This article by the fine economist, Patrick Mason, may be useful for this discussion of reparations. Michael Yates > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Affirmative Action: Moving Beyond the Myths > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:52:52 -0500 > From: Patrick L Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > February 6, 2000 > > Affirmative Action: Moving Beyond the Myths > > by Patrick L. Mason, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Department of Economics, Florida State University > > The current discussion in America and in Florida on racial > inequality, affirmative action, and a host of associated > issues is often clouded with half-truths, deliberate > misinformation, and irrelevant questions. To the extent > that public or private organizations have an effective > affirmative action program, the program is designed as a > partial offset to current and on-going discrimination. For > example, current discrimination in the labor market costs > African Americans 15 percent of earnings relative to whites. > This discrimination does not occur because of different pay > for the same work, so much as it occurs because of access to > different work for persons of the same ability. That is to > say, there are differences in access to employment > information, hiring, training, promotion, and layoffs. > > The 15 percent penalty suffered by African Americans does > not include the impact of discrimination that takes place > in so-called pre-labor market activities that influence > earnings. For example, access to persons who control > resources and information often depends on what neighborhood > one lives in, what church one attends, what club one belongs > to, or other affiliational relations. Nor does the 15 > percent labor market penalty suffered by African Americans > take into account discrimination in housing, education, and > access to credit. Finally, significant discriminatory > treatment exists in the distribution of public resources. > One notes that African Americans have never had their > interests adequately represented in state or federal > governing bodies. African Americans are strongly > underrepresented as legislators, judges, and decision-making > officials in Florida and across America. Clearly, the claim > that discrimination does not exist within important > institutions and processes within American society is > without merit. > > A second false claim is that there is nothing we can or > should do about past discrimination. Most of today's > conservatives are willing to admit that discrimination > "existed in the past." Nevertheless, they claim that those > who were the victims of such discrimination should simply > get over it. Move on. Moving on requires dealing with a > social justice issue that is nowhere on the current public > policy agenda. Past racism created tremendous racial wealth > inequality. A recent economic study published by University > of Michigan economists showed that in 1994, 30 percent of > African American households had zero or negative net worth, > compared to only 8 percent of white families. The median > wealth of African American families was $10,329, while the > median for white American households was $76,519. Thus, the > median white family had a net worth near the 84th percentile > of the black wealth distribution ($79,048). Yet, a family > would have required net worth of at least $310,081 in order > to enter the white wealth elite (those at or above the 84th > percentile). Finally, the median black family places at just > the 22nd percentile of the white wealth distribution > ($10,539). Slavery and Jim Crow are the causes of this great > racial divide in wealth. Even if racial discrimination were > to completely disappear from every aspect of American > society today, the current differences in wealth (which were > caused by past racism) would cause racial inequality to > persist for all time. Until we take seriously the issue of > redistributing wealth, racial inequality and the attending > racial conflict will always be with us. It is unjust in the > highest to say to African Americans that although "past" > white privilege in the access to public and private > resources created a great racial gulf in the distribution of > wealth, any and all claims for compensatory justice by > African Americans are unwarranted. > > A third false claim is that affirmative action has > discriminated against whites, especially white males. This > is a shameful claim. I am unaware of any study in the top > 100 professional economics journals that purports to show > discrimination against whites. Granted, in a society with > more than 270 million people there may be specific cases of > discrimination against individual whites. But, there exists > no evidence that even remotely suggests that a particular > group of whites have been the victims of discrimination due > to affirmative action efforts. > > A fourth false claim is that affirmative action requires > quotas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Affirmative > action represents a minimal (and often anemic) policy > response to the persistent and totalizing racism (and > sexism) of American society. So-called affirmative action > policies were developed as a token response to the pressures > of the African American liberation struggles of 1945-1973. > Over time, the affirmative action umbrella was expanded to > include Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and > women. Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for > universities to admit students or for employers to hire, > promote, train, or pay workers solely on the basis of race, > ethnicity, or gender. Also, in the absence of business > necessity, anti-discrimination laws forbid decisions or > rules that have a disparate impact by race, ethnicity, or > gender. There is no corporate or governmental affirmation > action policy that says race or gender is the sole criteria > for inclusion in the pool of potential employees, for > hiring, promoting or training new employees, or for college > entrance. Affirmative action plans do often contain goals, > but a goal is not a quota. For example, I may have a goal of > accumulating $10 million and retiring from work in 10 years. > I may or may not achieve this goal; however, intelligent > goal setting requires information gathering and analysis, > development of a detailed strategy and plan of action with a > reasonable timetable to evaluate progress, and sustained > discussion with the persons who will assist in implementing > the plan. Accordingly, the very process of attempting to > establish reasonable goals not only gives me an objective > measuring rod for evaluating success but the process also > gives me crucial information on what I must do in order to > succeed. > > Affirmative action policies have become prevalent because > all but the most irrational employers and universities > realize that anti-discrimination laws are not sufficient > to create equality of opportunity, let alone equality of > well-being. Truly successful affirmation action policies may > benefit the average white male earner because such policies > create more open institutions and they increase productivity. > > Affirmative action policies typically include the following: > (1) programs to broaden search procedures during hiring and > admission; (2) programs to broaden the criteria of hiring, > admission, promotion, training, etc.; (3) programs to > broaden objectives for hiring, admission, promotion, etc.; > and, (4) programs to promote racial, ethnic, or gender > diversity in the workplace or academic environment. > > For jobs that do not require a college degree, 35-40 percent > of new hires obtained their jobs through informal referral > mechanisms, for example, referrals from