Affirmative action sounds really good. Injustice ought to be corrected-this simply makes sense. As Shelby Steele has said, affirmative action is an attractive ethical concept because it "has all the moral symmetry that fairness requires." Even the name is attractive. Affirmative action. It just sounds like the right thing to do.
This is why the recent Hopwood v. Texas decision has ruffled so many feathers. On Mar. 18, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit." Having lived for so long in the era of affirmative action and multiculturalism, Americans have collectively raised their eyebrows at the Hopwood decision. Because we're so taken by the fairness that affirmative action seems to embody, our intuition is that the Hopwood ruling is cold, unjust, and simply wrong.
But the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is on the right track. The affirmative action program as we know it is deeply flawed. A policy of strictly race-based preference is not what America wants or needs.
The problem with the status quo affirmative action policies is that it is so deeply grounded in the country's past. Affirmative action is a backward-looking policy, when what we sorely need is a way to move forward on race. Rather than recognizing merit in the here-and-now of the individual, race-based preferences place a value on past political injustice. In other words, affirmative action tries to correct historical oppression with personal benefit. The result is anything but fair. When race-based preferences are used, the individual is bound to their status as an historical victim. A minority applicant today may want to be recognized for their individual achievement, but the sad fact is that they will also be seen as a victims.
Though society has previously derived great benefits from affirmative action, the system now needs change. Racial preferences are more crippling than beneficial. Affirmative action sends the terrible message that the way to gain power is to highlight your status as a victim, to play the role of the oppressed. Steele writes that racial preference policies "leads [minorities] back into the tunnel of our oppression where we reenact our victimization just as society struggles to end its victimization of us."
But what are we to do then? It seems clear that the Hopwood decision is an inadequate answer to the affirmative action problem-we still need a way of recognizing achievement in the face of social adversity. Injustice is still deeply rooted in America, and we need a way of acknowledging those who have worked their way out of a position of disadvantage. As affirmative action proponents say, achievement isn't just about test scores, starting salaries, or advanced degrees. Achievement is about how far you've come from where you started.
The answer is that affirmative action ought to be based on economic status rather than based on race. We should reward those who have emerged from socio-economic disadvantage, not those who were born with a different shade of skin color. There are two leading advantages of an economic rather than racial policy. First, an economically-based policy operates in the sphere of present circumstance, rather than leading us back into past injustice. Also, such a policy puts its focus on individual achievement rather than collective oppression. The young black man who worked his way from inner-city blight to a college degree ought to be rewarded, but he ought to be rewarded because of his accomplishment-because he beat the odds through merit and work. Instead of sending the insulting message of today's affirmative action-"Congratulations! You made it even though you're black!"-we ought to be saying, "Congratulations! You worked hard for it!"
An economic action policy would reach those that it seeks to benefit and it would send a more positive message. It would free people from their group's historical oppression rather than forcing them to cling to it. It would embrace the principle that we ought to be judged "not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character."
Mr. Hughes is a sophomore in Berkeley.
Copyright 1996, The Yale Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Yale Herald, Inc. Write to herald@yale.edu for additional details.