RSS Feed MenuHarvard Professor Randall Kennedy argues in The American Prospect that the “diversity” rationale for affirmative action — namely, that “better learning and decision-making arise in environments that are racially diverse” — has defused the political opposition to it. Maybe. A closer look at Kennedy’s evidence, however, shows that diversity has not made affirmative action more popular so much as rationalize acquiescence in it.
Take Kennedy’s point that major corporations uniformly laud diversity. Kennedy writes:
[I]n the 2003 University of Michigan affirmative-action cases . . . 65 major companies, including American Express, Coca Cola, and Microsoft, asserted that maintaining racial diversity in institutions of higher education is vital to their efforts to hire and maintain a diverse workforce.
Just because businesses support diversity, however, does not mean that they do so freely. Businesses ordinarily have different philosophies when it comes to fostering an efficient workforce. Some encourage vacations, others frown on them; some prize collegiality, others internal competition; some sponsor social activities outside of work, others don’t bother. Likewise, other things being equal, you would expect some businesses to value diversity and others to be indifferent.
In reality, large corporations are of one mind: diversity is great! It is surely not the undeniable value of diversity that inspires such unanimity. In a diverse environment, for example, employees may hesitate to speak out lest they inadvertently offend their colleagues. They might fail to criticize a presentation for fear of not being thought supportive enough, or they may evaluate subordinates less harshly than they deserve. A culture of reticence may then pervade the workplace, which in turn may make cooperation more difficult. For these reasons, it is just as possible that diversity undermines productivity as enhances it.
Though Kennedy does not say so, the reason that big businesses champion diversity is that they effectively don’t have a choice. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating based on race (among other categories). These days, however, employers virtually never intentionally discriminate against a particular group. Anti-discrimination lawsuits nonetheless live on because the Supreme Court has fashioned techniques (the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting formula, the Griggs disparate impact theory, and others) whereby plaintiffs can prevail even without any direct evidence of intentional discrimination. These techniques (elaborated in more detail by the EEOC here and here) do not permit companies simply to make color-blind hiring decisions. On the contrary, if they wish to avoid expensive anti-discrimination lawsuits, they must (among other things) build a record of supporting minority hiring and promotion. In other words, they have to celebrate diversity.
In this way, the diversity rationale becomes politically self-perpetuating. If you need to prove your commitment to diversity, what better (and virtually costless) way to do so than to join a “friend of the court” brief defending the constitutionality of affirmative action before the Supreme Court? Not surprisingly, that’s exactly what 65 companies did in the Michigan affirmative action cases. In her majority decision, Justice O’Connor naively cited this very brief for the proposition that “major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” Thanks to Justice O’Connor, when threatened by employment discrimination lawsuits, those companies can now retort that they are so committed to diversity that they intervened in order to save it against constitutional challenge.
Individuals and private associations face analogous pressures to celebrate diversity. They may be free under the First Amendment to think and say what they want, but the social costs of being perceived as having unacceptable views on race are immense. Hence, individuals often take an aggressively anti-racist position just to prove that they are not racist. In his book, Private Truths Public Lies, Timur Karan devises an ingenious model to explain why public opinion favors affirmative action even as most people privately detest it. To simplify, individuals will adjust their publicly expressed beliefs based on what they perceive public opinion to be. The more public opinion shifted against racism in the 1960s and 70s, the more individuals who felt comfortable (or compelled) to support preferences, which in turn caused more and more individuals to add their support as well. The “equilibrium” public opinion ended up being far more supportive of preferences than people would privately prefer.
Randall Kennedy correctly seems to assume that affirmative action is only grudgingly accepted. Kennedy writes that the diversity rationale “minimizes . . . anger,” “frames affirmative action” in palatable ways, and “facilitates evasion of prickly subjects.” In other words, diversity makes the discrepancy between private preference and public opinion more bearable.
Unfortunately, Republicans have become a party numerically dominated by whites at a time when, as Kennedy notes, whiteness has become uncool. Is there any way for Republicans to become more socially acceptable? Surprisingly, yes: Republicans could revert to the old-fashioned compensatory justice rationale for affirmative action. As Kennedy states, without elaborating, the rise of the diversity rationale “has not been costless.” One of those costs is that African-Americans get shortchanged. Colleges and employers can now create a “diverse” environment by promoting individuals of many different races, even though they have no connection to slavery or Jim Crow. Another cost is that those harmed by diversity-based affirmative action are disproportionately middle or working class. It turns out that diversity does not hold back the wealthy and privileged.
