Smith defends affirmative action as debate rages

By Anika Singh

PATRICK MCGARVEY/YH Political science Professor Rogers Smith supports affirmative action despite the national backlash against such policies.

Legal opinions on the issue, however, remain divided. A U.S. District Court judge ruled on Wed., Mar. 25 that the city of East Haven must take active steps to recruit minority applicants for municipal jobs. Yet on Tues., Apr. 14, a federal Court of Appeals voided a government program that supported minority recruitment for radio and television station jobs.

Smith, who teaches the ever-popular Constitutional Law class, believes that court decisions and public opinion are inextricably linked. He attacked the public's "misconception that [affirmative action] has resulted in unqualified minorities" landing jobs or gaining admission into colleges and universities. He cited an American Medical Association study published last October revealing that students who were admitted to the University of California at Davis with the help of affirmative action had professional and post-graduate records comparable to those of students who were admitted without such help.

Smith also questions the misconception that affirmative action programs work against the interests of the white middle class. He pointed to a current national economic redistribution that favors upper income groups at the expense of both white and minority members of the
middle class.

Calling himself a "qualified admirer" of affirmative action, Smith said that he would prefer the advancement of equality "without race targeting." However, he sees no other pragmatic way to address the long history of racism in this country. In his latest book, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History, published in October, Smith notes that white males have traditionally held an advantage over females and minorities throughout American history. In light of this privileged position, Smith sees a current need for affirmative action programs favoring minorities.

However, a 1995 Supreme Court decision, Adarand v. Pena, has challenged the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. "The courts are fundamentally opposed [to affirmative action]; a narrow range of cases could be defended in court," Smith said. That narrow range of cases, according to Smith, has yet to be precisely defined. This legal obstacle makes the future of affirmative action difficult to predict.

Nevertheless, Smith believes a turnaround in the courts' and the public's perception of affirmative action is possible. He noted that the Supreme Court justices in Adarand were split five to four. In addition, evidence of the actual effects on the removal of affirmative action programs could lend fuel to the fire.

In California, the results of the state's controversial public referendum resolution to discontinue affirmative action programs are beginning to become apparent. The new resolution has contributed to a 57 percent decline in African-American applicants and a 40 percent drop in the number of Hispanics accepted to the University of California at Berkeley. Such statistics are "too blatant for some people...to stomach," according to Smith.

Although the consequences of ending affirmative action programs may not illicit an immediate response from the courts, Smith predicted that public outcry may lead to policy change. He pointed to two former opponents of affirmative action who now are now supporting the other side: Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer and UCLA political scientist James P. Wilson.

But reversing the trend will be difficult. "The public has always been dissatisfied by race-conscious measures," Smith explained. "This has been reinforced by the discovery by conservative politicians that attacking affirmative action is a good way to earn popular support--and the unwillingness of liberals to go out on a limb to support it."

Whether or not the Supreme Court changes its standards for the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, Smith explained that programs at private institutions, such as Yale, will probably not be legally subject to the Court's rulings. Although private universities often receive government funding and tax breaks, Smith said, "They are much less legally liable to judicial correction because they are not state actors."

Back to News...