Rachel

Running head: THE POLARIZING EFFECT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 1
The Polarizing Effect of Affirmative Action:
Turning the Tables on Discrimination
Rachel Wang
M. Torlée
Innisdale Secondary School
May 10th, 2019

THE POLARIZING EFFECT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 2
Table of Contents
Preface………………………………………………………………………………………....pg. 3
Definition…………………………………………………………………………………....pg. 4-6
Significance……………………………………………………………………………........pg. 6-9
Background………………………………………………………………………………...pg. 9-14
Expert
Randall Kennedy: The Case for Affirmative Action…………………………......pg. 14-19
Edward Blum: The Case Against Affirmative Action…………………………....pg. 19-23
Role of Control………...………………………………………………………………....pg. 23-28
Role of International Organizations……………………………………………………...pg. 28-31
Case Studies
United States of America: Asian-Americans vs. Harvard University…………....pg. 31-36
India: The Political Ploy………………………………………………………….pg. 36-40
Brazil: All the Shades of Grey…………………………………………………....pg. 40-44
Canadian Connection……………………………………………………………………..pg. 44-48
Logic of Evil……………………………………………………………………………...pg. 48-52
Role of Politics…………………………………………………………………………...pg. 52-54
Solutions………………………………………………………………………………….pg. 54-58
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………....pg. 59-63
References…………………………………………………………………...…………...pg. 64-71
Preface
As society has progressed throughout the years, becoming more and more knowledgeable
about the inner workings of the world, humans have become increasingly more uncomfortable
with the parts of life that do not come with a simple answer. For a long time, thunder came
because the gods were angry and the sun followed people because it wanted to play. Nowadays,
that which cannot be put into a nice, orderly box, with a logical explanation and a pretty bow on
top, is deeply unsettling. Humans fear that which is unknown, and rather than acknowledging
these subjects, many prefer to simply ignore them, unwilling to unleash Pandora’s box.
When the world is seen in black and white, right and wrong, there leaves no room for
questioning, and all the shades of gray disappear. All of the subtle nuances are gone from
consideration and all that is left is A or B. This is easy. People want this to be their reality
because it is easy. However, despite what people want, there will always be that which cannot be
labelled as just right or wrong, and life is not always easy.
For as long as humans continue to live, there will always remain those issues that are not
solved with a simple, logical solution. The types of issues that make people call into question
what they value most and the sacrifices they are willing to make to achieve that which they
consider to be truly important in life. They push people to question their own perceptions and
evaluate themselves in ways they would not do so otherwise. Without these issues, humans
would remain complacent, unmotivated to change the world that they live in. It is only when
people are challenged, when they are forced to confront the realities of themselves and the world
that they live in, that society as a whole can begin to progress.
Definition
Discrimination is an issue of the human condition that has been prevalent in the world for
as long as humans have been alive, stemming from the belief that some are superior to others.
This belief can be derived from a variety of factors such as race, gender, sexuality, religion,
economic background, or ethnic origin. Typically characterized by the unjust treatment or
oppression of specific groups of people, many are quick to agree that discrimination is an issue
of jurassic proportions and that to find a solution is of the utmost importance. Thus, one would
be fair to assume that policies created with the goal of absolving discrimination would be met
with little to no criticism. However, this is far from the case when discussing affirmative action.
Created with the intention to combat discrimination and produce more diverse
environments, affirmative action is defined as the practice of giving advantages to people who
have historically been disadvantaged or discriminated against in the past. Primarily used in the
context of employment and education, the practice has been met with widespread controversy
throughout the years. Many have even gone so far as to describe the use of affirmative action as
slamming down a fist on the scales of equality. Those who oppose the use of these policies
believe that those implementing such procedures are executing an unjust amount of force.
Though many will still agree that diversity is important, interference to achieve this during
employment and admission procedures is often seen as unfair to those who are rejected as a
result. Meanwhile, those who support the practice speak of the benefits of diversity and the need
to amend for the atrocities of the past.

Though the application of the idea varies, affirmative action policies often implement the
use of quotas as a means of creating diversity, requiring a certain amount or percentage of people
that fit a specific minority to be employed or admitted. Those who are frequently the benefactors
of affirmative action include racial minorities, women, and those who come from impoverished
households. In many cases, those who fit into one or more of these categories would be favoured
over those typically considered to come from a life of privilege. For instance, a company that
employs an affirmative action policy would choose to hire a Hispanic woman over a white male
if all other considerations are equal, or perhaps even if she were slightly less qualified.
Actions such as these are all done in an effort to create more diverse environments, a
valiant goal in and of itself. Workplace diversity not only combats discrimination, it can also
lead to better work performance with ethnically diverse companies outperforming competition
by 35% (Tulshyan, 2015). Additionally, companies that are gender-diverse are 15% more likely
to outperform than those who are not (Figure 1) (Tulshyan, 2015). Although correlation does not
necessarily equal causation, diverse companies are generally seen to perform better as they “are
better able to win top talent and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and
decision making” (Tulshyan, 2015). The same can be said for places of education, with the
widespread belief that diversity in education allows more creativity by taking into consideration
varied perspectives, ultimately facilitating a more comprehensive learning experience.
With a better understanding of the importance of diverse working and learning
environments, one would be hard pressed to find a reason why this should not be considered a
necessary component in society and a goal worth working towards. Thus, with the goal of
affirmative action being diversity, there is some confusion to be found when dissecting the
controversy around it. Therefore, it is important to understand that the opposition to affirmative
action is not centered around the objective of the practice, but rather the actions that it entails.
Significance
Although the phrase and practice of affirmative action have been present for decades, the
term has never been formulated into a single coherent policy. Rather, the way in which it is
practiced has often been left to interpretation, constantly evolving throughout the years. As a
result, there can be much confusion when discussing the validity of affirmative action policies as
not all those who employ them do so in the same way. This leads to an inherent
misunderstanding as to what affirmative action is, and is meant to be, from both the general
public as well as those using the policy.
Prior to the conception of affirmative action, employers were first encouraged to use
employment procedures that exercise practices of non-discrimination. Affirmative action takes
this idea a step further, urging employers to actively seek out minority groups in the form of
outreach programs. Essentially, minorities are encouraged to apply and aided in the application
process, facilitating their inclusion for consideration of a spot or position. Though these first two
policies are generally viewed quite favourably, it is the consideration of another type of
affirmative action that causes more controversy to arise—sheer preference.
Even for many of those that typically support diversity and even outreach programs, this
is often where people draw the line when it comes to affirmative action. Some companies and
post-secondary institutions have taken the term to simply mean that people from visible
minorities are more desirable than those who are not. These beliefs result in policies that often
affect people without them even knowing. Though many people are aware of affirmative action
and its presence in their own life, an equal amount of people are still completely unaware of
these policies that could be affecting them and the opportunities that they have. In fact, it is this
naivety of those in society that helps to allow this practice to continue, ultimately facilitating the
rejection of some applicants in favour of those who are less qualified.
For many, this is a major point of contention with most believing that people should be
hired or admitted on the merit of their accomplishments alone. When asked specifically whether
or not race or ethnicity should be a major factor, a minor factor, or not a factor at all in college
admissions, 63% of Americans answered that it should not be a factor at all (Newport, 2018). In
comparison, responses also said that factors such as high school grades and scores on
standardized tests should be considered major factors 73% and 55% of the time respectively
(Newport, 2018). Results such as these indicate that people consider accomplishments based on
one’s own merit to be significantly more important than racial or ethnic background. This is
iterated in another question that asks:
Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college
or university -- applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that
results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant's racial and ethnic
background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if
that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?
(Newport, 2018).
This was asked four times over a period of thirteen years from 2003 to 2016, and each time
between 67% and 70% of Americans felt that applicants should be admitted solely on merit
(Newport, 2018). These same attitudes are also reflected in relation to hiring processes with a
variant of this question asking about employment receiving similar results (Newport, 2018).
Therefore, it comes as a surprise that a similar question in a separate poll found that 71%
of Americans agreed that “affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black
and minority students on college campuses” are a positive thing (Newport, 2018). These results
indicate that although people are supportive of what affirmative action is attempting to achieve,
this support quickly disappears when they are made aware of how it actually goes about in doing
so. Thus, these conflicting responses once again point back to the greater problem at hand—a
misunderstanding from an entire society as to what affirmative action is, resulting from a lack of
a single definitive policy.
By allowing the term to remain open to interpretation, affirmative action has, in many
instances, evolved into a toxic culture of prejudice, excluding people from consideration because
they are not part of a visible minority. Not only is this discrimination, but it creates a divide
among those on either side of the policy. Those who feel they are being harmed by affirmative
action policies often end up resenting those that benefit from them as “[affirmative action] will
create political opposition to not only what you’re trying to do but also blaming of the people
you’re trying to help” (G. Dyer, personal communication, February 21, 2019). This all leads to
the development of an “us versus them mentality,” thus creating greater divide and tension,
eliminating much of the original purpose of affirmative action.