For these reasons, Republicans have plenty of daylight wherein they can acknowledge the need to rectify the legacy of racism and slavery, yet oppose the excesses of the affirmative action that voters privately dislike. Republicans, that is, can oppose affirmative action based on diversity, but support affirmative action as just compensation for native born African-Americans. This is the position taken by Senator James Webb. If being pro-justice and pro-fairness is good enough for a Democrat, it should be good enough for Republicans.
easton // Aug 30, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Sorry, but I don’t buy this. America will be a minority majority country by 2050, unless we embrace diversity now as much as possible, our society will become hopelessly fragmented.
It is not that diversity is “great” Japan has no diversity and does fine, just that we are stuck with diversity that will only accelerate over time.
How we go about bringing this about will be difficult, and will be unfair to some, but for the economy and companies to survive they will have to adapt with having a workforce of many colors, identities, cultures, and so on. And embracing this diversity would only help us in the global marketplace. If you want to do business worldwide, you should be prepared to have people of the markets who share ethnicity, language, and understanding of culture. We can’t always rely on Chinese in their own country to speak English when we go to sell them goods.
And I have to tell you my speaking Chinese opened up a helluva lot more opportunities when I lived in China then when I didn’t.
Or you can bury your head in the sand, limit affirmative action to blacks, and watch our share of the global market shrivel.
RogerClegg // Aug 30, 2010 at 2:22 pm
There are a lot of problems with the compensatory-justice rationale, but the first one is enough: The Supreme Court has rejected it. That is, the Court has ruled that racial preferences cannot be justified by simply pointing to societal/historical discrimination. This is one reason why the even-more-bogus diversity rationale has been embraced.
In any event, racial preferences in the corporate context in particular cannot be justified legally, logically, empirically, or morally under any rationale — compensatory, diversity, whatever. See my testimony before the EEOC here: http://www.ceousa.org/content/blogcategory/56/85/
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 30, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Austin Bramwell:
When you write on this topic in the future, I would encourage you to call AA what it is — anti-White discrimination — rather than use euphemistic terms.
Easton:
It’s not clear to me why you feel that anti-White discrimination is necessary to prepare the US for growing diversity and the global marketplace.
Both you, Randall Kennedy and everyone else on the pro-AA side has pretty much dropped the original rationale for AA as redress for past discrimination in favor of this new “diversity is beneficial” approach which in practice will mean disadvantaged Whites will continue to be discriminated against, while recent immigrants and their kids who suffered no discrimination in this country will receive preferential treatment. That is grossly unfair and immoral.
Your position on this issue amounts to “let poor Whites eat cake.”
But at least you have the intellectual honesty to admit there will be unfairness. That’s more than Randall Kennedy will admit.
Elvis Elvisberg // Aug 30, 2010 at 2:40 pm
These days, however, employers virtually never intentionally discriminate against a particular group.
This is a highly debatable point. Job applicants with white sounding names have a 50 percent better chance of being called back for an interview than their counterparts with black-sounding names, even when all qualifications are the same; white job applicants with criminal records have a better chance of being called back for an interview than black applicants without one, even when all the qualifications are the same; a massive national study that estimated at least 1 million cases of blatant job discrimination against blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans each year, affecting roughly one-in-three job seekers of color.
Also, Republicans face an uphill battle in becoming a less-than-90-percent-white party because of their history. Is there anything to being a Republican these days beyond Southern Strategy rhetoric? Given that the GOP lined up about 100% against a health insurance plan based on a Mitt Romney/Heritage Foundation idea, not merely opposing it but calling it socialism and unconstitutional, irrational resentment against the government, sparked by its denying them the ability to continue segregating schools, is just about all that’s left there. Right now, the GOP (along with a few wrongheaded & spineless Democrats, as with other awful ideas like invading Iraq and creating unaffordable tax and health care policies) is whipping up resentment against Muslims, and, in Arizona and elsewhere, against immigrants.
