Affirmative Action

By Rhode, Deborah L | National Forum, Spring 1997 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Affirmative Action


Rhode, Deborah L, National Forum


Affirmative action, as courts and administrative agencies define it, is a temporary, flexible policy of limited preferences for qualified individuals in order to remedy serious gender and racial imbalances. Affirmative action, as conservative politicians and media leaders describe it, is something else again: a system of rigid quotas that incorporates the very biases society should be seeking to eliminate.

During the early days of the Clinton administration, efforts to diversify presidential appointments raised lots of eyebrows. Caricatures of Clinton officials as "bean counters" ran in all the leading newspapers. One Boston Globe cartoon pictured an anxious president studying a spreadsheet of potential cabinet nominees with a few boxes checked ("Hispanic Males," "Black Females") but many left blank: "Icelandic Americans," "Gay Ambidextrous Americans," and "Lesbian Chess-Playing BeerDrinking Americans." Yet these critics rarely challenged the asserted "meritocracy" of past administrations, when presidents parceled out cabinet positions to friends, brothers, and campaign contributors, or when politicians "balanced" party tickets with the right mix of Irish Catholics and Episcopalian WASPs. As a Newsweek article, aptly titled "White Male Paranoia," pointed out, conservatives often objected that the Clinton administration's "insistence on appointing the best female attorney general baldly and publicly violated the canons of fair play and equal opportunity. So, of course, does the ratio of male to female attorneys general in American history: counting Janet Reno, it now stands at seventy-seven to one ...." Clinton's widely criticized efforts put women in only three of fourteen cabinet seats and almost no key White House advisory positions.

Bean counting is not exactly new in American political life or in other employment and educational contexts. But some things are new: the type of beans, the willingness to count out loud, and the backlash that results. The handwringing over Clinton's commitment to diversity typifies our current dilemma. Given the persistence of racial and gender bias, many women and men of color would never even get auditions for desirable positions without affirmative action. But when these individuals receive more than walk-on opportunities, they pay a substantial price: their qualifications, credibility, and self-confidence are subject to continual challenge.

Such mixed results have much to do with affirmative action's practical successes and political failures. The most effective initiatives have also been the most controversial: those that incorporate temporary preferences for qualified individuals. Social science research generally finds that such affirmative action programs have been moderately successful in increasing opportunities for underrepresented groups. Yet public opinion polls indicate that most forms of preferential treatment provoke substantial resistance. Although results vary somewhat depending on how questions are asked, about three-fourths of white men, two-thirds of white women, and two-fifths of people of color oppose preferences on the basis of race or gender.

Fueling this opposition is a range of concerns, some more explicit than others. Most critics claim a moral high ground; they maintain that sex- and race-based remedies subvert the premise of equal opportunity that they are seeking to establish. But underlying such objections are also less defensible assumptions and unstated anxieties. One widespread view is that women no longer need and seldom benefit from affirmative action. As participants in a recent survey put it, there may have been a problem "a hundred years ago." But that was then, and this is now. Qualified women can make it without special help. "After all, I did." Or "she did." A related assumption is that white women have more to lose than to gain from affirmative action. Many of these women "stand by their man," and oppose preferential-treatment programs that might jeopardize opportunities for their husbands or sons.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Affirmative Action
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?