RACIAL PREJUDICE, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, & THE 7 PER 100
- Phaena Kumar
- Mar 24, 2021
- 7 min read
Discussions about racism are often filled with a lack of understanding of different terms of discrimination. While researching for this blog post, I’ve learnt a lot about not only the different terms associated with discrimination, but also how to use this information to speak more confidently when confronted by someone with racist beliefs. This post also explores how racism is often dismissed as well as societal responses to affirmative action.
A common response elicited from white individuals when being “called out” for racism is defecting to the concept of “reverse racism”, where they highlight experiences where they have been treated poorly because of their race. Treating an individual or group of individuals poorly on the basis of their race is called racial prejudice, and this includes stereotypes and derogatory attitudes towards a group of people, for example the stereotype that white people can’t handle spicy food. It is however, when this prejudice is amplified by how society operates in favour of a particular race/skin colour, that this becomes racism [1]. While it is definitely valid that white people do experience racial prejudice, however the statement that white individuals experience systemic racism is incorrect. We live in a white world, where society is structed to largely favour those with lighter skin tones – this is white privilege [2]. In discussions about racism, the claim of “reverse racism” is often a defensive response drawn from white individuals when they’re uncomfortable when faced with the reality of racism faced by people of colour. While racial prejudice towards any race is bad, it is important to make sure we don’t confuse the occasional treatment of white people by people of colour with the systemic racism faced by millions of POC daily [3]. Make no mistake, people of colour can have racist beliefs, but this does not mean that white people experience systemic racism in the same way as POC.
“When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go … White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society". (Tim Wise, 2002) [4]."
Image source: Instagram, @lewishamilton
Realistically, a slur towards white people is really as far as racist beliefs towards white people can go. A popular slur used towards Caucasians is “cracker”, which is derived from the term whip cracker, a profession where one is in charge of driving/herding livestock usually filled by poor Caucasians due to the low income [5]. Comparatively, the slur “nigger” commonly directed towards black people has deep ties in history to slavery, racial segregation laws, lynchings and the violation of civil rights [3]. It is clear which of these terms is filled with malice, and reflects the derogatory attitudes that are still prevalent towards POC in society today. This comparison between slurs directed towards people of light skin tones vs. dark skin tones in underlines the difference between racial prejudice and racism.
An example of racial prejudice vs. racism highlighted in the media is an interview with Bernie Ecclestone, the former chief executive of Formula One, where Ecclestone is a prime example of how society often overlooks racism. Ecclestone dismissed F1 driver Lewis Hamilton’s experiences of racism in the industry, stating that he didn’t think these experiences had affected Hamilton [6]. Hamilton, like many others, has experienced racism many times throughout his life and career. To dismiss someone’s experiences with racial discrimination like this is disgusting, and Ecclestone’s attitude towards racism shows why F1 has historically little diversity in both their teams. Hamilton is the only black driver to make it to Formula 1, and the mechanical and engineering aspects of the company have little diversity as well [7]. Hamilton joined the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, stating that he would feel irresponsible not using his platform to spread awareness, education and accountability for a worldwide issue [7]. Formula 1 launched #weraceasone, an initiative to increase diversity and inclusion across Formula 1 in June 2020 [8], however Hamilton has called out the company and teams for not doing enough to support the cause. F1 organised a pre-race gesture in support of anti-racism, however many drivers were late and the protest was disorganised, a clear reflection that they had not prioritised the protest. Hamilton stated many of the drivers also seemed to have the opinion that taking a stand against racism was a one-off occurrence; something to be checked off the agenda, reiterating that leadership to drive progress needs to be from the top.
“F1 and the FIA need to do more. There is no quick fix for racial inequality, but it is certainly something that we can’t just acknowledge once and then move on. We have to stay focused, keep highlighting the problem and hold those with the power accountable.” – Hamilton, June 2020 [9]
Image source: Instagram, @lewishamilton
Ecclestone also claimed Formula 1 is “too busy” to tackle racism, and that “black people are more racist than white people” [6]. The latter is another example of a defensive response to racism, as this statement reflects racial prejudice as opposed to systemic racism. Ecclestone’s outdated views on racism and its effects on those affected by it scream ignorance and are a prime example of how racial prejudice is often used as a defensive response in discussions of racism.
