Troubles with Affirmative Action

Several months ago while browsing Half Price Books, I picked up a copy of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. I’m not sure why I picked it up, as I have never taken a course in biology and know absolutely nothing about the subject. As it turns out, the book is beautiful and accessible, and I’ve learned quite a lot, not just about biology but also about community.

I read something within its pages not too long ago that struck a chord with me. On page 109, Darwin writes, “ [F]or, as varieties, in order to become in any degree permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country, the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield offspring which, though in some slight degree modified, will still inherit those advantages that enabled their parents to become dominant over their compatriots.”

Ever since I first found out about affirmative action, I’ve been against the idea. Not only did I find it insulting that the majority group (in this case, white America) felt that they needed to lower some set of standards in order to incorporate or include more black people into some industry or group, I also thought it somewhat arbitrary. I understood the theory, that historically blacks have come from situations of disadvantage and affirmative action was a way of leveling the playing field. But looking as myself as an example, the expectations and standards associated with the black community simply failed to apply. I went to private schools in affluent neighborhoods. My parents held white collar jobs. I was well educated, comfortable, and well-integrated into the majority culture. As far as I could tell, I’d had all the same advantages as my white peers, so why should I be awarded for my admittedly mediocre performance in school? It seemed unfair, ill-thought out, and insulting.

Since reading Darwin, I’ve had the opportunity to reconsider my stance on affirmative action. I’m not sure I entirely disagree with my previous view, but I’ve refined my position, as I’ve developed a better understanding of what affirmative action actually attempts to do. My previous understanding of affirmative action was extremely myopic—I saw it as being all about me, my position, my history. When viewed this narrowly, it’s easy to misunderstand how affirmative action was meant to work. But my previous position stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding; affirmative action isn’t about affording privileges to individual blacks based on the assumption that they themselves are at an inherent disadvantage. Affirmative action is an attempt to ensure that black people as a whole, as a community, can grow in strength, affluence, education and status.

Communities tend to be insular—members of a particular community tend to share the values of that community, associate with other community members, marry them, and raise their children within that community. The American black community is no different. Within the black community, people tend to fraternize with each other, attend the same institutions (such as school, churches, or sporting teams), eventually marrying each other and procreating. Within the community is a shared culture complete with history, language, and certain values.

The assumptions of affirmative action are supported by biological observations. White Americans will continue to be economically and socially dominant in our culture and continue to have a significant cultural advantage over minority people unless something significant happens to shift the balance between whites and people of color. Dominance and advantage are passed down through generations through affluence, social networks and carefully cultivated values. The same is true of disadvantage.

The goal of affirmative action is to change the nature of the black community by offering advacement opportunities for certain members of that community. The idea here is that because the black community tends to be insular, the benefits or advantages afforded to one member will eventually trickle out and change the entire community. A black man who graduates from a prestigious university and makes a name for himself in business will, in theory, marry a black woman, have black children, raise them in an environment where knowledge, learning, and the protestant work ethic are central values. The cycle continues through the generations until eventually the majority of the community have been elevated to a new level. In this way, affirmative action is designed to change the values and the orientation of the community to better enable it to succeed in white America.

Although at first glance this sounds noble, there is a fundamental problem with affirmative action; primarily, it relies on outsiders to identify members of the disadvantaged community and elevate them. The reality is, the perception of who is a member of a given community and the reality of who is in that community are not necessarily congruent. Although an individual may appear to satisfy all the criteria for membership in a community, she may not legitimately qualify as a member of the community. I am a good example of this. I have black skin and am borne of black parents; no one could argue that I am not a black woman. But am I a legitimate member of the black community? I married a white man; I don’t have any black friends. Any advances I might make in my life and no more likely to affect other blacks than anyone else. My children go to school with white children, and will probably follow a life course similar to mine.

It’s easy to see how any advantages I may have been afforded via affirmative action have been lost on the black community. Choosing me as a beneficiary of affirmative action, based solely on my skin color and not on my communal affiliation and tendencies, would be a poor decision. In some ways it’s a logical decision; many have argued that it makes sense to elevate those who show the most potential, who have the most to give back. As an intelligent, ambitious, outspoken person, I seemed a good choice for the advancement of the black community. But because of my personal identification, because of the future pouring through me (via my white husband and children) I’m not.

Considering this, I remain unconvinced that outsiders can effectively alter the content or timbre of any community. Perhaps the only people that can successfully change the orientation of a community are the individuals that compose it. Communities are organisms, and while they will therefore respond to external stimuli, that stimulus cannot and should not be the primary motivation for change. Any significant change needs to be grassroots. Communities, in order to maintain a sense of self and power, need to be self-regulating.

But in a complex society where no individual community is completely autonomous, is this kind of self-regulation and self-promotion completely possible? And if it isn’t, which I suspect it might not be, to what extent are communities obligated to aid each other? Are they obligated at all?

As always, I have more questions than answers. I’m sure I’ll be revisiting this topic at another time.

Subscribe via RSS 2.0 | Both comments and pings are currently closed.