Furthermore, the lack of a proper definition also allows for another pitfall in the practice
of affirmative action. Since there is no coherent, universal way that affirmative action is meant to
work, it oftentimes becomes simply whatever the speaker wants it to be. As a result, the entire
concept frequently becomes a gimmick and a tool for politicians to wield as they warp the phrase
into whatever they want it to be. It becomes simply another tactic for politicians to use in their
campaign, making promises surrounding a practice that they can manipulate to fit into their own
narrative. Whether it be exaggerating the influence of affirmative action, promising to abolish it,
or promising to uphold it, the policy has become an extremely politically charged term despite
the total lack of understanding as to what it is.
Rather, affirmative action has simply become another tool used to divide people in a
society where people are increasingly being pushed to extremes on either side of the spectrum,
placing further strain on an already fragile situation. One simply cannot create a healthy
environment by pitting two groups of people against one another and diversity at the cost of
resentment and animosity is not an admirable goal, nor should it be. Affirmative action was
created with the intent to combat discrimination, however, one cannot expect to accomplish this
through the use of more discrimination. Doing so only continues to facilitate an atmosphere of
hostility, ultimately causing greater harm than good.
Background
Despite all the recent controversy around the issue, the idea of affirmative action is no
new concept, gaining a noticeable amount of attention, both positive and negative, since the
1960s. Although the decades long term was first mentioned in the National Labour Relations Act
of 1935 (USA), it did not hold any of its present-day connotations at this point, in relation to
discrimination (Mansky, 2016). Thus, the concept of affirmative action, in the current sense of
the word, was introduced to the “mainstream” in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy coined
the term in its current context when he called for government contractors to, “take affirmative
action to ensure that applicants are employed...without regard to their race, creed, colour, or
national origin” (Mansky, 2016). However, despite JFK’s use of the phrase several years earlier,
it was only in 1965 that the practice really began to gain momentum after his successor, Lyndon
B. Johnson, established non-discriminatory practices for employment in Executive Order 11246
(Figure 2) (Mansky, 2016).
A few months before this order was signed in September, in a frequently referenced
address to the graduating class at Howard University, Johnson declared:
Freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'Now you
are free to go where you want, do as you desire, choose the leaders you please.' You do
not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to
the starting line and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly
believe that you have been completely fair. We seek not just freedom but opportunity, not
just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result (Steinberg, 1996).
Perhaps foreshadowing the affirmative action policy to come in the following months, Johnson
emphasizes the additional actions that must be taken to achieve true equality when overcoming
the trials and tribulations of the past. His allusion to a starting line has now often been referenced
in ways both positive and negative with many referring to affirmative action as a “head start” in
the race to the finish line. Johnson ultimately speaks to the importance of creating opportunity
for those who have been disadvantaged in the past, beyond simply liberating them. Though it
was only the year before this that Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act, officially outlawing
discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin, he was already moving
further than simply non-discrimination.
The long history of affirmative action in the United States also means that there have
been many cases where the validity of the practice has been called into question in court. In the
history of affirmative action in the courtroom, there have been varied results, however, the
general trend has been ruling in favor of the practice while enforcing certain limitations on the
extent of control it can have. The first major decision on the matter was that of Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke, in which Allan Bakke argued that he was unfairly denied
admission from the University of California Medical School at Davis as he had higher academic
scores than some of the minorities who were accepted (Vox, 2018). At the time, the school
reserved 16 of its 100 seats for minority students, a racial quota that Bakke argued prohibited his
entrance into the school both times that he applied (Vox, 2018). The case made its way to the
Supreme Court where they ruled in favour of Bakke, deciding that universities could not use
quotas as a means to remedy past discriminations, while also stating that affirmative action could
be used to create a more diverse student body. As a result, most universities now take in race as a
small factor of a part of a holistic personal score.
Throughout the years, many people have sued schools and employers for their use of
affirmative action in an attempt to have the practice abolished. Other notable cases on
affirmative action that have made their way to the Supreme Court include the Bollinger
cases—Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger—and the cases of Fisher v. University of
Texas—referred to as Fisher I and Fisher II—with three out of four of these cases ruling in
favour of upholding affirmative action policies put in place. However, the reach of affirmative
action extends far beyond the border of the United States, influencing much of the world on the
international stage as well.
Despite the fact that the United States was the nation to popularize the term and set down
much of the groundwork for affirmative action, they were not the first to introduce such policies.
The idea of such a practice actually originated across an entire ocean and over a decade before
JFK went on to coin the term. Though the United States remains as the country to globalize this
practice under a recognizable term, it was India who implemented the first affirmative action
program, referred to as “reservation,” in 1950 (“Why India needs,” 2019).
As with every country that employs these types of policies, reservation in India has been
specifically tailored to address the specific discrimination issues within the country. India has
historically been dominated by Hinduism with the vast majority of the country practicing this
religion. As a result, the Hindu caste system has been integrated and built into the foundation of
the country itself, creating a unique situation of discrimination towards those in the lower caste.
This discrimination is what pushed India to first implement reservation, setting quotas for the
inclusion of those in the lowest caste, known as Dalits or “untouchables.”
The international presence of affirmative action is again reaffirmed by the one-quarter of
the world’s nations that now have affirmative action programs in place (Moses & Jenkins, 2017).
Though this number may not appear to be much, the practice is one that has been spreading fast
in recent years and will likely continue to do so. In fact, with many of these international policies
developing only within the last 25 years, affirmative action is a highly relevant issue now more
than ever (Moses & Jenkins, 2017).
One such country that has only recently begun to experiment with affirmative action is
Brazil, who began the implementation of the practice in 2001 (De Oliveira (1), 2017). Similarly
to India, Brazil has also had to adapt the policy to fit the situation in the country after there was
concern expressed over white applicants posing as mixed race. As a result, there are now panels
who evaluate the phenotypic appearance of those who apply for positions under quota protocols
to verify their racial claims.
Perhaps the only positive effect of a lack of a single policy for affirmative action is the
way it enables countries around the world to adopt the practice to their own specific situation.
This has resulted in a multitude of different affirmative action type programs all over the world.
Though the names of these programs often times vary, some going by terms such as alternative
access, positive discrimination, and, in a narrower sense, employment equity, the idea behind all
of these policies still remains the same. This also means that much of the controversy around
affirmative action is still present worldwide.
As affirmative action is still relatively new on the global scale, this speaks to the
importance of acknowledging the issue for the present as well as future years. Though many of
the countries we currently consider to be “developed” have been working on remedying
discrimination for decades at this point, this concept is still very new to other nations around the
world. In fact, there are still those for which the consideration of anything near the type of
equality present in the Western world will remain unfathomable for many years to come. Thus,
affirmative action will still remain a relevant point of conversation in a multitude of places
throughout the world, even as it outgrows its use in others. Therefore, it is important for these
nations who have just begun working towards resolving discrimination, or will in the future, to
evaluate the present conflicts that have already been identified with the issue at hand.
It is in the best interests of governments in nations worldwide to create as little dissent
among the people as possible. This can be difficult to achieve with an issue as polarizing as
affirmative action. The majority of people feel quite strongly about the issue one way or another
as it is rooted in such an extreme and prevalent issue—discrimination. Though this makes the
task seem difficult, in order to approach the situation from the most objective place possible, one
must first understand both sides of the argument.
Expert
Randall Kennedy: The Case for Affirmative Action
Randall Kennedy is an American Law professor at Harvard University, and one of the
most notable proponents of affirmative action. In his book For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative
Action and the Law, he outlines the importance of the continued use of affirmative action which
he refers to as “positive discrimination.” As a black man himself, Kennedy has benefited from
affirmative action policies in the past, freely disclosing this information in his book, however, he
argues that this is not the reason why he supports the practice (De Léon, 2017). Rather, Kennedy
favours affirmative action as he believes the practice is a “moral necessity and the responsible
choice in a society marred by historical race-based inequity” (De Léon, 2017, n.p.).
Despite his support of affirmative action, Kennedy resents how the practice has evolved
to become centered around diversity due to the rulings of various court cases such as that of
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. A few decades later in 2003, in a separate
decision of Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed the position of the
court, stating that they do not object to the use of race in college admission if it is done for the
purpose of “obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” (Jackson,
2016). Kennedy acknowledges that diversity does not necessarily create a positive effect in many
situations; he states, “If you’re in astronomy class, does coming from a certain place with a
certain background really help out that much? Either there is a planet up there beyond the solar
system, or not (Jackson, 2016, n.p.).” However, regardless of Kennedy’s personal stance on the
matter, many people still support affirmative action largely because of its focus on diversity.
As mentioned, there are benefits to be found from creating a diverse environment.
Increased financial prosperity in companies and the enhancement of creativity and critical
thinking skills in classrooms have both been attributed to the inclusion of people from all walks
of life. Not only is diversity important, but affirmative action is necessary for creating this
diversity. With the great strides that the West has made in creating equality, there is a presiding
belief in many people that policies such as affirmative action are no longer required to give
minorities a fighting chance when it comes to opportunity, and though this is the ultimate goal, it
is not yet the reality.
In 2006, Proposition 2 was passed on referendum in the state of Michigan, a measure that
significantly limited the ability of colleges to take race into consideration during admissions
processes (Harris, 2018). Following the introduction of Proposition 2, the University of
Michigan found a nearly 10% decrease in black enrollment. Additionally, in states that have
banned affirmative action in public universities, the chance of admission for minority students
was 23% lower than that of non-minorities compared to only a 1% differential in states that still
have these policies in place (Pearson, 2018). Even with affirmative action programs, minorities
are just barely approaching an equal chance of admission in comparison to non-minority
students. Leaving it up to chance simply will not create the diversity that is desired. Society has
not yet reached a point where one can expect equality as a reality without some type of
interference or positive reinforcement; diversity will not happen by itself.
Though much can be said in favour of diversity, the fact still remains that it was not
originally meant to be the purpose of affirmative action, rather, it evolved into the place it
currently holds over time. This is Kennedy’s point of contention with it as he feels that this new
focus diverts attention away from the remediation of past discrimination, the earliest reason for
the enforcement of affirmative action. In his book, Kennedy speaks to the importance of the
acknowledgement of past wrongdoings:
Racial minorities, and blacks in particular, have long suffered from racist mistreatment at
the hands of the federal government…
...Past wrongs have diminished the educational, financial, and other resources that
marginalized groups can call upon, and have thus disadvantaged them in competition
with whites.
Hence, it is not enough to simply end racist mistreatment. Reasonable efforts to rectify
the negative legacy of past wrongs are also morally required (Jackson, 2016).
Here Kennedy emphasizes the importance of remembering past injustices and mistreatment
while still working towards a future of true equality. In his argument Kennedy speaks to the
“legacy” that discrimination has left, continuing to negatively influence those whose ancestors
had traditionally been harmed by it. The importance of affirmative action is also outlined as he
mentions how more needs to be done than simply eliminating racial mistreatment; minorities
cannot be expected to overcome the disadvantageous position they have been placed in simply
because they are no longer actively being harmed at the hands of the government.
This acknowledges the idea that equality does not necessarily mean equity. The basis of
this argument is that giving everyone the same treatment does not always create an equal playing
field. The fact of the matter is that people are born into certain positions in life where they hold
different advantages and disadvantages over others. Therefore, to treat everyone equally is not to
treat everyone fairly as some people may need more assistance to be allowed an equal
opportunity in life. Those born into families with a much lower socioeconomic status would
struggle significantly to generate an upward trend of social mobility for themselves than one who
already comes from a place of relative wealth. Thus, to extend the same opportunities to these
same groups of people forces those in the lower class to work against the odds. Though both
groups have been treated equally, they also have not been treated fairly.
Affirmative action opens doors for minorities that would otherwise not exist. Though one
frequent argument against affirmative action is that people should be evaluated on merit alone,
there is no clear definition as to what constitutes “merit.” Many would consider aspects such as
marks, test scores, work experience, and educational level as factors to take into consideration
when determining what students to admit or whom to hire. These are typically considered good
indicators of one’s “merit” and a fair place to base decisions off of, however, the use of
affirmative action allows one to see other indicators of what would make a good student or
employee that would otherwise be missed.
Attributes such as responsibility, courage, perseverance, and empathy are also widely
considered to be desirable traits, but ones that can easily be missed. By having employers and
admissions boards actively look for minority applicants, attributes such as these can be identified
when they would likely be glossed over otherwise. Many people are exceptional in different
ways than just marks and qualifications and the implementation of affirmative action draws
attention to the different skills people can bring to the table. Students who are working full-time
jobs while going to school would be celebrated and desired, rather than being passed over
because they did not have a 4.0 GPA or score a perfect 1600 on their SAT. Without affirmative
actions, students such as these would often be left in the dust with no way to create a better life
for themselves.
Affirmative action is significant because it speaks to both the past, from where society
has come from in terms of discrimination, and to the future, in where progress is leading towards
a day when true equality can exist. In working towards this future, it is important that one does
not forget that past and the horrors of injustices once committed. Those in support of affirmative
action recognize its acknowledgement of restorative justice, remedying the terrors of the past
through more than just liberation and passivity. Rather, they argue that active participation in the
equaling of the scales is required to ensure a brighter future in years to come.
Edward Blum: The Case Against Affirmative Action
When examining instances where affirmative action has been called into question in
court, one name that seems to appear frequently is Edward Blum. Blum is a legal strategist who
has played a significant role in the recent developments of affirmative action and other cases of
discrimination. Previously challenging a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, widely
considered by many to be a landmark piece of legislation in civil rights, and winning the case,
Blum has long been an advocate for the abolishment of the consideration of race in any and all
aspects of life (Hartocollis, 2017). As a result, he has orchestrated over two dozen lawsuits
concerning cases of voting rights and affirmative action and is notorious for finding plaintiffs
that match his causes. Serving as the liaison that connects potential plaintiffs to legal attorneys,
Blum has also been one of the driving forces behind both cases of Fisher v. University of Texas,
as well as the ongoing case accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian
American applicants.
Fisher I and Fisher II, decided in 2013 and 2016 respectively, were the most notable
recent decisions on affirmative action with both cases making their way up to the Supreme Court
(Somin, 2016). The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, argued that she had been unfairly denied acceptance
due to her race, with Blum being the one to set her case into action after several years of looking
for a willing candidate to bring up affirmative action in court (Somin, 2016). The ruling in both
cases ultimately sided with the University of Texas in their use of race in admissions with a
decision of 7-1 in Fisher I and a much narrower 4-3 in Fisher II (Somin, 2016). Despite losing
both of these cases, Blum has still been able to bring public attention back to the issue behind
affirmative action, facilitating discussion once again over the highly contested topic.
In addition to the belief that merit alone should determine whether one is admitted into a
certain school or position, there are many other controversies when discussing affirmative action.
Though the most obvious opposition is those who are a part of the majority and thus
disadvantaged by affirmative action, there is still contention on the side of those who seem to
benefit from it. The presence of affirmative action often leads to criticism of those who are
eligible for it, with many of their peers believing that this is the sole reason why they received
their position, even when this is not the case.
In an article for The Atlantic, Kimberly Reyes writes about how she feared any
association with affirmative action programs, believing that, as a black female, others would
attribute her acceptance into the specialized Bronx High School of Science to her race (Reyes,
2018). She also recalls how many of her classmates thought she ”would all but automatically
gain admission into every college [she] applied to” (Reyes, 2018). This mentality also carries
into workplace situations, ultimately creating a belief that minorities, on the whole, are less
qualified and less capable.
Although some do receive their positions through affirmative action policies, this is not
necessarily true for all, however, others are generally not aware of which category people fall
into. As a result, those who have truly earned their positions often have their hard work
discredited by their peers, and the entire minority group is seen as less competent. Thus,
minorities will take offense to the marginalization of their achievement while the majority is
bitter at the unfair disadvantage placed upon them, only further continuing to facilitate
resentment and segregation between groups.
Though this negative consequence exists more specifically for those that still gain their
positions through their own merit, there are also downsides for those who “benefit” from
affirmative action by gaining positions that they otherwise would not have. In 2005, Richard H.
Sander, a law professor at UCLA, published an article in which he claims that “a student who
gains special admission to a more elite school on partly non-academic grounds is likely to
struggle more” (Slater, 2013). Affirmative action often places students into more elite academic
institutions, and although this may seem positive, resulting in a higher number of minorities at
schools such as Harvard and Yale, this also means that these students are not equipped for the
academic demands of these institutions (Slater, 2013). This idea also carries over to the
workplace as those who receive positions through affirmative action policies may find
themselves struggling to keep up with a workload for which they are woefully underprepared.
This practice of placing people into situations above their skill level is referred to as
“mismatch” and often leads to lower grades, worse job performance, and higher dropout rates
(Sander & Taylor, 2012). In fact, black law school graduates are four times more likely to fail the
bar exam than their white counterparts, and half of this gap can be attributed to mismatch
(Sander & Taylor, 2012). Ultimately, when it comes to the long run, placing people into
environments they are not qualified for only serves to cause harm to those that one is trying to
help.
These situations of mismatch are an unintended consequence of affirmative action,
however, the actual idea of the policy itself can also cause harm to its supposed “benefactors.”
There presides a common belief that affirmative action treats the benefactors of it as victims and
are owed special treatment as a result (Williams, 2003). This leads to the perception that the
upper-class elite are attempting to push the minorities into the mainstream to shine a good light
on themselves and maintain a good face. Affirmative action is a tool for those in the elite to
commend themselves for their chivalry, painting themselves as the knight in shining armour, as
they aid the otherwise helpless minorities.
Armstrong Williams, an African American nationally syndicated newspaper columnist in
the United States, writes that he is pained to see his peers “rest their heads upon the warm pillow
of victim status” (Williams, 2003). When applying to college in 1997, Williams was offered
multiple scholarships to prestigious colleges, partially due to the affirmative action policies in
place at these schools, but ultimately turned them all down, instead choosing to attend a
historically black college (Williams, 2003). This decision was influenced to some degree by his
father who was able to pay for Williams’ college education, arguing that scholarship money
should go to those who are economically disadvantaged (Williams, 2003).
This only further enforces another common point of contention with affirmative action,
the narrowed focus on race alone. Although affirmative action is supposed to be aimed towards
those who are disadvantaged in a variety of ways, the term has been closely associated with race
above all else. As a result, one important factor in particular that is often neglected is economic
status. The largest preferences from affirmative action policies go towards minorities from the
upper and middle class with those in the lower class going largely unacknowledged (Sander &
Taylor, 2012). Studies done on the educational attainment of fathers and their children do show a
correlation between the two, with most children attaining around the general education level of
their fathers, indicating the difficulty of social mobility (Figure 3) (Chang, 2018). Instead of truly
helping the disadvantaged in society, universities and companies boast the good that they are
doing by creating diverse environments while they actually collect the elite from all races. Many
argue that affirmative action should be need-based instead of only benefiting middle and
upper-class black Americans “who have been conditioned to feel that they are owed something”
(Williams, 2003). Though this may technically be diversity in one sense, it also completely lacks
diversity in another sense by failing to incorporate those who come from lower class
backgrounds.
Ultimately, many feel that race simply should not hold any bearing at all when it comes
to the ability of opportunity, Blum included. He states that “your race and ethnicity should not be
something used to help you or harm you in your life’s endeavours” (Hartocollis, 2017). Blum
emphasizes the importance of not considering race in all aspects of life, from racial profiling in
the police to college applications, he is of the belief that race should not be acknowledged at all.
This idea of a “colourblind” world is considered an ideal to many, however, the fact remains that
it is a future that may never be attainable.
Role of Control
With the ever-increasing interconnectedness of the surrounding world, it should come as
no surprise that affirmative action is influenced by many different factors. A multitude of

