Affirmative action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is a policy or a program whose
stated goal is to redress past or present discrimination through active measures to
ensure equal opportunity, generally concerning education, employment or seats in
parliament and/or government.[1]

Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social

injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to
discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of
affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the
power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a
strategy will no longer be necessary.

Some groups who are targeted for affirmative action are characterized by race,
gender, ethnicity, or disability status. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing
caste discrimination. In South Africa, the focus has been primarily race-based and, to
a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. When members of targeted groups are
actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to
compensate for advantages that other groups are said to have had (such as through
institutional racism or institutional sexism or historical circumstances).

The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-
blindness or gender-blindness—or simply relying on elites to behave fairly—will not
suffice to change the situation for several reasons.

• Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by

limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.[3]
• Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups
who are already empowered.[4]
• Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely
to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.[5]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Controversy
• 2 International human rights law
• 3 Implementation worldwide
• 4 Consultations
• 5 See also
• 6 Notes and references
 • 7 External links

[edit] Controversy
proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address
past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity.[1] they may
argue that the end result — a more diversified student body, police force or other
group — justifies the means.

Opponents claim that it has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its
goals. they argue that it is discrimination, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones,
and instils a sense of victimhood in the majority. it may increase racial tension and
benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such As middle to upper-
class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority Groups (such As
lower-class whites). In the British 2001 summer of violence riots in Oldham,
Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major Complaints voiced in poor white areas
was alleged dIscrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas.

Some also claim that in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to
help, since it causes a "mismatch" effect by admitting minority students who are less
qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up.
UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this
occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms. [1] Supporters of
affirmative action counter this by citing the connections that a minority student can
obtain simply by being at a higher-ranked school, even if their class ranking is lower.

How the media portrays affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in
how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims that the practice is
itself racist and/or sexist, depending on how one defines those concepts. Others
believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations. Some members
of races 'assisted' by affirmative action feel that the program is an insult to them,
because they feel that they are capable of becoming successful regardless of
government's help. Finally, critics and supporters disagree on the economic effects of
affirmative action. [citation needed]

[edit] International human rights law

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be
required of states that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic
discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a
consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups
after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved." The United
Nations Human Rights Committee states 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. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the
population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take
specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a
time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific
matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action
is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation
under the Covenant."[6]

An in-depth examination of the legal status of affirmative action, as well as the

different kinds of programs that exist and their pros and cons, can be found in a paper
written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt.[7]

[edit] Implementation worldwide

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered
illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is
sometimes described as being "race-blind", in hopes that it is effective against
discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for
example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to
join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to
"positive discrimination".

• Belgium. The Flemish government proposed in January 2006 a measure that

will make some job opportunities available exclusively to immigrants,
disabled and elderly people for the first three weeks. [citation needed]
• Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems
of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native
Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are efforts to create quotas
for the disabled in the civil public services. [8]
• Brunei. The Bumiputeras of Brunei are accorded special benefits through a
variety of affirmative action programs. For instance, the Royal Brunei Armed
Forces enlist only Bumiputeras.[citation needed]
• China. The People's Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9% of
the population) to be exempt from the One-child policy, and there is a quota
for minority representatives in the National Assembly in Beijing, as well as
other realms of government. In addition the certain State run Universities,
such as the Central University for Nationalities, located in Beijing, operate on
a quota system, with spots reserved for members of all of China's state
recognized "Nationalities".[citation needed]
• France. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily
higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with Arabian
origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of
Defense newspaper ("Armées d'aujourd'hui"), this driving license and rank
project was canceled. (article: Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire").
[citation needed]
It is called "la discrimination positive", there.
• Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all
people regardless of sex or race. In recent years there has been a long public
debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged
 access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There were programs stating
that if men and women had equal qualifications, women had to be preferred
for a job. The Government agreed on the details of an anti-discrimination law
(Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) in May 2006, that aims at improving the
protection of minorities. The draft follows EU-standards and has passed the
German Parliament in August 2006.
• Greece. has quotas setting a lower limit for women participating in election
lists of political parties for most of the election processes.[citation needed]
• India. Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the
form of reservation or quotas in government positions, employment and
education for lower castes and minorities. Main article: Reservation in India
• Indonesia. In Indonesia, affirmative action programs give natives of Malay
origin (Pribumi) preference over the Indonesian Chinese in the country.[citation
needed]

• Japan. Spot for universities as well as all the government position (including
teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely
competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social
background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal
policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not
available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
• Macedonia. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for
access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
• Malaysia. The bumiputra laws are a form of affirmative action meant to
provide more opportunity for the majority ethnic Malay population versus the
historical financial dominance of the Chinese population.However,Tun Dr
Mahathir said that previous approach did not help them but spoiled them and
scolded them during his tenure as a Prime Minister. He added that they should
not rely on tongkat(cruthes) but their own effort to succeed in life.
• New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often
afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.[9]
• Norway. All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members,
must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60%).[9]
This affects roughly 400 companies.
• Philippines. State universities implement a modified version of Affirmative
Action. Secondary schools, both private and public schools, are each assigned
a quota on how many students from that high school are accepted for
admission, in addition to each student's score during the entrance examination.
This was done to address the situation wherein a majority of the university
school population was composed mostly of students who came from well-off
families and private schools.[citation needed]
• Slovakia. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative
action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority
group" as being against its Constitution. [2] This is seen as an anti-gipsy
decision immediately following Roma hunger riots, which protested curtailing
of social aids in Slovakia.[citation needed]
• South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black
Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the
workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people
from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal
definition, the designated groups include all people of color, white females,
 people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black
economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it
covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of
race. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively
complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in
which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required
to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously
disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership,
representation at employee and management level (up to board of director
level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment
programs, amongst others.
• Turkey. Affirmative action programs give Bulgarian immigrants and other
minorities preference over natives.[citation needed]
• United Kingdom. Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK and
quotas/selective systems are not permitted.[10][9] A singular exception to this is
a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which requires that
the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and
non Catholics.[11]
• United States. In the United States, affirmative action occurs in school
admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate contracts. Its intended
beneficiaries are ethnic minorities, white women, people with disabilities and
veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and
has been contested on constitutional grounds. A recent Supreme Court ruling
in Michigan against some forms of affirmative action has required some
colleges to set new admissions criteria. Main article: Affirmative action in the
United States