A Historical Examination, Its impact and Relevance Today

::::::::

A Historical Examination, Its impact and Relevance Today

An Introduction:

Recently, the United States Supreme Court struck down yet another formerly so-called "settled law." In doing so the SCOTUS burned its neoconservative credentials and pro-Republican tilt even further to the Right. While I'm not a lawyer or legal authority on the issue of Affirmative Action, I will attempt to address the court's ruling from a layman's perspective.

For starters, affirmative action is a policy that emerged in the mid-20th century with the specific and stated aim of addressing historical inequalities and promoting equal opportunities for underrepresented groups, particularly in education and employment. This essay delves into the history of affirmative action, explores its pros and cons, and examines its relevance in contemporary United States society.

Historical Background:

Affirmative action traces its roots back to the civil rights movement in the United States starting in the 1960s. It was first introduced as a response to systemic discrimination and the persistent racial and gender disparities prevalent in various parts of society. So, in response to these disparities, the policy sought to create pathways for marginalized groups to overcome historical disadvantages and access opportunities previously denied to them. These disparities and barriers to progress and opportunities, while lowered somewhat with the passage of time, still exists and persists today, in 2023, in some form or the other.

It therefore is against this background that the Supreme Court's recent mind-boggling ruling that suggests a "colorblind United States," is indeed perplexing. To deny race (and systemic and endemic racism) does not exist in the context of higher education/college admissions (and other economic fields) is not only myopic but patently, ironically, and deliberately being "colorblind" by the neoconservative majority on the Bench.

The Pros of Affirmative Action:

Promoting Diversity: One of the main arguments in favor of affirmative action was and is its role in fostering diversity and inclusion. In short, as a starting point towards creating a more perfect union. By considering factors such as race and gender during admissions or the hiring processes, institutions and organizations can create a more representative and multicultural environment. Moreover, the issue of higher education was ONLY ONE area where the policy sought to level the socio-economic and political playing field given the white supremacist and racist history of the United States that is still unaddressed or remedied. Racism and race relations influence all aspects of life in America today, regardless of the Supreme Court says or how it rules.

This brings me to the issue of redressing historical inequalities. This policy sought to rectify the systemic disadvantages faced by historically marginalized groups. It provided a sometimes-imperfect means to address the cumulative effects of a whole gamut of discrimination, and promote equal access to education and employment. After years of housing and workplace discrimination as well as other "hidden and insidious" forms of lingering racism that buttresses U.S. class society, the Supreme Court said to all Americans: race is not a fetter to the growth and development of the Black and Brown communities.

And yes, affirmative action by its very nature can help overcome the readily acknowledged underrepresentation of certain groups in various fields, including academia, corporate leadership, and government. By increasing representation, it offers diverse perspectives, experiences, and talents that contribute to more well-rounded decision-making processes.

The Cons of Affirmative Action

Now let me address the critics of affirmation action. They argue that affirmative action can lead to something called "reverse discrimination," where individuals from historically privileged groups may face disadvantages in admissions or hiring processes. This viewpoint contends that considering race or gender can be inherently unfair and violate principles of meritocracy. Of course, in reality this has not really happened and there is absolutely no comprehensive proof or data to support this criticism.

Like its twin sister above the Right Wing argues that somehow in a society where Black and Brown people are routinely and daily the victims of racism and stereotyping, somehow its "the others" in society - read whites and others - that will suffer from stigmatization and stereotyping. They claim that affirmative action perpetuates stigmatization and reinforces negative stereotypes. Again, there is no data to support these spurious claims.

Moreover, in perhaps the best example of flawed circular reasoning these critics contend that affirmative action creates the perception - NOT THE REALITY - that individuals from underrepresented groups (read Black and Latino people) are less competent or achieved success solely due to "preferential treatment." What they mean is that Black and Brown students cannot compete on a level education or job-entry playing field because of some kind of "racial impediment," and so can only gain access by virtue of "preferential race quotas," and considerations. This reasoning is PRECISELY and OBJECTIVELY racist at its core. And that by itself affirmative action "discriminates" against "other races."

Finally, some critics claim that affirmative action addresses the symptoms rather than the root causes of inequality. They argue that focusing on equal opportunity in education and addressing socioeconomic disparities would be more effective in promoting long-term equality. How can you address equality when one race has a 250-year head start, with generational wealth, privilege and access to capital, and the other's labor was stolen and uncompensated during that time, and speak about an equal and level playing field?

Is Affirmative Action Relevant Today?

By the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling this might be a moot point. So, now I suspect that the relevance of affirmative action will continue to remain a subject of ongoing debate. While significant progress has been made, disparities and inequalities persist in many domains. I am of the opinion that when all is said and done, affirmative action has played a major role in opening doors for marginalized groups and challenging the status quo. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas who would not be one of the sitting justices had it not been for this policy.

Finally, I do not hold a rigid, unchanging position on affirmative action. After all, as they say: the only thing permanent is change. So, it is logical, reasonable and important that the implementation of affirmative action programs should evolve over time to ensure effectiveness and address new emerging socio-economic and political challenges. And yes, policies need to be flexible, targeted, and transparent, considering intersectionality and the evolving nature of discrimination. But it did not need to be exterminated.

Authors Website: http://www.CSG2017.com

Authors Bio:

MICHAEL DERK ROBERTS
Small Business Consultant, Editor, and Social Media & Communications Expert, New York

Over the past 20 years I've been a top SMALL BUSINESS CONSULTANT and POLITICAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST in Brooklyn, New York, running successful campaigns at the City, State and Federal levels. I'm a published author and award-winning journalist. I've been honored and recognized for my deep, hard-hitting analytical work on socio-economic and political issues confronting the United States in general and New York City in particular. I'm he Senior Consultant, COMMONSENSE STRATEGIES (www.commonsensestrategies.biz ), a Marketing, Social Media & Communications company based in Brooklyn. I also host two weekly podcasts at www.blogtalkradio.com/shangoking .The first, aired on Saturday mornings is called BTS -- Business, Technology and Social Media and the second, The Roberts Report, is aired on Sundays. You can also follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/mdvroberts. (347) 279-6668.