Stated positions on a peripheral issue like affirmative action really isn’t that big a deal.
llbroo49 // Aug 30, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The author’s style of writing (IMO) confuses Affirmative Action with corporate diversity programs. The only beneficiaries of Afftimative Action are minorities seeking to attend the country’s top schools (Harvard, Yale, etc), women and minorities seeking municipal employment in Police and Fire Departments, and programs that assist women and minority owned small businesses. Corporate diversity programs are meant to attract and encourage talent, allow organizations to relate to their customer base, and to show some corporate responsibility to the community at large. Even if Affirmative Action were no longer the law of the land, Corporations and Universities will find some method to attain the racial, ethnic , and economic diversity mix that works best for that organization.
Affirmative Action and diversity programs are not ant-white, but anti monolithic. White students with average GPAs attend historical Black universities with full scholarships while African American students at HBCUs are required to have 3.5 GPA for the same scholarship (google HBCU and minority scholarships). This is not a bad thing becasue the scholarships potentially attract white students that otherwise would not attend these Historically Black schools. And it aids in development and understanding beyond racial sterotypes.
As for the author assertion that few people support Affiramtive Action, but merely accept it, I think this is because few Americans of any race are impacted by the law. Despite Affirmative Action and Diversity programs, minorities and women still are not represented in Corporate Boardrooms or senior leadership.
While Affirmative Action was intially intended to represent African Americans, I have no problem with it being used to expand representation in other ethnic minorities. However, in fairness, I would like to see some programs that assist historially underperforming white regions like Appalachia.
Zero Cost Commission bonus | // Aug 30, 2010 at 4:27 pm
[...] Breaking with Groupthink on Affirmative Action | FrumForum [...]
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 30, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“Affirmative Action and diversity programs are not ant-white, but anti monolithic. ”
They are anti-White, especially anti-White male.
AA benefits everyone else, by law, while excluding White people.
That is the definition of discrimination.
And the impact falls almost entirely on middle class and poor White people, like the New Haven firefighters who were denied their promotions for years until SCOTUS intervened.
Wealthy White people, of course, are pretty much unaffected and don’t care.
easton // Aug 30, 2010 at 5:45 pm
DeepSouthPopulist, so how many languages do you speak? You do know that we are living in an ever more globalist economy I take it. Even forgetting about international trade, of course it is in the best interests of even small companies to have some diversity. Since America is going to be a minority majority country in the not too distant future do you really think a lily white company will attract many clients? Would you really be in favor of these companies committing corporate suicide just so they can…what exactly? Stay lily white? Do you know nothing of basic psychology?
If you feel most comfortable being around people just like you (and this is natural) then how can you imagine minorities wouldn’t feel the same way? We have to break through that natural tendency towards fragmentation.
What you call discrimination is simply good business practices. Have you ever even looked at advertising, how minorities are sprinkled throughout? Are white models being discriminated against?
And please, as a white man I have never once felt the slightest bit of discrimination, even living abroad. In fact, my being a white man got me jobs that black, hispanic, or asian men or women did not get. (which I found ironic but centuries of drumming “white is good” have had sadly lasting repercussions)
Moderate // Aug 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Easton: Since America is going to be a minority majority country in the not too distant future do you really think a lily white company will attract many clients? … What you call discrimination is simply good business practices.
This is the exact same defense that was used by racists to defend Jim Crow: “Do you think white customers will shop at our stores if we have to hire blacks?” It was a horrible argument then. It’s a horrible argument now. Racial discrimination is not made morally acceptable just because it might benefit business.
DeepSouthPopulist: They [Affirmative Action policies] are anti-White, especially anti-White male.
At the university level, it is far more anti-Asian than anti-white. If AA were abolished, 4 out of every 5 enrollment spots opened up would go to Asians.
llbroo49 // Aug 30, 2010 at 6:44 pm
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 30, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Again google “HSBC and white minority scholarships”. The program works both ways. In areas where whites are under-represented, they get favored status. And be grateful it works this way, when whites are no longer the majority- diversity will no longer seem like such a bad word to you.
The following is from Tennessee State University’s website:
“TSU is an HBCU, which makes the dominant ethnic group African American. TSU offers a minority scholarship to Caucasians and other minorities in order to help to raise the number of diverse students. There is also a scholarship available for students over 25 years old, which pays for tuition and fees to give the “non-traditional” students a chance to get their education as well”.
