T
o grow up in the United
States is to be inculcated with
the promise that this land is
unique in its opportunity.
The legend of the self-
propelled individual is
ubiquitous for Americans,
from the revolutionaries in
Philadelphia establishing
a new kind of nation to
the pioneers who grittily
took the West by force in
the following century.
It has instilled the idea
of
universal
economic
ascendancy,
typified
most prominently by the idea of a
white picket fence and two cars in
the driveway; it is what most of us
over the past century would call the
American Dream. But what happens
when certain Americans, on the basis
of their race alone, are so egregiously
discouraged from attaining this
dream?
Assuming no inherent disparities
in intelligence or moral fiber among
different races exists, calling for
these
discriminated
Americans
to be afforded the baseline level of
opportunity should not be heralded
as magnanimous; it should be
expected. When the efforts to restore
parity among all races in this country
are attainable only through artificial
means, there should be no act of
surprise or leap to indignation.
After all, it was only through
artificial means — more specifically,
unconstitutional and violent ones
— that these Americans were
subjugated in the first place. These
racially divisive corrections have
left these Americans to watch on the
sidelines as the American Dream
bequeathed all its wonders only to
those lucky enough to possess the
proper birthright. What could be
more un-American?
These
artificial
means
are
comprised of so-called affirmative
action policies implemented over
the course of the last half-century.
The present day provides a golden
opportunity to look back on how and
why these affirmative action policies
have succeeded and failed where they
did. The legacy of affirmative action
remains in housing policy through
the Fair Housing Act of 1968, but is
hotly contested in college admissions;
ultimately, the problems addressed
by those midcentury reforms have
continued to persist in ways that
justify affirmative action in the
present.
As a tactic promoting equality of
opportunity among races, affirmative
action is notoriously difficult to judge
because of the contrasting vision
for affirmative action applications..
Should the goal be to eliminate
discriminatory
practices
against
minorities
and
thereby
create,
from that point on, a level playing
field? This signature view of earlier
liberals should be noted as contrary
to the words of President Lyndon B.
Johnson, who famously articulated
the
reasoning
behind
artificial
restorations of racial parity: “You do
not take a person who, for years, has
been hobbled by chains and liberate
him, bring him up to the starting line
of a race and say, ‘You are now free
to compete with all the others,’ and
still justly believe that you have been
completely fair.”
Incidentally, the later vision
of affirmative action that actively
promoted the hiring of minority
workers — was not only affirmed
by Johnson but also carried on
by Republican President Richard
Nixon — resembled the controversial
use of affirmative action in college
admissions more than the Fair
Housing Act’s less radical, egalitarian
language. The 1960s saw the same
flavor of affirmative action reach
upper
education,
buttressed
by
the 1968 Supreme Court decision
upholding efforts to desegregate
schools. Finally, it seemed that
African Americans — along with
other minorities — were on their
way to achieving more through more
balanced college enrollment, which
would go hand in hand with higher
material attainment.
However, that dream has not
yet been accomplished, as there
are still major racial gaps in college
enrollment,
and
massive
gaps
between white and Black wealth
accordingly. We could look to the
more egalitarian interpretation of
affirmative action, in the Fair Housing
Act of 1968, for answers. Passed in
the smoldering aftermath of bloody
riots following the assassination of
Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, the
act aimed to help African-American
families participate in the process
of home ownership and wealth
generation from which they had been
excluded for generations. Decades
of government-sanctioned redlining
policies effectively prevented them
from obtaining mortgages and saving
earnings, further distancing them
from the American Dream enjoyed
by their white peers.
The Fair Housing
Act has proved to be
similarly
incomplete
when observed with
affirmative action in
college
admissions.
Even after the Fair
Housing
Act,
cities
became more Black
while
suburban
centers
grew
more
white. Neighborhoods
that were redlined 80 years ago are
much more likely than not to still be
low-income. Discriminatory lending
practices are still alive and well,
which has allowed de facto racial
segregation to persist in housing.
The act, and all of the affirmative
action efforts it entailed, succeeded
in recognizing the problem but failed
to pursue a truly effective path of
remedy.
These efforts also have their fair
share of critics, many of whom would
point to the failure of affirmative
action in college admissions, in
particular, as an undeniable evidence
of the practice’s innate faults. The
idea that correcting centuries of
Black dismantlement should fall
on the white and Asian college
applicants of today is, in the eyes of
these critics, both unfair and actually
harmful to the Black students
affected. The elevation of otherwise-
underprepared Black students in the
application process is indeed a real
issue, and this “mismatch” effect is
clearly supported by the phenomenon
of disproportionately low college
achievement among Black students.
