Clauses once utilized by colleges and universities to reduce the number of Jews.

Additionally, it is argued that affirmative action sometimes represses the qualified in favor of the not-so-qualified. This can result in a loss for a nation not working at its full capacity and can also result in undesired effects previously felt by those who were discriminated against. For example, one may be very qualified for a certain job, but may be turned down in favor of a person who is less qualified but is targeted for affirmative action in that certain job. If occurring on a grand scale, the country will lose speed in its advances. Each of those individuals turned down will be repressed and their example might dampen the spirits of those like them, just as it had done to past social groups.

Notable opponents include Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, who has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006). California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents. Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008.

Notable academics such as Professor Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, has argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socio-economically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action are permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted. Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that lead to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.

[edit] Controversy

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity of some minority groups.^[5] They may argue that the end result—a more diversified student body, police force or other group—justifies the means, despite the text of the Equal Protection Clause, and regardless of the adverse discrimination against whites or Asian-Americans. Opponents further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it factors race into the decision-making process, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and undermines the achievements of minorities. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper-class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favored minority areas. There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. [1] Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations.[2] Some research has indicated that as many as 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at some of America's most selective colleges are wealthy white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards, furthermore these wealthy white teens outnumber stundents who benefit from affirmative action. ^[6]

Some also claim that, in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatching" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms.[3]

How the media portrays affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims that the practice is racist or sexist, or both, depending on how one defines those concepts (for instance, the offering of extra college scholarships to black and Hispanic students as opposed to white or Asian students appears overtly racist). Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." The United Nations Human Rights Committee states, "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."^[7]

An in-depth examination of the legal status of affirmative action, as well as the different kinds of programs that exist and their pros and cons, can be found in a paper written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt.^[8]

[edit] Implementation worldwide

Parts of this article may be confusing or unclear. Please help clarify the article. Suggestions may be on the talk page. (August 2007)

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "race-blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action" or "positive discrimination".

• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are already quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.^[9]

• Canada. The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal people, and visible minorities. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type polices. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, Aboriginals are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and disabled peoples. Men receive the lowest priority, P3. ^[10]

• Finland. In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for Swedish-speaking applicants. The aim of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of Swedish speaking professionals are educated, thus safeguarding the linguistic rights of the Swedish-speaking Finns. The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.

• France. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper ("Armées d'aujourd'hui"), this driving license and rank project was canceled. (article: [[Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire").

• Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job. This is typically for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase the percentage of females in this line of work"

• India

See main article: Reservation in India

• Japan. Admission to universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
• Macedonia. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
• Malaysia. The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP is one of the longest and most developed forms of racial affirmative action in the world. It promotes structural changes in various aspects of life from education to economic to social integration. Born after the race riots of 1969, it sought to address the significant imbalance in the economic sphere where the minority Chinese population had substantial control over commercial activity in the country. The dissatisfaction this caused among the native Malay resulted in the race riots of May 13, 1969. Tun Abdul Razak who took over the premiership from the country's first PM, Tunku Abdul Rahman, initiated the NEP. Since then racial violence has subsided but there are continued and persistent attacks on the policy from the Chinese and Indian community, claiming that it gives Malays an unfair advantage and is self-defeating, as it arguably makes Malaysia less economically competitive compared to its neighbors and entrenches structural privileges not based on merit. According to the government's own study, the policy has yet to achieve its target of redistributing 30 percent of national wealth to the Malays which constitute 50 per cent of the population. However, there are studies that contradict this and there are questions pertaining to each study's methodology. Malaysia is a multiethnic country, with Malays making up the majority, close to 52% of the population. About 30% of the population are Malaysians of Chinese descent. Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 8% of the population. However, 99% of Petronas directors are Malays, only 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese, only 5% of all new intakes for government army, nurses, polices, are non-Malays, just 7% of government servants in the whole government are ethnic Chinese (2004), drop from 30% in 1960, and 95% of all government contracts are given to Malays.^[11]

See also: Bumiputra

• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.^[12]
• Norway. All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members, must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60%).^[12] This affects roughly 400 companies.
• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution. [4]
• South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all people of color, white females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. However, government’s employment legislation reserves 80% of new jobs for black people and favours black owned companies.^[13] It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.
• Sri Lanka. In 1971 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British colonialists. The British had practised communal favoritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a policy of divide and conquer. This is one of the reasons for the Sri Lankan Civil War.
• Sweden. The Swedish democracy, although very careful about minorities' rights and integration, does not allow affirmative action. They are considered barely a kind of discrimination, and although aimed at strengthening workers' rights they are considered not fair. Affirmative actions are also considered to emphasize the minorities' identity as a different, separate body, actually making weak feel even worse and stigmatized, as they are entitled to something just because of their ascribed characteristics.^{[dubious – discuss]}
• United Kingdom. Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK and quotas/selective systems are not permitted.^[14][12] A singular exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which requires that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics as non Catholics. However a number of people are taking the UK Government to EU Human Rights for breaking the Human Rights Act and the Positive Discrimination Act.^[15]
• United States. Affirmative action in the United States occurs in school admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate contracts. Its intended beneficiaries are disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. California, Michigan, and Washington have banned various forms of affirmative action by government organizations. According to U.S. Office of Personnel Management's annual report "Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program", a total of 48,033 new minority employees have been hired by the feds from FY 2001 to FY 2006. During the same period there has been a net decrease of 3,960 white male employees in federal jobs.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Consultations

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007)

Another, more indirect form of affirmative action works through "consultations", whereby institutions such as schools or health-care facilities are viewed as majority-based, making consultations with other ethnic groups a remedy for the situation. This can cause accusations of double-standards, as in practice representatives of all ethnic groups except the majority receive consultation on institutional workings. Detractors claim that this is irrelevant, as consultation with the majority group is unnecessary, as the institution's management is centered on the white majority's culture, making it unnecessary to have consultations with them.

[edit] See also

• Angry white male
• Race and intelligence
• Achievement gap
• Equality of opportunity vs equality of results
• Jewish quota (historically restricting number of Jews)
• Numerus clausus
• Legacy preferences
• Reservation in India
• Economic discrimination
• Minority groups
• Minority rights
• Multiculturalism
• Women's rights
• Teaching for social justice
• Political correctness
• Positive liberty
• Principle-policy puzzle
• Race of the Future
• Affirmative action in the United States
• Racism in the United States
• Discrimination
• Equality inclusion
• Employment equity (Canada)

[edit] Notes and references

[edit] External links

• Affirmative Action at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• US Census Bureau: Definition of Race
• Washington Post Section on Affirmative Action
• Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the European Union, Report by Minority Rights Group International