Affirmative action laws began when in the early 1960s judicial rulings believed it to be a duty of local school boards to desegregate areas that were formerly in dual school systems under the Jim Crow laws and to eliminate the remnants of institutional racism in schools. The next step in the process came a few years later when the legislative and executive branches of the US government decided to implement laws and regulations that authorized pro-diversity hiring and admissions processes for jobs and schooling. The desired effect of these laws, coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its equal employment and Education Title VI, was to remedy the years of institutional discrimination that had disadvantaged minorities for so long. The way Title VI was interpreted by the Department of Education meant that it required schools and colleges to take “affirmative action” to restitute the injustices of formerly racist laws, thereby giving advantages to minorities in the college admittance process. Having been in practice for more than 40 years, this policy has long been a source of debate from the home to the hill, with proponents of both sides citing moral injustice and fairness as the reasons behind their opinion.
There are a few very clear advantages to affirmative action. Firstly, affirmative action aids diversity in areas that are likely to lead to socioeconomic mobility. If admittance to colleges and hiring were totally race-blind, then it is likely that the demographics for their students would be heavily skewed towards Asian and white Americans. It may not seem that diversity is an inherently desirable thing, but diversity itself exposes people to more cultures, ideas, and points of view besides those that are most similar to their own, and normalizes cross-cultural interaction. This is essential to not only cultural transactions but also the diffusion of ideas and the development of society. When disadvantaged people are given this boost, they are being offered an opportunity to attend schools or be hired for jobs that they would not otherwise be frontrunners for, which comes with an obvious advantage for them and a more subtle advantage for society: social mobility. If people are more able to move from lower status to higher status, then a country is better off. Furthering education is not always attainable for minorities, who have higher rates of impoverishment, and therefore affirmative action is needed to balance this. In addition to this, affirmative action promotes work and study among those that it helps. Not only are those that are beneficiaries of affirmative action more incentivized to participate in these actions after admissions but making education and work more attainable to an entire subsection of the population also incentivizes them to work to achieve these things that are now reasonably within their reach. If people have an attainable and concrete goal in mind it stands to reason that they will try harder to achieve it than something that was historically held from them, especially if they see that people that are very similar to them who come from similar backgrounds are beneficiaries.
Although there are many good externalities of affirmative action, there are a few potential costs to society. The first of these is that affirmative action is very race-conscious, and in this way, is a form of reverse discrimination that can further widen the rift between groups in society. Within the last 10 years, it seems that there has been a great increase in cases of police brutality, race-conscious reporting, and anti-minority political rhetoric. While this pales in comparison to the era before the civil rights act that started affirmative action, it appears putting race at the forefront of policy and political thought has a negative effect on perceptions of minorities. Many people disagree with affirmative action because it is essentially a form of reverse racism, where minorities are favored over the majority. This brings me to my next point, which is that affirmative action may not remedy stereotypes and racism because of the idea that admissions for minorities are not based on merit, but rather race. Giving a comparative advantage to some races over others means that the reality of admissions is that the bar is simply higher for one group than it is for another. With any admission or hiring process comes rejection for some, and the emotions involved with you or someone you know not getting into a college or university of their choice can be intense. It would be easy to take the blame out on the group that is favored over you, especially given the fact that these colleges and universities are not very transparent in their admissions, opening the door for speculation and feelings of being cheated simply because of your race, much like those same minorities were prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is important to note that this feeling can go both ways as well, as people of color can often feel as if they have cheated the system and only were admitted to schools because of their race, increasing feelings of alienation and resentment. Although there are many other pros and cons I will end with this one: it is not clear whether affirmative action even achieves one of its goals of creating diversity of opinion and viewpoint, because it operates on the assumption that people of color have different viewpoints from others and that they are similar in their backgrounds. There are plenty of affluent people of color that benefit from this policy, and I would argue that wealth is often a better indicator of diversity of viewpoint and opinion than color can be. I would also argue, however, that people of color are disproportionately underrepresented in the upper echelon of wealth in the United States.
I think that affirmative action policies address the issue of racial reconciliation to a certain extent, but that they are not sufficient on their own to facilitate the process. Affirmative action can only do so much, as college admittance is very important and increases the likelihood of things such as social mobility, cultural interaction, and affluence among people of color, but it does not impact all of their lives equally. Many people of color are still disproportionately high victims of poverty, institutional racism, discrimination, and violent crime. This is because of things like gerrymandering, race politics and rhetoric, and a general continued perception of racial differences. Recently the Chicago Tribune did an opinion piece on Dr. Dale Gloria Blackstock. One of the earliest beneficiaries of affirmative action who graduated from both Harvard College and Med School in the 1970s. The piece is written by her son, Uche, who argues that affirmative action has helped him and his family in tangible and unforeseen ways. His mother being given this opportunity gave him the chance to succeed as the son of a college graduate, especially when compared to his maternal cousins. He talks about the lawsuit against Harvard for its race-conscious admissions process, saying that the steps to racial reconciliation should not be torn down. Many people of color benefit greatly from the policy, and it truly changes lives, as in his case.