current employees > and acquaintances of employer. Over half of employees obtain > their jobs through informal referees. For jobs that require a > college degree, that is, where the most intense discrimination > exists and where the resistance to affirmative action has > been most vehement, informal referral mechanisms and > interpersonal job networks are even more important in the > hiring process. Broadening search procedures may increase > the pool of women and racial/ethnic minority candidates. > > A fifth false claim is that there is a single criterion for > determining "the best" employee or "the most able" student. > It is also usually asserted that this single criterion is > race- and gender- neutral. Truthfully, there is seldom a > uni-dimensional criterion that provides an unassailable > measure of either current ability or future productivity. > For example, standardized test scores do not measure > ability equally well across racial groups though such scores > may measure "ability" or "achievement" equally well among > individuals within a particular social group. Typically, > standardized tests measure African American ability less > well than they measure the ability of whites. So, broadening > hiring and admissions criteria to include a greater set of > attributes that are positively associated with academic > success or workplace productivity may increase the hiring > and promotion of individuals from traditionally excluded > groups. Professional economics journals have published a > large collection of studies on affirmative action. A primary > conclusion of these studies is that affirmative action does > not lower productivity. > > Of course, the very definition of "success" can also > influence the extent of racial/ethnic and gender exclusivity > of jobs and universities. For example, an all male, all > white, single religion, homogeneous socioeconomic status > university could certainly produce high quality graduates. > However, a coed, multi-racial/multi-ethnic, multi-religious, > heterogeneous socioeconomic status student body and faculty > can produce research and graduates of equally high quality > who are also able to fill a more varied set of leadership > positions in American society. Diversity may be valuable > for its own sake. America is a multi-lingual, multi-racial, > multi-religious, and multi-cultural country. This has always > been the case. Many today seemed determined to return to the > ignominious past when the multi-dimensionality of American > society was virulently suppressed. > > False claim number 6 says that affirmative action bestows > undeserved gains on racial/ethnic minorities and women and > thereby undermines the credibility of racial/ethnic > minorities and women. This myth posits that the individual > beneficiaries of affirmative action who have obtained high > profile positions cannot take pride in their individual > accomplishments. It is claimed that the affirmative action > beneficiary will always wonder if she/he achieved the job > based on merit or the existence of an affirmative action > program that lowered traditional standards in order to > hire an African American, a woman, or a Latino, or other > minority. Moreover, the argument goes, whites will not > respect such a person because they also know that she/he > did not accomplish her/his position based on merit. Again, > affirmative action does not mandate hiring anyone, most > especially it does not require hiring or promoting > unqualified individuals or admitting unqualified students. > I am however compelled to point out that if undeserved > privilege lowers self esteem then both racism and sexism -- > which tends to shower undeserved privilege upon whites and > men, respectively -- would have collapsed centuries ago > under the force of their own weight. > > A final myth states that affirmative action is unnecessary. > It is claimed that left to its own devices, a competitive > market will eliminate discrimination in economic life; > racial/gender discrimination will remain only in non-market > social relations or market activity where competitive forces > have not been given their full power. Both economic history > and economic theory of capitalist economies have been very > unkind to this perspective. First, there is no theory of > discrimination based on a recognizably capitalist economy > that sustains the notion that competitive forces are > sufficient to eliminate discriminatory behavior. Second, > 135 years of post-slavery economic history of the actually > existing American economy has made it very clear that even > if slowly evolving market forces can eliminate discrimination, > such forces cannot do so within the lifetime of the average > person. Laissez-faire market solutions to massive racial/ethnic > and gender inequities equal justice delayed and justice denied. > > Affirmative action is okay. But, it is only a baby step in > the long march required to achieve social justice. Slavery, > Jim Crow, and continuing racism in the labor market, the > credit market, the housing market, the educational process, > and access to governmental resources have lead many > thoughtful persons to conclude that a fundamental > transformation of American society should not be a notion > that is considered beyond the boundaries of enlightened > public discussion. Yet, there is an unspoken and unyielding > truth that limits public and private programs or actions to > forcefully challenge the persistence of racism. The truth is > this: every honest attempt to eliminate white privilege will > be called "reverse racism." That is to say, we have returned > to a point in Florida and in American society that the > presumptive privileges of whiteness are a binding constraint > on social justice. The mere allegation that a particular > racial justice policy or program might hurt any sub-group of > whites has become sufficient grounds for claiming that the > program or policy is inherently unfair. > > For the moment then social injustice is on the upswing. > Nevertheless, my faith leads me to believe that there is a > critical mass of Americans with a passion for social justice > and I have no doubt we will eventually construct a society > where social injustice and racial inequality are conspicuous > by their absence. > > -30- > > [Articles on BRC-NEWS may be forwarded and posted on other mailing > lists, as long as the wording/attribution is not altered in any way. > In particular, if there is a reference to a web site where an article > was originally located, please do *not* remove that. > > Unless stated otherwise, do *not* publish or post the entire text of > any articles on web sites or in print, without getting *explicit* > permission from the article author or copyright holder. Check the fair > use provisions of the copyright law in your country for details on what > you can and can't do. > > As a courtesy, we'd appreciate it if you let folks know how to subscribe > to BRC-NEWS, by leaving in the first five lines of the signature below.] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > BRC-NEWS: Black Radical Congress - General News Articles/Reports > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subscribe: Email "subscribe brc-news" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe: Email "unsubscribe brc-news" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Digest: Email "subscribe brc-news-digest" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Archive: http://netnoir.egroups.com/group/brc-news (When accessing for the > first time, set the "Delivery Mode" to "Read On The Web Only") > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Questions/Problems: Send email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > www.blackradicalcongress.org | BRC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
