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.