companies, governments, organizations, and even individual people have the capability to alter
the course of the affirmative action narrative in ways both big and small. The complexities of
affirmative action are determined by loud blaring campaigns just as much as they are by subtle,
nearly imperceptible nuances.
Of course, perhaps the most obvious source of power is that of the various national
governments weighing in with their own opinions on the matter. As was seen with the United
States, governments do have control over whether or not certain establishments are permitted to
use affirmative action policies. In fact, a total of eight states have banned the use of affirmative
action in the selection of student bodies at public universities (Pearson, 2018). However, the key
word here is public, indicating the extent of the power the government holds in terms of
affirmative action. At present, concerning legislation revolving around these types of policies,
most governments can only enforce regulations on public institutions or government contractors.
Governments generally do not prohibit private companies or universities from using
affirmative action procedures as they see fit, though this does have the possibility to change. This
is why court cases challenging the practice are significant, as they have the capability to affect
affirmative action within a country in the private sector as well. The constitution of a country is
deemed as the highest law and thus all actions must abide in accordance with it. As a result,
when criticizing affirmative action, many will attempt to call into question the constitutionality
of the practice. If the practice is deemed unconstitutional, then legislation in accordance with this
decision must then be created, outlawing the use of such practices. For instances, one doctrine
common to many constitutions is the importance of equality of all people. Therefore, one could
claim that affirmative action discriminates against certain groups of people and have the case
evaluated to see if there is enough substance behind the statement.
However, until such a situation happens where affirmative action is deemed
unconstitutional in a country, companies and universities are largely at their own liberty to
employ the practice as they please. Many places do still choose not to use these practices at all.
Outside of the United States, affirmative action is rarely applied in the context of university,
despite all the media attention generally being around university admissions as opposed to
employment practices. In the context of employers, many big businesses are in support of
affirmative action policies as they understand the effect that diverse environments have on
workplace productivity. During the Fisher II case, several dozen Fortune 500 companies asked
the Supreme Court to rule in favour of preserving the right of universities to use affirmative
action policies (Parloff, 2015). These companies include a multitude of big names such as
Microsoft, IBM, Apple and Wal-Mart, all in support of the continued use of affirmative action
(Parloff , 2015).
Although these companies can and do employ their own affirmative action policies, it is
in their best interests that universities continue to be permitted to use affirmative action in
admissions as the companies are limited in whom they hire by educational experience (Parloff,
2015). Despite the importance of diversity and representation, employees first do need to know
the required skills to succeed in their positions. Therefore, companies are invested in the fate of
affirmative action in universities as they would like to have the the most diverse field of potential
employees possible. If these policies are banned, history shows that this will lead to decreased
diversity, resulting in less financial prosperity for companies.
Ultimately, companies typically place their financial success above all else. Though
some may still remain rigid in their ways, most have accepted that creating diversity within their
company will facilitate the best results for them. For these companies, the moralities and
controversy over the issue likely do not resonate with them and the decision to support
affirmative action is not one made as a result of an emotional attachment.
Those who do tend to relate more to the emotional, moral aspect of the debate are
typically those of the general public. With the speed at which information travels these days,
people are quick to jump onto issues, developing opinions without first having time to fully
consider them. Much of this is the result of politically charged headlines and social media sites.
So much information is thrown at people nowadays that the ability to make instant judgements
on something based off of just a few sentences is a skill that has been acquired by many.
From there, people have no problem sharing their opinions with millions of others all
over the world, despite how truly ignorant they may be. This results in a toxic culture of
misinformation, leading to the political separation of people. A polarizing effect has taken over
society, with people now identifying one another, and themselves, as simply left or right with no
room in between. As a result, people often just briefly look at situations before siding with the
opinion that they are supposed to have based off of where they fall on the political spectrum.
Rarely now do we find people who have thorough, educated opinions on a subject, largely due to
the advancements in technology.

