Unit 3 Topic 4 - Racial and Ethnic Politics Flashcards
Explain changes in the US population
• In the beginning, the USA was a creation of white European protestants, black people were in most cases, slaves; Native Americans were not regarded as citizens either, during the 19th and 20th centuries this all changed
o The end of the Civil War (1865) brought the emancipation of the slaves
o Immigration through the 19th and 20th centuries brought a flood of new settlers: Irish Catholics, European Jews, Hispanics from Mexico, and other Central American countries; refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Asia
o During the 1990s, the combined population of African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanic/Latinos grew at 13 times the rate of the non-Hispanic white population
o The 2010 census showed Hispanic’s (16.3%) as a larger proportion of the US population than African Americans (12.3%)
o But racial and ethnic diversity varies hugely from state to state, Vermont is 95% white, while Hawaii is 24% white, Mississippi is 37% black, while Montana is just 0.4% black, New Mexico is 46% Hispanic, while West Virginia is 1.2% Hispanic
o The Hispanic population grew by 43% between 2000 and 2010; the African American population grew by just 12% during the same period
o Four states – New Mexico, Texas, California and Hawaii – are majority minority states in which minorities make up a majority of the state’s population
o It is estimated that by 2025 the Hispanic and Asian communities will make up more than one-quarter of the US population
o All this has had and will have great significance for government and politics in the USA
Explain the civil rights movement
• The Civil Rights movement grew out of the 1950s
• The post-Civil War period had seen the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments guaranteeing rights for African Americans, but law in many states – especially in the Deep South – meant that these rights were not a reality for most blacks
• Whether in schools, housing, job recruitment, public transport or leisure facilities, blacks were still ‘separate but equal’ at best; a discriminated against and persecuted minority at worst
• The Civil Rights movement was initially characterised by peaceful protest against government sponsored segregation and was played out on the streets and in the court rooms, rather than in the debating chambers of Congress or the federal offices of Washington DC
• But during the latter half of the 20th century the movement came to be divided into a number of different factions, some peaceful, some violent, each with its own leaders, including:
o MLK and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
o Malcom X and later Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam movement
o Jesse Jackson and the National Rainbow Coalition
o The NAACP
Explain Affirmative Action
• The debate centres on whether society should be aiming for equality of opportunity or equality results
• From the mid-20th century, many civil rights advocates came to believe that equality of opportunity would not in itself guarantee equality for minority groups
• They would have rights only in theory, not in practise
• Only equality of results would truly deliver for racial and ethnic minorities
• Hence the movement towards what would become known as affirmative action programmes
• In March 1961, JFK created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he ordered that projects financed with federal funds ‘take affirmative action’ to ensure that hiring and employment practises would be free from racial bias
• President Johnson used the same phrase in 1965 regarding federal government contractors
• But Affirmative Action soon attracted its critics, many regarded ‘set asides’ and ‘quotas’ as unfair to those of the majority group – whites – and patronising to those of the minority
• Some used the term reverse discrimination – a term closely associated with the 1978 Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of California. Bakke which concerned a white medical student, Allan Bakke, who had been denied a place at the University’s medical school despite the fact that lesser qualified minority students were admitted
• Other landmark Supreme Court cases on Affirmative Action include:
o Gratz v. Bollinger 2003
o Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc v.Seattle School District No 1 2007
o Fisher v. University of Texas 2013
• James Q Wilson and John DiLulio summarise the position on affirmative action as follows:
o The courts will subject any quota system created by state or local governments to ‘strict scrutiny’ and will be looking for ‘compelling’ justification for it
o Quotas or preference systems cannot be sued by state or local governments without first showing that such rules are needed to correct an actual past or present pattern of discrimination
o In proving that there has been discrimination, it is not enough to show that racial or ethnic minorities are statically under represented among employees etc.
