*Background — Significance
What is it? United States affirmative action, starting in the early 1960s, consists of government and private sector programs granting special consideration to groups considered or classified as historically excluded, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantage associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.
*Talking Points
Need to Refocus Affirmative Action. These pages argue for changes in the current programs, specifically for making decisions for inclusion based on income rather than on race. The views presented in these pages on Affirmative Action differ from those typically expressed in progressive or liberal publications. A summary of the reasons are:
1. The presumption in federal and private sector affirmative action programs that every minority is disadvantaged is just not true. Many are, but many are not. Income or class is a better proxy for determining if someone is disadvantaged.
2. The current affirmative action programs that are in existence are not really helping those who are most in need, i.e., those who are economically or socially disadvantaged.
3. Not every black person in the USA is a descendant of a slave or of someone who lived under Jim Crow laws. According to the Pew Research Center report one fifth of every black currently in this country is foreign born.
4. The current race based affirmative action programs have been found to be illegal and unconstitutional by several federal court rulings. Thus, it needs to change. For more details on the recent court cases, click here.
5. A large number of white folks do not approve of affirmative action. They resent it and view it as reverse discrimination, asking: does two wrongs make a right? Thus, many whites align with the Republican Party even though it does not represent their economic interests. There are more poor whites than poor minorities.
6. Many minorities do even not support affirmative action. Some even feel insulted and disrespected at being stereotyped as disadvantaged. Some may even be attracted to the Republican Party for that reason.
7. Since a disproportionally high percentage of minorities are poor, an income based approach will still benefit a high percentage of minorities.
For further details on the reasons for these views on refocusing Affirmative Action, please go to Deep Dive–Affirmative Action.
A Better Affirmative Action Program. The federal courts have clearly ruled against racially based affirmative action programs. How should liberals, progressives and, especially leaders of the Democratic party, respond to this challenge to Affirmative Action programs? Certainly, the current programs did much that was helpful in advancing the cause of social and racial justice. However, if you:
- Have concerns about many whites and some blacks as well as other minorities disapproving of Affirmative Action and are thus more inclined to identify with the Republican party.
- If you question the effectiveness of current affirmative action programs helping those who really need assistance
Then, the court’s rulings are an opportunity to broaden and improve Affirmative Action programs by focusing, not on race, but on income or class and thus assisting those who are actually socially and economically disadvantaged.
Reaction by the Minority Business Development Agency to Federal Court Ruling. The results of the recent federal court ruling on March 4, 2024 about the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) are encouraging, in that the Agency has removed race as a criteria for inclusion in their programs. In the Washington Post, Julian Mark reported on April 3, 2024 the following:
“… Before the court order, minority businesses owners were required to sign the client engagement forms certifying their disadvantage, even though they benefited from the presumption. The difference is that its new form notes that an “individual of any race or ethnicity may meet the definition of socially or economically disadvantaged under the MBDA Act.”
Businesses’ eligibility for assistance is also determined based on race-neutral criteria such as the age of the business, an applicant’s net worth and the business’s sustainability, according to a March 20 guidance. Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the Racial Justice Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the MBDA changes show that it is not moving away from its mission of helping socially and economically disadvantaged business.
Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute, said the shift away from race could help the MBDA focus more on socioeconomic status. But, he said, using a form to establish applicants’ disadvantage probably will not help the agency accomplish its goals, and he suggested the agency adopt an essay-writing process similar to universities and the SBA to help it focus on an individual’s need.
Kahlenberg, who testified for the plaintiffs in the Harvard case, has long criticized race-based affirmative action, arguing instead for a class-based approach.”
“If you care about racial diversity, as I do, you want to find fairer ways to get to the same result,” he said. “And it’s precisely because of the nation’s history of discrimination and the ongoing realities of discrimination by race that communities of color will disproportionately benefit from a needs-based approach to affirmative action,” he added. “And there’s no constitutional problem with that.”
Political Implications of an Expanded –Race Neutral Affirmative Action Program. Redirecting the program would revitalize the programs and help not only the minorities who are disproportionally poor, but also benefit many poor whites. Such a redirection is likely to be less polarizing and attract a wider spectrum of political support as well as more funding for Affirmative Action. Most public statements from Democratic leaders have been to denounce the court decisions and defend the current race-based programs. That is big mistake. The courts have given the Democrats an exceptionally good reason to say to the minority constituents, who may have an emotional attachment to and in some cases, a personal stake in the current race-based programs, that the Democrats really tried the current approach. However, it is now illegal and there is another and, in many ways, a better way to achieve racial justice. Such a message may not be initially well received by many Democrats. However, if properly presented, it can be understood as a viable path forward toward fulfilling the mission of federal agencies of helping the socially and economically disadvantaged. With this kind of an income-based approach, there can be a broad and effective coalition across racial and ethnic boundaries to build back better our Affirmative Action program.