What do you think?
Rate this book
The Affirmative Action Debate
The Affirmative Action Debate collects the leading voices on all sides of this crucial dialogue. A provocative range of politicians, researchers, legal experts, and businesspeople dispute the best way to fight discrimination. Their essays explore such questions as, How did affirmative-action policies come to be? Who benefits most from them, and who suffers? How do these programs work in hiring, contracting, college admissions, and other fields? What will recent Supreme Court rulings and legislative initiatives mean? And, most fundamentally, does any race-conscious remedy simply perpetuate discrimination? Recognizing affirmative action as more than a black-and-white issue, this book includes the voices of women, Latinos, and Asian-Americans who are also affected but often ignored. A sourcebook of solid facts and surprising arguments, The Affirmative Action Debate is the one book you need to understand and discuss the nation’s sharpest political divide.
384 pages, Paperback
First published June 19, 1996
1 person is currently reading
48 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 21, 2024
AN EXCELLENT COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUES
Editor George E. Curry explained in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of this 1996 book, “This anthology is the outgrowth of a special edition of Emerge magazine on affirmative action. After reading the May 1995 issue… an agent… contacted me about the prospect of my editing an anthology on affirmative action… he shared my vision that this should be the definitive reader on affirmative action, the one place readers would obtain a full sampling of perspectives in the affirmative action debate.”
He adds in the Introduction, “affirmative action… has been credited by supporters with expanding the black middle class and lowering barriers to equal opportunity, while its critics suggest that this tool intended to eliminate discrimination is itself discriminatory. The question has developed into a major wedge issue in the 1996 presidential election. Affirmative action faces the prospect of being sharply curtailed if not eliminated, by Congress and by votes in California… This collection of twenty-nine essays, most of them published here for the first time, is not likely to end this emotion-laden debate… Rather, my goal … has been to assemble some of the sharpest minds in the country, provide a forum for them to express their personal views on affirmative action, and hope that in the process we would expand our knowledge of the issue and develop a deeper tolerance for views with which we fervently disagree.”
Manning Marable states in the opening essay, “It is not surprising that ‘angry white men’ form the core of those who are against affirmative action. What is striking, however, is the general orientation of white women on the issue. White women have been overwhelmingly the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action: millions have gained access to educational and employment opportunities through the implementation and enforcement of such policies. But most of them clearly do not share the political perspectives of African-Americans and Hispanics on this issue, nor do they perceive their own principal interests to be at risk if affirmative action programs are abandoned…” (Pg. 9)
He notes, “It is crucial to disaggregate social categories like ‘Hispanics’ and ‘Asian-Americans’ to gain a true picture of the real material and social conditions of significant populations of color. About half of all Hispanics, according to the Bureau of the Census, identify themselves as white, regardless of their actual physical appearance… these statistics … do tell us part of the reason why no broad coalition of people of color has coalesced behind the political demand for affirmative action. Various groups interpret their interests narrowly and in divergent ways, looking our primarily for themselves rather than addressing the structural inequalities within the fabric of American society as a whole.” (Pg. 11)
Cornel West points out, “The initial debate focused on the relative lack of fairness, merit, and public interest displayed by the prevailing systems of employment and education, principally owing to arbitrary racist and sexist exclusion… The rise of the neoconservatives unsettled this fragile consensus. By affirming the principle of equality of opportunity yet trashing any mechanism that claimed to go beyond merit, neoconservatives drove a wedge between civil rights and affirmative action… Yet even this major intellectual and ideological assault did not produce a wholesale abandonment of affirmative action on behalf of business, political, and educational elites. The major factor that escalated the drive against affirmative action was the shrinking job possibilities---along with stagnation and declining wages---that were squeezing the white middle class. Unfortunately, conservative leaders seized this moment to begin to more vociferously scapegoat affirmative action, and to seek its weakening or elimination… The popularity---distinct from the rationality---of these moves has created a climate in which proponents of affirmative action are on the defensive. Even those of us who admits the excesses of some affirmative action programs---and therefore call for correcting, not eliminating, them---give aid and comfort to our adversaries.” (Pg. 32-33)
