The History of Affirmative Action - Research Paper Example

The History of Affirmative Action The history of affirmative action stretches back to the earliest beginnings of the Civil Rights movement. It is an important issue today because a number of debates have arisen arguing that the legislation is no longer necessary. However, looking into the history of affirmative action reveals how necessary it was to make society as equitable as it is today and more work still needs to be done. The History of Affirmative Action In the long scale of human history in the United States, people with additional pigment in their skin were limited in their ability to achieve equal distinction in the schools, denied equal chance at acquiring good jobs and rejected from housing areas all reserved exclusively for the pale-skinned dominant culture of the west Europeans. This separation was made possible because of an ideology that believed white people were of a higher, more refined nature than those who had not yet been ‘cleansed’ of their barbarism. In many cases, minority members of society were restricted to slave or near-slave status even after the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. Through a variety of tactics, the prevailing opinion of the ‘less civilized’ minority people of color was perpetuated by existing legislation and unfair practices that prevented these people from achieving the same kinds of success discovered by white people. Even after legislation now collectively referred to as the Jim Crow laws were abolished, inequality prevailed through shady or evasive business practices, finally forcing the enactment of countermeasures now known as Affirmative Action. Although controversial, this legal action was required in order to try to equalize the opportunity for all, extending the right for all free people to reach the potential they are willing to work for. Without affirmative action to help ensure equality, the balance in this country would still be heavily in favor of the ethnic majority and segregation would be much more blatant than it is today. Social evolution depends on widespread social acceptance of differences. It is a process that doesn’t seem to occur naturally in this country without the benefit of affirmative action polices. Since its enactment, affirmative action has succeeded in balancing the opportunities available to men and women of all ethnicities. Although the majority ethnic group, the white people, may now feel they are being treated unfairly simply because they have lost their stranglehold on the economic high ground, affirmative action has been successful in distributing opportunity on a more equal basis. A brief history of the development of affirmative action demonstrates its success in extending opportunity to minorities that would not likely have been achieved in any other way. The reason it is important to understand the history of affirmative action even now is because this legislation has received a great deal of challenge, mostly by the majority whites. In most situations, the white people like to claim reverse discrimination saying they could not be hired for a position because they are the wrong color even when they are the better qualified. Some of these complaints are valid to at least some extent, but it remains true that without affirmative action, all of the progress that has been made since the activity of the civil rights movement in the 1960s would be reversed and society would return to the near feudalist organization America experienced following the civil war and before this legislation was put in place. What these debates bring to the surface is the level of racism that still exists in this country and the need for the legislation to remain in place. While it may be considered the moral responsibility of all citizens and institutions in this country to do whatever they can to combat racism, there remains a strong faction of society that refuses to examine the available evidence regarding continuing inequalities. These individuals are at the forefront of the attacks on affirmative action and the movement to get this type of legislation repealed. They argue that affirmative action is an example of two wrongs not making a right, yet they do not challenge more traditional forms of favoritism and discriminatory practices that continue to benefit the rich and powerful white members of society. The debates surrounding affirmative action have a tendency to fall along racial lines because there are still many organizations and institutions that make their selections for new hires based on clearly racial lines yet attempt to refer to it through other means. For example, many universities will provide highly preferential treatment to the white children of alumni while decreasing incentives or advantages extended to minority students. Through the decades, these types of practices have ensured that only the white children are given the opportunity to reach higher education and better paying employment opportunities. As a result, there is now a huge over-representation of the traditional middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities thus in well-paid professional jobs. By restricting important positions of power to only the white ethnic group, the group is in much better position to impose its will and its viewpoint over those in the lower middle and lower classes. Through abuse and manipulation of these powers, the white majority had the opportunity to oppress the working classes until the introduction of affirmative action that required some extension of power to the minority groups. Affirmative action serves to help balance the playing field for everyone, not to discriminate against anyone – including those claiming reverse discrimination. Even with these policies in place, the scales are still tipped toward the white, wealthy portion of society. Reverse discrimination emanating from affirmative action policies is hardly a reasonable conclusion. Inclusion inequalities noticeably continue within the country’s institutions and organizations due to racial bias still existent within the economic hierarchy. The fact that affirmative action, in the form of preferences that primarily benefit white people, are not being questioned indicates that attacks on affirmative action are part of a historic white backlash against equality. Affirmative action was, itself, born out of the oppression this white community against the greater freedoms black people gained following the civil war. Prior to the 1960s and after the civil war, politics continued to instigate segregation of the races. The Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised black voters ensured that only white opinions mattered in the political process. An overwhelming majority of the white voters was not needed to mandate racial segregation. If the minority of white voters wanted segregation while others didn’t have an opinion either way on the subject, this was adequate political clout. This was because black opinion was of no significance in the political arena after they lost the ability to vote. Segregation, during the Jim Crow era, was not limited to transportation mediums. In