Affirmative Action: How Identity Affects Opportunity
Identity is the quality of an individual or group that makes them unique from other individual or groups. Cultural identity encompasses large groups of people that hold similar values, beliefs, and may maintain similar appearances. Opportunity is the chance or ability to perform a task, receive employment, or occasion to receive information. Both of these concepts are broad, and are interpreted differently throughout many different fields. The research presented in this essay will focus particularly on the ways that one’s identity can inhibit or allow them certain opportunities. It will focus on the history of affirmative action, and the history of identity. It will also draw attention in particular to current topics surround affirmative action and both personal and cultural identity.
The U.S. commission on civil rights defines Affirmative Action as “any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future” (Leadership Conference, para 16). Affirmative Action is giving preference or legal advantage to otherwise disadvantaged groups of people. In the United States, affirmative action applies to minorities, veterans, and women to a wide array of opportunities, including, but not limited to, private and federal employment preference, acceptance to universities, and government assistance. Note that affirmative action applies to each cultural identity in varying degrees. For instance, a veteran may have a higher likelihood of being accepted to a Federal position than a Hispanic man of the same qualification due to the G.I. bill. Conversely, A Hispanic man may be more likely to be accepted to a high ranking university than a veteran due to a quota that the university needs to meet.
The debate on Affirmative Action is in no way a “uniquely modern concept” (Leadership Conference, para 6). The history of affirmative action is a topic which actually arose after the civil war, and has continued to be hotly debated today. After the civil war, the term “Affirmative action” was coined in order to pay back former African-American slaves for the atrocities that were committed to them. After the abolition slavery, Jim Crow laws counter acted many attempts at the creation of affirmative action, and political disenfranchisement prevented it all together. Up until 1941 did affirmative action find no discussion in the United States. In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued executive order 8802 which “required nondiscrimination in government-funded projects” (Leadership Conference, para 8). However, this was merely an illusion of progress. It was made out of wartime necessity, and was not created with the intention of leveling the playing field. As white men were drafted, some minorities stayed behind in order fill their positions. In addition, women filled many positions left by men, and were encouraged to fill those positions. However, as peacetime returned to the country in 1945, so too did the political disenfranchisement (Leadership Conference, para 9).
The next piece of Affirmative Action legislation came in the form of Executive Order 10925 from President John F. Kennedy. It included the requirement that “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (OEOD, para 2). Nearly one hundred years after the term was coined did the debate of Affirmative Action actually return to the political table. But it did not come without further debate and disenfranchisement from individual states.
After the assassination of Kennedy, the voting rights act provided equality in some areas but did not affect affirmative action. The following president, Lyndon B. Johnson, upheld Kennedy’s executive order and reaffirmed it through executive order 11246. In addition, Johnson created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the department of labor. This office created programs which were designed to create jobs with a minority preference. Later, Richard Nixon formed the “Philadelphia Plan”, which required government contractors to reach a particular quota of minority hires. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration attempted to dismantle Johnson’s executive order. He eventually backed off of his plan due to pressure from the National Association of Manufacturers, which argued that dismantling the executive order “could result in confusing compliance standards on federal, state and municipal levels and a proliferation of reverse discrimination suits” (Leadership Conference, para 12). Because many businesses had already been built with affirmative action policies in mind, they worried that if affirmative action were disabled, there would be inconsistencies in their own rules and regulations, which could result in conflict and law suits. A reverse discrimination suit might refer to an applicant who was not hired due to another applicant being given preference under affirmative action, but later, when affirmative action is dismantled, is still not given the job.
The most recent form of debate has been through proposition 209 in California. The referendum was to propose a change to the California constitution. According to Ballotpedia.org, Proposition 209 aimed “prohibit public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity” (Ballotpedia, para 2). This proposition was hotly debated, but was adopted in 1996 with 54.6 affirming the change, and 45.4 negating the proposition. Since this proposition was adopted, the University of California dropped its affirmative action policy entirely. As a result, enrollment rates of African Americans “dropped significantly”, but the graduation rates of African Americans rose by a dramatic 52% from 1996 to 2010 (Ballotpedia, para 4).
The topic of personal identity has only become relevant in very recent history. Much of popular culture points towards a kind of self imposed identification, where people are free to omit whatever of their personal history, or culture that they chose. Although it is important to judge one based off of their character, it is just as important to consider their own personal history and identity. It is also important to note that cultural identities are merely overlaps of between the characteristics of individual identities. For example, the identity of one Greek person may involve how their relationship to Greek mythology. This topic of Greek mythology may overlap between different Greek people’s personal identities, and thus contribute to the overall Greek identity (Smithsonian).
