Affirmative Action with an Epilogue on Freedom of Speech

Affirmative Action is one of these ideas that is perfect in theory, but is difficult to implement in practice. It is clear that past discrimination, oppression and stereotypes have created uneven living conditions among people of different race, ethnicity, gender etc. In a "perfect world," however, the laws should enable all people to have equal opportunity to realize their goals (and to have equal opportunity to find out what the possible "goals" are in the first place) without regard to race or gender and even economic status -however economic status doesn't seem to be relevant to the way affirmative action is implemented-.

The goal of Affirmative Action is to eliminate present effects of past discrimination. This is a noble goal and a self-evident truth: no one can question that this should not be something we should strive for. Its relation to equal opportunity lies in the fact that people with equal abilities should have equal opportunities, and people who did not get the same opportunities should be evaluated with that in mind.

As far as I have been able to investigate, this seemed to have been the original objective of affirmative action (as given in Executive Order 11246, banning discrimination and requiring affirmative action so that individuals have equal opportunity for employment).

There are, however, at least three other justifications for giving preferential treatment (besides the justification of evaluating people's abilities under the opportunities they've had): (1) The concept of reparations: the idea that the US never apologized nor repaired the effects of slavery. (2) Diversity as a means to improve working and learning environments. (3) Creating role models: this is particularly true in academia, where students need mentors they can identify with and confide in (this is essential for the students in figuring out which goals they can pursue; for example, without a student learning that graduate school can be sponsored by the school, the student might not even consider higher education thinking is too expensive).

The result of affirmative action (as intended by Executive Order 11246, issued in 1964 by President Johnson; an expanded version of Jon F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925) is that federal employers have to take "positive actions" towards correcting previous discrimination. These positive actions are usually implemented by giving preferential treatment to members of underrepresented minorities in school applications and employment opportunities.

These preferential treatment has been attacked by critics, claiming that affirmative action is just another way of discrimination. I can understand this criticism, but it is important to remember that the problem is in the implementation of affirmative action, and not on the idea (or the goal) of affirmative action. The problem lies in the fact that some people abuse the system; there are stories of people who have lived a privileged live and yet make use of affirmative action rules to gain advantage over other equally qualified individuals; for example, members of a majority which claim to have "minority background." Similarly, sometimes it is difficult to judge which of two applicants needs more help: an applicant of a minority group whose both parents are Ph.Ds, or an applicant of a majority group with a story of economic problems and hard living conditions.

Nevertheless, if critics manage to ban affirmative action (such as the passing of California's proposition 209) the original problem will still remain: the effects of past discrimination will continue. I think the most constructive approach is to suggest alternative implementations for affirmative action before removing current practices. An idea for example, is to try to enforce a more egalitarian public school system; for example, by giving higher salaries to teachers in schools in poor neighborhoods (to motivate qualified teachers to teach in these schools as opposed to selecting only the "best" schools), or to enforce high quality public schools in neighborhoods where minorities live.

In academia for example, I think diversity is the key word to advocate, since diversity clearly improves the quality of education. One of the main reasons I wanted to study in the US was to experience a different culture and knowing that several graduate students were also international was a big incentive. I wanted to learn other cultures, other customs, other traditions; to hear an "insider" view of things we were only told in books in Colombia. Some people argue that diversity is only necessary in fields such as Law, or political science, but I tend to disagree. Even in engineering, the views of different people contribute to a greater understanding of our profession. As a Colombian I understand the social responsibility of engineering in a country with a clear lack of solid technical infrastructure. I pride myself of having convinced other graduate students that previously criticized the importance of initiatives like the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), telemedicine, or the need for Wireless Internet in rural environments. My arguments have been the product of my life experiences (unique by definition) and have complemented views of other people without those life experiences. (Although as a graduate student (and now a postdoc) I might not have the experience and confidence to create proposals like the OLPC, my goal is to strive for them. Hopefully as a faculty member I will one day have the academic freedom, the confidence, and the vision to start one (or more) of these programs targeted to benefit communities in the need for "equal opportunities.")

Diversity in this sense would, however, open a new can of worms since preferential treatment has never (and I assume will never) be considered for non-US citizens or residents (in fact, US citizens and residents expect preferential treatment over immigrants -this is true in any country). In a recent talk with a PI of a project, she mentioned how the only critique that NSF had about her project was the fact that most of the graduate students doing the work were international students, and therefore she needed to get more US students.

To end on a similarly difficult debate, I will now show an example of the problem between freedom of speech and speech aggression (I just made this term up, for a lack of a better word). I was reading the recent news of all the problems that the knighthood of Salman Rushdie has created, and I found out a somewhat similar problem that recently occurred in Colombia. In 2005, SoHo a magazine from Colombia was sued (por delitos de agravio a símbolos religiosos, injuria y calumnia) after recreating The Last Supper with a nude model in the role of Jesus and twelve left-wing intellectuals as the apostles (the picture to the left). One judge first agreed with the prosecution and started a process against SoHo. Later on, another judge stopped the process on the claims of freedom of speech. I think they made the right choice, although I can certainly understand why some people will get offended when the most sacred thing they believe in is mocked in such a provocative way (provocative is a double meaning... get it, get it? :-) )