o Quotas or preference systems that are created by federal, rather than state, law will be given greater deference
What are the arguments in favour of Affirmative Action
- Leads to greater levels of diversity and multiculturalism
- Rights previous wrongs – the previously disadvantaged are now advantaged
- Opens up areas of education and employment that minorities would not otherwise have considered
- Creates a diverse student body in education establishments that promotes racial tolerance
- Is the most effective way of delivering equal opportunity
- Works – for example, between 1960 and 1995, the % of black people aged 25-29 who graduated from university rose from 5% to 15%
What are the arguments against Affirmative Action
- Advantages or preference for one group inevitably leads to disadvantage for another – reverse discrimination
- AA can lead to minorities being admitted to course/jobs they are ill-equipped to cope with
- Can be condescending to minorities, implying they need help and diminishing their achievements (Obama, Thomas)
- AA perpetuates a society based on colour and race, encouraging prejudice
- It is no more than a quota system under another name
- It focuses on groups rather than individuals
Explain some arguments in favour of Affirmative Action
Arguments in favour:
• Very least we that can be done. This is for several key reasons:
o Scale of past discrimination e.g. Jim Crow laws
o Institutionalized racism was an example of ‘de jure discrimination’. Any crime of this magnitude would be labelled as a crime against humanity and lead to reparations
o Affirmative Action is not enough, it is a ‘band aid on a gaping wound’. For example, the University of Texas uses the ‘top ten percent’ system to accept students (ie. automatically accepting applicants from the top ten percent of their high school class). However, by the time this plan kicks in, many of these students have faced years of inadequate, segregated schooling and the damage has been done as a significant number of high schools in Texas remain racially homogenous
• It works. Between 1960 and 19995, the percentage of black people between 25-29 graduating rose from 5% to 15%. There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies. Moreover, 63% of Americans are in favour of it. There’s a black president!
• It is still necessary. African Americans are still behind their white counterparts. Unemployment is double the rate compared to white Americans. A typical black household has 6% of the wealth of a typical white household -the racial wealth gap. Around 3/10 white people have a degree but it is just under 2/10 for African Americans. Research found that someone with a black name is 50% less likely to get a response from a job resume.
• Education. It creates a diverse student body which not leads to a better learning environment but one in which ethnic minorities and racial tolerance improved. In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998)
Explain some arguments against Affirmative Action
• Affirmative action is mistargeted. This is for several reasons:
o AA is based on groups rather than individuals which is problematic, as diversity exists within racial groups. By the 1990s, one study found that 86 per cent of African American students on selective campuses were middle or upper class, and the white students were even richer. President Barack Obama, for instance, has pointed out that his two daughters Malia and Sasha do not need help from such programmes.
o Controversial argument that there is something different with ‘black culture’. E.g. SAT scores of lower middle class African Americans were lower than their white counterparts. Therefore, the fix would not be affirmative action. EVAL: caused by socio economic problems
• Affirmative action is counterproductive. This is for several reasons:
o Reinforces stereotypes.. This is because moving away from a colour blind society is difficult when AA is based on racial differences.
o Breeds resentment towards minorities e.g. Uni of Texas vs. Fischer where a white student argued she was disadvantaged because she was white. Also, if mistargeted this problem is worsened e.g. it is millionare black businessmen who benefit from federal contracts not normal black workers
o Lead to minorities being admitted to courses or given jobs they are ill equipped for e.g. only around half African Americans graduate whereas 78% of white students do.
o AA can be condescending to minorities by implying they need a helping hand to succeed, thereby demeaning their achievement. For example, in Obama;s memoirs he noted he always had to choose the most challenging courses to justify his place.
Failure?
- On every relevant measure, the black population continues to suffer disproportionate deprivation
- 50 years is more than enough time to see if a social policy is succeeding
Has Affirmative Action been successful?