Glenn C. Loury states, “Black men and women promoted to positions of unusual responsibility in a ‘mainstream’ institution today must ask themselves, Would I have been offered this position if I were not black? Most people take pride in the belief that their achievements have been earned and are not based simply on an organizational requirement of racial diversity. Racial preferences undermine the ability of black people to be confident that they are as good as their achievements would suggest. In turn, this limits the extent to which the personal success of any one black can be a source of inspiration guiding the behavior of other blacks… Ultimately, this way of thinking is destructive of black self-esteem.” (Pg. 54)
Heidi Hartmann points out, “Nothing about affirmative action requires employers to hire or promote unqualified candidates. What is required is that employers take affirmative steps to ensure that their pool of candidates is as inclusive as possible, that everyone who potentially meets job standards learns about the opportunity and has a chance to apply for it, and that everyone who meets the standard is considered fairly.” (Pg. 86-87)
Robert L Woodson Sr. observes, “If racial discrimination is the only factor deterring black progress why haven’t all blacks benefits equally from programs to remedy discrimination? Priority should be given to efforts to design strategies that will promote the economic progress of those who are most in need.” (Pg. 112)
William Bradford Reynolds suggests, “preoccupation with the failed experiment of affirmative action preferences has been largely responsible for diverting attention from this core problem. It has focused energies on what is essentially a Band-Aid being used to hide the festering educational sore, rather than seeking to treat the symptoms and provide a cure. What is haunting is that, as the affirmative action rhetoric heats up, no one seems to be seriously addressing the real cause of the widening opportunity gap between minorities and nonminorities in this country: the sorry state of public education. It is in this area where we truly need to take action—AFFIRMATIVE action.” (Pg. 136)
Theodore Hsien Wong and Frank H. Wu state, “At best, labeling Asian-Americans a model minority is inaccurate. The Census Bureau’s definition of ‘Asian-American’ is problematic. Within this category, individuals from sixteen countries of origin and more than twenty pacific Island cultures have been lumped together, even though there are tremendous differences among these groups… For most Asian-American ethnic groups, ironically, the average income of native-born individuals is lower than the average income of immigrants. This suggests that Asian-Americans are proof of selective immigration policies rather than modern-day Horatio Alger heroes.” (Pg. 196)
Charles T. Canady says, “The [Clinton] administration’s third standard is ‘no preference for people who are not qualified.’ Here again the president has thrown up a smoke screen that hides the real issue. Nobody claims that preferential policies are wrong because they result in awarding jobs or contracts to UNQUALIFIED persons; the problem with preferences is that they result in awarding such opportunities to candidates who are LESS QUALIFIED than other applicants… the president’s assurance that only qualified candidates will benefit is beside the point.” (Pg. 283)
Louis Harris states, “But the conservative Right has no reservation about playing the race card. The Right is convinced that it can finally force the country to vote up or down on race as an issue and can, in turn, gain final dominance over the courts, the Congress, and the executive branch of the federal government, along with the nation’s governorships and state legislatures.” (Pg. 332)
This is an excellent selection of pro/con perspectives on a variety of issues relating to Affirmative Action, that will be of great interest to anyone studying the subject.
Editor George E. Curry explained in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of this 1996 book, “This anthology is the outgrowth of a special edition of Emerge magazine on affirmative action. After reading the May 1995 issue… an agent… contacted me about the prospect of my editing an anthology on affirmative action… he shared my vision that this should be the definitive reader on affirmative action, the one place readers would obtain a full sampling of perspectives in the affirmative action debate.”
He adds in the Introduction, “affirmative action… has been credited by supporters with expanding the black middle class and lowering barriers to equal opportunity, while its critics suggest that this tool intended to eliminate discrimination is itself discriminatory. The question has developed into a major wedge issue in the 1996 presidential election. Affirmative action faces the prospect of being sharply curtailed if not eliminated, by Congress and by votes in California… This collection of twenty-nine essays, most of them published here for the first time, is not likely to end this emotion-laden debate… Rather, my goal … has been to assemble some of the sharpest minds in the country, provide a forum for them to express their personal views on affirmative action, and hope that in the process we would expand our knowledge of the issue and develop a deeper tolerance for views with which we fervently disagree.”
