Allan G. Johnson
Allan G. Johnson
Navigation
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
    • Not From Here: A Memoir
    • The First Thing and the Last
    • Nothing Left to Lose
    • The Gender Knot
    • Privilege, Power, and Difference, 3rd edition
    • The Forest and the Trees
    • The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology
    • Foreign Editions
  • Essays
    • Allan’s Blog: Unraveling the Knot
    • Blog Posts
    • Fatal Distraction: Manhood, Guns, and Violence
    • Idiots, Morons, Lunatics, and Fools: When Worldviews Collide
    • It’s Different for Men
    • Manhood and War
    • Men’s Silence about Men’s Violence
    • Occupy This
    • Our House Is on Fire
    • The ‘Job Creator’ Myth
    • The Tree as Metaphor
    • Where White Privilege Came From
    • Who Me?
    • Why Is There Poverty?
  • Speaking
    • Audio & Video
      • Not from Here Interviews
      • The First Thing and the Last on NPR
      • Nothing Left to Lose on NPR
      • People, Systems, and Monopoly
      • Washington State Interview
    • The Work
    • What People Say
    • Sources
    • Speaking Venues
  • I’m Glad You Asked
    • If not capitalism, what?
    • Aren’t systems just people?
    • What is a ‘system of privilege’?
    • Are you just into white guilt?
    • Is affirmative action racist?
    • Why should I be punished?
    • Why wasn’t my comment posted?

Is affirmative action racist?

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

[Be sure to read the Comments and replies following the article where the analysis continues.]

Since affirmative action programs consider race as a factor in decisions such as hiring and college admissions, I often hear from whites who consider it to be a racist practice. Especially given the state of the economy and the distress this has caused millions of people who are trying not only to get ahead but often just to hold on to what they have, it’s not surprising that many whites might feel this way. And so it’s worth taking a look at.

A place to begin is with the question of what affirmative action is and where it came from. It can be thought of as a response to two problems.

The first problem is that racial discrimination is alive and well in the United States as documented by abundant research, especially in hiring, housing, and the financial industry. African Americans, for example, were systematically targeted for subprime mortgages regardless of income level, and they suffered devastating losses as a result, far greater than the white population. Studies also show that job applications submitted by people whose resumes differ only in the name at the top, are far more likely to result in job interviews if the applicant’s name is one typical of white people rather than typical of African Americans or Latino/as (Bob Jones vs. Jamal Jones, for example).

In addition, a great deal of racial discrimination is difficult to prove because the decisions involved are often subjective and not open to any kind of scrutiny, as when interviewers form personal impressions of applicants. And the higher the position, the more subjective the decision becomes.

Bias is also difficult to prove because it often operates below the level of conscious awareness, so that the person making the decision is unaware that race is playing a role. This is a phenomenon identified by researchers as ‘implicit racism,’ which you can find out more about by following the link at the bottom of this article.

The second problem to which affirmative action responds is that discrimination against people of color and corresponding affirmative action in favor of whites have been going on for hundreds of years. This means that unearned white advantage is not simply a result of current practices but has been accumulating across many generations. The average net wealth of white households, for example, is now roughly 20 times that of African American and Latino households, which has a profound effect on things such as being able to send your children to college. The situation is far worse for many Native Americans who continue to live on the impoverished reservations into which they were forced more than a century ago.

So, the question is, what to do in response to this? To simply say, “Whites won’t discriminate against people of color from now on,” ignores the problem in both its aspects. It ignores the implicit and unconscious nature of much racial discrimination and does nothing to overcome the cumulative effect of centuries of unearned white advantage.

Enter affirmative action, a federal program begun by President John F. Kennedy in 1965. Its purpose was to combat the exclusion of disadvantaged groups from occupations, and to help undo the effects of the long U.S. history of prejudice and discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and national origin.

Most of the objections I hear focus on race. The charge is often made that anything that takes race into account must be racist. One problem with this argument is that it is simply not possible to remedy a problem based on race while at the same time acting as if race doesn’t matter. This means that affirmative action of course must take race explicitly into account. This doesn’t mean that being a person of color is all you need in order to get the job or be accepted into college. What it does mean is that race is considered as one of a long list of criteria, with the goal of doing something, however imperfectly, to respond to the problem of racism as both a current and historical problem.