- In 1995 Clinton declared ‘affirmative action has been good for America’
- It was meant to move society towards a time when previously disadvantaged groups would no longer be disadvantaged and therefor such programmes would not be required
- AA programmes are therefore best seen as a means to an end, not as an end in themselves
- Some argue that AA failed because a programme that is based on race is unlikely to move society to a point where race no longer counts
- Others argue that by promoting diversity, racial tolerance has been enhanced and old prejudices are slowly dying
- The election of Obama would doubtless be presented as evidence that society is moving on from its once ingrained prejudices
- One must also bear in mind whether the costs of AA outweigh heir benefits, if under prepared minorities are put into positions where they do not succeed, then the cost may be too high and the programme seen as a failure
- If many Americans refuse to visit a black doctor or dentist because they assume they were admitted to medical school on the ground of their colour, the cost again may be too high
- Furthermore AA can be something of a blunt instrument, indiscriminately admitting Obama’s daughters to college ahead of their children of a white West Virginian coal miner
- In the 2003 Bollinger decisions, the Supreme Court suggested that AA ought to have a shelf life of a further 25 years, the success of these programmes would thus be discernible by 2028
Examine the role of minorities in Congress
- In 1984 there were 21 African Americans in Congress – all in the House
- By 2013 there were 41 in the House and 1 in the Senate
- The rise in African American members of the House was brought about largely by the creation in some states of majority-minority districts in the early 90s
- In 2013 there were also 34 Hispanic in Congress – 31 in the House and 3 in the Senate – compared with just 10 in the House in 1984
Examine the role of minorities in the Presidential election
• The last 40 years have witnessed the following milestones for African Americans running for the Presidency:
o 1972: Representative Shirley Chisholm (D) became the first major-party African American candidate for the presidency, she won 152 delegates at her Party’s National Convention
o 1984: Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson (D) won over 3 million votes in the Democratic Party primaries, finishing third in the number of votes cast. Jackson became the first African American candidate to win a major party presidential primary, winning contests in four states plus the District of Columbia.
o 1988: Jackson ran again for the Democratic nomination, winning contests in ten states plus Washington DC
o 2008: Senator Barack Obama (D) became the first black major-party presidential candidate and went on to defeat Republican John McCain to win the presidency, he was re-elected in 2012
• Between 1992 and 2012, African American voters gave at least 83% of their votes to the Democratic presidential candidate, rising to 95% in 2008
• During the same period, Hispanic voters gave at least 62% of their votes to the Democratic presidential candidate in five of the six elections held in those 20 years
• The only election in which the Hispanic vote for the Democrats fell below that figure was 2004, when John Kerry attracted only 57% of the Hispanic vote, with George W Bush capturing 43%
• But that figure fell back to 31% for John McCain in 2008 and to just 27% for Mitt Romney in 2012
• In 1992 Clinton talked about having a Cabinet that ‘looked like America’
Examine the role of minorities in the Judiciary
• Minority representation in the President’s cabinet first became an issue in modern times when President Lyndon Johnson appointed African American Robert Weaver as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1966
• Between 1966 and 2013, 17 other African Americans were appointed to head executive departments, including two consecutive secretaries of state – Colin Powell (2001-05) and Condoleezza Rice (2005-09)
• Obama appointed African American Eric Holder as Attorney General at the start of his first term in 2009, and Anthony Foxx as Secretary of Transportation at the start of his second term in 2013
• Obama’s first term cabinet in January 2009 was the most racially diverse of any administration, with heads of 7 of the 15 executive departments being from racial minorities:
o African American: Eric Holder (Justice)
o Hispanics: Ken Salazar (Interior) and Hilda Solis (Labour)
o Chinese Americans: Steven Chu (Energy) and Gary Locke (Commerce – now US ambassador to China)
o Japanese-American: Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)
o Lebanese-American: Ray LaHood (Transportation)
• Not only did President Johnson appoint the first African American to the cabinet, but in 1967 he also appointed the first African American to the Supreme Court – Thurgood Marshall
• Upon Marshall’s retirement in 1991, President George HW Bush replaced him with another African American, Clarence Thomas
• In 1986 Reagan had appointed the first Italian-American to the Supreme Court – Antonin Scalia
• During Reagan’s 8 years in office (1981-89) less than 5% of his appointees to the federal judiciary were from racial minorities
• But during Clinton’s 8 years (1993-2001) over 23% of federal judiciary appointees were from racial minorities, 9% of George W Bush’s federal judicial appointees were Hispanics, and during his first 2 years, Obama’s judicial appointees were 27.5% black and 7.1% Hispanic