Affirmative action is a concept implemented by society to rectify the transgressions committed against people of colour, however even this sparks outrage by those who don’t grasp the enormity of systemic racism. Affirmative action is often described as positive discrimination – favouring groups of individuals that have previously been discriminated against in terms of resources and opportunities [10]. Affirmative action began in the late 1960s in an effort to increase diversity within the workplace [11]. It is especially important in education, as more POC completing a higher level of education leads to opening doors to more career pathways, and in turn increasing workplace diversity. This further results in POC having the option to secure better careers and a higher socioeconomic standing.
Some argue that argue society would have eventually increased diversity in workplaces and education, claiming that if preferential treatment towards groups that have been historically discriminated against was banned, equality would be achieved with only laws against discrimination. This view is commonly held by those who have little to no personal experience with discrimination and/or systemic racism. By those who hold this opinion, affirmative action is an over-correction and results in discrimination towards Caucasians, often believing that positions in workplaces and higher education are filled by a quota of people of colour who are less qualified for the positions than their white counterparts [11]. A study conducted by Holzer and Neumark (1991) concluded that most minorities hired under affirmative action policies performed similarly to their white male counterparts in firms that did not implement affirmative action policies [12]. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you cannot base a hiring decision on a person’s race or gender, and furthermore under Executive Order 11246 governments are required to take affirmative action to make sure equal opportunity is provided in employment and education [13,14]. These spaces are allocated for workplace diversity, and hence this takes away the idea that POC are chosen for a specific role/place in education over Caucasians, as they are not competing for the same roles and or spaces.
Another field where affirmative action especially sparks outrage in is medicine, where those who oppose affirmative action believe that minority applicants “steal seats” in medical school which they believe rightfully belong to white applicants. There are many important factors which influence acceptance into medical school, including interviews, personal statements and recommendations, however it is most often GPAs of white versus minority applicants that come under the microscope when campaigning against affirmative action [15]. First and foremost, regardless of race, competition for medical school spaces is incredibly tough, and it’s unfair to put affirmative action as the go-to for blame when Caucasian applicants are unsuccessful.
“Despite the social, capital, and educational advantages of growing up white, these gripers seem to believe that the world has suddenly flipped and being white is holding them back.” [15]
Image source: AAMC
A study completed in 2018 showed that on average a black student with a GPA of 3.7 (the median for medical school acceptance in the US) had a 30% higher chance of acceptance than their white counterparts. However, in 2018, only 7.1% of medical students in America were black/African American, while 49.8% were Caucasian [16], yet allocating spaces to POC through affirmative action still sparks outrage – in fact since 1996 nine states in America voted to ban affirmative action in college admissions, eight of which still enforce the ban [17]. 7 black medical students out of 100 medical students in the US, and yet they still oppose affirmative action and claim people of colour shouldn’t be allocated spaces in medicine? Having diversity within the medical field is incredibly important for healthcare, as POC receive better care from physicians of a similar race or background as it not only reduces the systemic racism they face in the healthcare system but leads to a higher quality of health care received and provides role models for younger POC [18, 19]. The same 2018 study showed that if these spaces were all allocated only to Caucasian applicants, those who would have the biggest increase in odds of success were those who were already most likely to get in regardless of race due to very high GPAs, and borderline applicants with a GPA of 3.6-3.7 would have only a very minimal increase in their chance of success. Therefore, a notable increase in GPA has a much more substantial affect on the chances of getting into medical school than the elimination of affirmative action would [15]. The need for affirmative action is still present – we live in a society which still discriminates against minority ethnicities, and it is particularly important in healthcare as it not only benefits individual applicants and workers, but society as a whole.
In conclusion, educating those around us on the difference between racial prejudice and racism is important when the “reverse racism” card is pulled to help people who have never experienced racism understand the extent system racism affects people of colour on a daily basis. We need to keep advocating for people of colour, because if we won’t who will? While we as a society are making progress, we still have a long way to go and we need to keep speaking up against dismissals of racism and those who oppose affirmative action. Affirmative action was implemented to reduce discrimination and help right transgressions against races who have been historically discriminated against, and it’s just as valid today as it was the day it was put into action.
Advocate. Communicate. Educate.
References:
Comments