However,
arguments
that
affirmative action is unfair to the
non-Black candidates it displaces and
characterizations of the mismatch
effect as an evil inseparable from
the idea of affirmative action are
complete mischaracterizations of the
issue at hand. Critics of affirmative
action often lament the fact that our
affirmative action policies only seem
to lend themselves to minorities well
past the formative times of childhood
and adolescence. In this view,
affirmative action policy effectively
neglects minority children until
it comes time to apply for college
or to a job, only serving to secure
them seats in colleges they are not
prepared for and bringing upon them
all the subsequent shame of being
an “affirmative action hire” if they
manage to graduate.
While these are fair complaints,
they neglect the fact that the
solution to this problem was already
implemented in America decades
ago with forced school integration.
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court
decision Brown v. Board of Education
struck down legally enforced school
segregation in 1954, but integration
of schools was only accomplished
by the advent of mandatory busing
between
majority-white
and
majority-Black elementary, middle
and high schools. Not long after, a
U.S.
government-commissioned
report found the individual racial and
socioeconomic attributes of students
were less predictive of their future
academic achievements than were
their schools’ levels of integration. It
is unsurprising, then, that the period
from then until the tapering off of
mandatory desegregation policy saw
certain measures of academic ability
between Black and white teens leap
dramatically.
Why, then, was full racial parity
in education (or something close to
it) not achieved? The answer is white
flight. Both politically and physically,
the white families burdened by
the act of busing their children to
lesser schools soon resisted the
inconveniences associated with full
educational integration. Often, it
was by moving to the suburbs that
whites escaped busing, which left a
void in their place that would more
often than not be filled by non-
white families, rejecting the idea of
integration at its very core. One way
or another, the level of integration
achieved was deemed satisfactory
by the late 1990s, bringing an end
to the legal justification for forced
integration in the first place and
leaving room for many of the same
disparities to creep back.
This white flight was not
novel; America had seen it a
generation earlier, in response to the
aforementioned Fair Housing Act. For
all of the controversy surrounding the
act’s passage, it ultimately demanded
little more than the equal treatment
fort those seeking to purchase a
home. Driven by the same dream of a
white picket fence and two cars in the
driveway as their white peers, African
Americans welcomed the act as a
relief to the incessant discriminatory
and
predatory
practices
levied
against them in the years before
1968. Despite the earnest ambitions
of African Americans, the prospect
of integrated neighborhoods, like
integrated schools, drove a large
amount of whites out the inner cities
and thus solidified the ghetto as the
community of urban Blacks.
None of this is new knowledge.
The racialization of the American
living space and the wholly unequal
division of society’s resources along
explicitly racial lines was realized
by the famous Kerner Commission,
convened after the rampant riots of
the summer of 1967. With regard
to the ghettos now synonymous
with minority communities, the
Commission
was
unambiguous:
“White society is deeply implicated in
the ghetto. White institutions created
it, white institutions maintain it, and
white society condones it.”
This is not to say that white
Americans as an entire race were,
or are, guilty orchestrators of
the formation of Black ghettos in
America. Far from it. They were,
however, beneficiaries in a country
simultaneously occupied by those
who were suffering for no other basis
than melanin content. Running away
from the racial nature of the divide
in the intertwined realms of housing
and education between Black and
white Americans is a dangerous first
step toward not only impeding, but
also dismantling the goal of equality
of opportunity.
This is, indeed, a racial issue. If
the attainment of equal opportunity
is truly the aim of affirmative action
policy, then equality of outcome
should not be a factor. Low-income
Americans, regardless of race, are
not the target of affirmative action
– those disproportionately excluded
from wealth attainment along lines
that racial are. Suggestions, largely
from conservatives, that the structure
of affirmative action be tweaked
to target the socioeconomically
disadvantaged as opposed to racial
minorities
reflect
a
misplaced
approach marketed as colorblind.
The reality is that such a
restructuring would only perpetuate
the disparities that persist between
Black and white Americans even
after income alone is controlled. In
other words, a colorblind affirmative
action policy for college applicants of
lower socioeconomic status would
still elevate disproportionately more
whites
than
Blacks,
neglecting
racial inequities in the aggregate.
Additionally, the mismatch effect
would only replicate itself in such a
scenario, doing nothing to close the
wide race gap in graduation rates,
as it would beset Black and white
Americans alike.
It’s important to note that this
holistic perspective is often crowded
out by invocation of such outliers as
former President Barack Obama or
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas, whose successes distract
from the socioeconomic challenges
facing a vast majority of those who
would benefit from affirmative
action policies. Even then, their
successes are qualified by racially
disproportionate rates of downward
mobility, further poking holes in the
idea that a purely socioeconomic
affirmative action would constitute
desirable policy.
All of this has served to disprove the
original characterization of affirmative
action as ineffective. There is also,
however, the challenge that affirmative
action at its core is unfair to the majority
of students it affects, whether it is white
middle schoolers bussed to inner city
schools or white college applicants
rejected from Harvard University in
favor of Black students. Viewed on
their own, these actions do, in fact,
contradict the ideal of meritocracy.
