Balancing affirmative action and merit

It was recently reported that the Trump administration would conduct an investigation into the affirmative action (AA) policies of universities to establish if they were discriminating against white and Asian-American students.

This is in light of a myriad of complaints from the students concerned. 

Supporters of the AA policies argue that the policies are necessary to address past inequalities, while critics argue that the policies have achieved their goals and are now reversely discriminating against non-black races.

AA policies are defined and implemented differently in various parts of the world. This is because each country’s situation is unique.  

In Namibia, the government passed the Affirmative Action Act that provides for equal opportunities (in employment, training and promotion) to women, previously racially disadvantaged groups and people with disabilities. These groups are given special considerations in employment, but qualifications and experience are taken into high consideration. The law, which was passed 8 years after independence, was necessary, because although Namibia has a majority black population, the economic power is still in the hands of the minority whites who benefited from the apartheid system.

The AA policy in Namibia is still relevant today, because some organisations refuse to comply or are lagging behind in its implementation, especially in terms of the filling of positions at executive and senior management level.  The law provides for penalties against offenders, but the fines are too low to serve as a deterrent against breaking the law.

Implementation of the policy in tertiary education admission is not necessary as the majority of students are from previously disadvantaged groups. Most white students tend to go study at universities in neighbouring South Africa, which are perceived as providing better quality education. However, private schools (primary and secondary) that receive funding from government are usually required to reserve a specific number of seats for children from poor backgrounds (mostly black) who demonstrate high intellectual abilities.

I believe the situation is more or less the same in South Africa and racial transformation has also extended into the sports sector, where there have been decade-long demands for previously white dominated sports such as rugby and cricket to be more representative of the South African population.

The situation in the United States of America is however different when compared to Namibia and South Africa as whites make up the majority of the population. The racial grouping is also different, as in both Namibia and South Africa, all non-white groups are classified as blacks in terms of affirmative action, while the US classifies the different groups as they are, hence the complaints from Asian-American students who also experience racial prejudice. The US affirmative action policies were introduced in the 1960’s to create and improve opportunities in education and employment for women and racial groups that were historically disadvantaged and excluded from actively participating in American society. 

Various programmes have been implemented over the years to ensure that organisations, including tertiary institutions, are more representative of the US population.  However, there are those who argue that progress has been slow as blacks and latinos are still underrepresented in many sectors of society.  

To address the unequal representation in the education sector, some universities use a two tier selection criteria, where they automatically admit the top 10 percent performing students from all schools, regardless of race. Thereafter, the selection of students is based on socio-economic factors, with race as a significant determining factor. It is this second selection process that is considered as discriminatory towards whites and Asian-American students, because they claim that race takes priority over merit. 

The problem with affirmative action in education, especially when admission requirements are lowered for a specific group of people is that it creates an unfavourable or discriminatory atmosphere for the ‘affirmative action’ students who are likely to face stigmatization from academic staff and white students as not deserving or worthy to be at the university. The student himself will also naturally be guilt-ridden for having taken the spot of a student that was more deserving.

What the US government should have done all those years and should do is to invest in improving the education system at lower school level, especially in poor communities, rather than try to fix the problem at the top. Government can assist by not only investing in school infrastructure, but equipping the schools with advanced educational materials and providing incentives to attract quality teachers to schools in poor communities. 

Any former tertiary student would attest to the fact that most lecturers more worried about their research projects and attending seminars than helping struggle students. Unless there are bridging programmes at universities, students who are admitted with low grades and therefore not prepared for the pressures and challenges of tertiary education would not receive the compensatory support they need to move ahead. 

Lower admission requirements would negatively affect the education standards of the US tertiary education system and the quality output. Those who do not qualify for admission in prestigious universities can enroll elsewhere where they will graduate and go on to become productive US citizens.  In the end, it is not so much about the university that you attend, but about your dedication and commitment to succeed in life. Not all successful people attended Ivy League universities. 

While I believe that affirmative action is are necessary, excellence should be the ultimate determining factor, whether it is in employment, education, arts and sports. 

News leaks and the media

News leaks, especially of classified information, are challenging to deal with as governments have to be careful not to be seen as encroaching on media freedom and the public’s right to know what their leaders are doing in order to hold them to account.

Recently, the Trump administration announced a crackdown on the leaking of classified information by White House staff members to the media. It also announced that it would review US government guidelines on prosecuting media professionals who published leaked information.

