Under the Same Sun

Battleground states determining Affirmative Action's Future

By: Kasey Henricks

Posted: 7/23/08

The following is part one of a three-part editorial series discussing affirmative action in the context of the upcoming election. Part one discusses the current dilemma facing affirmative action. Part two presents a general overview of the current state of U.S. race relations (to be posted 7/30). And part three provides suggestions and solutions in walking towards racial justice and equality (to be posted 8/6).

Currently, there’s an assault against affirmative action. The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), a partisan interest group, is working in Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska to promote the so-called Civil Rights Initiative (www.acri.org), which will be on the ballot this November. Essentially, this initiative seeks to dismantle affirmative action, end supposed racial preferences and eliminate “reverse discrimination.” Similar initiatives have passed in California, Washington, and most recently Michigan. Given their voting records, Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska will likely follow in this trend. With this growing momentum, it’s just a matter of time until the initiative reaches other states like Tennessee.

Affirmative action – what is it exactly? For many, it’s a term commonly used and argued for or against, but rarely is affirmative action ever clearly defined. This lack of clear definition convolutes public discourse on the issue, because meanings matter. For any constructive dialogue about affirmative action to occur, those who engage in this dialogue must understand what exactly is meant when a person says affirmative action.

In essence, affirmative action is a set of policies serving as antidiscrimination law. It applies broadly and stretches far beyond race to address areas including gender, age and religion. However, this upcoming election deals primarily with the racial aspect of affirmative action. For this article, I will narrow my definition as such.

Affirmative action is a race-conscious effort to open access and opportunity to minorities in areas of employment and education. In no way is affirmative action ideal, but it is a policy that addresses past and present racial discrimination. Now that affirmative action has been defined, let’s revisit ACRI’s original argument.

Affirmative action is a form of racial preference and reverse discrimination offering unfair advantages to minorities. The ACRI President, Ward Connerly, has likened affirmative action to a form of slavery for those who benefit from the policy. “If we carefully examine the definition of slavery, we find its most important characteristics – ‘dependency’ and ‘under the domination of another’ – present in affirmative action,” Connerly said.

The American Civil Rights Institute President, Ward Connerly

In essence, the ACRI and Connerly argue affirmative action harms both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

Now, an argument is only as strong as the evidence that backs it up. One can reasonably assume that if an argument against affirmative action is made based the promotion of racial preference and reverse discrimination, then plenty evidence would be made available to support this position. However, the ACRI has provided no such evidence.

In fact, the overwhelming amount of evidence I will offer in part two of the three-part series disproves this anti-affirmative action argument and demonstrates the continuing significance of race.

To view affirmative action as a policy of preferring one group over another is misleading and overly simplistic; rather, a more accurate view is that it’s a policy providing racial access and opportunity where there is little to none. In addition, the proposition for ending affirmative action ignores racial inequality and ongoing discrimination. Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind affirmative action is not pro-discrimination law, it is antidiscrimination law.

Eliminating affirmative action would remove significant educational and economic opportunities for minorities, worsening their already grossly unequal standing. Sociologist George Lipsitz comments, “Ending affirmative action cuts off avenues of upward mobility that have proven of great importance to aggrieved communities.”

Although affirmative action is not an ideal policy, it’s an anti-discrimination law that’s needed in our country. A “no” to affirmative action is a “no” to racial justice. In closing, I’d like to leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California was an adamant defender of affirmative action:

“Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of nondiscrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a real and personal commitment to affirmative action, so as to make equal opportunity a reality.”