It May Not Be Perfect, but Affirmative Action Gets One Affirmative Vote

Most of the arguments for affirmative action have not been persuasive because we do not accept the concept of punishing the present generation of white males for the sins of their ancestors. I support affirmative action because, as a consultant in recruitment and selection, I have observed what happens in the absence of such plans.

First, getting more ethnic minorities, women and disabled people into management and professional positions presents role models for children. When some people think of nonwhites, many stereotypes come up: welfare, crime, riots. These societal stereotypes can become internalized as the self-image of children--unless there are sufficient role models out there who can interact with children as teachers, coaches, counselors, police officers.

My 13-year-old daughter is interested in architecture. When she goes to college in a few years and sees mostly male professors and the names of men on the roster of great architects, will she have the internal drive and courage to complete that career? Or will she choose to be a secretary, because that’s what grandma was?

Second, affirmative action programs can put people with more sensitivity and understanding in direct contact with the needs of client populations. Growing up white, middle class and suburban may give one the academic skills to graduate from college and get through a teacher training program, for instance, but it does not train one to meet the needs of inner-city children.

Police officers fluent in Spanish are preferable when it comes to working with Hispanic crime victims, witnesses and suspects. Similarly, an officer more familiar with African-American dialect or subculture might be better able to figure out if an African-American is cooperative, frightened, deceitful or dangerous. If one of the four officers trying to subdue Rodney King had been black, would King have yielded sooner? If one of the officers who used a baton on King had been black, would the African-American community have perceived it as a racist attack?

Third, recruitment techniques are inherently discriminatory. Organizations tend to recruit, attract, hire and promote people who reflect what they already are, not what they can or should strive to become.

About eight years ago, I worked with captains from 16 different fire departments in Northern California. There were no blacks, no Hispanics, no Asians, no women. Most were of Irish or Italian ancestry, the sons of police officers or firemen. Without affirmative action requirements to publicize job openings, many firms will likewise tend to rely on informal channels of recruiting: current employees tell their friends; people in hiring positions may look in their own churches and lodges.

Yuppies know that it pays to have been in the right college fraternity, country club or political activist group when it comes to contacts and networking.

Fourth, standardized tests have limited predictive validity. Psychological testing of aptitude, knowledge and personality are most useful in screening out people who are grossly unsuited for a job, but someone who scores in the 90th percentile is not necessarily better than someone who scored in the 70th percentile. To rigidly adhere to test scores as the final arbiter of who is hired and promoted will serve only to discriminate against groups that have traditionally done poorly on such tests. The results of such paper-and-pencil tests tend to be less valid for older applicants, or those who had a learning disability in school, for African-Americans, native Americans, and those whose first language is not English.

Fifth, most people who conduct interviews end up making a judgment based on a subjective impression: “Can I stand working with this person eight hours a day for the next 10 years?” The more similarities perceived between interviewer and interviewee, the more the interviewer tends to offer easy questions and give verbal and nonverbal encouragement.

The solution?

* All organizations should recruit applicant pools from the widest sources, not just from narrow channels that preserve a homogenous work force.

* The evaluation of applications and test scores should focus on what is truly relevant to the job. It is right to require minimum qualifications in terms of training and experience, and even to have proficiency cut-off scores on standardized tests that have been validated for the job under consideration. However, it is inappropriate to base a final hiring or promotion decision solely upon test scores.

* The interview procedure must include a concern for the applicant’s sensitivity to issues of ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.

Some recent Cabinet-level appointments demonstrate what affirmative action should not be: “We need a woman for attorney general and a black for surgeon general; let’s try to find someone without a scandal.” Most corporations, nonprofit agencies and government offices, however, have developed affirmative action plans that go far in meeting these goals.

Complete rejection of affirmative action would be a throwback to the discriminatory use of recruiting, interviews and assessment that never produced equal opportunity--and frequently resulted in the hiring of people who were not all that competent.