Affirmative action


Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to address systemic discrimination. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity, and social inclusion and redressing wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.
The nature of affirmative-action policies varies from region to region and exists on a spectrum from a hard quota to merely targeting encouragement for increased participation. Some countries use a quota system, reserving a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies for members of a certain group; an example of this is the reservation system in India. In some other jurisdictions where quotas are not used, minority-group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes. In the United States, affirmative action by executive order originally meant selection without regard to race but preferential treatment was widely used in college admissions, as upheld in the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, until 2023, when this was overturned in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
A variant of affirmative action more common in Europe is known as positive action, wherein equal opportunity is promoted by encouraging underrepresented groups into a field. This is often described as being "color blind", but some American sociologists have argued that this is insufficient to achieve substantive equality of outcomes based on race.
In the United States, affirmative action is controversial and public opinion on the subject is divided. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it promotes substantive equality for group outcomes and representation for groups, which are socio-economically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression. Opponents of affirmative action have argued that it is a form of reverse discrimination, that it tends to benefit the most privileged within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups, or that—when applied to universities—it can hinder minority students by placing them in courses for which they have not been adequately prepared.

Origins

The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Neither executive order nor The Civil Rights Act authorized group preferences. The Senate floor manager of the bill, Senator Hubert Humphrey, declared that the bill "would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group" adding "I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas."
However affirmative action in practice would eventually become synonymous with preferences, goals and quotas as upheld or struck down by Supreme Court decisions even though no law had been passed explicitly permitting discrimination in favor of disadvantaged groups.
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. The philosophical basis of the policy has various rationales, including but not limited to compensation for past discrimination, correction of current discrimination, and the diversification of society. It is often implemented in governmental and educational settings to ensure that designated groups within a society can participate in all promotional, educational, and training opportunities.
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination.

Methods of implementation

  • Quotas
  • Specific scholarships and financial aid for certain groups
  • Marketing/advertising to groups that the affirmative action is intended to increase
  • Specific training or emulation actions for identified audiences
  • Relaxation of selection criteria applied to a target audiences

    Women

Several different studies investigated the effect of affirmative action on women. Kurtulus in her review of affirmative action and the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973–2003 showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black, Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly than non-contractors because of the implementation of affirmative action. But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in the late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of affirmative action that started with President Reagan. Becoming a federal contractor increased white women's share of professional occupations by 0.183 percentage points, or 9.3 percent, on average during these three decades, and increased black women's share by 0.052 percentage points. Becoming a federal contractor also increased Hispanic women's and black men's share of technical occupations on average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively. These represent a substantial contribution of affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of women and minorities over the three decades under the study. A reanalysis of multiple scholarly studies, especially in Asia, considered the impact of four primary factors on support for affirmative action programs for women: gender; political factors; psychological factors; and social structure. Kim and Kim found that, "Affirmative action both corrects existing unfair treatment and gives women equal opportunity in the future."

Quotas

Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation.
Caste-based and other group-based quotas are used in the reservation system.
In 2012, the European Union Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by 2020. Directive 2022/2381 requires that EU member states adopt by 28 December 2024 laws to ensure that by 30 June 2026 members of the underrepresented sex hold at least 40% of non-executive director positions and at least 33% of all director positions, including both executive and non-executive directors, for listed companies. Directive 2022/2381 expires on 31 December 2038.
In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The justice minister said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.

National approaches

In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color 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 called positive action.

Africa

South Africa

Between 1948 and 1974, the apartheid government introduced statutes which enshrined racial discrimination in all areas of life. Individuals were classified in a racial hierarchy which placed whites at the top, followed by "Coloureds",
then Asians or Indians, with black Africans at the bottom. Benefits were afforded based on this hierarchy, and favoured white-owned, especially Afrikaner-owned companies, which marginalised and excluded black people and limited their employment opportunities. Legislation meant that skilled and highly paid jobs were reserved for white people, and black people were largely used as cheap, unskilled labour, creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour. The variation in skills and productivity between groups of people ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation, and income within labour markets. Following the end of apartheid, affirmative action legislation aimed to address these disparities.
The African National Congress-led government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct previous imbalances, and fulfil the obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour Organisation. As a result of the Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, companies were required to employ previously disenfranchised groups, as well as women and disabled people.
Many have embraced these acts; others have criticised them. Proponents have said that South African affirmative action legislation aims to promote economic growth rather than to redistribute wealth, address vast racial inequalities in wealth and income, and to restore equal access to the benefits of society. Critics suggest these laws limit the free market, raise costs, reduce economic growth, and advantage the black middle class over poorer blacks and other groups. The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa ruled that while blacks may be favoured in principle, in practice this should not lead to unfair discrimination against others.