Preface
I saw a social media headline this week stating “University of Waterloo bans ‘straight white males’ from applying for recent job openings.” As I’m sure was the intention of this post, the reactions in the comments were outraged. This kind of headline is incredibly misleading and I don’t want to give it any attention. However, affirmative action is an increasingly prevalent topic and is important to talk about. There are many misconceptions about affirmative action, including that it is just a system to meet arbitrary quotas for positive company optics. This is not the case. That is not to say that affirmative action is not a flawed system. But, I believe that everyone should have all the information before deciding how they feel about it. So, in this post, I will go over the basics of what affirmative action is and why it exists.
This topic is also incredibly polarizing, and I find that the media capitalizes on the strong opinions surrounding affirmative action for reader engagement purposes. Thus, doing a disservice to society while instigating divisiveness and an “us vs. them” mentality. To avoid this harmful manifestation, I will post a part 2 this Friday discussing the importance of diversity.
What is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action is a type of policy, specifically within the Canadian and American constitutions. It aims to combat historical discrimination and exclusion of underrepresented demographics within the education and employment sectors. The goal of affirmative action is to reverse ongoing trends of discrimination against specific groups, predominantly in terms of race or sex. It can be seen in the form of grants or scholarships reserved for students of specific backgrounds within academia. Or, a designated percentage of a company’s workforce that should be composed of a certain demographic.
This system has been in place beginning around 1960 in the US and 1980 in Canada. In 2023, in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action and stated that American universities could no longer consider race as a basis for admission (Kenton, 2023). In Canada, there has been no such ruling, and affirmative action systems remain in place. Before reading this post I recommend watching this Crash Course video which covers the basics of affirmative action, both the flaws and necessary elements of this system.
Now, before anyone gets up in arms about discrimination against white people, let’s take a look at the realistic effects of affirmative action thus far in Canada and America.
What progress has been made?
The Canadian constitution allows “any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (Maharaj, 2023). This pretty much covers the broad range of affirmative action initiatives and the many forms it can take. Despite the large demographic covered in this clause, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in Canada have been white women (Maharaj, 2023). This can be described as “diversifying whiteness.” Moreover, it brings forth the racial pecking order that has been historically prevalent within Canadian society in terms of sex.
Another common criticism I hear against affirmative action is that all employment positions should be offered based on merit. However, evidence contained in over 23 years of studies in both Canada and the US, proves that resumés under traditionally white names are much more likely to receive a response over applications under racialized names (Maharaj, 2023). So, it is evident that there is no existing merit-based system. And with these evident biases, I don’t see how that will occur naturally in place of an affirmative action system.
“Critics have panned both initiatives as divisive and akin to establishing a racial hierarchy. It is as if we do not already have a well-established racial hierarchy, which is what these programs are trying to address”
(Maharaj, 2023)
Unlike it is portrayed in the media, affirmative action has not had the monumental effects that some perceive. However, there are existing companies and universities that aim to diversify their staff and students through quotas. Some believe that this is an attack on equality. On the other hand, the history of equal access really puts this in to perspective.
Background and Access to Education and Opportunity
I’m sure some of you are currently weighing the effects of affirmative action. You may believe that employment equality and discrimination should not be tackled by a sort of “overcorrection” by discriminating the opposite way. At least, this is the view that a lot of critics of affirmative action policy have. This is an understandable perspective. However, I think the missing piece in this perspective is the understanding of equal access and subsequent equity versus equality.
The concepts of systemic racism and equal opportunity are complex and could easily take up a blog post of their own. So, I will leave you with the understanding that some children are provided with resources and opportunities at birth. Based on generations of familial success and access to higher education leading to high-ranking employment. These children are set up for success. Others face generational trauma consisting of a lack of access to education and opportunity. Thus, lower education levels and an inability to reach high-paying employment to be able to support future generations to reach the same success as their peers.
I will not generalize entire demographics. However, there is a strong link between systemic racism and barriers to access. So, when considering how “unfair” affirmative action is, I encourage you to also consider the barriers that some children face. Further, how to best address these systemic obstacles that will inevitably lead to unequal opportunity. In supporting marginalized groups, how might ensuring equitable opportunity break this cycle for future generations?
Please see the image below for a visual understanding of equality versus equity. Keep in mind that some people require a different level of resources to be on the same playing field as others who have historically been given these opportunities.
Main Takeaway
After reading this post, I’m sure that some of you remain firm on the perspective that all positions should be offered based on merit and qualifications. I can understand why some may feel threatened. Or, feel that this kind of hiring behaviour will continue and eventually surpass equitable representation and evolve into new kinds of discrimination. I am not saying that affirmative action is not a flawed system. Although at surface value I do understand that jobs should be offered to the most qualified candidate, it is important to understand that the opportunities that make someone the most qualified are not offered to everyone equally. So, in order to break the vicious cycle, systems like affirmative action have been put in place.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I hope that everyone can at least be understanding of the fact that despite the magnitude of social progress that has been made towards equality, generational barriers persist. It cannot be fair to “treat everyone equally” considering not everyone has been set up equally and the playing field has not nearly been levelled.
Sources
Kenton, W. (2023, October 1). What is affirmative action? how it works and example. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affirmative-action.asp
Maharaj, S. (2023, July 20). When it comes to affirmative action, Canada has a long way to go. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/when-it-comes-to-affirmative-action-canada-has-a-long-way-to-go/article_ae4e6427-208d-5037-ab4f-6f7e898a77c2.html
Leave a Reply