The following is from the website “http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/white-scholarship-guide.htm” entitled “The White Man’s Guide to Getting a Minority Scholarship”
“Diversity Scholarships for both undergraduate and graduate white students are a special program of Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University. The goal is to boost enrollment of those underrepresented in the school: whites and Native Americans, specifically at ASU and “Caucasians” at Alabama A&M. In fact as the result of a discrimination case, a federal court judge in 1995 commanded both ASU and Alabama A&M University to vigorously diversify.1 The court case raised scrutiny over the fact that both schools had almost exclusive black student bodies and had been remiss in recruiting “other-race” students, especially whites. Since then large chunks of money have been earmarked each year to attract white students. Initially GPA requirements were set at 2.0, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, so low as to offend black students required to comply with a GPA minimum of 2.7. Since then, in response to threats of legal repercussions, the universities have raised GPA reqs for whites. Scholarships may cover full or partial tuition.
Jackson State University in Mississippi has a student body composition of over 6,000 African Americans and about 200 Caucasians.2 The university’s Diversity Scholarships are restricted to Caucasian applicants. Mississippi, like Alabama, has had to scramble to rollout diversity scholarships at its public HBCUs, following a landmark segregation case. Under terms of the settlement the state’s public HBCUs are required to bring levels of “non-black” students to 10 percent of their student body at which time they will receive critical funding to bring their programs up to speed with the other public universities in the state, the initial crux of the legal fight. In response JSU, along with Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley have all ramped up recruitment of their biggest minorities—whites. It’s not that they want to, but they now have a monetary carrot dangled before them.
Diversity Scholarships through Alcorn State University in Mississippi are given to “non-black” applicants. Full and partial scholarships are awarded and candidates must have at least a 3.0 GPA to qualify.
Mississippi Valley State University offers undergraduate and graduate Diversity Scholarships. Grad scholarships may cover a full tuition while the undergrad version awards $700. Applicants for both must be “non-black.”
Any questions?
llbroo49 // Aug 30, 2010 at 7:02 pm
DeepSouthPopulist:
This is not an attack, but your view of the world (on this issue) is exactly why diversity is important. I’m assuming that your responses were in good faith and that you had no idea that Affirmative Action could be used to benefit whites. And it is not limited to schools. What do you think the Equal Opportunity Rep does at Black owned businesses? The same can be said for predominatly Black cities like Memphis, Detroit, Jackson (MS) and Birmingham.
Obviously believing a program excludes your “group” can cause some resentment. However, by interacting with minorities they could have told you of the impact (or lack thereof) of Affirmative Action in their lives and professional careers. I think over time you would/ will find that ethnic groups and races in America share the same experiences and don’t even know it.
easton // Aug 30, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“This is the exact same defense that was used by racists to defend Jim Crow: “Do you think white customers will shop at our stores if we have to hire blacks?” It was a horrible argument then. It’s a horrible argument now. Racial discrimination is not made morally acceptable just because it might benefit business.”
Again, it is simple numbers. You simply can not have strictly a white business and hope to be successful when the majority of your customers are non white.
And it is pretty obscene to state outreach to qualified members of every minority is the same as denying blacks any opportunity at all.
And it is frankly insane and shows a complete lack of international business awareness to think a white who can’t speak any Chinese is somehow better at doing business with China than a Chinese person who speaks fluent Chinese and understands the culture.
As to Asian, my wife is Chinese so don’t lecture me on that, she got into college just fine and got scholarships to boot. Don’t give me garbage that qualified Asians can’t get into good universities, that was my job for 7 years in China, to help prepare the best and brightest in China to go to American universities. So some didn’t get into Harvard, get a grip, they got good educations in plenty of other Universities. I have a friend who got his doctorate in biology from Indiana. He is perfectly happy. I have another friend who got her Masters in Taxation in San Fran., again, perfectly happy. These are students who graduated at the top of their classes at Jiaotong.
brandon // Aug 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“You simply can not have strictly a white business and hope to be successful when the majority of your customers are non white.”
I guess you never frequented too many ghetto grocery stores at any point in your life.
Mercer // Aug 30, 2010 at 11:10 pm
“In other words, diversity makes the discrepancy between private preference and public opinion more bearable.”
I doubt many white people are fooled by using diversity rather then affirmative action as the reason to discriminate against them.
I wish GOP politicians had the guts that Jim Webb has shown on this issue.
