Affirmative Action Programs in the Cycle of Oppression
Although crafted with good intent, affirmative action programs in higher education and the professional world are unlikely to contribute in a meaningful way to dismantling systems of oppression. In fact, at many elite institutions, affirmative action programs might actually stifle diversity and contribute to a culture of tokenism. Created to help spread equitable education and employment opportunities for those who have suffered from discrimination, these programs have done little to address the cycle of oppression that called for the formation of the programs in the first place.
To be clear, the aim of this piece is not to fully discredit affirmative action programs or to place upon them the sole responsibility for ending discrimination. These programs are crucial in providing access to opportunities for historically excluded and underrepresented groups. However, in a somewhat contradictory manner, what these programs do in practice is provide opportunities for diverse candidates to be integrated into existing oppressive institutions. Therefore, the struggle exists in finding a way in which to ensure equal access to opportunities for minority groups while also challenging the current systems of oppression in our society.
Even though minority students are arguably receiving a greater amount of scholarships through affirmative actions programs, they do not nearly make up the majority of scholarship recipients. To put things into perspective, Mark Kantrowitz’s article, The Distribution of Grants and Scholarships by Race, presents data debunking the race myth, which argues that minority students receive the majority of scholarships. The article depicts how Caucasian students receive a disproportionately greater share of private scholarships that are distributed by race. They represent 68.2% of the student population and make up 71.7% of the scholarship recipients. On the other hand, minority students represent 31.0% of the student population, but only receive 27.5% of the scholarships dispersed. Further, institutional grants, which are awarded by colleges and universities from their own funds, are also disproportionately awarded to Caucasian students. They receive a total of $14.3 billion in institutional grant funding, while minority students are awarded with $6.4 billion. Overall, these distributions of institutional grants by race are fairly consistent with the make-up of the student body. While the statistics in this article are dated, it is unlikely that the range of numbers has significantly changed in the past few years.
The reason I shared the above statistics was to outline how even with affirmative action programs, Caucasian students significantly outnumber minority students as the recipients of scholarships. Moreover, Caucasian students also greatly outnumber minority students in overall representation in higher education institutions. Obviously affirmative action programs aren’t doing much to balance those numbers out. By taking a few diverse students here and there and providing them with the means to attend college or receive an internship, the current structure of affirmative action programs is only perpetuating systems of oppression.
Being a recipient of a diversity fellowship myself, I recognize the financial and professional benefits that affirmative action programs offer. As college students, being able to receive any financial assistance comes as a gasp of fresh air as we continue to drown in student-debt. So yes, although affirmative action programs do little to address the oppressive structures surrounding us, they can also come as a lifeline for some. It wasn’t until recently that I began questioning the purpose and end-result of these programs. As I mentioned previously, we must find a way to provide minority students with equal access to opportunities while also challenging the systems of oppression these opportunities are integrating us into. In one section of his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire states,
The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not “marginal,” are not people living “outside” society. They have always been “inside” — inside the structure which made them “beings for others.” The solution is not to “integrate them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become beings for themselves.
The reason I began critiquing affirmative action programs stemmed from the above passage. The purpose of such programs seems to be to put a few diverse candidates in existing institutions, but what do they truly do to the structure as a whole? Diversity has become a major selling point throughout many institutions. Especially in recent years, efforts by universities and workplaces to show commitment to diversification have become increasingly popular. Statistics regarding the percentage of diverse candidates appear all over brochures and websites as recruitment mechanisms. Commitment to diversity is clearly reflected in the public face of these institutions, but is less clearly reflected within the composition of the institutions themselves. Diverse candidates are integrated into existing structures, and they themselves become part of the cycle of oppression.
So now I stand somewhat conflicted about how I view such programs. I feel strongly that everyone should have equal access to opportunities, and I recognize the need for diversity programs in providing such opportunities to marginalized groups. Still, the fact the employers hire a few diverse candidates and use these efforts as a PR tool seems a little unsettling because nothing about the oppressive structure seems to be changing.
In the above excerpt, Freire emphasizes the need to transform the structure rather than to just integrate oppressed groups into the existing structure. Yet, the whole purpose of affirmative action programs is to integrate oppressed populations into the existing system. Looking at the overall picture, how do we move past simply accepting these programs towards transforming the structures we are placed into? The answer is not so clear. However, Freire offers some guidance as to how to approach changing the oppressive structures around us:
It is only when the oppressed find the oppressor out and become involved in the organized struggle for their liberation that they begin to believe in themselves. This discovery cannot be purely intellectual but must involve action; nor can it be limited to mere activism, but must include serious reflection: only then will it be a praxis.
As to how one discovers the need to become involved in their struggle for liberation, and what kind of action one must engage in, there may not be a single answer. I wouldn’t go as far as to say affirmative action programs should be terminated. Actually, if anything, those programs should be greatly expanded upon. Why do companies’ offer one or in some cases two diversity scholarships? Why not more? Why don’t schools accept more diverse applicants? What are the social barriers that prevent oppressed groups receiving higher education? What can we do about those?
With affirmative action programs, minority students are receiving a piece of the pie. It’s something. It’s certainly more than what was given before, especially considering that many of this country’s elite institutions explicitly barred minorities from entry. But to achieve anything more than marginal representation, we must recognize that the inadvertent consequence of promoting diversification in institutions through affirmative action programs in many ways reinforces the tokenizing of minorities in a nation where the majority is actually all the minorities.