It is also not possible to undo centuries of prejudice and discrimination directed at people of color without affecting outcomes for individual whites. In a competitive society, anything that increases the odds of success for people of color will decrease the odds of success for white people. It is simply a matter of doing the math. Complaints from whites that this is unfair ignore the fact that the odds of success for white people have for hundreds of years been artificially boosted by the systematic disadvantaging of everyone else.

In the case of college admissions, the complaint that affirmative action is unfair to individuals also doesn’t take into account the fact that as social institutions, the purpose of schools amounts to more than meeting the needs of individuals. Schools also play a major role in reproducing and shaping society itself. As such, the decisions made about who will be given the opportunity for higher education affect not only individuals, but the kind of society we will have in the future. If we are to move toward a society in which inclusion and equal opportunity are the rule, then admissions decisions have a role to play in undoing the long history of white privilege. That this will sometimes conflict with the needs of individual whites is unavoidable because meeting those needs is not the only reason that universities exist.

None of this means that white people are being discriminated against simply because they are white or that affirmative action is racist. For one thing, discrimination against people of color has been and continues to be based not simply on color itself, but on negative cultural beliefs about people of color – what kind of people they are and what they’re capable of – that portray them as inferior to whites, as undeserving, as unworthy and undesirable.

But when affirmative action programs go out of their way to identify and recruit people of color, there is no implied judgement of the white people who are turned away. Universities and employers do not reject white applicants in favor of affirmative action admissions and hires because they think whites are inferior or undeserving. They are not saying, “We don’t want you here because you’re white.” Far from it. Whiteness is still the norm almost everywhere in America, the cultural standard of what it is to be a normal human being. And ‘color’ is still the mark of an outsider who can never be entirely sure that they belong.

But the most important reason to reject the argument that affirmative action is racist is that it ignores what racism actually is. The whole point of any racist practice is to preserve and enforce the privilege – the dominance and unearned advantage – of the dominant group by systematically excluding and oppressing members of the subordinate group. This has never been the purpose of affirmative action, either in theory or in practice. It has been just the opposite – a modest attempt to shift the odds away from being so heavily loaded in favor of whites in an environment that is still overwhelmingly white dominated, identified, and centered.

The result has been a relatively small number of people of color admitted to college or getting jobs in business or fire and police departments, opportunities that would otherwise be closed to them. Over time, this has helped foster a small middle class among various peoples of color.

At the same time, it is of course true that some individual white people will be turned away from opportunities because of affirmative action decisions, and this certainly has real consequences for their lives. But one of those is not that they have been discriminated against and rejected as a racist action designed to oppress whites in relation to people of color.

If there is an enemy in the struggle of white families to make a living or send their children to college, it is not the easy target of affirmative action, or of people of color who are, after all, only trying to do the same thing as best they can. The real problem, as recent history makes painfully clear, is an industrial capitalist economic system in which the interests of working families of all races have always been secondary to the accumulation of wealth and power by the upper classes.

Affirmative action can be seen as a way to lessen the harm of racism for some people of color, while also protecting the capitalist system that is not only the root cause of that harm, but also exploits and does harm to millions of white workers and their families. It serves as a distraction from the consequences of capitalism by encouraging whites to focus their anger and frustration on people of color, and by making people of color vulnerable to accusations of not deserving what they manage to achieve.

All of this reminds me of the game of musical chairs in which the players are kept so busy worrying about the person on their left or right who might take the chair they need for ourselves, that they never stop to ask, Why aren’t there enough chairs to go around? Where are all the chairs?

[To learn more about implicit racism, click here.] Also see Allan’s blog post, “The Luxury of Obliviousness.”

____________________

Copyright © 2013, 2017 by Allan G. Johnson. This article may be quoted, reprinted, or distributed for noncommercial purposes only and with an attribution to Allan G. Johnson, www.agjohnson.com, and this copyright notice.

For more about the issues raised in this article, see Allan’s book, Privilege, Power, and Difference and the following:

Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race (2 vols.).

Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley, Race in North America: Origins and Evolution of a Worldview.

David Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class.

George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics.

Ira Katznelson, When Affirmative Action Was White: The Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth Century America.

Paul Kivel, Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice.

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic (eds), Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror.

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow.

Khalil Gibran Muhammad, The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America.

 

15 Responses to "Is affirmative action racist?"

  1. Debbie says:
    February 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    As the Affirmative Action officer for my institution, I am often confronted with this question. (Or worse, the question is in the minds of white colleagues, but not asked.) Your answer is so very well stated!