Manning Marable states in the opening essay, “It is not surprising that ‘angry white men’ form the core of those who are against affirmative action. What is striking, however, is the general orientation of white women on the issue. White women have been overwhelmingly the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action: millions have gained access to educational and employment opportunities through the implementation and enforcement of such policies. But most of them clearly do not share the political perspectives of African-Americans and Hispanics on this issue, nor do they perceive their own principal interests to be at risk if affirmative action programs are abandoned…” (Pg. 9)
He notes, “It is crucial to disaggregate social categories like ‘Hispanics’ and ‘Asian-Americans’ to gain a true picture of the real material and social conditions of significant populations of color. About half of all Hispanics, according to the Bureau of the Census, identify themselves as white, regardless of their actual physical appearance… these statistics … do tell us part of the reason why no broad coalition of people of color has coalesced behind the political demand for affirmative action. Various groups interpret their interests narrowly and in divergent ways, looking our primarily for themselves rather than addressing the structural inequalities within the fabric of American society as a whole.” (Pg. 11)
Cornel West points out, “The initial debate focused on the relative lack of fairness, merit, and public interest displayed by the prevailing systems of employment and education, principally owing to arbitrary racist and sexist exclusion… The rise of the neoconservatives unsettled this fragile consensus. By affirming the principle of equality of opportunity yet trashing any mechanism that claimed to go beyond merit, neoconservatives drove a wedge between civil rights and affirmative action… Yet even this major intellectual and ideological assault did not produce a wholesale abandonment of affirmative action on behalf of business, political, and educational elites. The major factor that escalated the drive against affirmative action was the shrinking job possibilities---along with stagnation and declining wages---that were squeezing the white middle class. Unfortunately, conservative leaders seized this moment to begin to more vociferously scapegoat affirmative action, and to seek its weakening or elimination… The popularity---distinct from the rationality---of these moves has created a climate in which proponents of affirmative action are on the defensive. Even those of us who admits the excesses of some affirmative action programs---and therefore call for correcting, not eliminating, them---give aid and comfort to our adversaries.” (Pg. 32-33)
Glenn C. Loury states, “Black men and women promoted to positions of unusual responsibility in a ‘mainstream’ institution today must ask themselves, Would I have been offered this position if I were not black? Most people take pride in the belief that their achievements have been earned and are not based simply on an organizational requirement of racial diversity. Racial preferences undermine the ability of black people to be confident that they are as good as their achievements would suggest. In turn, this limits the extent to which the personal success of any one black can be a source of inspiration guiding the behavior of other blacks… Ultimately, this way of thinking is destructive of black self-esteem.” (Pg. 54)
Heidi Hartmann points out, “Nothing about affirmative action requires employers to hire or promote unqualified candidates. What is required is that employers take affirmative steps to ensure that their pool of candidates is as inclusive as possible, that everyone who potentially meets job standards learns about the opportunity and has a chance to apply for it, and that everyone who meets the standard is considered fairly.” (Pg. 86-87)
Robert L Woodson Sr. observes, “If racial discrimination is the only factor deterring black progress why haven’t all blacks benefits equally from programs to remedy discrimination? Priority should be given to efforts to design strategies that will promote the economic progress of those who are most in need.” (Pg. 112)
William Bradford Reynolds suggests, “preoccupation with the failed experiment of affirmative action preferences has been largely responsible for diverting attention from this core problem. It has focused energies on what is essentially a Band-Aid being used to hide the festering educational sore, rather than seeking to treat the symptoms and provide a cure. What is haunting is that, as the affirmative action rhetoric heats up, no one seems to be seriously addressing the real cause of the widening opportunity gap between minorities and nonminorities in this country: the sorry state of public education. It is in this area where we truly need to take action—AFFIRMATIVE action.” (Pg. 136)
Theodore Hsien Wong and Frank H. Wu state, “At best, labeling Asian-Americans a model minority is inaccurate. The Census Bureau’s definition of ‘Asian-American’ is problematic. Within this category, individuals from sixteen countries of origin and more than twenty pacific Island cultures have been lumped together, even though there are tremendous differences among these groups… For most Asian-American ethnic groups, ironically, the average income of native-born individuals is lower than the average income of immigrants. This suggests that Asian-Americans are proof of selective immigration policies rather than modern-day Horatio Alger heroes.” (Pg. 196)
Charles T. Canady says, “The [Clinton] administration’s third standard is ‘no preference for people who are not qualified.’ Here again the president has thrown up a smoke screen that hides the real issue. Nobody claims that preferential policies are wrong because they result in awarding jobs or contracts to UNQUALIFIED persons; the problem with preferences is that they result in awarding such opportunities to candidates who are LESS QUALIFIED than other applicants… the president’s assurance that only qualified candidates will benefit is beside the point.” (Pg. 283)
Louis Harris states, “But the conservative Right has no reservation about playing the race card. The Right is convinced that it can finally force the country to vote up or down on race as an issue and can, in turn, gain final dominance over the courts, the Congress, and the executive branch of the federal government, along with the nation’s governorships and state legislatures.” (Pg. 332)
This is an excellent selection of pro/con perspectives on a variety of issues relating to Affirmative Action, that will be of great interest to anyone studying the subject.
Displaying 1 of 1 review