Using the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies to Decolonize Counseling Practice: The Important Roles of Theory,Power, and Action

The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC; Ratts, Singh, Nassar-McMillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2015) ask counselors to “apply knowledge of multicultural and social justice theories” (p. 8). Counselors who implement the MSJCC in this manner have the opportunity to critically examine traditional counseling theories that were developed within a predominantly White and Western framework, that reproduce North American and European colonist ideology if not contextualized, and that neglect Indigenous approaches to healing (Tuck & Yang, 2012; Watkins & Shulman, 2008). In this article, the authors present 4 key multicultural and social justice theories that can support counselors in adopting a decolonizing paradigm and implementing the MSJCC in their practice with clients: relational-cultural theory (Miller, 1976), critical race theory (Bell, 1995), intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), and liberation psychology (Martín-Baró, 1994).     

Procedural Justice and Affirmative Action

There is widespread agreement among both supporters and opponents that affirmative action either must not violate any principle of equal opportunity or procedural justice, or if it does, it may do so only given current extenuating circumstances. Many believe that affirmative action is morally problematic, only justified to the extent that it brings us closer to the time when we will no longer need it. In other words, those that support affirmative action believe it is acceptable in nonideal theory, but not ideal theory. This paper argues that affirmative action is entirely compatible with equal opportunity and procedural justice and would be even in an ideal world. I defend a new analysis of Rawlsian procedural justice according to which it is permissible to interfere in the outcomes of procedures, and thus I show that affirmative action is not morally problematic in the way that many have supposed.     

Social Identity and Personal Identity Stereotype Threat: The Case of Affirmative Action

Integrating insights from research examining the effect of being seen through the lens of stereotypes on academic performance and the social identity perspective, we examine the effect of perceived affirmative action admission at college entry on academic performance at the end of the first year. We propose that stereotype threat plays a crucial moderating role in determining when performance is affected. A longitudinal study of Black and Latino students at a large multiethnic university showed that perceptions of affirmative action admission negatively affected achievement among high stereotype-threatened individuals but not among low stereotype-threatened individuals. Furthermore, the results show that stereotype threat can have its effects because of concerns for the self (personal identity stereotype threat) or because of concerns for the group (social identity stereotype threat). As expected, social identity stereotype threat negatively affected the performance of individuals high in ethnic identification, whereas personal identity stereotype threat negatively affected the performance of individuals low in ethnic identification.     

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.     

In Defense of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to positive steps taken to hire persons from groups previously and presently discriminated against. Considerable evidence indicates that this discrimination is intractable and cannot be eliminated by the enforcement of laws. Numerical goals and quotas are justified if and only if they are necessary to overcome the discriminatory effects that could not otherwise be eliminated with reasonable efficiency. Many past as well as present policies are justified in this way.     

Affirmative Action and the Doctrine of Double Effect

ABSTRACT  This article attempts to show that affirmative action can be supported by the doctrine of double effect which recognises distinctions between desired and unintended effects such that the responsibility for acts falls on the side of the former rather than the latter. With this doctrine it may also be seen why affirmative action programmes cannot be simply equated with numerical quota systems, nor can they be called discriminatory, at least not under the definition of discrimination utilised.     

Affirmative Action as Help: A Review of Recipient Reactions to Preferential Selection and Affirmative Action

We review research on four areas of recipient reactions to affirmative action: (a) self-evaluations of ability and performance, (b) motivation and task interest, (c) performance and achievement, and (d) evaluations of selection procedures. Not surprisingly, the process by which affirmative action was implemented strongly affected the findings. Self-evaluations of ability and specific components of performance were adversely affected when selection procedures did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of recipient qualifications. In contrast, measures of motivation were largely unaffected by any type of selection, although task choice was adversely affected when the selection process did not provide clear evidence of recipient qualifications. Task performance was complexly affected by selection process and other contextual variables. Finally, selection procedures that did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of qualifications were regarded by recipients as less fair than procedures that did not provide evidence of competencies. We interpret the literature using a model of affirmative action as help (Turner, Pratkanis, & Hardaway, 1991), draw further parallels to research on recipient reactions to aid, and develop strategies for the effective management of affirmative action programs.     

Reactions to Social Categorization: Evaluating One Argument Against Affirmative Action1

One argument made against affirmative action is that it is undesirable or inappropriate to treat people on the basis of their group membership. The present study attempts to evaluate college students' opinions about this type of social categorization. Two variables were manipulated: type of social group (i.e., one based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or college major), and the purpose of the categorization (to identify, to form a social group, to form a political group, or for affirmative action purposes). Results indicated that students were, in general, opposed to such social categorizations. The presence of interaction effects, however, suggests that opposition to affirmative action is not uniform across different target groups and is not based solely on objections to social categorization. Implications are discussed.     

Impact of Affirmative Action on Beneficiary Groups: Evidence From the 1990 General Social Survey

Earlier studies relying on laboratory experimentation have concluded that affirmative action, at least when it involves preferential selection, can have debilitating social psychological effects on beneficiaries unless special care is taken to avert these risks. We question the applicability of the laboratory findings to real beneficiaries of affirmative action on several counts, primary among them the fact that "set aside" preferential selection, as simulated in the lab experiments, is illegal for all but that small proportion of employers who are under court order to remedy their own past discrimination. This study takes a different approach to assessing the impact of affirmative action on beneficiaries. For White women and African-American employees of both sexes, we use 1990 General Social Survey data to compare workers whose employers practice affirmative action with those employers do not. Data from this national probability sample give no indication that benefiting from affirmative action has negative effects for either group on any social psychological outcome examined. African-American workers did show two positive effects of employment at an affirmative-action firm, with one clearly significant and the other nearly so: Those whose employers practice affirmative action (a) show greater occupational ambition and (b) are more likely to believe that people are helpful. Claims that affirmative action blights the psychological functioning of beneficiaries are not supported by these survey responses from a national probability sample.     

Christian Counselors and Affirmative Counseling of Lesbian and Gay Clients

In this phenomenological study, we interviewed 12 counselors who identified as both religious and able to provide ethical and competent counseling to lesbian and gay clients. Participants discussed their lived experiences providing counseling. Our analysis revealed three primary themes: seeking congruence, responding to lesbian and gay clients, and cultivating competency. We discuss these findings and identify implications for counselor training and practice.     

The Roles of Gender and Affirmative Action Attitude in Reactions to Test Score Use Methods1

The present study explored the effects of 2 variables, affirmative action (AA) attitude and gender, on reactions to 3 test score use (TSU) methods: top‐down selection. banding with random selection, and banding with preferences. In a study of 94 upper‐division and graduate business students, AA attitude was associated with different reactions to TSU methods in terms of fairness and organizational attractiveness. Moreover, women with negative AA attitudes and men rated banding with preferences lower than the other two methods, but women with positive AA attitudes did not Results are discussed in terms of applicant reactions models, implications for organizations and future research.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action in the United States and Canada

Attitudes toward affirmative action programs were investigated using a U.S. sample, an English speaking Canadian sample, and a French speaking Canadian sample. Results indicate that cultural influences in the form of individualism-collectivism were small but that ethnic and linguistic memberships were major influences on attitudes toward those programs.