This has now put control into the hands of ill-informed, emotionally charged people on
the internet. A single person, who may not have full knowledge of politics but that has an
understanding of how to appeal to the emotion in people, can now influence the opinion of
thousands. By creating an emotional reaction or investment in people, one can lead them to act in
a certain way and as a way to achieve a specific goal. This phenomenon, that has the capability
to drive hoards of people, is one that plagues the entire world, not exclusive solely to the West.
The case of Harvard being accused of discriminating against Asian Americans is a prime
example. Although the case takes place in the United States, much of the reason it gained so
much momentum is because of a Chinese social networking site. Opponents of affirmative action
have tried before to argue that the practice discriminates against Asian Americans with no avail
due to a lack of support of this notion from the Asian community. However, this time Yukong
Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education that is behind the case, took to
the streets of what has been referenced as a “virtual Chinatown” (Chang, 2018). WeChat is a
Chinese social media platform on which Zhao has gained a large audience to which he can
preach his agenda (Chang, 2018). By alleging to these people that their race is being
discriminated against, much support has been gained from thousands of angry Asian Americans
who are being told that they are the victims of an injustice. Through the use of social media, a
campaign angle against affirmative action that has been tried numerous times before has finally
gained footing, launching it into the main stage.
Affirmative action is not controlled by one single entity; it is constantly being pushed and
pulled every which way by a variety of factors. Layers of influences remain stacked atop one
another with no clear dominant force. Rather, they all contribute to one larger picture, shaping,
not only the use of affirmative action but what it truly is as it constantly continues to evolve.
Role of International Organizations
When it comes to affirmative action on the international stage, there is little in the sense
of organizations to sway the debate one way or another. The issue of affirmative action remains
to be best dealt by nations individually on a case-by-case basis. There is no universal solution
that will silence all controversy around affirmative action and satisfy all those involved in the
matter. Factors such as these lead to a lack of organizational involvement or creation surrounding
the matter.
However, that is not to say that the matter goes completely ignored by the international
community. The United Nations (UN), an intergovernmental organization designed to help
create and maintain peace, has declared their opinion on affirmative action. CCPR General
Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination recognizes that:
...the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in
order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate
discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. ...However, as long as such action is needed
to correct discrimination in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the
Covenant (UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 1989).
As such, the UN recognizes the need for affirmative action programs in certain scenarios and that
these programs are in accordance with non-discrimination guidelines if they are done in an effort
to eliminate discrimination. They further go on to clarify the temporary status of affirmative
action programs, emphasizing that they should be terminated once their efforts in eliminating
discrimination have been achieved (UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 1989).
Though the UN does provide this stance on affirmative action, in practice the rules and
regulations surrounding these types of policies are left up to individual countries, as well as
businesses and post-secondary institutions. It is not the place of organizations such as the UN to
advise countries as to what their stance on affirmative action should be, nor can they enforce
these types of regulations upon them. Rather, international organizations, on the whole, play a
limited role in this area, so as not to infringe on the sovereignty of individual nations.
Nonetheless, many organizations concerned with human rights or non-discrimination
have provided opinions on the matter coinciding with that of the UN. Amnesty International, a
prominent non-governmental organization (NGO) on the world stage, has gone so far as to
express its support of affirmative action policies by implementing them themselves. Amnesty
International India has declared its commitment to affirmative action in recognition of how it
promotes a diverse workforce (Amnesty International India, n.d.). The organization has gone on
to express interest in applicants from the lower caste in the country, citing the diversity their
unique experiences may bring to the workplace (Amnesty International India, n.d.).
Another organization that has provided a stance on the issue is the International
Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) a not-for-profit, NGO
devoted to advancing human rights on a global scale. In a report from 2011, IMADR affirms the
exception status held by affirmative action as a special measure for the benefit of disadvantaged
groups. Though this may appear contradictory to the organization’s anti-discrimination stance,
IMADR also states that one of its core values is the empowerment of disadvantaged groups
which is in line with the purpose of affirmative action.
The report further goes on to clarify that these types of policies are only justifiable under
the conditions that they “do not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different groups
and that they shall cease after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”
(IMADR Geneva Office, 2011). This once again draws back to the importance of the temporary
status of affirmative action, seeing as it is heavily emphasized even by those who support it.
Furthermore, IMADR elaborates that these temporary measures are not to be confused with the
permanent rights of groups which continue to take precedent (IMADR Geneva Office, 2011).
Other precautions concerning affirmative action have also been called out by human
rights organizations. The NGO Human Rights Watch has emphasized the need for affirmative
action policies to benefit the entirety of a disadvantaged group, placing special emphasis on the
economically disadvantaged. Human Rights Watch recommends an approach based on both
economic and social rights, recognizing that “in practice affirmative action tends to favor those
members of a disadvantaged group who are relatively advantaged” (Human Rights Watch,
2001). Despite the precautions the organization warns of when implementing affirmative action,
Human Rights Watch is still in support of the practice, acknowledging that it can be a “useful
remedial tool” (Human Rights Watch, 2001).
Overall, the general consensus is that these programs can have many benefits so long as
they are used strategically and as a temporary solution rather than a permanent fix. Despite this
general acknowledgement towards affirmative action, there are no specific international
organizations that are one way or another extremely concerned on affirmative action. Though the
issue of the controversy over these policies is one that is present on the global scale, it is not an
issue that requires the agreement of all countries by a single stance on the practice.
When dealing with international affairs, the United Nations and similar organizations
must take care to tread the lines carefully when it comes to the sovereignty of its member states.
Affirmative action is an issue that crosses international boundaries, however, nations can still be
at liberty to come to their own conclusions about it without interfering with others. As a result,
this is a matter that should ultimately be left to individual nations to decide upon, so as to respect
the sovereignty of these countries and refrain from imposing on isolated matters.
Case Studies
United States of America: Asian-Americans vs. Harvard University
Though many people still remain unaware about the issue of affirmative action, one
headline that has been hard to miss is that of Harvard University being accused of discriminating
against Asian American students, an ongoing case in the United States. With the practice being
introduced to the country in 1961, when discussing affirmative action, it is hard to ignore the
dominant presence that the U.S. has in the conversation. The use of affirmative action policies in
American universities has been highly contested for a long time, gaining a large amount of media
coverage throughout the years.
This has all culminated in the current Harvard situation, arguably the most high-profile
affirmative action case to have ever taken place. Though the trial closed on November 2 of 2018,
after both sides had thoroughly presented their arguments, the verdict is still pending with the
decision to be announced in spring of 2019 (Biskupic, 2018). Despite what Judge Allison
Burroughs rules in the case, an appeal is expected either way, as “both sides believe [the case] is
headed to the Supreme Court” (Biskupic, 2018).
The case was first filed to the Department of Justice in November of 2014 by the group
Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), founded by Edward Blum (Biskupic, 2018). The lawsuit
contends that Harvard University intentionally discriminates against Asian Americans, awarding
preferences to applicants of other races, namely blacks and Latinos, in an effort to achieve racial
balancing. During the case, Harvard released information regarding the school’s admission
process, revealing the use of a personal score to rate qualities such as courage, kindness, and
integrity (Wall Street Journal, 2018). Admissions officers assign applicants a score from one to
six, one being “outstanding” and six being “worrisome,” based off of information from a variety
of sources such as essays, teacher recommendations, and alumni interviews (Wall Street Journal,
2018). SFFA argues that Asian American applicants are consistently given the worst personal
ratings, despite having the highest academic scores, and that Harvard intentionally does this to
limit the number of Asian Americans accepted into the school (Wall Street Journal, 2018). The
contention is that since these students are more impressive in objective categories, their ratings
are systematically lowered in categories that rely on subjective analysis.
Asian Americans are often stereotyped into the same category, considered by those
determining who gets into these elite schools as “the studious nerd” who, though intelligent, is
unpersonable and bland. This habit of racial stereotyping has long been present with a 1990
report finding that interviewers frequently described Asian Americans as quiet, shy, and
naturally reserved (Wall Street Journal, 2018). Additionally, other possibly damaging comments
were found such as one that states, “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor…” implying
that all Asian Americans want to be a doctor, and thus making it an uninteresting goal (Wall
Street Journal, 2018). Characteristics that would otherwise be praised in applicants are seen as
unoriginal in Asian Americans; rather than being hard-workers with an admirable goal of
becoming a doctor, they simply become just one more aspiring doctor in a long line of them.
Thus, Asian American are often encouraged to find ways of standing out from other
Asians in an effort to avoid “blending in with all the others.” Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk
Gersen recalls a comment she received after winning a scholarship in which one of the selection
panelists mentioned how part of the reason she received the reward was that she “had moving
qualities of heart and originality that Asian applicants generally lacked” (Gersen, 2017). This
further enforces the common stereotype that Asian Americans are merely machines that have
been trained by their strict parents to play instruments and do math.
Though these comments were from nearly thirty years ago, the same attitude towards
Asian Americans is still present to this day. A recent court filing against the university finds that
admissions officers have described these applicants as “smart and hardworking yet uninteresting
and indistinguishable” and further emphasizing that they will “need to fight it out with many
similar to [him or her]” (Wall Street Journal, 2018). The Dean of Admissions for the university
has spoken out against these comments, stating that, “We abhor stereotypical comments. This is
not part of our process,” however, that does not change the fact that such comments exist (Wall
Street Journal). Many contend that there is not necessarily systematic discrimination of Asian
Americans, however, there is discrimination nonetheless, even if this is not explicitly expressed
in some type of points system where being Asian earns demerit points. Comments and general
attitudes towards Asian Americans based on race are frequently damaging to their chances of
getting in compared to African Americans and Hispanics for which race is emphasized “as a
positive factor and a reason to admit an applicant” (Wall Street Journal, 2018).
Furthermore, evidence from National Study of College Experience found that in order to
have an equal chance at admission, Asian American applicants would have to score 140 points
higher than white applicants on the SAT, 270 points higher than Hispanic applicants, and 450
points higher than black applicants (Figure 4) (Chang, 2018). Therefore, an Asian American who
scores a perfect 1600 on the SAT would only have an equal chance of getting in as a black
student who scores 1150, and a lower chance than one who scores anything greater than that. The
study evaluated seven highly selective U.S. universities, adjusted and controlled for several
factors such as sex, citizenship, high school GPA, and legacy status (Chang, 2018).
SFFA attests that Asian American applicants would have significantly greater chances of
getting into elite universities if relying upon merit-based achievements alone, however, many
argue that factors such as test scores are unsatisfactory for determining whether students should
be admitted. Studies have found that test scores are poor indicators to future success in
post-secondary institutions, as well as general aptitude; instead, they often show a strong
correlation to parental education and income, with those who score higher on the SAT coming
from parents with higher education and income (Figure 5) (NBC News, 2019). The most
significant problem is that no one can agree on what factors to rely on during the admission
process—there seems to be an issue with every single variable—so the default is to use all of
them.
Additionally, many feel that this idea of racial balancing is actually an admirable goal,
holding the belief that the student body of universities should reflect the population. In this
sense, Asians are overrepresented at many elite universities, making up between sixteen and
nineteen percent of the freshman class at Harvard, despite being only five percent of the U.S.
population (Gersen, 2017). These statistics have come even with the effect of racial balancing, as
these numbers have remained stable since the 1990s, even though the percentage of Asians in the
United States has more than doubled since then (Gersen, 2017). This leads to another equally as
intriguing fact, the underrepresentation of Asian Americans in comparison to the applicant pool.
Though Asian Americans make up a disproportionate amount of the student body, they still
receive the lowest admission rates of any race (Liu, 2019). From 1995 to 2013, Asian-American
applicants had an average acceptance rate of 8.1%, the only group to dip below the overall
average of 9.3% (Avi-Yonah & McCafferty, 2018). Comparatively, African American, white,
and Hispanic American applicants received acceptances of 13.2%, 11.1 %, and 10.6 %
respectively (Figure 6) (Avi-Yonah & McCafferty, 2018).
Asian Americans are no less qualified than their counterparts from other races, rather the
reason for such disparities in acceptance percentages relies on race alone. They are placed at a
disadvantage in an effort to create a more diverse campus, preventing these elite universities
from being overrun by this minority group. Both sides of the situation have a reasonable
justification for their stance on the issue, highlighting why coming to a solution that appeals to
both sides is so difficult. Though the student body should not be extremely disproportionate to
the population, applicants of all races should still be given an equal chance when applying to
universities.
Despite whatever the coming decision on the Harvard case may be, one can be sure that
neither side will remain complacent with the ruling for long. An appeal is sure to follow, and
many expect that the case will make its way up to the Supreme Court as several other affirmative
action cases have done so in the past. People have long sought to bring an end to the use of race
in university admissions, emphasizing the desire for a colour-blind approach. Ultimately, the
final outcome of the Harvard case has the capability to do what many have tried before and bring
an end to the use of affirmative action in U.S. universities.
India: The Political Ploy
Boasting the world’s longest affirmative action policy, India has had a long history with
the practice ever since its induction in 1950. Known as reservation in the country, referencing the
idea of reserving spots for minorities, the practice was first implemented to benefit tribespeople
and Dalits, previously known as untouchables, the lowest ranking social class in the Hindu caste
system (Biswas, 2019). Similarly to affirmative action in other countries, reservation was created
as a form of restorative justice, rectifying historical discrimination towards these groups and
empowering the socially disadvantaged (Biswas, 2019). Since its induction, reservation has
spread to include Other Backward Classes (OBC’s) such as women, and the economically
downtrodden, hailing from lower and intermediate castes (“Why India needs,” 2015).
The idea of reservation in India is even ingrained in the country’s constitution, allowing
for “special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens” (“Almost all Indians,” 2019). The practice involves setting aside seats in parliament and
state assemblies, as well as government jobs and positions in educational institutions (Biswas,
2019). Unlike the U.S. that bans the use of quotas, the basis of reservation in India heavily relies
on quotas, setting targets and goals as a benchmark for what constitutes as providing a fair
opportunity for all. India is a country with huge disparities in income; the top one percent of the
country holds a significant amount of the country’s wealth while much of the country remains in
poverty, leaving a large number of potential benefactors for reservation.
The Supreme Court has historically capped the number of jobs and seats set aside for
reservation at a comparatively generous 50 percent, however, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
recently introduced a motion to set aside a further 10 percent of both jobs and university places
(“Almost all Indians,” 2019). Passed by both the lower and upper parliamentary houses in a
record two days, the move comes just a few months before a crucial election that will determine
whether the BJP will be able to hold onto power for another term. The BJP aims to regain
support from the upper castes that have traditionally supported the party but are currently
struggling due to a lack of jobs and slow business (Biswas, 2019).
Though upper castes have historically contested the use of reservation, as evidenced by a
number of protests against the practice in 2006. Many of these people feel that they have been
disadvantaged by the reservation system with a presiding belief that “in [India] now, you can’t
go forward unless you’re a backward” (“Why India needs,” 2015). As a result, those in the upper
castes have recently switched tactics, calling for inclusion in these quotas instead, despite their
relative prosperity (“Almost all Indians,” 2019). In order to appeal to these “vote banks,” the
BJP’s new reservation policies allow those from any family earning less than $11,375 (800,000
rupees) a year to be eligible for these positions (“Almost all Indians,” 2019). This new line that
has been set to qualify for reservation is significantly higher than the country’s $1,976 average
yearly income per person, indicating how only the extremely wealthy will be excluded (“Almost
all Indians,” 2019).
This highlights how reservation in India has gradually evolved into a gimmick above all
else, as including the vast majority of a country’s population completely eliminates the original
objective of the practice. Reservation has veered far from its intended use of rectifying past
discrimination and empowering those that are truly economically disadvantaged. Instead,
government systems have allowed those in the upper class to fill quotas that are meant to provide
opportunities for those who would otherwise never receive them. By doing so, the BJP has
shown a complete lack of care towards the sentiment behind reservation, rather, they have
chosen to use the policy to manipulate the citizens of the country and fit their own agenda.
Additionally, other parties have also used such strategies; the main opposition party, Indian
National Congress, attempted to induct a similar motion several years ago and another opposition
group suggested that the share of reservation should be doubled to 54 percent for OBCs, the
group which the party claims to speak for (“Almost all Indians,” 2019).
One cannot even guarantee that the BJP will be able to deliver on the promise that they
have made, in fact, it seems more likely that the opposite will happen. With the election drawing
near, the BJP government is running low on time to enforce these new regulations, while also
still pending possible legal repercussions (Biswas, 2019). Though the motion has passed through
parliament, the top court in the country may still strike down the move as it blatantly defies the
50% cap the Supreme Court had placed on reservation (Biswas, 2019). Public dissent is also to
be expected, from lower castes who now have to share their spots in reservation with much
wealthier counterparts, as well as a new wave of reservation demands from other minority
groups like women and the disabled (Biswas, 2019).
However, perhaps the most significant barrier in honouring these promises is that the jobs
for these quotas do not exist in the first place. Government jobs in India have been on the decline
down two million from 19 million in 1991 to 17 million in 2012 (Biswas, 2019). Additionally,
the national railways received 19 million applications in November of 2018 for just 63,000 lowly
posts, indicating a vast amount of disappointment for people from all social classes (“Almost all
Indians,” 2019). As explained by Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia Program at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
The fact is that an increasing number of people in India are clamouring for a consistently
shrinking number of government jobs. More people want a slice, but the pie is getting
smaller each year. This may be good politics, but it also reflects a sense of desperation
about India's jobless growth trajectory (Biswas, 2019).
People in India from all different groups are scared of being left out in a country that lost a
startling 11 million jobs in 2018 (Biswas, 2019). Though the economy in India may remain
successful, the distribution of this success among the country is becoming smaller with each
passing day. As the population becomes more fearful of their future, politicians are capitalizing
on this fear, promising jobs that do not exist. However, this ploy may not even be successful in
gaining the support that groups such as the BJP desire as Indian voters remain, “very suspicious
of pre-election promises of this kind” (Biswas, 2019).

