Affirmative Action Once Again

By Walter E. Block

So called Affirmative Action is harmful enough when it only applies to college students. Posit that one group of people are intellectually challenged and would without this program, account for only 1% of the coveted spots on prestigious college campuses. In contrast other folk would take up 99% of these admissions if intellectual merit, grades and scores on academic tests such as the SAT were taken into account since they are higher, on average.

In the absence of “Affirmative Action” (whatever it is, it is not “affirmative”), the student body would be comprised of almost all member of the latter group. Now, we introduce this program, and the proportion more closely represents that of the general population.

What problems ensue? First, look at this from the perspective of the professor. With students at the SAT level of 1550 and above at the prestigious university, and virtually all clustered around 1200 at an intermediate institution of higher learning, his job is relatively easy. He can pitch his lecture at whichever of these two levels exists. But with this pernicious program, he is up the proverbial creek without a paddle. If he aims at some intermediate point, he bores the advanced students, and loses the less well prepared.

Both suffer. The very bright learn less. That is pretty obvious. But the poorer students, the ostensible beneficiaries of this supposed humane program, also lose out. They become resentful. They feel they are victimized by sharp practice. Instead of majoring in disciplines that can help them get ahead in life, they shunt themselves into feminist “studies,” black “studies,” queer “studies” and all the rest of the resentful disciplines. Unhappily this also in the modern era includes sociology, philosophy, literature, etc.

Affirmative Action is bad enough in academia. But what happens when it applies to the professions? Here, we consider airline pilots, air traffic controllers, doctors, army officers and others who directly (not indirectly as in the previous cases) immediately hold our very lives in their hands. Does this program have no limits? Do advocates have no decency?

It is one thing to undermine our education system. The deleterious effects will not be felt for years and will be relatively indirect. It is quite another to play with dynamite, and invite almost immediate suicide on the part of innocent people by extending the program in this direction. Don’t the advocates of Affirmative Action and their children also depend upon the skills of physicians, etc.?

If it is so important that every arena of the labor market “look like America” why is it then never contemplated to apply it to our sports teams? The National Football League players and those of the National Basketball Association are disproportionately black. Those in the National Hockey League, predominantly white. Why should splendid athletes, only, be allowed to fill these employment slots. Why is there no room for the average competitors or those who are “differently abled”, if “diversity” is the be-all and end-all of morality? This reductio absurdum is never answered by any advocate of this form of discrimination.

So much for public, compulsory Affirmative Action, or that predicated upon government funds as in education or these other direct life-preserving professions.

What about the private variety? What is that? This occurs when racial or sexual discrimination is undertaken in behalf of some downtrodden group or other, but done so by private individuals totally apart from the state apparatus. This is quite a different kettle of fish. Proper law would certainly allow this type of racial or sexual or other such discrimination, in behalf of the underdog. After all, justice requires free association. No one should be compelled to associate in any way, manner, shape or form with anyone else, against his will.

If a private individual, on his own dime, wants to forbid white males onto his premises, and allow all others access, that should be solely his business and his right to do so. He may undertake this initiative on the woke ground that males of the white persuasion are exploiting everyone else. It is his property, and he may, under proper law, exclude anyone not to his liking from the premises. However, while he is thus just, deontologically, the presumed goals of such a person will not likely meet with success.

Let us stipulate, arguendo, then he never hires any evil white males. Then, their salaries will fall below whatever they otherwise would have been. But their productivity has not changed by one iota. Thus, more profits can be garnered by hiring them than by the members of any other group. This wokester will tend to be driven out of business by the competitors who hire such people.

Where will this process end, assuming nothing else changes. It will arrive at equilibrium the direction to which the market is always tending. Then, the efforts of this politically correct entrepreneur will have failed. If he pays women and minority members more than their discounted marginal revenue product, or productivity level, he will suffer losses, and cannot endure in business. If he pays less, he will suffer a high quit rate.