We Need Affirmative Action
President's comments from the Foundation's 1999 annual report.
How does a society ensure fairness where much unfairness reflects longstanding, systemic discrimination? In this situation people don't have to act badly for injustice to continue; they merely do what they have always considered right. The search for practical answers, at the heart of debates over affirmative action, often founders on an apparent ethical paradox: doing the right thing means doing something that many perceive as wrong.
For much of its history, the Ford Foundation has made its resources available to men and women troubled by injustice and the loss of dignity and opportunity that it causes. This includes attention to affirmative action, or what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights describes as "active efforts that take race, sex and national origin into account for the purpose of remedying discrimination."
| © Richard Renaldi/Impact Visuals |
 |
| A "thought board" on the campus of Stanford University in California. |
These efforts and similar policies in other countries generate important questions: "How do we protect concepts of fairness, merit and excellence?" "How should these policies evolve, and for how long?" "What should we consider success?"
Clearly, opposition to affirmative action has grown in the United States, as reflected in the behavior of judges, legislators and voters. Their thinking varies. The courts emphasize the principle of nondiscrimination. Some public attitudes probably reflect racist or sexist beliefs or unwillingness to give up advantages. To others the success of formerly disadvantaged individuals proves that the playing field is now level. And some believe that affirmative action stigmatizes its beneficiaries and creates unhealthy social divisions.
Others support it. They include Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Michael Adams, president of the University of Georgia; Ruth Simmons, president of Smith College; Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University; and Lee Bollinger, president of the University of Michigan. In the corporate world, there are leaders like Paul Allaire of Xerox, Richard McGinn of Lucent Technologies and George Fisher of Kodak. Elected officials supporting affirmative action include Governors Roy Barnes of Georgia and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey. They and others argue that while affirmative action has not always been perfectly administered, it can be used well and the United States needs it to become a unified and fair society.
I agree. We need affirmative action in spite of what some perceive as its unfairness. Three beliefs shape my view.
First, affirmative action is consistent with U.S. values and ideals.
Our democracy is based on ideas that people are created equal; that men and women should enjoy liberty and equality of opportunity; that individuals should act responsibly on their own behalf and toward each other; and that we should sacrifice for the common good. To me these concepts imply that various groups in our society will be integrated in educational, work and other settings.
| © Scott Braley/Impact Visuals |
 |
| Opponents of a California initiative to end affirmative action, 1996. |
In spite of substantial effort and progress, we are not the society we aspire to be. Minorities are disproportionately poor, and most of our communities and institutions are not well integrated. Housing is still highly segregated, not just by income or choice but by informal steering practices. The Urban Institute cites research using matched pairs of white and minority home seekers that found discrimination in 50 percent of the minorities' contacts with real estate agents. Schools in minority communities are typically less well equipped than schools in white communities. And, as the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute has shown, they offer fewer advanced placement courses, which are key to competitive college admissions.
The U.S. professoriate is overwhelmingly white, and that predominance appears to be increasing — 91.7 percent today compared with 90.4 percent in 1989, according to a survey by the University of California at Los Angeles. Labor economist Marc Bendick's hiring-practice studies, which matched pairs of minorities and whites, found evidence of discrimination in 20 percent of the cases. A 1999 study by Catalyst found that only 5.1 percent of the jobs from chief executive to executive vice president at Fortune 500 companies are held by women, and we know also that women often encounter barriers and harassment in formerly all-male work like policing, construction and firefighting.
If we want to be a unified and meritocratic society, these patterns require redress. Affirmative action attempts redress, and I don't see any better solution. It is a practical expression of our nation's best values and ideals. It gives excluded groups a foothold in educational, employment and other settings where talent and hard work can pay off. It opens informal networks of power and influence. Rather than "harming the beneficiaries" as some charge, it increases opportunities and the possibility that advantaged people will recognize the capacities of "the other."
Opponents of affirmative action in the United States say our national values endorse a "colorblind" society. But that suggests we should overlook the capacity of people, communities and nations to draw strength from their ethnic, gender and other differences while embracing nondiscriminatory ideals. I believe our values suggest that we should see and appreciate our varied colors and backgrounds.
| © Courtesy of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, Brazil |
 |
| President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil signs the National Program for Human Rights, 1996. |
The thinking and experience of other countries offer some lessons.
From its early colonial period, Brazil saw extensive mixing among its dark- and light-skinned peoples, enabling its leaders to describe the nation as colorblind or at ease about the mosaic of skin color they considered uniquely Brazilian. But many Brazilians now say that "colorblindness" was a myth that allowed people to ignore significant and enduring discrimination against dark-skinned citizens. In 1996, Brazil's President and its Minister of Justice responded with a National Program for Human Rights that includes affirmative action. If the public and private sectors begin to vigorously implement the program, it could increase access to work, university education and other areas for women and African-Brazilians. For many years, the Ford Foundation's office in Brazil has supported researchers and activists working on these matters.