It is clear that India’s long history with reservation has created a unique situation with the
practice as it continues to stray far from its intended use every single day. Dalits and
tribespeople, the most historically disadvantaged, have virtually fallen out of the conversation,
with emphasis no longer being placed upon rectifying past discrimination toward these two
groups. With the current discourse surround reservation, it seems unlikely that the world’s oldest
affirmative action program will return to its original objective any time in the near future.
Brazil: All the Shades of Grey
Unlike the U.S. and India, Brazil is relatively new to the concept of affirmative action,
only beginning to experiment with it in 2001 (De Oliveira (1), 2017). The practice was first
introduced in universities, gradually adopting affirmative action into both state and federally
funded universities in Brazil (Carneiro, 2013). A Supreme Court ruling from 2012 enforces the
legitimacy of such actions, confirming that these policies are considered constitutional (De
Oliveira (1), 2017). Furthermore, a 2014 law signed by then-President Dilma Rousseff set aside
20 percent of federal, public sector jobs for those who identify as preto (black) or pardo (brown
or mixed-race) (De Oliveira (1), 2017).
Brazil has a long history with racial inequality towards these groups, making it a prime
candidate for affirmative action policies. Even though more than 52 percent of Brazilians
identify as either preto or pardo, they only make up 27 percent of the student body in universities
across the country (Nolen, 2016). Additionally, both the federal cabinet and the Supreme Court
bench, comprised of 25 and 11 members respectively, consist of only white people, the majority
of these also being male (Nolen, 2016). As a result, the country is in dire need of a resolution to
such disparities among the population.
Although this in itself does not make Brazil unique, the way in which the country
implements affirmative action does. With the introduction of affirmative action, many pretos
have expressed concern that white people will attempt to take advantage of such policies, passing
themselves off as light-skinned pardos. To remedy this situation, the government decided in
August of 2016 that tribunals would evaluate each candidate applying for inclusion in racial
quotas to verify the legitimacy of their claims to race. Panels are created to identify whether
applicants qualify, consisting of three, five, or seven preto people in order to ensure a majority
verdict (Nolen, 2016). The Ministry of Planning has elaborated upon this point stating that,
“forms and criteria for verifying the veracity of self-declaration should only consider the
phenotypic aspects of the candidate, which will be checked in the presence of the candidate”
(Nolen, 2016).
One person who has been through such trials is Maira Mutti Araújo who applied for a job
opening as a prosecutor in Salvador in late 2015, consequently setting her down the path of the
“racial soap opera” she has experienced since (De Oliveira (2), 2017). In 2011, Bahia, the state
that Salvador is the capital of, began enacting measures to tackle racial inequality, part of which
includes setting quotas for government jobs (De Oliveira (2), 2017). Despite her apprehension,
friends and family encouraged her to apply through the newly created affirmative action
channels. However, Araújo “feared that her future co-workers would think less of her and
assume she hadn’t scored high enough to get the job through regular hiring channels,” an
experience that she has had before (De Oliveira (2), 2017). When an acquaintance learned that
Araújo had a university law degree, the response that came with that knowledge was, “Oh, so
you’re a cotista,” the Portuguese word for benefactors of affirmative action, despite the fact that
she had not applied to university through a quota (Oliveira (2), 2017). Though the word cotista
can be neutral, it often carries negative connotations, implying that those who benefit from
affirmative do not have the skill required for the positions they have been placed in. Realizing
that others would think she earned a position through affirmative action, either way, Araújo
decided to take advantage of the quotas, heeding the advice of others and applying for the
prosecutor position under pardo status.
The process began with a preliminary evaluation where applicants were required to
submit a photo of themselves along with a form answering questions about their experience with
race. The panel evaluating these applications initially decided that Araújo was not pardo,
however, she filed an appeal and had the decision overturned, putting her back into consideration
for a quota position. From there, an additional group verification was required, submitting
applicants to intense examination from a panel of five preto experts.
Araújo recalls this experience, remembering how the process made her feel “like a zoo
animal” as the five experts “examined her appearance while whispering among themselves,”
never addressing her directly except to confirm her name (De Oliveira (2), 2017). Similarly to
the first time, she had her status as pardo denied once again, but this time her appeal on the
decision was rejected, along with the seven other applicants who experienced the same fate as
Araújo. Personally, Araújo says she has “always suspected that it had to do with [her] hair” as
the sleek straight style she chooses to wear her hair, in combination with her relatively lighter
skin tone, suggesting to many that there is little to no black ancestry to be found in her (Figure
6). Although her hair is naturally very thick and made up of densely packed ringlets, verification
panels have rejected her pard status based upon only what they can see.
However, beyond, simply denying Araújo and other applicants pardo status, the Salvador
municipal department has also gone a decisive step further, referring such cases to the Public
Prosecutor’s Office as they seek to persecute these applications for criminal charges of fraud.
The department alleges that these applicants “purposefully misrepresented their identities” in
order to reap the rewards of affirmative action policies (De Oliveira (2), 2017). Despite how
these people have defined their own identities for years, based upon not only physical
characteristics but also family history, they have been villainized as manipulative and greedy
simply because a group of strangers subjectively concluded that they were neither preto or pardo.
Furthermore, many believe that even if these applicants had been identified as pardo, they
should not be given full access to affirmative action programs, and that priority should be given
to pretos. This is based upon the belief that those with relatively lighter skin tones do not face as
much discrimination as those of the darker tones. One common idea is that affirmative action
policies should follow a gradient-based process for hiring non-white applicants with the heaviest
preference going towards the darkest applicant. As articulated by Friar David Santos, a
prominent black rights activist in Brazil, "Pretos should gain immediate admission, followed by
darker-hued pardos. Mid-range pardos? Only if there are spaces left. And under no
circumstances are light-skinned pardos to gain admission through quotas” (De Oliveira (2),
2017).
This practice of looking at people on a scale, based only upon their shade of skin, has
fostered a hostile environment with darker-skinned people feeling that those who are lighter in
tone are infringing on their rights to affirmative action. Many pretos feel as though granting
quota positions to mid to light tone pardos goes against the intended use, not directing the aid at
where it is most required. On the other side, many pardos believe that this marginalizes their
personal experiences with discrimination, completely ignoring the injustices they have faced
simply because they may not be as severe as those of their darker-skinned counterparts.
In Brazil, both sides are afraid of losing out on the situation, resulting in a toxic culture,
pitting these groups against each other when they should be working together to prevail against
their historic discrimination. The country as a whole has taken on an extremely different
approach to affirmative action, one that seems to have done more harm than good. The focus has
drifted away from the intended purpose, focusing on competition among pretos and pardos rather
than the effect of the positions they are fighting for and remedying discrimination. Brazilians
must be reminded of the greater issue at hand and prevented from dividing themselves even
further than they already have.
Canadian Connection
Although Canada typically draws significant influence from the neighbouring United
States, the implementation of affirmative action policies is one place where the two differ quite
drastically. Not only in comparison with the U.S., but also with many other countries, Canada is
unique for its narrowed focus on employment practices alone as affirmative action policies are
not prevalent in Canadian universities, a point that is contested by some. There are some in the
country that still call for affirmative action in universities, citing how “within Canadian academia
as a whole, there is an acute underrepresentation of [minority people]” (Grant, 2019). However,
the inclusion of these policies in universities still does not exist, nor is it a major part of the
affirmative action conversation in Canada. As a result of this, the idea of affirmative action in
Canada exists solely during employment, leading all such policies in Canada to be included
under the concept of “employment equity.”
The Employment Equity Act of 1986 directs employers to actively work to correct the
“conditions of disadvantage” that have been placed upon four specific groups: women
indigenous people, people with disabilities, and visible minorities (Grant, 2019). Introduced by
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, this piece of legislation takes a step forward in “closing
the gap between a largely white public service and an increasingly diversified national
workforce” (“Job equity has,” 2010). Though the Bill of Rights in 1960 had the same goal in
mind, the more passive approach achieved little in correcting the exclusion of minorities in
employment. Consequently, employment equity was introduced to “redress the imbalance with
recruitment and targeting of under-represented groups” (“Job equity has,” 2010).
Despite the fact that the Employment Equity Act was only introduced in 1986, the
groundwork for this was first laid out four years earlier in 1982 within the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. As a part of the Constitution Act, 1982, and therefore the highest law in
Canada, the Charter explicitly provides protection for affirmative action programs such as
employment equity. Although section 15(1) states that, “[e]very individual is equal before and
under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination,” section 15(2) of the Charter further clarifies that:
Subsection (1) does not preclude 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 (Canadian Charter, 1982).
The inclusion of this subsection in the Charter consequently renders all legal challenges towards
employment equity or other affirmative action programs as null and void, seeing as they are
protected by the highest law in the country.
For this reason as well, Canada continues to remain distinct from other countries that
often have to provide ruling on the constitutionality of affirmative action. These countries also
have to deal with subsequent appeals and further cases, continually bringing the practice back
into the courtroom every year, unlike Canada who solidified the presence of affirmative action
initiatives in the country by enshrining them within the constitution. Furthermore, Canada has
provided less emphasis on diversity when discussing these programs and have instead “looked to
protect vulnerable minorities directly and for its own sake, not just for the purpose of bettering
the experience of others” (Thorne, 2016). Although many frequently reference how diverse
environments provide better learning and work experience for all, for the Canadian government
this is seen as more of a positives side-effect of the intended goal—directly providing for
disadvantaged minority groups.

