Affirmative action ultimately benefits us all
By Concerned Faculty at UCLA
The "debate" on affirmative action that is heading into full
swing represents another in a long series of struggles that this
country tried to have publicly with its conscience. For whites,
especially Anglos, the struggle involves notions of justice and
decency, on one hand, and ego-related concerns of saving privilege
and face, on the other. For people of color, the issues are more
clear-cut.
This debate is local as well as national: University of
California policies and practices on affirmative action are under
examination by regents and legislators. Many believe, with
President Clinton and the Los Angeles Times, that we should assess
the actual success of affirmative action programs.
This proposal is commendable in its desire to base decision on
facts. However, such an endeavor must be approached with extreme
caution; figures from "before" and "after" initiation of
affirmative action programs tell little.
First and foremost, the effects of such programs should be
examined with careful regard to the degree to which the programs
were actually implemented. It is clear from numerous examples, of
which the Los Angeles Fire Department is only one, that affirmative
action may be promulgated as policy without actual
implementation.
Rumors of jobs going unjustly to ethnic minority men or to
women, which are born of fear and prejudice, magnify the supposed
effects of affirmative programs in people’s minds. Despite popular
belief to the contrary, the most effective affirmative action
program carried out in this country has been the longstanding one
favoring white, Anglo, gentile, able-bodied males.
Another factor affecting assessing of affirmative action
programs is the context in which they are carried out (assuming
that they are). In the last 20 years we have seen tremendous
erosion of income for the middle class and poor, and unprecedented
risk for young men of color from drugs and violence.
We must ask, what would educational achievement and employment
figures look like without such affirmative action programs as there
have been, in the context of such strains to the social fabric and
threats to individual hope? And what might become of our delicately
stitched society if social programs to equalize opportunity were
abolished?
As faculty members at UCLA, we believe that affirmative action
initiatives have begun to have an effect on the face of America’s
universities; yet even with such initiatives, the changes have been
hard-fought and hard-won. Good will alone, no matter how prevalent,
could not accomplish what affirmative action attempts have done,
largely because many of us have prejudices of which we are unaware
and because of subtle biases that are in place in institutions. You
can’t legislate opinion, but legislation can help us to act in ways
consonant with our opinions.
The changes brought about by affirmative action are slow to come
to fruition because many of them must work themselves through as
people, for whom barriers have been lowered, work through
educational and employment systems. The fact that the percentages
of ethnic minorities and women who are college graduates or in
positions of management and leadership, while improved from 30
years ago, are still low, shows that we have not yet reached the
American goal of equal opportunity for all.
Opportunity programs benefit all of us, not just those whose
opportunities have been denied in the past  for example, by
bringing out the potential of all our people, and making a more
skilled and satisfied work force. We need to continue to support
affirmative action to make our society reflect the values upon
which our country was founded and on which it still endeavors to
stand.
The Steering Committee of Concerned Faculty at UCLA are: Alice
Banos, Nancy Henley (membership), Donald Kalish (chair), Katherine
King (treasurer), Mary Brent Wehrli and Victor Wolfenstein
(secretary).