Harris - The "innocent white" and Affirmative Action - Aara
Whenever I read about arguments in favor of distributive justice or affirmative action, there is always contention about the idea of the burden of proof. Although the two are different concepts, there is this notion, perhaps fallacious, that because both are unjustifiable in placing such measures to rectify past wrongs on people present today, on whom the burden falls. For distributive justice, property or wealth could have to be shifted from one group to another. In the case of affirmative action, as Harris points out in Bakke’s case, there is a belief that opportunity may be withheld from a certain group and given to another.
These two undertakings, in the context of the United States, have fallen on the “innocent white.” I will, however, mainly be focusing on affirmative action in this blog post. The idea of the “innocent white,” struck me, implying that a sort of injustice has been committed against that group in order to create that specific term. If the “innocent white” of today did not commit the racialized atrocities of the past, why should it fall on them to remedy the problem? As Harris points out, however, it is not that the burden lies on them to “fix” the past, more so as it is a call to the recognition of the privilege that that group has historically held in order to get where they are today. It is important to note that affirmative action does not negate the involvement of merit and hard work, but “...exposes the illusion that the original or current distribution of power, property, and resources is the result of ‘right” and “merit”” (73). In regards to power, property, and resources, at the time of initial allocation in the past, which has had the ability to be passed down through generations, not every racial group was provided the opportunity to do so. Affirmative action thus seeks to equalize this opportunity in the present day, not transfer it from one group to another.
What about the “innocent white” people who belong to lower economic communities? Some of the poorest parts of America reside in the South and the Appalachian areas, which are predominantly white communities. However, poor whiteness cannot be tied to the issue of systemic racism; in this particular case of poor white communities, these are two separate issues. These communities are not poor due to racial subjugation. As Harris writes, “Those whites that are disadvantaged in society suffer not because of their race, but in spite of it” (81). Treating this issue as a reason to not focus on racism devalues the latter by falsely relating it to the former. Affirmative action does not seek to create a new set of privileges for Black people or Native Americans, it strives to create equal opportunity. Greater racial equality will not make impoverished white people suffer more economically than they already have.
I wanted to finish my blog post with a personal critique of affirmative action. This, however, does not signify that it is not a step in the right direction - just because it is not perfect does not mean it should not be considered as a means to rectify the issue at hand. This is especially true because it is a solution that is being proposed by something other than a government built on the very systems it is attempting to dismantle. Ronald Fiscus describes affirmative action as “...the claim to compensation for discrete and ‘finished’ harm done to minority group members or their ancestors” (76). As Harris notes, this can be “...translated into the attainment by Black of jobs, admissions to universities, and contractual opportunities” (82). In the present day, affirmative action programs are used as an end and not a means. Just because a company has a POC CEO or a university is diverse does not mean that racism has been eradicated or that diversity is inclusive. One cannot admit a majority of POC students into a university without implementing measures of inclusion and expecting all their problems of racism can be fixed this way. Just because a company has a POC CEO does not mean that they have “done their bit.” Affirmative action cannot be used as a way to look good on paper - repulsive treatment of POC in these spaces can be justified by the fact that these spaces are diverse in the first place. Affirmative action is not a band-aid solution nor can be used as an excuse to ignore other important measures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Aara! Great blog post. I just wanted to build on your discussion of affirmative action. To your point, I completely agree that affirmative action programs should not be used as an end but rather as a means. I have been thinking about philosophical pieces through a "problem-solution" lens and identified Harris' problem that she looks to solve, which is that whiteness is a vested interest and is deployed not only as an aspect of one's identity but their privilege and property. To rectify this, Harris proposes affirmative action as a means to rectify the injustices and harms caused to the black community. Harris' end goal is to achieve greater equality of opportunity, and equality in general, between black and white Americans.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I see the merits of her case, I would like us to consider the negative implications that affirmative action may have on non-whites, particularly Asian Americans. Earlier this year, I was reading a New York Times published case in which a first-generation, middle-class Chinese-American shared how affirmative action negatively affected the perception of Asian students as they applied to colleges. He implied that Asian Americans were grouped with whites as part of affirmative action, pushing the message that "Asians are all so privileged and rich and buying their way into colleges" (NYT Article). He voiced that affirmative action did not equalize the level of work, but instead, discount the same level of work he did compare to others. This is not an uncommon feeling that Asian students feel when applying to colleges. As described in the article, Asian American students feel unworthy to discuss this topic because of a fear of saying something controversial. Something that I have noticed in personal conversations about affirmative action is that many Asian American students feel that the college system does not work for them. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that anti-Asian bias is a direct result of affirmative action. Rather, I argue that anti-Asian bias is being overlooked and Asian students are essentially being ignored and put to the side by affirmative action. I wonder how Harris would react to this, given the fact that affirmative action -- as you described -- is a means to promote equal opportunities. How I see this issue is that Asian American students are being forced against other minority groups (blacks, latinos, etc.) while also being excluded from the debate as a whole. I understand that it is important to address and correct historical injustices, but if this is the case, shouldn't we attempt to address historical injustices against Asian Americans as well through affirmative action? Although not on the same level as the systemic oppressions against black individuals, Asian Americans still suffered a long history of exclusion and policy-backed discrimination as seen through the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Taking these situations of Asian Americans, my question now is can Affirmative Action be designed in a way in which anti-Asian bias is corrected, and if so how?