Though Canada has taken careful precautions with the use of affirmative action, executed
through the concept of employment equity, that does not provide the country with immunity
from dissent against the practice. At its heart, affirmative action remains a highly controversial
issue and the Canadian government has faced criticism for its use of employment equity. One
such instance came up when Sara Landriault, a Caucasian woman, attempted to apply for a
government position with the federal ministry of Citizenship and Immigration but found herself
unable to as the job was limited to indigenous people and member of a visible minority (Friesen,
2010). After filling in her race on the application form online, the page shut down, informing
Landriault that she was ineligible for consideration. She found herself rather appalled that she
was prohibited from even being considered for the job just because of her race and had the
following to say on the matter:
I do not wish to take anyone's job, my only wish was to be allowed to apply based on my
qualifications. No government should have the right to ask you your race or gender to see
if you are qualified for a job. That is discrimination (Friesen, 2010).
She is not alone on her distaste towards the issue, others in the public as well as members of the
Conservative Party of Canada have also expressed their resentment towards employment equity.
However, those in support of the practice remain firm in their stance that employment equity is
necessary for working towards a valiant goal, helping disadvantaged minorities escape from the
disadvantageous position they have been placed into since birth.
As articulated by former MP Pat Martin, “Sometimes the pendulum has to swing the
other way before it finds balance in the middle” (Friesen, 2010). Though many recognize the
extreme measures that employment equity takes, they affirm that such actions are imperative to
achieving a fair playing field for all. Logistically, the practice is called employment equity, not
employment equality, this specific phrase emphasizing the idea that fair treatment does not
always mean equal treatment.
By using the word equity, the Canadian government recognizes that they are not
providing the same treatment to all people, awarding preferences and advantages to minority
groups that others do not have the benefit of receiving. However, the justification is that such
actions are used in the best interest of creating a fair opportunity for all, not allowing people to
be dragged down by both present and historic discrimination. As mentioned in the Charter, the
goal is to improve the situation on disadvantaged individuals, any harmful actions towards other
groups are not calculated attacks, but rather unintended consequences.
Though employment equity does still creates some resentment among the population, the
term is much less politically charged in Canada than in other countries. The hope is that these
practices will outgrow their use, accomplishing their degree to the extent that such extreme
actions are no longer required. Despite this, employment equity and other affirmative action type
program will remain protected for as long as they are needed. With its inclusion in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and freedoms, affirmative action will remain a part of the conversation in
Canada for many years to come.
Logic of Evil
When evaluating the merits and drawbacks of affirmative action, it becomes apparent that
both sides come from a place of reason with a legitimate justification for their stance on the
issue. Neither of the main arguments from both proponents and opponents of the practice comes
from a vindictive spirit, rather, many would agree that they both hold a strong case for their side
of the debate. Unlike many other problems in the world, affirmative action is such a complex
issue because there is no one stance that the majority of people can agree on as being morally
correct. To truly form a knowledgeable opinion on the subject, one must first educate themselves
on all the nuances of the problem beyond just having a general understanding as to what
affirmative action is. Whereas other world issues are often just complex in the consideration of
how to mend them, to work towards creating a solution on ending the controversy around
affirmative action, there first needs to be at least a general consensus as to the most ethical
course of action is. However, the reality of the situation is that this may never truly be achieved.
When policymakers first established the idea of affirmative action, the intention was
never to offend or discriminate but rather to do the complete opposite. After “decades of
preaching non-discrimination produced little or no change” people felt that it was time to take a
decisive step further, going beyond simply non-discrimination (Steinberg, 1996). Racial
minorities were still being discriminated against on a daily basis and change could not come fast
enough. Instead of continuing on a path that clearly was not working, a new plan was devised to
bring minorities the equality they so long desired, and thus affirmative action was born.
The idea behind affirmative action is to not only “acknowledge the history of denigration
and inequity” but to also “come up with ways in which the future could be different.” (Hsu,
2018). For many, affirmative action is so appealing because it works towards a brighter future
while still recognizing the tragedies of the past. Rather, than ignoring these injustices, refusing to
acknowledge the horrors that were committed under the facade of “looking towards a brighter
future,” affirmative action addresses past wrongdoings while actively working toward repairing
the damage done by historic actions.
The idea of a different future, a better future, is what has resulted in the heavy emphasis
placed on diversity when discussing affirmative action nowadays. Those who support the
practice speak to the importance of reflecting the demographics of the population in both
post-secondary institutions and the workforce. This comes through the inclusion of people from
different races, genders, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Additional emphasis is
placed in bringing diversity to higher positions within the workplace as well. Although large
companies are creating much more diversity in lower positions, high ranking positions are still
dominated by the majority, many of which coming from privileged backgrounds.
Those who support affirmative action often cite the importance of diversity as one of the
most pressing issues and the reason why these types of policies are needed. However, the
mistake comes in the narrowed focus that has been placed on diversity as, ultimately, people
“value diversity. But they value fairness more” (Leonhardt, 2012). Those who seek to bring an
end to affirmative action do not do so because they feel that diversity is unimportant or that
historic discrimination should not be acknowledged and repaired, rather, they feel as though
providing equality is more important.
Affirmative action often involves preference for minority groups during admissions and
hiring processes, as well as filling quotas for the number of minority people chosen, This often
disadvantages those who are not part of a minority, evaluating candidates on an unfair playing
field due to factors out of their control. Those who oppose affirmative action argue that this is
discrimination in its own sense, directing unfair treatment at those who would typically be
considered as “privileged.” For many, this is a major point of contention as remedying past
discrimination with new discrimination is flawed logic.
Opponents of affirmative action ultimately believe that factors such as race and gender
should not be considered at all, rather, it is more important to rely on elements like experience,
qualifications, grades, test scores, and general aptitude, factors that can be easily quantified and
evaluated on an objective basis. They argue that to provide one group with preferential treatment
is to go against the entire basis of civil rights and that such actions go “against Dr. Martin Luther
King’s famous words...He said, ‘I want my children to be judged by the content of their
character, not by their skin color” (Hsu, 2018). This emphasis the idea of a colour-blind
approach, considered by many to be an ideal standard.
In fact, even those who support affirmative action may agree with this sentiment,
however, they hold the belief that although this is the ideal, it is not a reality that is possible at
current. Further effort is still required to bring the world to a place where minorities do not have
to be given advantages just to have an equal chance at the same opportunities others receive from
birth. As a result, affirmative action is often considered to be a “necessary evil,” acknowledging
the fundamental inequality with the practice but viewing it as an extreme that is needed to
remedy a large issue. This also means that affirmative action is only meant to be temporary,
ending the use of it once the objective has been achieved.
In the end, both sides of the affirmative action debate have the same goal in mind, a goal
considered by the vast majority to be “morally correct.” Both sides want a world everyone is
afforded the same opportunities, regardless of the life they were born into. Those who support
affirmative action are not attempting to discriminate against non-minorities and those who
oppose affirmative action are not saying that diversity is unimportant. In this situation, it is
important to bear in mind that both sides hold only good intentions at heart.
Role of Politics
Political and government involvement in the case of affirmative action covers a wide
range from no influence at all to significant involvement. Though the presence of affirmative
action is largely influenced by public opinion, it is the responsibility of various governments and
politicians to take these opinions and formulate them into coherent laws. Seeing as there is no
singular policy for affirmative action, countries that have implemented such procedures have
done so in a variety of different ways, as evidenced thus far.
The United States, on the whole, allows the use of affirmative action in the effort of
creating a diverse environment, however, the use of quotas is prohibited. Furthermore, individual
states have the ability to introduce their own provisions on the situation as eight states have
banned it within public sector schools (Pearson, 2018). Comparatively, reservation in India is
much more involved and quotas are encouraged in as a means to set goals for inclusion with a
cap at 50 percent reservation set by the Supreme Court. Yet, this cap has also been blatantly
ignored by the current government, demonstrating the lack of adherence to the country in an
effort to play into the politics of the situation and gain public approval for the upcoming election.
Government policy can also strictly enforce how affirmative action is carried out as
witnessed in Brazil where there was concern over white people impersonating as pardos and
taking advantage of racial quotas. As a result, a process for verification was created, relying
solely upon physical characteristics, and neglecting other factors such as lineage, when
determining the race of an applicant. Furthermore, the government may bring legal action upon
those they determine are not preto or pardo, laying down criminal charges for fraud on the basis
that these applicants intentionally misrepresented their identity. Such actions have created a toxic
environment and a tense political atmosphere surrounding affirmative action.
In contrast, Canada has been able to avoid most legal action concerning affirmative
action due to the inclusion of these practices in the constitution. Although challenges to the
practice may still come up in court, the highest law in the country explicitly dictates that
affirmative action programs are allowed in the country. However, this does not mean that these
policies have to be in place, merely that they are protected if needed, so the controversy over the
issue still persists, many calling for an end to employment equity.
Ultimately, politicians can play into public opinion, using affirmative action as a tool to
gain approval within the population. By promising either to uphold or abolish the use of such
policies, politicians can elicit a large response from voters who feel strongly on the issue.
Political parties will typically play into the stance they are expected to have on the issue, based in
the political spectrum, with conservative parties against and liberal parties in favour of the use of
affirmative action. This type of approach also plays to those who lack a strong knowledge on the
issue and will instead rely on the opinion they are “supposed to have” on the matter.
These types of people hold a large presence in current politics due to the polarization of
society on most major issues. Tying back to the idea of segregation in politics, large divides have
been created in the population by splitting people into just one of two political standpoints. In
politics today there is a strong left-wing v. right-wing mentality, pitting these two groups against
one another as sworn enemies, incapable of coming to any type of an agreement. This situation
has had an obvious impact on affirmative action, dividing the population by giving people an
opinion for them to easily fall back on, not having to rely upon themselves to generate their own
knowledge and stance on the issue.
However, no matter how the government chooses to approach affirmative action, there is
only a limited amount that they can do. In countries that have affirmative action policies, the
government can only control the presence of these in publicly mandated schools and government
jobs. It is not up to a country to push the practice of enforcing affirmative action policies onto
private corporations or post-secondary institutions. Above all else, it is important for people to
formulate their own ideas on affirmative action than it is for them to play into the politics of the
issue, merely going with a generally accepted opinion.
Solutions
The controversy around affirmative action will forever remain present, but in order to
begin to lessen the issues it creates among people, one must first acknowledge that it was never
meant to be permanent. The goal of affirmative action is to resolve discrimination, once these
goals have been achieved, these programs and policies are to be removed. However, many may
argue that eliminating all discrimination is not a realistic goal that can ever truly be
accomplished. As a result, individual countries must look at the situation as objectively as

