AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: ELIMINATES or FUELS DISCRIMINATION?
By: Hafza Girdap
Tags: Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Gender, Equality, Race

image from depositphotos.com

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: ELIMINATES or FUELS DISCRIMINATION?

The phrase “affirmative action”, since its emergence in the 1960s to end discrimination against people of color, particularly against nonwhite ethnicities and women within the workplace, has been in the center of the most intense debates. Among the fiercest controversies is the question whether this act ensures equality and diversity or reversely fuels biases based on race and gender. In other words, since President Kennedy introduced it to American life, affirmative action has been contested in terms of its focus on and accomplishment of creating and improving opportunities for already discriminated, disadvantaged or excluded groups. In order to discuss the questions and arguments about affirmative action, we should take a look initially at the roots of the problem.

To be more precise, we should first ask why certain groups are considered as disadvantaged or why the administrative bodies would need such an act for equal recruitment or admission. Are not the companies, corporations, universities and such institutions and organizations already accessible to all people regardless of their sex, gender, race, religion and class? If not, then the next question would be what are the challenges and barriers for those particular groups to be recruited to a job or admitted to a university? Let me ask more explicitly. What are the odds for a black girl from a low-income family living a fully black community where the schools have mostly black students to be able to get accepted to an Ivy League university? Is it really achievable for a Muslim immigrant man to be appointed as a high level director in a prominent corporation? Could a Latinx LGBTQ individual easily have a tenure position in a prestigious university? I will play the advocate of the devil and answer all these questions by saying “No”! More precisely, even if they ultimately reach their dreams/goals, that would not be easy and quick.

In light of the ideas above, I would like to discuss most controversial pro and con arguments about affirmative action more closely. A great deal of the debate about affirmative action goes round the paradigm of meritocracy. Opponents argue that affirmative action, specifically race-based, undermines the fairness aspect of admissions or recruitments which could only be maintained through the idea of meritocracy. Advocates of affirmative action respond to this critic by stressing out the fact that race (or gender) is not the only determinant for decisions. It is rather among the many other influential factors that impact the selection proceedings for those who are already equally highly qualified. Another controversial issue about affirmative action is the dilemma whether it creates stereotypes regarding the interpretation of underrepresentation. Supporters of the affirmative action challenge this dispute through the proposition that not all disadvantaged people in terms of interlocking systems of race, sex, gender and class undergo the same kind of inequalities and discrimination. On the contrary, just as the discriminatory factors, their experiences are also intersectional with reference to the variety of socioeconomic issues. Thus, it is claimed by the advocates that an argument of creating further stereotypes would be void.

Coming back to my original discussion about affirmative action, I will repeat the aforesaid suggestion that it is a very complicated issue so that claiming it to be conflict itself or solution of the conflict is almost impossible. Some support the idea of affirmative action by arguing that it eliminates discrimination based on the above said dynamics and reassures diversity in educational institutions and the workplace. On the other hand, critics claim that the affirmative action creates reverse discrimination by rejecting the idea of meritocracy. This approach of the critics brings another controversial paradigm front which implicitly suggests that discriminated people are not qualified for the position or the admission. Another significant issue related to this point is the alleged idea that discriminated people who are addressed by the affirmative action unfairly take the positions of dominant group. Such an approach again targets women, people of color and disadvantaged individuals as non-merit people and actors of reverse discrimination.

To conclude, I would argue that affirmative action paves the path which are full of obstacles, barriers and challenges for discriminated people who are already as qualified as other dominant peers to be able to equally access to resources. Yet, along with affirmative steps, further improvements in terms of policies and regulations must be developed to eliminate the discriminatory conditions in all parts and institutions of the society. Moreover, discriminatory discourses and acts based on sex, gender, race, religion and so on should be eradicated through education and laws.