One can ponder at a singular “American Identity”, but many struggle with the topic. This is because the United States in itself is a compilation of hundreds if not thousands of different cultures. Because of the fact that the U.S. is a land now comprised of almost entirely immigrants, this author finds that the American Identity is ambiguous. School House Rock, the educational cartoon points to this through the short “The Great American Melting Pot” (A term originally coined in 1908 by Israel Zangwill). In this short, it describes periods in American history where immigrants came to America, and assimilated to our “culture” by entering the “melting pot”. They infused into American culture by taking on attributes of other cultures while contributing as well. An article written by Michael Jay Friedman of the U.S. State Department claims that instead of melting pot, we should instead consider the American Identity as a “Salad Bowl”. He writes “The American self-image has always harnessed a creative tension between pluralism and assimilation… in which each successive immigrant group retains a measure of its distinctiveness and enriches the American whole.” (Friedman, para 9-13).
It is also noteworthy that it is difficult to pinpoint American Identity because the United States of America is an incredibly nation. Although approximately four hundred years may seem like a long period of time, it is little in comparison to some of the other areas of the world. For example, areas of the middle east of been inhabited by the same family lineages for thousands of years. This is also true in many other areas of the world.
In researching the topics of Affirmative Action, identity, and opportunity, this author has considered the following questions:
Is Affirmative Action fair?
Does Affirmative Action promote equal opportunity?
Can one change their individual identity?
Can one change their cultural identity?
In researching these topics, this author has first started by searching for the topics of “Affirmative Action”, “Identity”, and “Opportunity”, then pinpointing when these phrases overlapped throughout different articles. Additionally, this author has searched for legislation which focused specifically on the topics listed above. The pros and cons of these findings are reported:
Is Affirmative Action fair?
Pro: Affirmative Action is fair because it gives advantages to otherwise disadvantaged groups, cultures, or religions. In addition, Affirmative Action provides a kind of reciprocity for the injustices, discriminations, and disenfranchisements (OEOD).
Con: Affirmative Action is unfair because it can never change injustices that have been committed in the past. In addition, Affirmative action can never encompass every individual identity or cultural that has received injustice, discrimination, or segregation. It is impossible to be entirely politically correct (Bouie).
Does Affirmative Action promote equal opportunity?
Pro: Affirmative Action promotes equal opportunity because it levels the playing field. Inequality is a part of life. It is the job of good law makers to compensate for the entities which are treated unequally in a nation (Friedman)
Con: Affirmative Action does not promote equal opportunity because it is unequal. “Equal” implies that the law affects every citizen equally. Although this has not been the case in the past, it is the job of good law makers to make sure that every citizen is held to the same standards (Friedman).
Can one change their individual identity?
Pro: Yes, we live in a world where hopefully we can be accepted by others for the aspects of our lives that we chose to share.
Con: No, one’s individual identity is defined by their history, upbringing, education, and morals. This can’t be changed, it is inconsistent and can be offensive for one to change who the are.
Can one change their cultural identity?
Pro: Yes, many have assimilated into other cultures after immigrating. By learning new languages, travelling, and migrating to foreign countries one can add to or erase aspects of their previous culture within a lifetime.
Con: No, one’s identity is part of them, and cannot be erased. Even if they migrate into a different nation with a different culture, they still retain their cultural identity, which is an inherent part of them.
A solution and analysis to the debate on Affirmative Action would be to phase affirmative action out of public and private institutions while making transparent efforts to repay wronged communities throughout the United States. In the final chapter of The Color of Wealth, Meizhu Lui and the other contributors discuss a prosperous world in 2050, where cultures, people who have a shared cultural identity, are given reciprocity for the wrong doing done by an unfair and rigged system.
The chapter first describes a world where “the treaties between Native nations and the United States have been honored. Native peoples are no longer under the ‘guardianship’ of the U.S.” (Lui, et al., 270). In the world for the indigenous which the authors describe, Native peoples have set up their own institutions, and are no longer reliant on the U.S. for support. Lui and the others also describe a reprimanded African American community that has successfully sued the U.S. government for billions of dollars in previously unpaid wages. With this money, they create businesses, create affordable housing, and vibrant institutions (Lui, et al., 271). The section continues with more cultures that have been wronged by the U.S., and how they would be given reciprocity in fairness.
This is the solution to the current state of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action right now is in itself an insignificant way that people with varying cultural identities are reciprocated. Instead of paying back misdeeds in full by generating money or giving back the land, the government responds by giving communities a small pass when it comes to things like employment or entrance to a university. While this may help short-term, it would be much more advantageous for the religious or ethnic group on the whole if the playing were leveled all at once, and not in short, and relatively insignificant increments.
Conversely, one could argue that Affirmative Action combats bigotry. This is not true. Say an equally qualified man and disabled man are competing for the same position, but the employer chooses the disabled man because he is disabled, then the white man will dislike the man not because he outcompeted him, but because he is disabled. The disabled man has probably faced more hardship and adversity in his life than the other man, but the bigotry still exists nonetheless.
In conclusion, personal identity encompasses how one describes themselves. Cultural identity is a series of overlapping themes in the identities of many. Affirmative action today is seen reciprocating by creating preference in opportunity. Affirmative action should be non incremental. It should be providing support to cultures in a manner that fully covers how that culture was wronged.