  2. Elvis says:
    May 24, 2012 at 8:50 am

    I have personally been racially discriminated for over 30 years in the work place as a result of affirmative action. In each case, my immediate supervisor or manager was a minority, and in each and every case, that minority supervisor or manager showed favoritism towards members of their own minority group, applying double standards in the process (one for whites, one for members of their minority group). In one case, the minority manager promoted a minority to a supervisor position without any testing or interview process. I (being white) had to not only go through an intensive interview and testing process, the manager had me also write a multiple-page essay to test my writing skills. In another case, I did much better in the interview/testing process than a minority did, but the manager said he promoted that minority to supervisor for other reasons. Not only was that minority of the same minority group as the manager, he had also worked with the manager at their previous place of employment. What occurred here was double-standards, anti-white racism, and cronyism.

    I have no respect for the minority manager or the two minority supervisors. The minority supervisor who didn’t have to get tested has never been able to write a performance review on anyone without receiving assistance from the manager in doing so (due to the fact that his writing skills are substandard due to his lack of education). This supervisor admitted to me that he would write a rough draft and turn it in to the manager who would edit it and correct all the errors.

    I’ve experienced these kind of double-standards for over 30 years. I have no respect for the minorities who benefitted from it. To me they are like “children” who have different standards applied to them than white people because they’re just not good enough.

    Affirmative action is the delberate, racist, institutionalized discrimination against white people. It is not equal opportunity and never has been. It is not justified, and no amount of smooth talk can justify it. It is anti-white racism.

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      June 1, 2012 at 6:01 pm

      The piece on which you’re commenting is about affirmative action programs, but as far as I can tell, the experience you describe is not. Affirmative action programs are structured around a set of standards and procedures intended to weigh the goals of affirmative action—which I describe in my piece—against the needs and qualifications of individual applicants. Part of this is intended to ensure that only qualified applicants are chosen. Since affirmative action programs are implemented by human beings making what are at best difficult judgements, the outcomes can always be disputed, especially by those who are not chosen. But I think the intention behind such programs has always been clear, and a far cry from the kind of cronyism that you describe.

      I hope this clarifies the issue.

  3. kurlos says:
    October 19, 2012 at 12:29 am

    Are Asians “people of color”? Your criteria for AA seems to be not only historical discrimination but cultural inadequacy. Explain why Asians do not qualify for AA at universities. Should Obama’s children benefit from AA?

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      October 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Your question about who qualifies as a person of color and who doesn’t points up how difficult and complex is the racial legacy we have all inherited. You might want to look at this website for some perspective and insight as this applies to Asian-Americans.

      As for the Obama children, given their parents’ educational connections as graduates of prestigious universities, the level of family prominence and wealth, and the kind of preparation and qualifications they’re likely to have, I can’t imagine how affirmative action as we’re talking about it here would even come up. That said, there has always been another form of affirmative action for the children of the wealthy and for the children of college alumni (“legacy admissions”) and they would certainly ‘qualify’ for that.

  4. Andy says:
    October 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    I am British (and live in Europe) so feel to a degree I can comment as an outsider to the situation in the US.

    I found this page after a sporting issue concerning racism occurred in England and the proposition of Rooney Rule was being spoken about on TV, so I was searching around the internet for information about it.

    I, personally, am of the simple belief that the best man/woman for the job/university placement and so on should be offered the opportunity regardless of race or creed.

    The principle and reasoning for AA is good and means well, however, in instances where an applicant of colour is offered a position over a white applicant to meet a ‘quota’ when the white applicant is better qualified, does that classify as discrimination?

    Further to the point above is this further emphasized for the people working with this applicant when the position is within the Emergency Services and their colleges have a need to be backed by this person in life and death situations such as in the fire service?

    From what I can see, whilst the thought process behind AA is good, and the intentions are nothing but good, with the implementation of quotas (as is the case in many places worldwide) it could lead to an increase in racial discrimination.

    Whilst reading about Rooney Rule I came across the Detroit Lions case of 2003 where they appointed a new head coach without interviewing anyone. They were penalized for not interviewing any minorities, however, if they didn’t interview ANYONE and simply appointed someone they had earmarked as the best person for the job due to past achievements, then did they really discriminate against anyone? If they had interviewed 3 coloured applicants and appointed one of them without interviewing a white applicant would there have been any sanctions? From what I have read it appears the example given would be perfectly acceptable according to Rooney Rule.

    Whilst something clearly needs to be done to increase equality regardless of race, I think the risk of turning the situation to one of discrimination against whites is very much present, which in turn could lead to increased racial discrimination and segregation.