The idea that every college should get
its pick of the very best applicants, and
every student their pick of the very best
schools they are qualified for, is at odds
with affirmative action. That much is
undeniable.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, November 1, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
Preparing the world’s next business leaders
B
lackRock, the $6 trillion
investment
firm,
announced
early
last
week that it plans to
introduce
a
suite
of
sustainable
exchange-
traded funds. Customers
will be able to choose an
investment vehicle that
will invest their funds
in
environmentally
sustainable enterprises.
Brian Deese, the global
head
of
sustainable
investing at BlackRock
believes the new offer is a
business imperative: “Sustainable
investing
is
becoming
mainstream investing.”
This is not BlackRock’s first
socially responsible decision — in
January this year, Laurence Fink,
the founder and chief executive
of BlackRock, wrote a letter to the
world’s most powerful business
leaders saying their companies
need to contribute to society if
they want to receive financial
support from BlackRock. It’s
energizing to see Fink use his
clout (BlackRock is the world’s
largest investor) to make such
demands.
In addition, Fink was one of
the first corporate chiefs to back
out of the Future Investment
Initiative in Saudi Arabia after
the
suspicious
disappearance
of
Saudi
journalist,
Jamal
Khashoggi. His refusal to attend
reveals his actions support his
beliefs against corruption.
BlackRock clearly supports
the argument that private sector
organizations
can
achieve
impressive
financial
results
while having a positive impact on
society.
As an undergraduate student
studying at the Ross School of
Business, this idea has frequently
surfaced. My peers and I have
been exposed to a multitude of
private sector organizations that
use their power to work toward
solving some of the most pressing
challenges our society face. This
exposure (through coursework,
extracurriculars
and
various
programming) can be attributed
in some part to the hard work of
Jerry Davis, the associate dean of
the Business School.
Davis
leads
the
Business+Impact initiative – a
multidisciplinary initiative that
provides programs
and opportunities
to students with
the
skills
and
knowledge
to
become
“social
impact
leaders.”
Davis
and
his
colleagues
define
define social impact
as
promoting
“a
significant,
positive
change
that addresses a pressing social
challenge.”
The Business+Impact initiative
has created a slew of opportunities
for students pursuing careers
that positively impact society,
regardless
of
whether
those
careers are in the private, public
or nonprofit sectors. Students of
all majors and disciplines can take
advantage of different courses,
lectures, summits and challenges
offered
every
semester.
(A
comprehensive list of the available
opportunities can be found at
www.RossImpact.com.)
I
could
tell
during
my
conversation
with
Davis
that
he
was
committed
to
the
Business+Impact initiative. His
enthusiasm over procuring the next
generation of social impact leaders
was contagious. This enthusiasm,
paired with his retelling of how he
managed to become interested in
this work, was inspiring.
Much of Davis’ early research
focused on corporate governance
for large American corporations
and the effects of finance on
society.
Davis
began
noticing
during his years as a researcher the
far-reaching implications of the
tech boom on the U.S. economy.
With the displacement of millions
of American jobs that are now
outsourced or eliminated, Davis
realized the private sector (what
remained of it at least) needed to
have a more positive impact on
society.
The Business+Impact initiative
mirrors well known initiatives
at other prestigious universities.
In fact, business schools across
the
globe
have
made
social
impact and sustainability (more
broadly known as corporate social
responsibility) core pillars of their
curricula.
This
strategic
modification
of
the
curriculum
comes
as
a
response
to
students’
dissatisfaction
with
the
most
recent financial crisis. Business
schools, as the common stereotype
goes, are breeding grounds for
selfishness and greed – and the
financial crisis served to reinforce
that stereotype. Schools began
teaching the world’s next business
leaders that they should consider
the effects of their decisions on a
variety of stakeholders (including
employees, the community and
the environment) instead of simply
shareholders.
Harvard
University
and
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology
recently
began
offering a new course on the ethics
and regulation of technology and
artificial intelligence, and Stanford
University plans to follow suit this
upcoming semester. These courses
will teach students to consider what
is right and wrong when it comes
to developing innovations that can
have destructive implications for
consumers.
As universities concentrate on
corporate social responsibility, the
next generation of business leaders
will be more willing and prepared
than ever to tackle the pressing
societal issues of our time. Hopefully
we will see more Laurence Finks in
corporate America.
Promoting ascendency
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
ERIK
NESLER
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
ETHAN
KESSLER
Why, then, was
full racial parity
in education not
achieved? The
answer is white
flight.
EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT UNIQUNAME@UMICH.EDU
Business schools
across the globe
have made social
impact and
sustainability core
pillars of their
curricula.