possible to determine at which point in time these policies can be reduced or even removed
entirely.
Many would agree that several countries, mainly those of the West, have already made
great strides, drastically reducing discrimination and the effect that it has on minority groups.
Consequently, these countries should start evaluating options to gradually move away from
affirmative action programs. Though much work still needs to be done, the situation is no longer
as dire and discrimination is nowhere near the magnitude it was in the past. As a result, extreme
actions like racial quotas no longer need to be employed.
The suggestion is not to abandon these practices completely, rather, governments can
begin slowly working backward, starting by trading sheer preferences for the outreach programs
that were the original idea behind affirmative action. These programs would include activities
such as mentoring disadvantaged youth and actively seeking out applications from minorities.
Though such actions accomplished little in the past, with the momentum that has been built up
through the years, they will now be able to transition the movement towards a future free from
discrimination into a slow upward trend rather than the careening speeds of the past few decades.
Although this may seem like a negative to many, taking far longer than necessary,
slowing down the effect of affirmative action will ultimately foster the least amount of dissent in
the population. With the strides that society has been taking in providing a fair start to life for all,
many hold the fear, albeit an irrational fear, that they are being pushed aside by minority groups
who are attempting to uproot them from their place in society. Many people living in countries in
the West already feel that equality exists as a fact, so for them, as they see those who have been
historically disadvantaged still receiving benefits, they begin to feel threatened. This, in turn,
creates fear which is then translated into hostility, typically directed at the government, or
towards those that these people feel are encroaching on their status—minority groups, facilitating
greater divide and tension among the people.
It is in the best interest of all to try to offend the least amount of people possible,
therefore to truly make progress on all fronts, both sides of the argument must also acknowledge
the legitimate concerns of the other side, rather than resorting to antagonizing one another. In the
premiere episode of his Netflix show “Patriot Act,” Hasan Minhaj villanizes the Asian-American
plaintiffs in the Harvard case, referring to them as “the worst kind” of American for jeopardizing
the future of affirmative action (Liu, 2019). This type of politically charged language only
further aggravates the situation, accomplishing nothing aside from simply creating more
animosity.
Proponents of affirmative action need to be able to see the downsides of the practice as it
not only unfairly disadvantages others but also puts those that it is trying to help at risk. In
contrast, those who oppose affirmative action must acknowledge the legitimate good it does in
rectifying past wrongs while also creating diversity. Ultimately, both sides come from a place of
reason, and it would do everyone well for them to acknowledge this fact.
As other countries in the world are only just beginning to work towards ending
discrimination, the question arises on whether or not they should be adopting affirmative action
procedures. History serves as evidence that such measures will create hostility among to people,
so implementing such policies as the first course of action would not be in the best interests of
the country. Rather, other approaches, such as outreach programs, should be attempted first, only
resorting to affirmative action if necessary. As stated previously, affirmative action is an extreme
route to take, but it often gives the necessary push to truly begin working towards a future where
equality exists for all as a fact.
For countries that do decide to employ affirmative action procedures, it would be
advisable for them to do so “in ways that will cause least resentment in the rest of the
communities” (G. Dyer, personal communication, February 21, 2019). As has been proven by
public consensus, people are largely supportive of the objective behind affirmative action;
problems only arise when the specifics are revealed on how these goals are achieved. Although
the government should inform the public on the implementation of these policies, avoiding
resentment will be best achieved by providing a distraction from who is being harmed in the
situation, something that the government is traditionally good at doing anyway. However,
despite what actions are taken to prevent it, “there will be resentment; when somebody wins,
generally somebody loses, and the losers can be sore losers” (G. Dyer, personal communication,
February 21, 2019).
When discussing such a controversial issue, it quickly becomes evident that there are no
easy solutions to be found. Affirmative action seeks to bring an end to an issue that has plagued
the Earth for as long as humans have been on it. This is not why people take exception to it.
Those who resent the use of affirmative action acknowledge the flawed foundation from which
the entire system is built. To end discrimination through the targeted use of more discrimination
is faulty logic that does not stand up to criticism. Yet, creating diverse environments, fostering
creativity and innovation is of the utmost importance.
The debate over affirmative action is filled with contradictions and the greatest issue is
that there is no singular correct answer. However, it is an issue that has divided people for far too
long, pitting them against one another in a fight to see who will come out on top. Affirmative
action should not be focused on segregation, crowning one winner while leaving all the others in
the dust. There is room for everybody to succeed even with the existence of such policies.
Everyone does not need to come to one agreement on affirmative action to work together
towards a common objective.
Among all the heated debates and arguments, it is important to remember that, above all
else, the goal is, and always has been, a future where everyone is afforded the same opportunities
in life, free from the constraints of society.