    Education is the best method for breeding equality, education regarding other cultures and history of racism. It is undoubtedly a more time consuming process but surely a more balanced method?

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      October 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      To respond briefly to the issues raised in Andy’s comment—

      First, quotas are illegal in the U.S. and are not part of the affirmative action process.

      Second, while affirmative action decisions may result in choosing applicants with lower qualifications in terms of test scores and the like, I know of no evidence that such differences actually result in significantly lower levels of performance. Relatively small differences in SAT scores for college admissions, for example, or paper tests for police or fire department hires, do not predict how well someone will actually perform in those positions.

      As for the Rooney Rule, the situation you describe would seem to have less to do with discrimination than with failing to act affirmatively to ensure equal access for racial and other disadvantaged groups.

      Finally, relying on education as a remedy to the problem of race has had little success historically and does nothing to undo the accumulated white advantage over the long history of white privilege.

  5. A disgruntled developer says:
    November 2, 2012 at 9:42 am

    This doesn’t convince me in the least. If someone is denied access to education because of the color of their skin then it is racism, no matter the motivation. Racism also has nothing to do with enforcing and preserving privilege. The very definition of the word states that it is about prejudice or hatred against a race. By that standard, denying somebody an education because of the color of their skin is prejudice.

    What do you say to a white kid who’s grown up in poverty and is rejected college admission just because he is white? Is it his problem that some people with the same color skin as him treated other people of a different skin color horribly? Why should he pay for any of that?

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      November 2, 2012 at 12:51 pm

      Even if we use Disgruntled’s definition of racism, affirmative action still does not qualify.

      Racial prejudice is, by definition, about the pre-judgement of people—assuming you know someone’s character, ability, potential, etc.—because you know their race. When a white applicant loses out to affirmative action, their whiteness is not being used to reach any conclusions about who they are, their qualifications or character. And they are certainly not being made into objects of hate.

      It is true that they are not being chosen, but not being chosen is something that happens all the time without prejudice. Many colleges, for example, select some applicants in part based on where they’re from—small towns vs. big cities, for example—as a way to ensure a student population that represents different backgrounds. In doing this, they are not judging the worth or character of anyone based on where they live.

      The complaint that white people are being punished by affirmative action comes up a lot, which is why I wrote a response to it (“Why Am I Being Punished?”) in the “I’m Glad You Asked Menu” above.

  6. Crovan says:
    November 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I think you missed the point entirely. If there was a law requiring companies to hire white people over black people purely on the basis of race, people would scream (and rightfully so). . . .

    How would you feel if the student who was 30th in your high school class got accepted into the same college that rejected you (even though you were 12th in your class and were involved in more activities) because he was black and you were white? How can we end racial discrimination when our own government requires it . . . ?

    There are a variety of reasons that whites and asians make more money than blacks and hispanics (it is not the result of people subconsciously favoring whites). First, 53% of hispanic children and 73% of black children are born to single parents as opposed to 31% of white children. Second, crime rates are higher amongst blacks and hispanics than whites (especially drug use). Asians, who have the lowest percent of children born to unmarried parents and the least amount of criminals are, correspondingly, richer.

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      November 26, 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Affirmative action in favor of whites is of course objectionable because the historical and current conditions to which affirmative action programs are a response do not exist for the white population. Please also note that, as the article makes clear, affirmative action decisions are not based “purely” on race, but consider race in addition to many other criteria, which brings us to Crovan’s second point.

      Affirmative action decisions do not pass over whites who are far more qualified than people of color who are chosen. In university admissions, for example, when race is used, it is to choose between applicants who otherwise have similar qualifications.

      Finally, the idea that the white advantage in income and wealth is not due substantially to race contradicts a mountain of research, much of which you will find in the sources cited for this and related articles on this site. For example: (1) Blacks and Latinos are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed regardless of educational attainment. In other words, blacks with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as are comparable whites. (2) Blacks and Latinos at all income levels were far more likely that comparable whites to lose their homes (and most of their wealth) in the subprime mortgage debacle. (3) If you compare the incomes of whites and blacks with similar levels of education, the higher the educational level, the larger the white advantage becomes. In other words, while higher education makes people of color better off than people of color with less education, it actually increases their disadvantage in relation to comparable whites. (Also see my essay, “Why Is There Poverty?”)

      It is of course true that family composition has an effect on life chances, but as the above makes clear, this does not explain the white advantage in income. Nor does it challenge the rationale for affirmative action.