To many in the United States, the idea of colorblindness appeals because it suggests nondiscrimination. But that avoids the problem; it doesn't address it. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun spoke to this point in his separate opinion in the Bakke case: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way." I also find the comments of Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate in India's Supreme Court, helpful: "For a society to agree not to discriminate on grounds of caste, color or religion is unexceptional, but can any society be totally blind to the fact that discrimination stems from deep-rooted prejudices which the constitution seeks to outlaw... The simple injunction of nondiscrimination does not enjoin the State to be a spectator to racism... The constitutional command not to discriminate falls miserably to the ground if endemic disadvantage continues to be sustained in society."
Simply asserting that color should not matter doesn't make it so. Color is noticed; often, negative assumptions hinge on it, and opportunities are shaped by it, whether we like it or not.
My second belief is that societies need to explore and understand the origins of inequality and address them with long-term and evolving affirmative action in different sectors.
There are no silver bullets or quick fixes. While we will not need affirmative action forever, it will take time and effort to undo deeply ingrained patterns of disadvantage.
| © Courtesy of Nassau County Museum Collection/Long Island Studies Institute |
 |
| Buyers take title to new homes in Levittown, NY, 1949. |
One of the most important efforts involves truthful history. Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro's book "Black Wealth/White Wealth" describes the exclusion of blacks from more than a century of asset-building policies in the United States such as the Homestead Act of 1862, the suburban building boom of the 1950's, mortgage assistance and other programs that helped create a vast white homeowning middle class. It partially explains why today two-thirds of whites own their own homes but less than half of black and Hispanic people do. The century-plus period in which this occurred helps us think about the time frame and programs we may now need.
Film and video can also build understanding about the origins of inequality and remind us that progress often results from long, hard effort, not benign evolution. That is why Ford supported television series like "Eyes on the Prize" and "Chicano!" about U.S. civil rights movements, and "New York," chronicling the city's racial, immigrant and worker groups' struggles for decency and fairness.
| © Susie Fitzhugh |
 |
| A class at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in Cambridge, Mass. |
Many areas of education need affirmative action. For example, it can help bring diversity to the U.S. colleges and universities that have highly selective admissions. Moreover, since their diplomas confer real advantages, these institutions ought to include talented people from chronically under-represented groups. Some contend that this use of affirmative action threatens the rightfully treasured idea of merit, and they simplistically equate merit with test scores.
But consideration of merit in college admissions already includes more than test results. Often for good reasons, it recognizes geographic variety, athletic ability and alumni legacy. Any nuanced search for merit will weigh characteristics like creativity, integrity, leadership and persistence, which cannot be reduced to numerical rankings.
Derek Bok and William Bowen considered merit in their 1998 study of affirmative action, "The Shape of the River." They found that African-Americans generally entered elite U.S. colleges and universities with lower test scores than whites — not very low, but lower. But after graduation they earned advanced degrees at the same rate as their white classmates, had slightly higher rates for professional degrees in law, medicine and business, and were more active in civic affairs. Students of all colors in these colleges and universities expressed preferences for diversified student bodies, preparing them for future work and life. Other research finds that members of a diverse student body challenge each other intellectually and thereby help promote critical thinking. This all suggests that carefully applied affirmative admissions do contribute to excellence and the common good rather than undermine it.
Beyond education and jobs, other fields need affirmative effort. I would include art, which may sound surprising. Art is not a luxury; it is a fundamental contributor to human dignity. It inspires, conveys values and can be an instrument of change. That is why struggles for greater freedom often release extraordinary artistic energy, as in South Africa's music and theater of resistance and in Native American contemporary arts.
| © Mario Tama/Agence France Presse |
 |
| Groundbreaking ceremony at the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. |
Special efforts can bring outstanding artistic work from chronically underrepresented communities to large public audiences, reinforcing shared identities and prompting reflection on their valuable contributions to the larger society. In this spirit, the Ford Foundation has helped support presentations of jazz in New York's Lincoln Center and Native American culture in the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian.
As we use affirmative action, we need to acknowledge that it involves trade-offs requiring periodic review. We see this re-examination in current debates about standardized tests and busing, once hailed as powerful means of equalizing opportunity. Texas, California and Florida also reflect new thinking with decisions to diversify public higher education by admitting a percentage of each high school's top graduates to state universities. Ironically, this approach's potential to quickly integrate higher education depends on a certain degree of segregation in high schools. Studies will soon tell us if these policies increase educational opportunities and if they have unintended side effects. Such shifts remind us not only to ask "whether" and "how," but also "what works." That leads to my third belief.