Appendix
Figure 1. Likelihood of companies to outperform based on gender and ethnic diversity
Figure 2. Frequency of the term affirmative action throughout history

Figure 3. Educational attainment, by father’s education level

Figure 4. SAT score required by each race for equal chance of admission to university
Figure 5. SAT scores by parental education and income
Figure 6. Harvard admissions rates by race

Figure 7. Photograph of Maira Mutti Araújo

References
Almost all Indians will soon qualify for affirmative action in India. (2019, January 10). The
Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/01/12/almost-all-
indians-will-soon-qualify-for-affirmative-action-in-india
Amnesty International India. (n.d.). Affirmative action form. Retrieved from https://
amnesty.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Affirmative_Action_Form-1.docx
Avi-Yonah, S.S., & McCafferty, M.C. (2018, October 19). Asian-American Harvard applicants
saw lowest admit rate of any racial group from 1995 to 2013. The Harvard Crimson.
Retrieved from
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/19/acceptance-rates-by-race/
Azevedo, E. (2017). Photograph of Maira Mutti Araújo [Online image]. Retrieved April 2, 2019
from https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/24/os-varios-tons-de-maira-mutti-araujo/
Biskupic, J. (2018, November 3). Harvard affirmative action trial arguments come to a close.
CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/03/politics/harvard-trial-wrap/
index.html
Biswas, S. (2019, January 10). Is affirmative action in India becoming a gimmick?. BBC News.
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46806089
Chang, A. (2018, August 30). Asians are being used to make the case against affirmative action.
Again. Vox. Retrieved from
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17031460/affirmative-action
-asian-discrimination-admissions
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 15(2), Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
Chen, M. (2018, August 31). Affirmative action is under attack. The Nation. Retrieved from
https://ww w.thenation.com/article/affirmative-action-under-attack/
De Oliveira, C (1). (2017, April 5). Brazil’s new problem with blackness. Foreign Policy.
Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/05/brazils-new-problem-with-
blackness-affirmative-action/
De Oliveira, C (2). (2017). The many shades of Maíra Mutti Araújo. Foreign Policy, (225),
46-53. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rch&AN=
123953161&site=ehost-live
De Léon, C. (2017, August 31). Deep thinking on affirmative action. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/books/review/for-discrimination-
randall-kennedy-affirmative-action.html
Educational attainment, by father’s education level [Online image]. (2018). Retrieved March 6,
2019 from https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17031460/affirmative-action-asian-
discrimination-admissions
Frequency of the term affirmative action throughout history [Online image]. (2014). Retrieved
March 6, 2019 from https://newrepublic.com/article/117508/affirmative-action-story-

catchphrase
Friesen, J. (2010, July 22). Tories take aim at employment equity. The Globe and Mail.
Retrieved from
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-take-aim-at-employment-
equity/article1389384/
Fuchs, E. (2015, December 8). JFK wrote a memo in 1961 that still has a huge impact on college
admissions in America. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.
com/where-did-affirmative-action-come-from-2015-12
Gersen, J.S. (2017, August 10). The uncomfortable truth about affirmative action and
Asian-Americans. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/
news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans
Grant, T. (2019, March 23). Not enough black women teaching at Canadian universities, says
Halifax scholar. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/halifax/2019/03/23/
not-enough-black-women-teaching-at-canadian-universities-says-halifax-scholar.html
Gratz v. Bollinger, [2003] 539 U.S. 244.
Grutter v. Bollinger, [2003] 539 U.S. 306.
Harris, A. (2018, October 26). What happens when a college’s affirmative action policy is found
illegal. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/
10/when-college-cant-use-race-admissions/574126/
Hartocollis, A. (2017, November 19). He took on the Voting Rights Act and won. Now he’s
etrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/

taking on Harvard. The New York Times. R
2017/11/ 19/us/affirmative-action-lawsuits.html
Hsu, H. (2018, October 15). The rise and fall of affirmative action. The New Yorker. Retrieved
from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/the-rise-and-fall-of-affirmative-
action
Human Rights Watch. (2001, July 19). An approach to reparations. Retrieved from https://
www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/race/reparations.pdf
IMADR Geneva Office. (2011). ICERD and CERD: A guide for civil society actors. Retrieved
from https://www.ohchr.org/documents/HRBodies/CERD/ICERDManual.pdf
Jackson, A. (2016, March 15). Harvard professor describes the problem with colleges trying to
become more ‘diverse’. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.
com/harvard-law-professor-randall-kennedy-discussed-the-issue-with-diversity-2016-3
Job equity has old Tory roots. (2010, July 24). The Star. Retrieved from
https://www.thestar.com/
opinion/editorials/2010/07/24/job_equity_has_old_tory_roots.html
Leonhardt, D. (2012, October 13). Rethinking affirmative action. The New York Times. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/rethinking-affirmative-action.
html
Likelihood of companies companies to outperform based on gender and ethnic diversity [Online
image]. (2015). Retrieved March 4, 2019 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
ruchikatulshyan/2015/01/30/racially-diverse-companies-outperform-industry-norms-by-3
0/#7fca07701132
Liu, M. (2019, January 18). Harvard affirmative action case pits Asian-American against each
other—and everyone else. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/18/harvard-affirmative-action-case-pits-asian-ameri
cans-against-each-other-everyone-else/?utm_term=.2977ad591e51
Mansky, J. (2016, June 22). The origins of the term “affirmative action.” Smithsonian Magazine.
Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/learn-origins-term-affirmative-
action-180959531/
Montanaro, D. (2013, June 11). NBC news/WSJ poll: affirmative action support at historic low.
NBC News. Retrieved from http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/11/18885926-
nbc-newswsj-poll-affirmative-action-support-at-historic-low?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3
Moses, M.S., & Jenkins, L.D. (2017, August 7). Affirmative action around the world. The
Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/affirmative-action-around-the-
world-82190
NBC News. (2019, January 12). Here’s what’s at stake for Asian Americans in the Harvard
affirmative action case [ Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

oyzuiYvJe2E
Newport, F. (2018, October 22). The Harvard affirmative action case and public opinion. Gallup.
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243965/harvard-
affirmative-action-case-public-opinion.aspx
Nolen, S. (2016, December 11). Black or white?. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/black-or-white-in-brazil-a-panel-will-deci
de-foryou/article33295036/
Parloff, R. (2015, December 9). Big business asks Supreme Court to save affirmative action.
Fortune. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2015/12/09/supreme-court-affirmative-action/
Pearson. (2018, May 7). Why is affirmative action so controversial and do we still need it?
[Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7R1fyRRGBQ&t =
337s
Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, [1978] 438 U.S. 265.
Reyes, K. (2018, December 27). Affirmative action shouldn’t be about diversity. The Atlantic.
Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/affirmative-action-
about-reparations-not-diversity/578005/
Sander, R & Taylor, S. (2012, October 2). The painful truth about affirmative action. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-
painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
SAT score required by each race for equal chance of admission to university [Online image].
(2018). Retrieved April 1, 2019 from https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17031460/
affirmative-action-asian-discrimination-admissions
SAT score by parental education and income [Online image]. (2019). Retrieved April 2, 2019
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyzuiYvJe2E
Slater, D. (2013, March 16). Does affirmative action do what it should?. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/does-affirmative-
Action-do-what-it-should.html.
Somin, I. (2016, June 23). Dangerous implications of today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding
etrieved from
racial preferences at the University of Texas. The Washington Post. R
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/23/dangerous-im
plications-of-todays-supreme-court-ruling-upholding-racial-preferences-at-the-university-
of-texas/?utm_term=.73ae1952c4de
Steinberg, S. (1996). The affirmative action debate. Unesco Courier, 49(3), 17. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rch&AN=9604082067&site=eho
st-live
Strauss, V. (2017, August 2). Actually, we still need affirmative action for African Americans in
college admissions, Here’s Why. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/08/02/actually-we-still-need-affirmativ
e-action-for-african-americans-in-college-admissions-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_te
rm=.198f5f1d06b5
Thorne, D. (2016, July 22). How the Abigail Fisher case highlights the difference between
affirmative action in Canada and the U.S.. TVO. Retrieved from https://www.tvo.org/
article/how-the-abigail-fisher-case-highlights-the-difference-between-affirmative-action-i
n-canada-and-the
Tulshyan, R. (2015, January 30). Racially diverse companies outperform industry norms by
35%. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2015/01/30/
racially-diverse-companies-outperform-industry-norms-by-30/#7fca07701132
UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). (1989, November 10). CCPR general comment no. 18:
non-discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fa8.html
Vox. (2018, December 10). What we get wrong about affirmative action [ Video File]. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuUDhfKV3bk
Wall Street Journal. (2018, October 22). Harvard’s secretive admission process unveiled in court
documents [ Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX98-
1cuUFM
Wang, K. (2018). Harvard admissions rates by race [Online image]. Retrieved April 2, 2019
from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/19/acceptance-rates-by-race/
Why India needs a new debate on caste quotas. (2015, August 29). BBC News. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34082770
Williams, A. (2003, January 27). ...But not at this cost. (cover story). Newsweek, 141(4), 33.
Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rch&AN=
8933899&site=ehost-live

Rachel

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rachel

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Running head: THE POLARIZING EFFECT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 1

The Polarizing Effect of Affirmative Action:

Turning the Tables on Discrimination

Innisdale Secondary School

May 10​th​, 2019

Randall Kennedy: The Case for Affirmative Action…………………………......pg. 14-19

Edward Blum: The Case Against Affirmative Action…………………………....pg. 19-23

Role of Control………...………………………………………………………………....pg. 23-28

Role of International Organizations……………………………………………………...pg. 28-31

United States of America: Asian-Americans vs. Harvard University…………....pg. 31-36

India: The Political Ploy………………………………………………………….pg. 36-40

Brazil: All the Shades of Grey…………………………………………………....pg. 40-44

Canadian Connection……………………………………………………………………..pg. 44-48

Logic of Evil……………………………………………………………………………...pg. 48-52

Role of Politics…………………………………………………………………………...pg. 52-54

labelled as just right or wrong, and life is not always easy.

economic background, or ethnic origin. Typically characterized by the unjust treatment or

to amend for the atrocities of the past.

varied perspectives, ultimately facilitating a more comprehensive learning experience.

With a better understanding of the importance of diverse working and learning

public as well as those using the policy.

employment procedures that exercise practices of non-discrimination. Affirmative action takes

affirmative action that causes more controversy to arise—sheer preference.

rejection of some applicants in favour of those who are less qualified.

iterated in another question that asks:

background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if

a single definitive policy.

eliminating much of the original purpose of affirmative action.

the total lack of understanding as to what it is.

hostility, ultimately causing greater harm than good.

B. Johnson, established non-discriminatory practices for employment in Executive Order 11246

(Figure 2) (Mansky, 2016).

address to the graduating class at Howard University, Johnson declared:

further than simply non-discrimination.

small factor of a part of a holistic personal score.

cases—Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger—and the cases of Fisher v. University of

international stage as well.

program, referred to as “reservation,” in 1950 (“Why India needs,” 2019).

inclusion of those in the lowest caste, known as Dalits or “untouchables.”

The international presence of affirmative action is again reaffirmed by the one-quarter of

than ever (Moses & Jenkins, 2017).

to verify their racial claims.

affirmative action is still present worldwide.

the countries we currently consider to be “developed” have been working on remedying

It is in the best interests of governments in nations worldwide to create as little dissent

must first understand both sides of the argument.

Randall Kennedy: The Case for Affirmative Action

As mentioned, there are benefits to be found from creating a diverse environment.

is not yet the reality.

processes (Harris, 2018). Following the introduction of Proposition 2, the University of

are just barely approaching an equal chance of admission in comparison to non-minority

interference or positive reinforcement; diversity will not happen by itself.

acknowledgement of past wrongdoings:

the hands of the federal government…

employee that would otherwise be missed.

equaling of the scales is required to ensure a brighter future in years to come.

Edward Blum: The Case Against Affirmative Action

their position, even when this is not the case.

qualified and less capable.

resentment and segregation between groups.

These situations of mismatch are an unintended consequence of affirmative action,

they aid the otherwise helpless minorities.

Armstrong Williams, an African American nationally syndicated newspaper columnist in

May 10th, 2019

Covenant (UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 1989).