Affirmative Action and Elitist Theory the Last

Affirmative Action and Elitist Theory

The last half of the 1900's saw a major change in society where people became more interconnected than ever before. Women entered the workforce and began to take on similar roles to men. This has continued up to the present time where the change is still continuing. People of different cultures also became more interconnected than ever before. Cultural barriers broke down and all cultures began to mix and began to be seen more equally. This may be a continuing trend, but equality is far from a reality. Women and men are still seen as different and still continue to be viewed differently in the workplace. Different cultures are also viewed differently. While on the surface, society may call for equality, on a realistic level, there is no doubt that people are still separated based on their differences.

It must also be noted that this is not a statement that this is either right or wrong. It may be a reality that people are different, it may also be a change that is required that will take a lot of adjustment to become a reality. This is not a statement that equality is either good or bad - it is simply a reality that people are different and are viewed differently based on their gender and cultural characteristics.

It is also important to note that society as a whole has placed a certain emphasis on equality as a good thing. Equality is often viewed as the opposite of discrimination, where discrimination is defined as "the hiring or promoting of applicants based on criteria that are not job relevant" (Daft 1997, 417). This has implications in that items of difference can be seen as discrimination even if they are job relevant. For example, a company may decide not to employ a Chinese person as a secretary.

This could be based on that individual not being able to speak English effectively, a criteria that is job relevant. Yet despite this job relevance, it is likely the choice would be viewed as a form of discrimination. This suggests that there may be a gap between what society as a whole accepts as good values and what is reasonable.

Affirmative action is one issue that takes the case for equality even further. Affirmative action is defined as "a policy requiring employers to take positive steps to guarantee equal employment opportunities for people within protected groups" (Daft 1997, 417). Affirmative action is based not on treating people equally, but on recognizing that people are not treated equally and making a certain effort to improve things for the disadvantaged group.

This affirmative action would at first appear to be something that the disadvantaged group would want. However, it is noted that this is not necessarily the case. Daft (1997, 417) explains the reality saying:

In recent years, the perception of affirmative action as a means for 'levelling the playing field' has been replaced by complaints of the program as a way of imposing quotas. Even the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action are divided on the need for continuation. For example, a 1995 poll revealed that 49% of women favor continuation of affirmative action while 41% oppose it."

The question this raises is why something is being pursed when the people it is supposed to help are not even in favor of it. The gap between what people want and what is happening can be explained by the elitist perspective of Thomas R. Dye.

Model for Analysis

The model for the analysis will be based on the elitist theory of Dye as he expresses in his book Understanding Public Policy. Dye argues that while it may seem that public policy reflects the needs of the people, it really reflects the needs of the elite few that shape public policy. The majority of the people are not informed enough about public policy to be able to form adequate opinions. Therefore, the elite few that are in power make these decisions and they flow downwards to the people. To express this idea further, it is best to use Dye's own words:

Elite theory suggests that "the people" are apathetic and ill-informed about public policy, that elites actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than the masses shape elite opinion. Thus, public policy really turns out to be the preferences of elites. Public officials and administrators merely carry out the policies decided upon by the elite. Policies flow "downward" from elites to masses; they do not arise from mass demands" (Dye 1992, 28).

Dye goes on to state that these elite are the individuals who hold the highest positions in American society. These highest positions include positions in large corporations, the government, educational organizations and other organizations that are capable of impacting on society.

Dye expresses his views on how these elite impact public policy via his "Oligarchical Model of National Policy-Making" presented in his book Who's Running America: The Clinton Years. In this work Dye describes this model saying:

The model assumes that the initial resources for research, study, planning, and formulation of national policy are derived from corporate and personal wealth. This wealth is channeled into foundations, universities, and policy-planning groups in the form of endowments, grants, and contracts... In short, corporate and personal wealth provides both the financial resources and the overall direction of policy research, planning, and development" (Dye 1995, 220).

In summary, this model of Dye's suggests that the decisions for public policy are based on these institutions of society. If this is correct, the actions of public policy should be reflected in the institutions of society.

Affirmative action is one issue that has become part of public policy. Several types of institutions will now be considered to determine their actions and views on the issue. According to Dye, the views of these organizations should reflect public policy. This analysis will now be completing by considering corporations, foundations, universities, interest groups, policy planning groups and think tanks, government commissions and councils, and political parties.

Corporations

Dye (1995, 14) notes that corporations have a lot of power because of their economic resources. With this being said, the greater the resources, the greater the power. It is most relevant then to look at the strongest American companies and to find these, one looks to the Fortune 500. One article notes action taken by several of the Fortune 500 companies showing their support for affirmative action. The report describes how 16 Fortune 500 companies "filed a brief in U.S. District Court championing Michigan University's support of affirmative action programs" (O'Keefe 2000). The brief is quoted as saying:

The students of today are this country's corporate and community leaders of the next half century... For these students to realize their potential as leaders, it is essential that they be educated in an environment where they are exposed to diverse ideas, perspectives, and interactions" (O'Keefe 2000).

This statement makes it apparent that the organizations are championing the move for their own benefit. They are not stating the benefits to the individuals, but rather the benefits to themselves. It must be wondered if there are other reasons behind the support for affirmative action in schools. For example, organizations such as these would be aware that affirmative action is their responsibility as well. The legal ramifications for an organization are significant enough that the issue would matter to them. By supporting the change in universities, the organizations are actually taking the responsibility off themselves. In short, if everyone is exposed to the same environment, everyone becomes more equal. The organization is then not disadvantaged by having to apply affirmation action to the workplace. This is a good reason for corporations to support affirmative action in schools even if they do not support the concept as a whole. Essentially, if affirmative action is a reality for the organization, the focus may as well begin at university level so the organization is not the first step in the process.