There are different types of leaks: leaks that are classified, but rather more inconvenient to leaders if they were to be published; leaks that are highly classified and damaging to national security if they were to be published; and leaks that expose violations of the law, such as corruption and abuse of power. Obviously the Trump administration was not referring to the latter, as such persons are protected by law.

People who are given security clearance undertake an oath of confidentiality, restricting them from disclosing classified and sensitive information. The violation of that oath can lead to and prosecutions.

But why should legal proceedings stop there? Why should the media not be prosecuted for publishing information that was classified as confidential?

If a leaker is charged with mishandling classified information  thereby endangering national security, what is an even bigger crime is the publishing of that information on a mass media platform.

Is it fair that leakers have to spend time in jail or be fined thousands of dollars for their misconduct, while media practitioners get away with it? They are after all accessories to the crime in the eyes of the law.

Media practitioners will try by all means to defend their actions. A case in point is the defense and support of The Washington Post's decision to publish transcripts of President Trump’s phone calls with the Australian and Mexican leaders. The information was not only classified, but it was also not in the public’s interest to know. It could in the end have a damaging effect on US international relations.

While it is important to preserve freedom of the press as a guardianship of democracy and holding government officials accountable, it is important that media practitioners do not abuse that freedom, especially in the US with the present climate of a media bias against the Trump administration. Their anger towards the Trump administration can cloud their journalistic judgement on what constitutes information that is in the public interest rather than simply publishing information with the intend to embarrass a government administration that is despised by many.

 It is not easy to draw a balance between the need for an informed public and the right of the media to access to information and the need to protect national security. However, I hope that the decision by the Trump administration will sparks a debate that will assist in striking a balance that is beneficial for all parties involved – government, the media and the public.

The Scaramucci interview, media self-censorship and the PR profession

The meteoric rise and fall of Anthony Scaramucci not only demonstrated the power of the media, but the lack of self-censorship amongst journalists as well as the misunderstanding or possible the disrespect of public relations (PR) as a professional function that should be manned by professionally qualified individuals.

Media self-censorship

Regardless of the whether the interview was on-the-record or off-the-record, some of the embarrassing things (bad language and threat against others) that Scaramucci said during the interview should never have been published. I think any journalist with a high regard for media ethics and respect for continued good relations with PR professionals would understand that the information was humorous and not seriously intended.  It was also not in the interest of the public, but more in the interest of the journalist to embarrass Scaramucci and possibly to damage his reputation and the Trump administration.

The journalist should have simply referred to the rants in general terms rather than describing them in detail. If he felt that it was a non-story without the bad language and threats, then he should have abandoned the article all together. I know that off-the-record information is not legally binding, but built on trust and maintaining good relationships with your sources.  Off-the-record information helps a journalist get inside information that could give him or her a bigger picture or an understanding of what is happening in a specific organization.

Despite Scaramucci’s public persona as a loose cannon, the interview was clearly off-the-record or rather ‘unofficially’ off the record.  The publication of that interview and many others before it, only damages the trust in the media and the questioning of their ability to protect the anonymity of their sources, including whistle-blowers.  

Public Relations as an important organizational function

The fact that many companies all over the world continue to appoint unqualified people to strategic public relations positions, supports the claim by PR practitioners that organizations disregard the important strategic role of the profession. 

Many people view PR and communication as just about throwing parties, networking, and handing out flyers, while many organisations believe the best attribute of a PR professional is being a smart mouth. But PR and communication is more than that – it requires someone with a PR qualification and experience on how to influence strategic decisions; how to manage organizational reputation; how to manage relations with stakeholders, including the media; how to manage social media communication; and managing crises, to name just a few. 

There is a trend around the world where lawyers and business administration managers and practically everyone with a tertiary degree that is not a PR degree, are being appointed in PR positions. 

The White House made a mistake hiring a hedge fund manager to manage its communication division and the consequences were laid bare for all to see. The messy reputation of the Trump administration is a PR issue – a disregard for the White House PR professionals’ ability to control the message by deciding on the best way to convey the message to the public. Regardless of the hatred towards President Trump, he is the creator of this mess and it can only be fixed once he acknowledges the role of his PR advisers.

Even though I do not agree with the actions that led to the resignation of Scaramucci, I think it was the best that could have happened, because as an inexperienced communication director, I think he would have failed in the job.