Negativities facing affirmative action

Affirmative action programs have been set up in the hopes of leveling the playing field for minority members. Women and ethnic minorities are still underrepresented in both the workforce and in universities. Supporters of affirmative action often argue that affirmative action is necessary to redress past and present social inequalities caused by prejudice and discrimination against certain groups. “Opponents of affirmative action in higher education frequently argue that giving any group preferential treatment on the basis of their social or biological status is inherently unfair and violates the principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Brown, Charnsangavej, Deough, Newman, and Rentfrow, 2000). While its intended goals are to help increase the numbers of traditionally underrepresented people in the workforce and in universities and to eradicate prejudice and discrimination, several unintended, negative consequences have emerged. There is an abundance of research that supports the idea that affirmative action programs have negative psychological effects on the recipients, the attitudes of the majority, and the implementers and organizations that use them.

Not only does affirmative action negatively affect its beneficiaries, it also negatively impacts the attitudes of the majority group. These negative consequences show up in the majority members as presumed incompetence in the recipients of affirmative action, erroneous perceptions of minority group responsibility for lower achievement, guilt to those majority members predisposed to it, and incorrect assessments of minority members’ qualifications. The studies by Heilman, Block, and Lucas (1992), Quinn, Ross, and Esses (2001), Swim and Miller (1999), and Summers (1991) demonstrate these effects, respectively.

In Study 1, participants were led to believe that they had been selected to be the leader in a competitive, team problem-solving task. In the gender-only condition, participants were told that they had been selected independently of their qualifications. In the gender + merit condition, they were told that the person most qualified was assigned the leadership role, but that they were giving preference to women if all else is equal. The control condition was based on a coin toss. It was predicted that women in the gender-only condition would perform worse on the test than would women in the control condition, who believed they had been selected randomly. Also, a confirmation of participants’ competencies would overcome this threat. The results supported the predictions. This study suggests that being selected for a task on the basis of gender alone, without regard to merit, can undermine performance on an academic task. Also, confirming one’s ability to perform the task may overcome this dramatic effect.

A second experiment by Brown, et al. (2000) addresses the issue of “stereotype threat,” in which reminders of people’s stigmatized status can have detrimental effects on their performance on standardized tests. Perhaps stigmatized status should be considered by admissions officers. However, this consideration might further undermine stigmatized individuals, causing them to wonder whether they could have gained admission without affirmative action and whether others will judge them on the basis of their group’s stigma.

Along with affecting the beneficiaries, and the majority group, affirmative action has detrimental effects on those involved in the selection process and for the organizations for which they work. The studies by Mellers and Hartka (1988) and Nacoste (1987) elucidate these points.

A study by Swim and Miller (1999) provides another example of majority negativity associated with affirmative action. Awareness of the unearned privilege that White’s receive, along with the awareness of racism can create feelings of White guilt. The purpose of the study was to test the consequences of White guilt for attitudes toward affirmative action. “Favoritism toward redemption policies such as affirmative action is one way for Whites to escape their guilt, according to Steele” (Swim & Miller, 1999). Participants filled out several questionnaires regarding their feelings of White guilt, Whites, White privilege, discrimination, prejudice toward Blacks, and affirmative action. The results revealed that while most participants disagreed that they felt White guilt, those that did express those feelings were more likely to have favorabl

Some topics in this essay:
Swim Miller, Consequently Blacks, African American’s, Self-Esteem Scale, GPA MCAT, University Texas, , Newman Rentfrow, affirmative action, African American, Mellers Hartka, et al, affirmative action programs, action programs, negative feedback, negative consequences, positive feedback, preferential treatment, white guilt, minorities responsible, associated affirmative action, blinds closed, swim miller 1999, received positive feedback, mellers hartka 1988,