[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

These are complex questions that would be better answered in a conversation than in the context of postings here, primarily because a conversation affords a greater likelihood of avoiding the tendency to polemicize. But I will make an effort.

First, I think it?s important to be very clear about what is meant by ?affirmative action,? because those who oppose it have succeeded in branding it with a very negative term -- ?reverse discrimination? -- that is, in my view, patently false.

In essence, affirmative action is the umbrella term for initiatives and public policies that have been established to aid in eliminating past and present discrimination based on (primarily) race, (often) gender, and (less common) religion and national origin. Executive Orders and later interpretations by the courts of federal affirmative action policies have made abundantly clear that anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid educational or job qualifications. That is why the ?unwarranted preferences? argument is invalid, in my view. Currently, there are nearly 100,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, and less than 2 percent are about ?reverse discrimination,? so I think that puts the ?RD? argument to rest.

(By the way, in Canada, job-related affirmative action goes by the name ?employment equity.? It?s about fairness.)

Affirmative action exists because despite Constitutional guarantees of equality, discrimination -- especially on the basis of race and gender -- has become an entrenched part of American society. This means that, for example, a young black woman is likely to go to an inferior school compared to her white counterpart, because discrimination (writ large, in employment of her parents, and so on) relegates her to a neighborhood with fewer resources, and thus to a poorer school, and thus to less educational opportunity, and on it goes. These things accumulate to hold her back from achievement, not because of some inherent inferiority but because the things typically used to measure success are biased against those with her set of experiences (consider, for example, the SAT tests). Thus, to level the playing field, a university might give her a chance to win admission over someone who ?had it easier.?

Note that this is a very simplistic example.

At its core, and this is something few want to admit, affirmative action is about taking on the white male power structure directly. So, while liberal supporters of affirmative action may balk at saying what I am about to say, I have no problem doing so: when a young black woman is given a slot in a college class despite lower grades, lower test scores, and less compelling resume experiences (e.g., being a ?Big Sister? versus that trip to Honduras to rebuild houses after a natural disaster) than the white male she (indirectly) displaced, society is paying back her race and gender for hundreds of years of discrimination. And society OWES THAT DEBT, until the discrimination at the institutional level is eradicated.

I?m not big on quoting U.S. presidents, but two of them actually make this case very eloquently. In 1961, President Kennedy signed an executive order mandating that beneficiaries of federal monies ?take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.? In essence, he was saying that we as a nation were not only going to talk about racial equality, and desegration, but walk the walk.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act expanded affirmative action, and President Johnson said this:

?You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ?now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.? You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ?you are free to compete with all the others,? and still justly believe you have been completely fair ... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity?not just legal equity but human ability?not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Now, to your specific questions, GRH, which are as much about the purpose of diversity as they are about affirmative action.

You are correct about the racial composition of the population my neighbor New England state, Maine. Should the University of Maine reflect that composition exactly. I think not. The reason is that the objective of affirmative action is not only to level the playing field, but also introduce diversity to the institution. Students benefit from living and learning in a diverse environment. Businesses DEMAND this from graduates -- which is why so many leading corporations filed amicus briefs when the University of Michigan?s affirmative actions were challenged in court a couple of years back.

I would not be so bold as to pretend I know what the numbers ought to be. I believe that if people are of good will, genuinely committed to fairness and diversity, things will work out as they ought to be. There is some point of critical mass, but it is different in every context.

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

I could, of course, say much more. I hope this starts a worthwhile discourse.