“And embracing this diversity would only help us in the global marketplace. If you want to do business worldwide, you should be prepared to have people of the markets who share ethnicity, language, and understanding of culture”
If diversity is needed to do well internationally how come the non diverse Japanese and German countries are better then the US at exporting when the US has more diversity?
“And it is frankly insane and shows a complete lack of international business awareness to think a white who can’t speak any Chinese is somehow better at doing business with China than a Chinese person who speaks fluent Chinese and understands the culture.”
It show a complete lack of awareness of how diversity is practiced to give this as an example. Google Frank Ricci to see how diversity is practiced today.
Madeline // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:23 am
AA benefits everyone else, by law, while excluding White people.
The greatest beneficiaries from affirmative action are white women.
GEValle // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:40 am
Diversity for diversity’s sake is absolutely meaningless.
It’s time to end the fraud called “affirmative action”.
GEValle // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:43 am
@ easton:
How do you know that being a white man got you “… jobs that black, hispanic, or asian men or women did not get”..?
Did you ever think that you got the job because you were the best qualified individual??
…White liberal guilt is pathetic.
Oskar // Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 am
Affirmative Action exists only because of the mental disorder known as white liberal guilt.
llbroo49 // Aug 31, 2010 at 10:07 am
Oskar // Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 am
Then how would you explain white students benefitting from Affirmative Action at Historicaly black schools? Again, what do you think the Equal Opportunity rep does at minority owned companines? Unfortunately you have probably never read the law or have an understanding of how the law is used to day.
llbroo49 // Aug 31, 2010 at 10:10 am
GEValle // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:40 am
“Diversity for diversity’s sake is absolutely meaningless.”
Obvviously, due to the beliefs of many of the posters, we may not have enough diversity. Lack of diversity has caused many posters to believe whites ( and particularly white males) can not benefit directly from AA and diversity programs.
easton // Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 am
“You simply can not have strictly a white business and hope to be successful when the majority of your customers are non white.”
I guess you never frequented too many ghetto grocery stores at any point in your life.
Oh, yeah, a mom and pop store is really indicative of our future global strength.
And again and again, I am talking about the future here, by mid century the US will be a minority majority country, Japan nor China nor Germany ever will be, they don’t have to embrace diversity and outreach, we do. Honest to God, you people with the “oh, I am a white victim of the man.” silliness.
And GEValle, hilarious, so you know my own life and hiring experiences better than I do. Talk about breathtaking arrogance and ignorance. Yes, apply for a job in China say as an engineer, wit two resumes and two pictures. I guarantee you that the picture of a white man will far more likely get a response than that of a black man.
This has nothing to do with white guilt but reality. I worked in a Printing industry for 11 years, not once in the office were ever blacks or minorities hired, they were all on the shop floor. And this is common practice in the industry. But GEValle knows my own life better than I.
And look, there is discrimination all the time. How many fat, ugly male receptionists are there out there? One of my jobs in the office was front line screener, when we hired receptionists or secretaries of course I chose the most attractive ones for call back (unless they were a relative of another employee). Qualifications? Please, like answering a phone and saying hello is all that hard? And as far a secretarial work went, provided they could type and file, again I went with younger and attractive ones.
Oh, and like this is a shock.
Oskar // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm
libroo49, please explain to me how it is of any benefit to base policy on slobbering guilt.
easton // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Oskar, for the love of ….it is not guilt. Using minority outreach to hire qualified applicants has nothing to do with guilt, but basic economic survival. We live in a Consumer based society, unless every minority element become full participants in it (and soon enough a minority majority country) there will not be the customers to buy the products and everyone will lose, except for those businessmen who own factories in China or those industries that will long continue to export, like agriculture.
llbroo49 // Aug 31, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Oskar // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Have you read any of my post on this subject? You have a preconceived idea of what Affirmative Action and Divertisty programs actually accomphlish and you are determined not to lets facts or reality change your mind.
In your mind Affirmative Action only benefits Blacks (which tells me you didn’t read the original article either as the author states “One of those costs is that African-Americans get shortchanged. Colleges and employers can now create a “diverse” environment by promoting individuals of many different races, even though they have no connection to slavery or Jim Crow.”). That can be the only reason that you claim guilt is a factor in today’s use of AA.
Lastly, you have unintentionally let everbody on here know that that are not employed in a professional corporate enviornment, so you are not in position to discuss how corporations and universities should conduct their businesses.