Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward

As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy and foreign-born blacks; (4) stigmatizes its beneficiaries; and (5) compromises the self-esteem and self-respect of beneficiaries who know that they have been awarded preferential treatment. By way of a thought experiment, imagine that after decades of public policy and experimentation, the United States public finally came to agree: affirmative action is morally and legally wrong. Employing such a thought experiment, this essay by a beneficiary of affirmative action—written in response to James Sterba’s Affirmative Action for the Future (2009)—examines duties of moral repair and the possibility that the past beneficiaries of affirmative action owe apologies, compensation or some other highly personal form of corrective accountability. Beneficiaries of affirmative action have experienced woundedness and moral insecurity. Indeed, the practice of affirmative action comes with a psychology, a set of psychological benefits and burdens whose moral logic those of us who believe in our own fallibility—as much as we believe in the justice of what we have received and conferred on others—should address.     

Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

We propose that affirmative action policies that are perceived to give preference to individuals solely or primarily on the basis of their group membership create attributional ambiguity about the personal deserving of individuals affected by these procedures. This ambiguity about the extent to which outcomes are deserved is hypothesized to be self-protective for people who are denied a position, but to have detrimental consequences among beneficiaries, especially if they are members of groups whose competence is doubted (either by themselves or others). Selection procedures that are perceived to be based both on individual merit and group membership, in contrast, are hypothesized to reduce attributional ambiguity about deserving and thus attenuate the effects of group-based preferential selection procedures on those who are benefited and bypassed by these procedures. An experiment was conducted to test these hypotheses. Men and women were randomly selected or rejected for a leadership role under one of three procedures: outcomes based (a) solely on sex, (b) solely on merit, or (c) on both sex and merit. Results provided partial support for our hypotheses.     

Predicting support for racial transformation policies: Intergroup threat,racial prejudice,sense of group entitlement and strength of identification

Policies and programs designed to challenge the effects of racial discrimination (such as affirmative action) are hotly contested. Factors which have been proposed to explain opposition to these policies include racial prejudice, group threat and self‐interest, and perceptions of intergroup justice. We report the results of two random national telephone surveys which tested a theoretically based model of the predictors of policy support in post‐apartheid South Africa. The results provided limited support for Blumer's group position model. Compensatory and preferential treatment policies had different underlying predictors: Violated entitlement featured in the models of compensatory policy attitudes, but not preferential treatment policy attitudes, where threat was the strongest predictor. In addition to threat and violated entitlement, policy attitudes among the black sample were related to ingroup identification but those of the white sample were related to prejudice. The effects of these variables were in the opposite directions for the two samples: Policy support was associated with strong ingroup identification and high levels of threat among the black sample (i.e. prospective beneficiaries of the transformation policies), but with low levels of prejudice and threat among the white sample. We conclude by considering the implications that these findings have for social change programs. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: a group dominance perspective

Using a sample of 328 White, Latino, and Black Los Angeles County adults, the authors examined the tendency to employ various affirmative action "frames" (e.g., affirmative action as a "tie-breaking" device or as a quota-based policy). All three groups agreed about which frames cast affirmative action in a positive light and which cast it in a negative light. Although minorities had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms that most people find morally acceptable, Whites had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms most people find unacceptable. In addition, compared to minorities, Whites were less supportive of affirmative action regardless of how it was framed. LISREL modeling also was employed to test two competing models regarding predictors of the tendency to use frames that one personally finds to be relatively negative versus positive. Consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory and a motivated cognition perspective, the authors found that social dominance orientation (SDO) had significant net direct and indirect effects on one's framing of affirmative action.     

