To Improve Affirmative Action Programs, Progressives Need To Think Deeper About the “Why”
2018 was the year affirmative action came into the spotlight, again.
In higher education, Harvard University was accused of unlawful racial discrimination, scoring Asian American students lower on “personal” (non-academic, non-extra-curricular) factors, thereby rigging the admissions process against them. The U.S. District Court has not ruled, but in the court of public opinion, Harvard appears to have the upper hand over Asian American plaintiffs, who are backed by an anti-affirmative-action conservative group — not the most popular advocacy group in the current political climate.
In New York City, an ever larger controversy was brewing, as a progressive Mayor and activist Schools Chancellor attempted to roll-back the use of SHSAT — a standardized test — as the sole admissions criterion for prestigious, specialized public schools, arguing that some minorities were disadvantaged due to the lack of test-prep and that — on equity grounds — the student body of these specialized schools should reflect the population of the City as a whole. Yet again, Asian Americans found themselves at the short end of the stick, but in the national discourse that followed, the community was largely ignored by conservatives and liberals — both sides viewed the impasse as a test case for affirmative action, viewed through polarized lenses: black vs white, privilege vs disenfranchised, rights vs wrong.
Affirmative action is not confined to education. In employment, governments and companies are increasingly emphasizing the need for a diverse workforce, arguing that racial diversity, in particular, benefits morale, product innovation and service delivery. In both public and private-sector procurement, there is an emphasis on “plus factors” for contractors and vendors representing traditionally disenfranchised groups. In theory, the greater competition also diversifies supply chains and could provide cost savings to the procurer.
Many of America’s progressives — leaders in government, business and media — believe that America’s socio-economic system is flawed, and that society needs to move towards a more inclusive world — in education, in employment and in the ownership of assets. Affirmative action is seen as a critical tool to effect social change.
The continued success of many pro-affirmative-action politicians and the proliferation of affirmative action programs attest to a growing public acceptance that affirmative action is desirable and benefits society.
And yet, concerns remain. While progressive leaders have been successful in rolling out affirmative action programs, they have been less successful in articulating, at least not in a coherent fashion, the “why” of affirmative action:
Is affirmative action a form of reparation for slavery?
Is it a social engineering tool reduce the disparity between wealthy and middle/low-income Americans?
Or is it, as the Supreme Court postulated, a policy backed by “compelling state interests” to ensure America’s business machinery, civil society and military continue to function smoothly?
Poorly defined, affirmative action programs start to look from the outside like patronage programs, granting opportunities to favored constituents, or worst, connected individuals donning an “affirmative action” cap.
Progressive politicians running on a platform of efficiency and transparency are clearly incentivized to quantify the success of affirmative action programs, but how do they do so if the “why” was never identified? How can you measure success, if you haven’t identified what you are trying to make a success of, remedy or fix? It should not be enough to simply issue a press release announcing x% of newly awarded contracts went to a minority or women-owned firm.
Improving Affirmative Action Programs by Increasing Transparency
As we often say in wrestling, where the head goes the body follows.
Conservatives oppose affirmative action on a simple premise: all Americans should be treated equally. This argument may be principled but ignores the impact of many Americans’ disadvantaged backgrounds.
In the political middle, you find moderates who may be receptive to affirmative action as a concept, but worry about the management and effects of such programs: will programs be administered fairly? will they be affordable for taxpayers? will “reverse discrimination” be rampant? To secure support from political moderates, affirmative action programs need to be designed thoughtfully, carefully calibrated and results measured.
Affirmative Action As A Form of Reparations for Slavery
If affirmative action is intended to redress slavery, then the clear path is for governments to set aside specific resources for the benefit of descendants of slaves. Many of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are in favor of cash reparations to verified descendant of slaves. Ways of implementing such programs include outright grants and/or zero interest financing for college, home purchases and setting up a small businesses. Programs could then be designed to benefit descendants of slaves, which maximize the impact of such programs and limit the dilutive effects of using affirmative action vehicles to benefit those who are non-descendants of slaves.
Affirmative Action As A Vehicle To Reduce Income Disparity
As a practical matter, the progressive tax system implemented by many U.S. states and local governments is a pure form of affirmative action for lower income Americans. Governments that wish to help lower income residents should increase marginal tax rates for the wealthy, while investing tax revenues in infrastructure and public programs — such as free healthcare and affordable housing — beneficial to those who are lower income. Notice these policies are racially neutral, which means all who are lower income benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Affirmative Action As A “Compelling State Interest” To Foster Diversity
Affirmative action has been “supremely” litigated over the past two decades.
Based on current Supreme Court precedents, affirmative action on the basis of race is permissible provided programs are narrowly tailored and states/institutions identity a “compelling interest” to permit affirmative action, usually on the basis that affirmative is needed to increase diversity in the workforce, educational institution or military.
The obvious mechanism to achieve what the Supreme Court sanctioned is some form of limited quota. So for instance, a local government that seeks to hire police officers from say, Tibet, could implement affirmative action by waiving written tests and other requirements imposed on non-Tibetans.
These quotas may not be permissible under the Civil Rights Act, but progressives truly serious about diversity should file legal suit to force the Supreme Court to settle the awkward tensions between the U.S. Constitution and its own precedents. I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court permits limited forms of quotas — provided such quotas are transparent, possibly voter approved and subject to future court review.
As we often say in wrestling, where the head goes the body follows.
A policy can have many objectives, but chaos and confusion often ensue as objectives invariably clash with one another and bad actors “arbitrage” different objectives to support outcomes they prefer.
Given its importance and broad ramifications, affirmative action deserves focus and thoughtfulness from America’s elite institutions. If we tailored affirmative action to address specific “whys”, the programs designed are likely to be more efficacious (benefiting those intended), efficient (limiting externalities and negative consequences to those penalized by affirmative action) and — this is very important — more acceptable to more Americans.
Think about the why.
And then, worry about the how.
Contact Jay Gho at jay@jaygho.com.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer, past or present, or any other organization with which I may be affiliated.
