Experts in law and public policy discussed the role of affirmative action in American society in a panel discussion yesterday in 3 Rockefeller before nearly 80 people.
The discussion, titled "Is there a Need for Affirmative Action in Public Policy Today?" was moderated by English lecturer Stephanie Boone. Panelists included Provost Lee Bollinger, Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Mary Childers, Associate Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Ozzie Harris, and Harvard Law professor Susan Roosevelt.
The panelists agreed discrimination is still an active practice in the U.S. However, they debated whether it is still necessary to apply policies based on race or if the U.S. is ready to handle a colorblind society.
Dean of the College Lee Pelton opened the discussion by explaining that affirmative action "was started during the Lyndon Johnson administration as a way to introduce African Americans into middle class America."
Pelton said the controversy surrounding affirmative action reflects two different views on how society should be organized. One view, he said, states that people's position in society should be "entirely based on merit", while others believe in "the distribution of justice to achieve certain social goals."
Pelton summarized his view in a passage by Johnson, who said, "You do not take a person who has for years been bound by chains, liberate him, take him to the starting point of a race and then say he was free to compete with all the others."
Pelton then asked whether "anyone in his right mind could say discrimination is over in this country."
Harris defined affirmative action as "a strategy chosen by politicians to respond to past acts of discrimination." Harris pointed out many people opposed affirmative action out of misinformation.
"The quota system," he explained, "would force an employer to hire people from a minority if they were underrepresented."
Harris said this is different from affirmative action.
"Affirmative action, on the other side, looks at why minorities are underrepresented and attempts to find a solution," he said.
Childers questioned the rationale of some state-funded educational institutions that oppose affirmative action on the grounds that "the use of race in admissions for diversity contradicts, rather than furthers, the aims of equal protection."
She pointed out some of these institutions consider other parameters such as "the ability to make a downfield tackle, to play the cello, the applicant's home state" or even "the applicant's relationship to school alumni."
Childers said some of these parameters are highly correlated with most applicants' socioeconomic status, which in most cases creates a student body where most minorities are underrepresented.
Bollinger said right now affirmative action is allowed if it is meant to "promote diversity," and not "to rectify past oppression."
Bollinger said some people opposed affirmative action because they felt "a society based in the principle of color-blindness could not be taking race into consideration anymore."
He also said some people considered affirmative action unconstitutional, because they think it violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the right to equal protection for all citizens, he said.
Roosevelt explained the logic people commonly use to debase affirmative action.
She focused on the belief that "affirmative action penalizes those who play by the rules." In other words, she explained, the belief "affirmative action plays against, for example, students who study and do well on SATs."
She said the question should not be "who is hurt by the rules," but rather "what are the rules." She said these "rules" should be revised so that they "benefit the largest number of people."
