affirmative action

Affirmative action (U.S. English), or Positive Discrimination (British English), is a policy or a program of giving certain preferences to certain (usually "under-represented") groups. This typically focuses on education, employment, government contracts, health care, or social welfare. It favors minorities and women in hiring and in admissions to colleges and universities in an attempt to compensate for past discrimination. Positive discrimination is illegal under U.K. law.

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. ^[1] There is much debate concerning claims that it fails to achieve its desired goal, and that it has unintended and undesirable side-effects. There are also claims that the practice is itself racist and/or sexist.

Purpose

gender may be less proportionately represented in an area, often employment or education, due predominantly, in the view of proponents, to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:

• Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
• Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
• Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.

The history of "affirmative" or "positive" remedies command the wrongdoer to do something. In contrast, "negative" remedies command the wrongdoer not to do something or to stop doing something.

When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that groups such as males or those of European descent have derived from racism (including institutional racism and unconscious racism), sexism (similarly), and results of historical circumstances. Past discrimination will be sufficiently countered that such a strategy will no longer be necessary: the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large.

Affirmative action in South Africa has a narrower focus, aiming at reversing primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing caste discrimination.

Implementation worldwide

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "race-blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to "positive discrimination".

United States

Main article: Affirmative action in the United States

In the United States, affirmative action mostly applies at transition points—times when individuals are changing their employment or enrollment. Employers and universities often have policies favoring black, hispanic or female applicants. In states like California and New York, immigrants, both legal and illegal, receive affirmative action benefits as well.

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. Writing in 1998, L. Anita Richardson commented that U.S. courts have generally accepted affirmative action as a remedy for actual present-time discrimination; rejected it outright for the goal of simply promoting diversity; and that "There is much debate… about dealing with the lingering, pernicious effects of past racial discrimination".^[1]

India

Main article: Reservation in India

Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the form of reservation or quotas in government positions, employment and education for lower castes and minorities. The first records of these policies are seen in the late 19th century in the princely states of Mysore in South India and Baroda and Kolhapur in western India. Reservations in government jobs were introduced in 1918 in Mysore in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little share in the administration. In another instance, upon petition from the Muslim community, the British government at the time made provisions in the Government of India acts of 1909 and 1919 granting Muslims share in the administration and other facilities. In the communal award of 1935, legislative seats were reserved for members of the Muslim, Sikh, Maratha, Parsi, Christian, European and Anglo-Indian communities. In addition seats were reserved for depressed classes within the Hindu community. The scheduled castes were given 8.5 reservation in central services and other facilities in 1942. In independent India, provision for reservation in legislature was made in the constitution until 1960, recently extended until 2010. Provision for public services was made at the same time with no time limit. More recently in 1990, the implementation of the Mandal commissions' recommendations have been in the social and political limelight. Despite widespread agitation (mostly among students), reservation for the backward classes were upheld to the extent of 27 per cent (this was in addition to the 22.5% already reserved for scheduled castes and tribes, bringing the total of 'open' seats to only 50%). [1]

There have been recent attempts to introduce it into the private job sector and for Muslims. Many people disagree with affirmative action which has led to alot of controvery.

Consultations

Another, more indirect form of affirmative action works through "consultations", whereby institutions such as schools or health-care facilities are viewed as centred on the majority culture, and therefore consultation with other ethnic groups are specified as a remedy. This can cause accusations of double-standards, as in practice representatives of all ethnic groups except the majority group receive consultation on institutional workings. Proponents discount this as being irrelevant, as they claim consultation with the majority group is pointless, as the institution's management is centered on their culture anyway..

Other countries

• Belgium. The Flemish government proposed in January 2006 a measure that will make some job opportunities available exclusively to immigrants, disabled and elderly people for the first three weeks. [2]
• Bosnia-Herzegovina. Women must represent at least 29% of all politicians.
• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State or Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are also quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.
• Brunei. The Bumiputeras of Brunei are accorded special benefits through a variety of affirmative action programs. For instance, the Royal Brunei Armed Forces enlist only Bumiputeras.
• China. The People's Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9% of the population) to be exempt from the One-child policy, and there is a quota for minority representatives in the National Assembly in Beijing, as well as other realms of government.
• France. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with Arabian origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper ("Armées d'aujourd'hui"), this driving license and rank project was cancelled. (article: Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire").
• Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex or race. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There were programs stating that if men and women had equal qualifications, women had to be preferred for a job. The Government agreed on the details of an anti-discrimination law (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) in May 2006, that aims at improving the protection of minorities. The draft follows EU standards but has yet to pass the German Parliament, the Bundestag. According the EU-law it is an illegal situation, that Germany didn't protect the minorities with the Antidiskriminierungsgesetz (Anti-discrimination law) until now.
• Greece. has quotas setting a lower limit for women participating in election lists of political parties for most of the election processes.
• Japan. Spot for universities as well as all the government position (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policy to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
• Macedonia. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
• Malaysia. The bumiputra laws are a form of affirmative action meant to provide more opportunity for the majority ethnic Malay population versus the historical financial dominance of the Chinese and Indian populations.
• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.
• Norway: All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members, must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60% of one sex). This affects roughly 400 companies.
• Philippines. State universities implement a modified version of Affirmative Action. Secondary schools, both private and public schools, are each assigned a quota on how many students from that high school are accepted for admission, in addition to each student's score during the entrance examination. This was done to address the situation wherein a majority of the university school population was composed mostly of students who came from well-off families and private schools.
• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. 'providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group' as being against its Constitution. [3] This is seen as an anti-gipsy decision immediately following roma hunger riots, which protested curtailing of social aids in Slovakia.
• South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all non-whites, females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programmes, amongst others.
• Southeast Asia. In countries such as Indonesia, affirmative action programs give natives preference over Han Chinese who have immigrated into the country.
• United Kingdom. Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement the law requires that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and non Catholics.

Disputes

Critics and supporters disagree on the economic effects of affirmative action. Others believe the topic has [[or political considerations.

Miscellaneous

• Race and intelligence
• Equality of opportunity vs equality of results
• Jewish quota (historically restricting number of Jews)
• Malaysian New Economic Policy
• Legacy preferences
• Reservation in India

Notes

1. ^ ^a b L. Anita Richardson, What Is the Constitutional Status of Affirmative Action?: Reading Tea Leaves, in ABA Focus on Law Studies, Spring 1998, Volume XIII Number 2, American Bar Association; part of article series "Affirmative Action: A Dialogue on Race, Gender, Equality and Law in America". Accessed online September 7, 2006.

External links

• Affirmative Action at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy