Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Affirmative action
Section E. Social, moral and religious

There are many minority (and sometimes majority) groups which have suffered historical injustices, and are now under-represented in higher education, business and politics; e.g. women, certain ethnic minorities or castes, and those with disabilities. Are laws protecting equal opportunities enough to address this issue or is affirmative action (AA), or positive discrimination as it is known in the UK, needed to redress the balance and create a level playing field? There are a number of systems of AA including quotas, loaded short lists, additional points or prioritisation. A debate may look at one model or argue the issue in principle.There are many smaller debates within the theme which look at one group or one industry, but this case gives an overview.

Pros

[1] There has been unfair historical discrimination which has led to underrepresentation today; for example, in the USA women were late in getting equal rights and the black community were discriminated against in law until the 1960s. Even today, for every dollar earned by men in the USA, women earn 74 cents; African-American women earn 63 cents. This is also true of the black population of South Africa after apartheid and the lower castes in India after centuries of oppression. This under-representation must be addressed; equality is a human right and should not just be words on the statute book, but should be seen to happen in practice. Men, and the majority ethnic community in many countries, have an unfair advantage which skews this equality and AA redresses that.

[2] Under-representation is bad in practice as well as in principle. Countries are damaged by not having access to the brightest talent from the largest pool. They also benefit from a greater level of diversity; e.g. representation in parliaments is improved by having more women; and confidence in the police is created through a mix of races/religions — e.g. in Northern Ireland.

[3] Countries that now have equal opportunity laws, but no AA still see under-representation (e.g. black underrepresentation in universities in the USA, after AA was outlawed; Wales only produced equal representation for women in their Assembly through AA). This is because equal opportunities legislation does not create a culture of change. Affirmative action is the only effective way to address the issue of equality.

[4] Affirmative action only needs to be a short-term measure as it creates a real change which then renders it unnecessary. It does this in four ways. First, selfperpetuation (e.g. women value other women, so a female CEO is less likely to be sexist when hiring and promoting). Second, AA creates role models who raise aspirations and inspire others. Third, AA leads to a change of culture; e.g. women make the workplace more women- friendly. An example of this is that women in parliament in Sweden have introduced better maternity rights. Fourth, AA encourages a breakdown of prejudice both in the workplace and in society as a whole, because when people work together, they learn to value each other, which has beneficial consequences.

Cons

[1] Affirmative action is wrong in principle. Meritocracy is the only fair system and all discrimination must be outlawed. It is unjust to punish today’s white men for the historical injustices committed by others. It is also unfair as it does not give help based on need; it is saying that, for example, in the USA, a rich black man deserves more help than a poor white man, and therefore is still defining people by their race or gender rather than their needs or talents.

[2] Affirmative action can damage the development of a country; for example, South Africa is a country that needs to develop economically for the well-being of all its people (black unemployment is very high), but its priority is AA which means that it is putting less qualified people into jobs and thereby jeopardising development. This is also true with the Policy of Reservation in India which increases the brain drain from that country. This helps neither majorities nor minorities.

[3] Affirmative action is unnecessary because countries evolve organically towards equality. Countries accord protection from discrimination in the law to women and minorities. The first people from these communities then begin to succeed and this then cascades through society. It is a natural process and does not need interference. All countries at present are at a different stage of this process; e.g. Sweden already does not need AA for its women, whereas the Roma in Slovakia are currently under-represented, but are beginning to campaign for their rights in a way that indicates their evolution is starting.

[4] Affirmative action impedes the removal of prejudice rather than causing it to progress. It does this in four ways. First, resentment against minorities increases prejudice, which leads to more discrimination in the long term. Second, AA encourages a culture of mediocrity by saying that a certain race/gender cannot get there on its own. Third, AA backfires: e.g. drop-out rates for black students in the USA at the time when they had AA was triple that of white students. Fourth, AA robs individuals who would have been successful anyway of their achievement and says they only made it because of the policy.

Possible motions

This House would use affirmative action to redress historical injustices.

This House would support quotas for women in parliament.

This House would use positive discrimination to widen diversity in universities.

Related topics

Slavery, reparations for

Political correctness

Homosexuals, ordination of