This is a good example of how actions by corporations are not necessarily for the good of the average citizen. Corporations are more likely to put the business environment and their own performance ahead of the interests of society as a whole. Even though corporations may not have the needs of the people as their major concern, they still have the power to impact social issues. Therefore, corporations can support issues that are to their benefit, not to the benefit of the people.

Foundations

The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is one that is clearly on the side of affirmative action. In Dye's argument on elitist theory he noted that foundations derive power by supporting research projects that complement their beliefs (Dye 1995, 134). The AAAA web site includes the following statement:

The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA)

Educational Foundation received its 501 -(3) tax-exempt status on August 18, 1997 to pursue its mission to provide resources for research and development initiatives that promote and enhance access and equity in employment, economic, and educational opportunity" (AAAA 2002).

This is a clear example of the power Dye was referring to. The organization has funding and uses this funding to pursue research that furthers their own goals. This does not mean that their goals are necessarily more right than the opposing side, only that their goals may have more research done to support them.

Universities

One of the strongest examples of the view of universities on affirmative action is that of the University of California. This view was so strong that a coalition was formed to fight for the issue. This coalition is known as BAMN, an acronym that stands for 'by any means necessary.' The full details of the organization and their formation are provided on the BAMN web site:

The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) was founded in July 1995 in Berkeley, California in response to the attack on affirmative action in the University of California system" (BAMN 2002).

The group go on to clearly state their view on the issue:

What is necessary now in order to successfully defend affirmative action and integration is the power of a social movement like the one that secured affirmative action in the first place: a new, militant, integrated, mass civil rights movement. We dedicate ourselves to this task" (BAMN 2002).

Dye has noted that universities are one type of institution that are able to exercise power. The above is an example how this institution can go further than simply supporting research and actually create an organization that takes action on the issue.

Interest Groups

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is an example of a group that represents the people affirmative action attempts to assist. A report on their web site titled "Issue Report: Affirmative Action" makes their view for affirmative action clear:

Every day for over 30 years, affirmative action has opened doors for women and people of color -- on the job, in school and in business. The radical right is trying to put an end to such policies and unless we speak out and organize strong political opposition, those doors of opportunity are about to be slammed shut" (NOW 1999).

Another interest group is Americans Against Discrimination And Preferences (AADAP). The group was formed by Glynn Custred and Thomas E. Wood, "to promote the abolition of racial and gender discrimination and preferences at the local, state, and federal levels, along the lines established by California's Proposition 209" (AADAP 2002). A consideration of this group shows the link between interests that Dye described. Glynn Custred and Thomas E. Wood authored Californian's Proposition 209. This shows the link between public policy and the interest group, since the same people that authored a significant public policy document, then went on to begin an interest group. Both founders are also scholars, with Thomas E. Wood being Executive Director of the California Association of Scholars and a state affiliate of the National Association of Scholars. Custred is also one of the Board of Directors of the California Association of Scholars. This illustrates the link between the interest group and other elite institutions. Dye noted that it is the elite that determine public policy because of their position in institutions that can shape public policy. The example of the interest group Americans Against Discrimination And Preferences, shows that these elite impact not only an individual institution but several.

Policy Planning Groups and Think Tanks

Dye describes how policy planning groups research a certain problem and then reach a conclusion about this research. This research is communicated to the mass media as well as within the political system. Dye also notes that the action formulated is based on providing "explicit policies or programs designed to resolve or ameliorate national problems" (Dye 1995, 222). It was also noted earlier that the general public do not know enough to understand public policy decisions. For the average individual, the recommendations seem like a good idea. This is because they focus on providing a solution to a real problem individuals experience. The majority of people accept these solutions without really knowing whether or not the solution is really beneficial. This is a process of effectively selling a certain idea to the public, though without the public knowing that this is occurring. The public simply accepts the expert opinion.

This is another example of how the wishes of the elite become the reality. The individuals on policy planning groups are not average citizens. Instead, they are business people, scholars or politicians. These people do not represent the general public.

Government Commissions and Councils

Government commissions and councils are used to investigate issues and provide the government with recommendations on an issue. The problem that occurs is that the people chosen to be part of these government commissions or councils are not chosen randomly. Instead, people are chosen with a specific interest in the area being considered. A major interest in an area usually means that a person has a strong preference for one side of the issue. A scholar is not likely to become an expert on a certain area for no reason. It is more likely they become an expert because they have a strong inclination for one side of the argument.

An individual who illustrates this is Professor Christopher Edley. Edley is a scholar with a background based on serving in racial policy commissions. This included being part of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Edley was also vice chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. Edley was then appointed to lead the White House review of affirmative action (USCCR 2002). With his background in racial policy it seems likely that Edley's view would be biased towards racial issues. This means that Edley would bring his own perspectives to the review. This prevents the review from having an unbiased focus.

This can be seen as a typical view of the type of people that are involved in commissions. Each one is interested in the subject for a specific reason, whether it be to better the situation for women, for other cultures, or for the benefit of the organization. No matter what the approach, these people with opinions either way do not represent the general public or what they want.