NYT Article Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/magazine/where-does-affirmative-action-leave-asian-americans.html
I really like this discussion about Affirmative Action and I thought Aara pointed out some really important aspects of this debate. The first thing I wanted to point out adds to Shaira's concern about affirmative action negatively affecting Asian American students. An important issue that you didn't mention is how Asian American is such a broad term that undercuts the reality of many people. While nationalities considered Asian may be considered to succeed greatly in the school system, there are many other groups (such as the Hmong indigenous group) that are considered Asian that fail to send students to higher education in proportional numbers. Yet, different groups with vastly different rates of success are both categorized as Asian and affected by Affirmative Action under the same umbrella. This grouping of different groups together reminds me of Harris' discussion about undermining a racial group by denying its existence. The example she gives is of how some Native American groups define their identity based on their connection to land and not biological or racial make up. The government then rejected this understanding, subverting the existence of the racial group. Similarly, affirmative action groups varying Asian cultures into an all-encompassing group named "Asian-American". By doing this, it undermines the plight of distinct cultural groups that may need the help of a system such as affirmative action. In my opinion, a successful system of affirmative action needs to make distinctions between racial groups and avoid broad groupings against groups that may face discrimination.
ReplyDeleteAara's discussion about poor white people and poor black is very important and this is something that I notice as a constant point of debate. Poor white people often believe that they are completely screwed over by affirmative action as they are poor too and don't feel the benefits of white privilege. However, Harris, as Aara points out, does a great job at showing how these white people are poor in spite of their race. In our society, there will inevitably be poverty and disadvantaged people, but affirmative action tries to eliminate disparities based on race. She also points to the privileges that poor whites have and how it is so engrained that white people don't even recognize it.
I also want to add here that since the issues of race discrimination and economic status are separate, there are separate programs for each. I kind of think of it as a venn diagram of injustice. There will be overlap in racial injustice versus class issues, but they are still separate entities. Affirmative action can exist at the same time as financial aid programs.
DeleteHi Aara and Shaira! I greatly enjoyed the points you've both brought up.
ReplyDeleteAara, your points on how Harris explains the objections to "innocent white" people of lower income communities were really well put. Your points that "these communities are not poor due to racial subjugation" stood out as particularly strong to me. I wanted to add a quote from Harris that I think ties in really nicely with that as well. When talking about whiteness, Harris states that the property nature of whiteness "does not mean that all whites will win, but that they will not lose," (pg 1758). I take this to apply to the poverty situation; not all white people will be at the top of the economic bracket or get every single opportunity they seek. She defines "lose" as "being at the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy," (1759). I was talking to Luis about this specific point because, as you pointed out, there are white people at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. However, Luis and I were thinking she meant the combination of social and economic. I watched a ted talk awhile back about invisible and visible identities in terms of discrimination. While there were ambiguities on what identities count as visible or invisible and to what extent, it essentially pointed out that white privilege (or whiteness as property) still provides benefits even in lower economic classes because (on a generalized scale) you cannot assume someone's economic status just by looking at them for example. So, a white person in poverty would still not be "losing" because they still will not be confined to the bottom of the social hierarchy even if their economic stance isn't high up. This combination of social AND economic seemed quite important as a defense against some of the critiques of affirmative action I have heard.