Women's Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Putting Actions in Context1

Although women typically favor affirmative action, they do exhibit a range of reactions to affirmative action programs. To understand the diversity of reactions, the present study proposed an examination of various forms of affirmative action in the context of the discrimination problem such actions were designed to address. In Study 1, 60 female university students were presented with one of six scenarios describing a situation of discrimination against women, followed by a series of potential affirmative action response options which participants rated in terms of their level of endorsement. Analyses of variance showed that, despite the range of discrimination scenarios, some of which presented extreme cases of discrimination against women, respondents consistently endorsed nondiscrimination measures, and opposed affirmative action strategies involving preferential treatment. Study 2, which preselected 43 women who valued social equality, replicated this finding and found that these results were not due to women not perceiving the presence of collective discrimination. Study 3 examined the attitudes of women in a law and security police training stream (n = 19), whose vulnerability to employment discrimination, both as a group and personally, would be salient. The women in this study endorsed all forms of affirmative action, including explicit preferential treatment in the hiring of women police officers. The implications of these results for the consideration and implementation of affirmative action programs are discussed.     

How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image

Believing that affirmative action entails quotas may both help and hurt White women’s self-image - contingent on whether they perceive themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Consistent with research on the affirmative action “stigma of incompetence” (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992), White women who think of themselves as affirmative action beneficiaries may report a more negative self-image the more they believe that affirmative action entails quota procedures. Conversely, White women who do not think of themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action may report a more positive self-image as a function of quota beliefs, consistent with research suggesting that non-beneficiaries can derive self-image benefits from maintaining the belief that affirmative action entails quotas (Unzueta, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008). Two studies provide evidence for the benefits of quota beliefs on White women’s self-image, but no support for the stigma of incompetence perspective. The lack of support for the stigma of incompetence perspective suggests that self-stigmatization may occur only under operationalizations of affirmative action that explicitly inform beneficiaries that they were selected on the basis of demographics and not merit. Absent such an operationalization, the affirmative action self-stigma may not emerge.     

To Accept or to Reject: The Effect of Framing on Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action1

Two experiments examined the effect of framing on attitudes toward an affirmative‐action program of preferential treatment. Participants' attitudes were consistently more favorable toward the affirmative‐action program presented in a positive frame—preferring a target group's applicant over a majority group's applicant—than when the very same program was presented in a negative frame—rejecting the majority group's applicant in favor of the target group's applicant. Similar effects were evident for 3 target groups in the context of higher education selection and personnel selection. Two theoretical explanations for the effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative‐action programs are suggested. The implications of this effect are discussed, and the challenges facing future research of this phenomenon are outlined.     

If Empowerment Is the Goal...: Affirmative Action and social Interaction

The goal of affirmative action policies is to empower formerly disenfranchised groups. But what if the procedures used to implement these policies activate a set of social psychological processes that prevent the occurrence of productive social interactions between target-group and non-target-group members? With that question in mind, a conceptual model is developed which focuses on the potential effects of affirmative action procedures on social interactions between members of policy target and nontarget groups. To conceptualize these potential effects of procedures, the concept of a policy schema is introduced. Special attention is paid to the conditions under which beliefs about procedures contained in policy schemas will influence patterns of interactions between target-group and non-target-group members. With that as background, a call is made for more complete analyses of the social psychology of affirmative action.     

Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity

One hundred thirty-five undergraduates indicated the degree to which they believed gender played a role in the selection of an applicant for a graduate degree program. Both the gender composition of the cohort and the selection policy (explicitly merit-based, explicitly affirmative action, or ambiguous) were varied. Results indicated that preferential selection on the basis of gender was assumed when women were solos and explicit information about the selection policy was not provided and that these assumptions were as strong as when an affirmative action policy was explicitly stated. This did not occur when the female selectee was not a solo or when a male selectee was a solo. Evaluations of qualifications and prediction of success paralleled the preferential selection assumptions.     

HOW SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION AND JOB STATUS INFLUENCE PERCEPTIONS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BENEFICIARIES

This paper examines evaluative judgments about an African-American beneficiary of affirmative action (AA) in two studies. Based on a motivated social cognition model, we test whether the use of AA, social dominance orientation (SDO), and job status jointly influence judgments about the future job performance and career progression of an AA beneficiary. In a sample of 244 undergraduate business students, Study 1 showed that SDO and AA interact to predict job-related performance expectations, and AA and job status interact to predict career progression expectations. Study 2 used a different sample of 190 business undergraduates to test whether the effects of AA, job status, SDO and their interactions on evaluative judgments is mediated by stereotype application. Results showed that different dimensions of stereotypes mediated the relationships between SDO, job status and the AA × SDO interaction.     

Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

Evidence of female-favoring hiring preferences for assistant professorships suggests that universities can implement affirmative action programs successfully. However, research on the role of applicant gender and the actual use of affirmative action policies in hiring processes for high-level professorships remain scarce. A web-based experiment with 481 economic university members assessed whether evaluators perceived a female applicant as less qualified than a male applicant for an associate professorship position when the job advertisement highlighted the university’s commitment to affirmative action (gender-based preferential selection) but not when it solely highlighted its commitment to excellence (non-gender-based selection). Contrary to previous experimental findings that affirmative action would adversely affect female applicants, evaluators perceived the female applicant as more hirable and ranked her first for the job significantly more often than the male candidate. Furthermore, male evaluators had a stronger preference for the female candidate in the gender-based condition than in the non-gender-based condition and a stronger preference for the male candidate in the non-gender-based condition than in the gender-based condition. Overall, the results provide evidence that gender-based preferential selection policies can evoke their intended effect to bring highly qualified women to high-level professorships, especially when being evaluated by non-beneficiaries of these policies, such as men.

     

GENDER, DISCRIMINATION BELIEFS, GROUP-BASED GUILT, AND RESPONSES TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR AUSTRALIAN WOMEN

Views of a selection committee's decision to promote a woman over a man on the basis of affirmative action were studied in a random sample of Australians (118 men and 111 women). The relations between perceptions of workplace gender discrimination, feelings of collective responsibility and guilt for discrimination, and judgments of entitlement to and, secondarily, deservingness of affirmative action were examined. AMOS analyses indicated that men's reports of collective guilt predicted attitudes toward women's entitlement. No coherent model was observed for women, which suggested ambivalent attitudes toward affirmative action. Gender differences in discrimination beliefs also suggested that women believe men are unfairly advantaged and that men believe women are responsible for their own disadvantage. Implications for research examining collective emotions and their role in social justice judgments are discussed.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Seeking the Bases for Resistance1

It has been argued that affirmative action negatively affects the self‐perceptions of beneficiaries. In contrast, it was hypothesized that this would not occur when individual qualifications were explicitly considered and, indeed, that failure under discrimination would be more self‐detrimental. However, perceptions of reverse discrimination may buffer negative self‐attributions on the part of nonbeneficiaries. Responses in an experimental simulation indicated that, of several affirmative actions for women, passive nondiscrimination was viewed as the fairest response to discrimination. While women's self‐perceptions were not affected by affirmative actions, they did suffer under failure. The presence of affirmative actions did not alleviate the effects of failure on men's self‐perceptions. Possible alternatives for resistance to affirmative action are assessed and discussed.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Correlations With Demographic Variables and With Beliefs About Targets,Actions, and Economic Effects1

Two studies assessed beliefs and attitudes toward affirmative action in the workplace. Opposition to affirmative action was most strongly associated with respondent race (White) and political conservatism, the belief that it involves strong actions (preferential hiring and setting aside jobs), and the expectation that it will hurt company performance. Attitudes were also positively associated with perceived frequency of employment discrimination experienced by the target group and negatively associated with their resulting employment opportunities. Regression results revealed that economic consequences for the company overwhelmed beliefs about target group employment opportunities in predicting affirmative action attitudes. Respondents associated aftirmative action most strongly with Black and Hispanic targets, and White respondents whose affirmative action schemas featured these 2 targets had the most negative attitudes.     

Why Do White Americans Oppose Race‐Targeted Policies? Clarifying the Impact of Symbolic Racism

Measures of symbolic racism (SR) have often been used to tap racial prejudice toward Blacks. However, given the wording of questions used for this purpose, some of the apparent effects on attitudes toward policies to help Blacks may instead be due to political conservatism, attitudes toward government, and/or attitudes toward redistributive government policies in general. Using data from national probability sample surveys and an experiment, we explored whether SR has effects even when controlling for these potential confounds and whether its effects are specific to policies involving Blacks. Holding constant conservatism and attitudes toward limited government, SR predicted Whites' opposition to policies designed to help Blacks and more weakly predicted attitudes toward social programs whose beneficiaries were racially ambiguous. An experimental manipulation of policy beneficiaries revealed that SR predicted policy attitudes when Blacks were the beneficiary but not when women were. These findings are consistent with the claim that SR's association with racial policy preferences is not due to these confounds.     