Affirmative action often works best when it includes incentives, goals and time frames.
| © Touchline Photo Agency |
 |
| President Nelson Mandela, wearing a Springboks Jersey, congratulates the winning team at the Rugby World Cup match in Ellis Park, South Africa, 1995. |
Most people understand that change often requires special effort and that it comes slowly. But the effort can be wearying. We see this in South Africa, where, although apartheid's scars are still fresh, more than a few impatient white South Africans are asking: "How many mea culpas must we say and for how long?" They fail to see the impatience of those whose opportunities were stunted for decades and whose circumstances have not yet significantly changed. The best antidote for everyone's frustration is to speed the change process with goals, timetables and incentives.
Business managers worldwide know the power of targets and deadlines linked to bonuses and promotions. Increasingly, they see business reasons for adding diversity goals. And they know that the desired integration is unlikely to occur without incentives.
The same can be true in sports. In South Africa, rugby was a focus of the Afrikaner community but became a symbol of President Nelson Mandela's magnanimity and reconciliation effort after he donned a Springboks team shirt in Ellis Park before thousands of cheering rugby fans. But symbolism wasn't enough. While the country's rugby league agreed to integrate its teams voluntarily, only minimal change occurred, frustrating many in a country that is 89 percent black. Now rugby teams in schools and provinces have goals-and-timetables policies.
| © Piers Benatar/Panos Pictures |
 |
| India has extended its use of quotas, adding women into the mix. |
India has extended its decades-long use of quotas related to caste, now adding women into the mix. Policy makers set percentages for women and women officers in panchayats, or local government bodies. India's leaders know that without these mandates, progress will come too slowly.
Each country will fashion the incentives that fit its history and culture. My own sense is that the United States still needs various goals-and- timetables approaches such as those that have been helpful in employment and various areas of education.
I believe that affirmative action is still necessary to help us fulfill our aspirations for justice and widespread well-being — sooner rather than later. Yes, it may occasionally involve individual sacrifice, giving up an advantage, although this occurs far less frequently than is believed. But sacrifice also has positive meaning: action taken to create some-thing of great value, in this case fairer and more unified societies from which we all benefit.
Even some former foes of affirmative action accept this point. For example, former U.S. Solicitor General Charles Fried wrote in The American Prospect magazine: "A society that is segmented by race … is simply not an integrated society …If disadvantage is so strongly correlated with color, then color must retain its saliency. This, I believe, is an argument for preferences that seems more effective than the elusive and sometimes contrived 'diversity' argument."
Problem solving is never a straight, upward line. It involves stops and starts requiring patience, imagination and fortitude. Those of us who feel an urgency about injustice and underrepresentation and those of us who believe in multifaceted and long-term affirmative action continually search for new and varied ways to express and achieve our goals. For example, the drafters of South Africa's post-apartheid Constitution included a clause prohibiting "unlawful discrimination," leaving room for race-based policies that advance the common good. And rather than using the phrase "affirmative action," many South Africans prefer terms like "transformation" and "empowerment," which signal the significance and degree of change they expect. Here in the United States, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates, without articulating a position on affirmative action, expressed his concern about the absence of minorities in math, science, engineering, education and library science with his admirable $1-billion minority-fellowship program for these fields.
As we continue to search for the best policy in the United States, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are still largely "color coded" in housing, schooling, many areas of work, social life and wealth. And we still see enormously different patterns between men's and women's lives — not all of their own choice.
"No society can ever be formed on the basis of individualism, together-ness deriving from apartness," writes political commentator Gary Wills. He is right. We must be sure to keep alive the vision of an integrated, equitable society, and we should do our utmost to get there as soon as is humanly possible. After centuries of nationally approved race and gender discrimination, our efforts to redress these wrongs have just begun. That conviction underlies the Ford Foundation's work and will continue to guide us.
In the past year the Foundation lost two valued Trustees to our rules of retirement: Sir Christopher Hogg and Vernon E. Jordan Jr. Both made lasting contributions during their 12 years of service.
Chris Hogg brought to our deliberations his inimitable combination of global perspective, intellectual power and seriousness of purpose. He was attentive to all aspects of the Foundation — program, management and investments — and helped us become a more effective institution through his probing questions, fresh perspectives and high standards.
During his years on the board, Vernon Jordan was a constant source of support and wise counsel to the Foundation and its leadership. We benefited from his keen intellect, ability to distill the essence of complicated matters, and good judgment. He also brought to our work the commitment to justice and social welfare that has characterized his multifaceted career.
Susan V. Berresford
President
The Ford Foundation is an independent, nonprofit grant-making organization. For more than half a century it has been a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide, guided by its goals of strengthening democratic values, reducing poverty and injustice, promoting international cooperation and advancing human achievement. With headquarters in New York, the foundation has offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Russia.