Alabama, hospitals, whether public or private, could not require a white nurse to care for blacks. In Mississippi, a law stifled freedom of the press by stating, “Any person who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both” (“Jim Crow Laws”, 1998). These laws required separate drinking fountains for each race, separate restroom facilities and segregated neighborhoods. This legal enforcement of separation created a situation in which the belief that black people were somehow inferior and perhaps contagious to white people was legitimized. Thus, racism was perpetuated within the communities, interactions between the races were restricted making it less likely that these beliefs would be challenged and less quality and opportunity were given to the minorities thus reinforcing white people’s beliefs that they were inferior. The subject of segregation became a much discussed topic during World War II. The nation that hailed itself as the symbol of freedom sent its young men to fight and die in a war to make the world safe for democracy. An embarrassing aspect of this high idealistic struggle was that U.S. blacks were subjugated within the very armed forces that were supposed to stand for freedom of all nations. The black soldiers, of course, very much resented this lower class distinction. After all, they bled the same color red as the white soldiers, risked the same danger to life and limb and had just as much at stake back at home. The heroic actions performed by many black soldiers during the war began a change of direction in the attitude of whites throughout the country regarding race relations. “The NAACP’s strategy for attacking segregation through the Legal Defense Fund was revitalized and extended after World War II. Eventually it led to the Supreme Court decision in the Brown case in 1954” (Hampton, 1980). The Brown decision “appeared to remove the constitutional underpinnings of the whole segregation system and strike at the foundations of Jim Crow laws. It was the most momentous and far-reaching decision of the century in civil rights” (Woodward, 1986, p. 84). All over the country, even in the South, there were examples of blacks increasingly empowering themselves during the war era as there was a “feeling of discontent and a growing consciousness of exclusion from social, economic, and political participation” (Daniel, 1990, p. 893). Black churches of the South had begun to encourage their congregations to begin a spiritually inspired quest for equality. The first step in this process started with the education of the people by preachers, other educated blacks and whites. This was necessary because many members of the black community did not realize their lawful rights as U.S. citizens. On May 17, 1954, the first step toward affirmative action took place when the Supreme Court unanimously decided that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This decision was made in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans. This decision overturned the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling that legitimized the ‘separate but equal’ practice of segregation according to race by deciding that ‘separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.’ The ruling was the impetus for across-the-board desegregation in the U.S. The victory went to Thurgood Marshall, who was then a NAACP attorney and would return to the Supreme Court in the future as the nation’s first black justice. When nine black students were not permitted to enter the formerly all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in September of 1957 on the orders of Governor Orval Faubus, it was in direct violation of this ruling. President Eisenhower thus had the authority to send Federal troops and the National Guard to intervene on behalf of the students. The students subsequently became known as the ‘Little Rock Nine.’ These actions by the highest offices in the country, the President and Supreme Court, gave credence to the great imbalance of social equality that blacks were experiencing and to the rights and the respect that they were seeking. The black population was encouraged by these decisions and took up the challenge, unwilling to accept defeat. When Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing the bus driver’s request to give up her seat to a white man in 1955, a group of ministers formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA). This group coordinated what would become a 382-day boycott of the bus company by the entire black community. The ministers deliberately took this non-violent action as a means of avoiding the probable rioting that was being whispered about on the streets. By providing this peaceful form of expression, the ministers were able to organize their collective congregations into one, larger and stronger common voice. After discussion amongst the MIA leadership, twenty-six-year-old Martin Luther King Jr. was unanimously selected to head the MIA. King had no previous experience in the civil rights movement, had recently refused the presidency of the city chapter of the NAACP and he had not yet met Miss Parks so couldn’t be accused of instigating her act of disobedience (Garrow, 1987, pp. 45-6). King’s approach to the civil rights movement was based on the letter of the law from the start. He continuously urged black people to find peaceful means of protesting the restrictions that had been placed against them. This included actions such as sit-ins at whites-only restaurants, swim-ins at whites-only ‘public’ swimming pools and marches in support of individual voting rights. The U.S. Constitution provided legal assurance that non-violent strategies would be defensible in court for all men, not just white men. This provision gave King the loophole he needed to gain nationwide attention on the cruel oppressions being experienced by black people in the south as the white southern justice systems became increasingly brutal in attempting to silence their voices. This educated unwary whites regarding these issues and brought them into the cause thus leading to the eradication of racist Jim Crow type laws forever. People, both black and white, were now willing to violate absurd, archaic local segregationist laws because they believed they were abiding and defending a ‘higher law,’ the Constitution. Actions taken by the SCLC, an ever-growing political power, as well as other demonstrative events throughout the South convinced the Kennedy administration of the need for civil rights legislation. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, used much clout and persuasion in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law gave the executive powers to extract federal funding from state and local governments that enforced Jim Crow laws or otherwise practiced discrimination. The movement’s struggle for civil rights and liberties was based on lawful civil rights and had its roots in moral motivations. The righteousness of the cause was personified by King whose character and courage was applauded and supported by an increasing number of American citizens of all colors. On August 28, 1963 in Washington, D.C. approximately 200,000 people joined the March on Washington which ended at the Lincoln Memorial where those gathered heard King deliver his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. In 1962, James Meredith became the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi, but only after President Kennedy used 600 U.S. Marshals and 15,000 federal national guardsmen to restore order. The rioting on the campus upon Meredith’s decision to attend the then all-white university resulted in the deaths of two people and injured 375 more including 160 Marshals. In 1966, Meredith decided to walk alone from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi in his ‘March Against Fear’ during a primary election week to establish that, if he could walk this distance without being harmed, then blacks should not fear walking shorter distances to the polling booths. Soon after beginning the walk, Meredith was shot and wounded by a white sniper (Viorst, 1979, p. 374). Jim Crow segregation laws were banned by the 1964 Civil Rights Act causing segregation to become a thing of the dark past. Blacks now had social equality, at least in legal terms. The South was the epicenter for the civil rights movement, but racial problems had no regional boundaries. As blacks in the south were working to eradicate segregation, blacks in places such Chicago, Detroit and Oakland were engaged their own fight for equal treatment. By the mid-1960’s hostility between the Oakland’s black community and the police, a long and ever escalating problem, had reached its apex. Because blacks were being intimidated by the police, Newton and Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in October 1966 (McElrath, 2006). The pair had been intensely influenced by the teachings of Malcolm X and structured the organization similar to the Black Muslim program with the exception of any kind of religious practice. In contrast to Martin Luther King’s methods and teachings of nonviolent protest, the Black Panther Party claimed that they needed to equip themselves with weapons for use as self-defense against police brutality. Arming the group did provide the intended protection but, predictably, led to confrontations with the police that oftentimes concluded with a bloody altercation. The Panthers also volunteered their time and efforts performing various activities that helped people in the community. The group made the rounds throughout neighborhoods in Oakland carrying arms, recorders, and various books so as to teach black history, counsel welfare recipients, and effectively protest rent evictions through the court system. The Panthers could be easily distinguished by their uniform dress of black jackets, pants and berets with blue shirts. These increased chances for violence further helped to convince legislators that more progressive measures needed to be taken to ensure better equality for all. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibited discrimination in employment practices and the 1965 Voting Rights Act made the process to register to vote more accessible for blacks. In the South, ‘literacy tests’, poll taxes and other methods had been used to restrict black voting. These were made illegal allowing all adult blacks the right and means to vote thereby giving them political equality. All other discriminatory laws were also banned in the 1960’s such as laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages and racist housing practices. By the end of the 1960s, the “Civil Rights Movement had achieved both social, and political, equality for blacks. This was a significant success” (Theale, 1998). President Johnson issued an Executive Order in 1968 which made affirmative action compulsory because he believed that civil rights laws alone would not end discriminatory hiring practices. The order required businesses that accepted government contracts to ‘take affirmative action’ toward hiring prospective minority employees in all positions of employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited housing discrimination. In1971, the Supreme Court upheld a lower courts decision that mandated busing as a means for realizing integration of public schools. Though not often well received and sometimes vehemently opposed in local school districts, court-ordered busing continued in cities such as Boston, Charlotte, and Denver until the late 1990’s (Brunner & Haney, 2006). Much research has determined that discrimination persists against people of color in all parts of everyday life. Full disclosures of equal opportunities in the workplace and other institutions are required by Federal law so that everyone, not only people of color but others know that they have an equal opportunity to apply for employment. Those of color, as a matter of circumstance, face further discrimination from historical patterns of racism that forced segregation in communities, schools and the workplace. Most employment opportunities are learned of through networking through such people as friends, family and neighbors. This leaves minorities on the outside looking in for many advancement opportunities at work and in society. Affirmative action itself doesn’t directly address the needs of this issue but this fact addresses the need for affirmative action. Still, in today’s progressive society, more than half a century from the birth of the Civil Rights Movement, people of color are overtly discriminated against in educational opportunities by the use, or misuse, of inappropriate qualification standards. Latent segregation still plays a major part in standards of education for minorities. Standards for higher education are set for one segment of society and are imposed unjustly and unfairly on another. These imposed barriers to advancement, unintended or not, further enhance the rationale for helping the scales of justice to tip slightly towards the truly disadvantaged through affirmative action laws. As a result of white people receiving preferential treatment since before the beginnings of the country, the Federal mandate directs that when employers face a choice between qualified candidates of different ethnic background, the preference should be for a person of color. A position supported by the courts which have also mandated affirmative action hiring goals so that those employment and scholastic institutions begin to reflect the racial mix of the people from that general area. References Brunner, Borgna & Haney, Elissa. (2006). “Civil Rights Timeline: Milestones in the Modern Civil Rights Movement.” Fact Monster. Pearson Education. “Civil Rights Movement, The.” (19 December, 2001). Theale, Berkshire: Theale Green Community School. Garrow, David J. (1987). The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp.45-6. Hampton, Henry; Fayer, Steve; & Flynn, Sarah (Eds.) (1980). Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement From the 1950s Through the 1980s. New York: Bantam Books, pp. 25, 26. Sowell, Thomas. (29 October, 2005). “Rosa Parks and History.” The Washington Times. Viorst, Milton. (1979). Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster. Woodward, C. Vann. (1986). Thinking Back: The Perils of Writing History. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Read More