Affirmative action. Psychological data and the policy debates

The authors bring psychological research to bear on an examination of the policy of affirmative action. They argue that data from many studies reveal that affirmative action as a policy has more benefits than costs. Although the majority of pro-affirmative action arguments in the social sciences stress diversity, the authors' argument focuses on issues of merit. The merit-based argument, grounded in empirical studies, concludes that the policy of affirmative action conforms to the American ideal of fairness and is a necessary policy.     

Restoring Equity or Introducing Bias? A Contingency Model of Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Programs1

We developed a model to explain how an individual's attitude toward the group targeted by affirmative action impacts support for the program. In this model, attitude toward the targeted group influences the extent to which an individual perceives discrimination to be responsible for workforce disparities. Perceived discrimination affects fairness judgments of affirmative action programs with the effect contingent on the extent to which the remedy involves preferential treatment. To test this, participants were told about the selection system in a company in which minorities were underrepresented. Participants evaluated the extent to which they believed that discrimination occurs in the hiring process and 3 possible remedies. Results supported attitudes toward the targeted minority group as an antecedent of perceived discrimination and found that the amount of perceived discrimination was negatively related to fairness judgments of opportunity enhancement programs, but positively related to evaluations of programs that involved preferential treatment. Fairness judgments were positively related to support for all 3 affirmative action programs.     

Organizational justice and Black applicants' reactions to affirmative action

Using organizational justice as a guiding framework, the authors studied perceptions of affirmative action programs by presumed beneficiaries. Three conceptual issues were addressed: (a) the content of different affirmative action plans; (b) the 3-way interaction among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; and (c) the distinction between outcome favorability and distributive justice. These ideas were tested with a sample of Black engineering students who responded to 1 of 6 plans. Participants distinguished among the various plans, with some policies being viewed as more fair than others. In addition, a 3-way interaction among the 3 types of organizational justice was observed. Specifically, the 2-way interaction between distributive and interactional fairness was only significant when procedural justice was low. Implications for organizational justice and for the design of affirmative action programs are discussed.     

What Factors Influence Judges’ Rulings About the Legality of Affirmative Action Plans?

Purpose

When implementing affirmative action programs involving race and gender, human resource practitioners must balance efforts to increase workforce diversity against the need to avoid illegal reverse discrimination. The tension between non-discrimination law and preferential treatment is explored. In reverse discrimination case law, affirmative action plans are evaluated by judges along two dimensions: remedial need and limiting harm. The legal literature specifies certain factors such as statistical imbalance, employee qualification, and duration of plan that are usually examined within these two dimensions.

Methodology

A content analysis of 80 federal court cases was conducted to quantitatively analyze the weight and importance of these factors within judicial rulings as well as contextual factors (e.g., judge’s political affiliation, beneficiary of program) that may influence the outcome of affirmative action lawsuits.

Results

It was found that remedial need can be demonstrated by large statistical disparities in the workforce, and was also more likely to be found by Democratic than Republican judges. Limiting harm is more likely to be supported by plans that are of limited duration and do not use reserved slots, or quotas.

Implications

The study provides empirically based recommendations for the design of legally defensible affirmative action plans that involve preferential treatment.     

Understanding Affirmative Action

The purpose of this article is to lay a conceptual groundwork that is needed if social scientists and policy makers are to design and implement fair and effective affirmative action programs. Because affirmative action is not well understood, in or out of the academy, the article starts with definitions, both general and technical, contrasts affirmative action with equal opportunity, and touches on the distinction between policy and practice. I then argue that affirmative action is a necessary policy, that it can be effective, and that it is fair. But the policy is for three other reasons: (a) it focuses on deficiencies, (b) it disturbs expectations, and (c) it poses a threat to individualism, interfering with self-congratulations.