      Contrary to popular belief, blacks and Latinos are not more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Whites and people of color, for example, have equal rates of illegal drug use (the crime which accounts for most of the U.S. prison population), but the vast majority of people in prison for drug offenses are people of color. The so-called ‘War on Drugs’ routinely targets young men of color while ignoring whites who commit the same crimes. See Michelle Alexander’s new book, The New Jim Crow for ample documentation of this well-established fact.

  7. Dustin says:
    March 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Can we really take the past into the present? You presented the idea that the reason affirmative action is legal is because of past wrong. But how does two wrongs make a right here? It would be like if my great grandfather shot your great grandfather, why should my father and me be out into a prison cell for something that neither of us committed. Yes I realize that this is a seriously flawed example but one that makes a point. I simply mean where can we draw the line? I being of white descent find it unfair that I may be declined a job in the place of “equality” when I have the same criteria as the person of a minorities descent who’s only real difference ,is as you stated earlier, a name at the top of the page. That sounds like racial profiling no matter how I look at it. If you would can you please help me understand why it wouldn’t be racist if the “shoe was on the other foot”? As I just personally hate to believe that I will have to compete with the person (who will win) only because I was born of white descent and they of another. I am in college and this idea of wasting my time to only be told that I may not get the job because of my skin color and a need to reform the past will keep me from a job. So would you please explain why in dept it isn’t racism? Thank you so much
    -Dustin

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      March 26, 2013 at 5:11 pm

      It is not a matter of “taking the past into the present.” The past is present in the continuing reality of race in the United States. Those who identify with Dustin’s comment may want to ready my other responses in the “I’m Glad You Asked” menu above, especially “Why should I be punished?” I also suggest reading all of the comments and replies to this essay.

  8. Dan says:
    March 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    This article made my stomach turn. I feel strongly that basing ANYTHING on the color of a persons skin rather than their character or ability is the very definition of racism. Perhaps this action was a necessary evil at a point in our history, but I nearly certain that today’s younger generation would find it insulting and ugly to say the least. If I look next to my coworkers and have to wonder if they only got their job because they were black, or that I got mine because I was white; the idea of that kind of thing determining outcomes is morally wrong. Worse yet, at this time in American history I feel that Action does way more to propagate racism than it does abolish it. What is a black youth is being told that Affirmative action is “right, or moral” their entire life, to the point where they are led to believe that there is still a conspiracy to hold blacks back; what a failure of society. How does a person feel when they get a job or an opportunity because they are a certain color? – This is a huge step back. I feel it would be much more beneficial to have no race stated on any kind of application, let merit speak for itself. Do the promoters of Affirmative Action feel that Black can not get ahead on their own without it? Affirmative Action is archaic in its very nature, it is a mechanism in which racism is allowed to ride on in modern American life.. End Racism now – Merit not Color!

    1. Allan Johnson says:
      March 26, 2013 at 5:09 pm

      This comment reflects the painful difficulty in which we find ourselves as a nation. We have all inherited a legacy that is not simply in the past but continues in widespread patterns of unequal treatment and outcomes that are amply documented. There is no simple way out of this. It is especially unrealistic to expect that working toward a solution will not affect the white population in ways that may be painful. I know of no one who believes Affirmative Action is the answer or that it is without unavoidable and often unresolvable problems in its application. This does not make it racist. It does make it an imperfect response to an enormously complex problem that is so deeply entrenched that it is outside the conscious awareness of most white people, who, as a result, show little interest in coming to grips with the problem a meaningful way.

Comments are closed.





Fiction






On the Blog


Racist! The Politics of Labeling

America's Next Civil War

Bringing Trump Nation Down to Size

At Winter Solstice: Collecting Silence

After the Election: Wrestling the Angel of Fear

What Are We Afraid Of?

Donald Trump and the Normalization of Rape

And Now Orlando: Manhood, Guns, and Violence

The Spiritual Politics of Roadkill

It's Not about You

Hijacking the Middle Class

The Truth about Preaching to the Choir

The Racism of Good White People

Clueless in Columbia: The Unbearable Weight of White Inertia

The Myth of Peaceful Protest

The Luxury of Obliviousness

Should Men Open Doors for Women?

America, Love It or Leave It

Proud to Be White?

The Hijacking of Political Correctness

Photos by

Corey Lynn Tucker Photography

Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Or use the RSS feed.

  • RSS - Posts

© 2016 Allan G. Johnson