"Standing in the Right Place": Engaging Affirmative Action1 in the Classroom

Multicultural Education, Fall 2004 by Gayles, Jonathan

Introduction

In preparing this article, I discovered that others have developed strategies to address issues of racism and discrimination in the classroom (Brezina 1996; Davis 1992; Eells 1987; Lucal 1996; Miller 1992; Orbach 2000; Powers 1987; Shirts 1969; Stores 1992; Toll 1969). Dorn (1989) provides a thorough review of these strategies. Future administrations of this exercise will certainly be impacted by this work.

Although these exercises are provocative and no doubt meaningful for students, they generally do not address the impact that racial group membership2 has on student response to provocative issues like affirmative action. In my experiences, students suspect that other students engage what Cornell West calls "racial reasoning" or something similar to it (West 1992). That is, members of a particular racial group are supposed to think a certain way because they are members of a particular racial group.

This is problematic for the classroom instructor in a number of ways, with two being most critical. First, students are encouraged to think in a way that does not reflect their own experiences but rather in a way that reflect their group membership. This negatively impacts their ability to sincerely engage other students.

Secondly, other students are encouraged to regard the opinions of "out-group" members only in terms of their membership which, too, negatively impacts their ability to engage other students. It is important to encourage open and honest discussions about race and affirmative action in our classrooms. It is important to assist our students in moving beyond "resistance, paralysis and rage"(Davis 1992). This exercise is but another attempt to do so.

Affirmative Action as Provocation

Discussions of affirmative action are often the topical "deal-breaker" for my courses that engage race. The manner in which the battle lines are drawn almost instantaneously and with such clarity and emotional intensity never ceases to amaze me. Unfortunately, race is most often the demarcating and unifying factor. Indeed

affirmative action excites strong feelings, passionate responses. An observer of the contemporary political climate cannot help but be struck by the intensity of many people's feelings about affirmative action. It is far from a rare experience to witness that people become agitated when discussing racial quotas or preferential treatment. (Sniderman & Piazza 1993:100)

In my experiences, students and their opinions are ultimately racialized, which again, decreases the degree to which students can sincerely engage each other as equal individuals.

Reversing Reverse Racism

I also developed this exercise in response to the "reverse racism" and "two wrongs don't make a right"critique offered by commentators too numerous too cite here. One of the more successful critics of affirmative action has been D'Souza (1995, 2002). Consider his simplistic and decontextualized treatment of the policy in his Letters to a Young Conservative:

Consider two virtually identical scenarios. A white guy and a black guy apply for a position. The black guy is better qualified; the white guy gets the position. That's racial discrimination. Here is the second scenario. A white guy and a black guy apply for a position. The white guy is better qualified; the black guy gets the position. That's affirmative action. Now, in what sense is the second result a remedy for the first? It is not. All I see are two instances of racial discrimination, (emphasis mine, 2002:93)

Although the suggestion that the purpose of affirmative action is to place less-qualified individuals in positions because of some personal characteristic is clearly limited and problematic in itself, the power of this analogy is in its simplicity. It does not encourage considerations of historical context or the manner in which being qualified itself is a "contested social meaning" (Prager 1986).

Many of my students offer the reverse racism critique in our discussions of affirmative action as well. This was articulated by George W. Bush on the eve of the University of Michigan case affirmative action case(Grutteru.Bollinger,etal.)"aswework to address the wrong of racial prejudice, we must not use means that create another wrong, and thus perpetuate our divisions [emphasis mine]"(Bush 2003). I agree with Stanley Fish (1993) that such assertions are both incongruous with the nature of racism and the nature of the intent of the policy. In using an analogy of chemotherapy, he suggests that:

Reverse Racism is a cogent description of affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to bo morally and medically indistinguishable from the therapy we apply to it. A cancer is an invasion of the body's equilibrium, and so is chemotherapy; but we do not decline to fight the disease because the medicine we employ is also disruptive of normal functioning. Strong illness, strong remedy: the formula is as appropriate to the health of the body politic as it is to that of the body proper.