Top US firms who are minority votaries

• Dell Inc
• Xerox Corporation
• Procter and Gamble
• Motorola Corporation
• Johnson and Johnson
• Lockheed Martin
• IBM
• Chrysler Corporation
• Bausch & Lomb
• Colgate-Palmolive

Top universities offering affirmative action

• Harvard University
• Princeton University
• Yale University
• University of Michigan
• Columbia University
• University of Colorado
• Georgetown University
• George Washington University
• Cornell University
• University of Pennsylvania

---

To the medicos agitating on the streets of Delhi and Mumbai, toss this question: would Condoleezza Rice have become secretary of state of the world's most powerful country had it not been for affirmative action (AA) favouring African Americans? She provided the answer in 2003, at a time when the United States was passionately debating the Supreme Court verdict in the University of Michigan case upholding AA.

"I think they saw a person that they thought had potential, and yes, I think they were looking to diversify the faculty."—on how her career benefited at Stanford Condoleezza Rice, US Secretary of State and ex-provost at Stanford University

Rice, a former provost of Stanford University, admitted she had indeed benefited during her career at the university in California. "I think they saw a person that they thought had potential, and yes, I think they were looking to diversify the faculty," she said.

As Mandal II stokes rage and resentment across a large swathe of urban India, both supporters and opponents of reservation have persistently cited America's unique AA programme to bolster their arguments. Opponents of reservation say India should follow the example of the US where minority racial groups—Blacks, native Indians, Hispanics, women—are not allocated fixed quotas in universities and jobs, and where AA is voluntary, not mandatory. The opponents rubbish these arguments, asking: why should urban Indians, slavishly imitative of America otherwise, raise the bogey of merit, considering the spectacular success of AA in the land popularly perceived to be the ultimate meritocracy?

Outlook studied the working of AA in the US for a better understanding of the system that favours in jobs, education and government contracts those minority racial groups—and also women—who have suffered from historical discrimination.

"Students come here to get a diverse experience... businesses say our wards do better because of it." Theodore L. Spencer, University of Michigan

For starters, listen to Indiana University's Prof Kevin Brown who was recently in India, "I firmly believe in the power of AA, and don't see why it won't work in India, after it was experimented in the US."

In the US, the evolution of AA is closely linked to the nation's history, reflecting the admirable sensitivity of institutions to social churning here. In the early '60s, as civil rights protests raged across the US, several universities began to take a closer look at the racial composition of student bodies. Realising that their campuses didn't reflect the social diversity of the nation, elite institutions like Princeton, Harvard and Yale began to voluntarily admit a handful of Black students every year, overlooking grades or test scores below admission prerequisites.

The voluntary nature of AA acquired statutory backing through the passing of the Civil Rights Act, 1964—it barred discrimination by employers and recipients of federal financial assistance, including colleges and universities. AA, under the Civil Rights Act, was a useful remedy to combat racial segregation but only applied to colleges and universities in those 19 states which had legally separate colleges for African and White Americans.

The '60s civil rights protests made US varsities realise that social diversity didn't reflect on the campus.

In universities outside these 19 states it is voluntary—whether or not they receive educational grants from the government—but most of the more selective schools have decided to opt for it. AA, however, is mandatory for all universities in the US receiving money for federal contracts and research, though the programme is confined to employment, not in admission of students.

In the initial years of the Civil Rights Act, some universities set aside a fixed number of seats for racial minorities. The precise number of reserved seats was not legislated; it was decided individually by universities. In 1978, however, the Supreme Court abolished the quota system as unconstitutional, though it did not proscribe AA. Prof Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, explains, "Our Supreme Court outlawed quotas. So we have no seats set aside for any racial group. This is a fundamental difference between the American and Indian AA system".

Prof Thomas E. Weisskopf, author of Affirmative Action in the United States and India: A Comparative Perspective, says AA in India has been introduced from the top: the state has mandated a slew of legislations to discriminate in favour of marginalised groups. "In the US, the bulk of the affirmative action comes from below—institutions and companies whose leadership has decided that it is good to have more racial and ethnic diversity," Weisskopf says.

"Colleges look for interesting students...they admit those who they believe can survive the academic experience." Shirley Wilcher, American Association for Affirmative Action

Perhaps the state's intervention in India has been necessitated because its private sector, unlike that of the US, has been indifferent to the idea of bringing marginalised groups into the national mainstream—and diversifying the professional class.

Yet, Weisskopf says, reservation of 50 per cent "for formally less qualified but potentially successful AA beneficiaries could result in the inclusion of those who do not really have the potential to succeed". High percentage of reservation could also invite backlash—and erode AA. Weisskopf explains, "A high percentage of reservation will lead to a much higher degree of resentment among non-beneficiaries about the unfairness of process, which—even when not justified—can undermine the efforts to integrate marginalised groups into society."

Resistance to AA is inevitable. Even voluntary AA programmes have had strident opponents in the US. Take the University of Michigan case of 2003. Barbara Grutter failed to get admission to the university's law school in 1996. She subsequently found out that Blacks and ethnic minorities who had lower overall scores had been admitted. Grutter filed a lawsuit claiming she was a victim of discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled race can be used in admission decisions, but added a caveat saying universities must take into account multiple factors—that nobody could be admitted just on the grounds of race.


No colour codes: NY Police Academy graduates throw their gloves in the air, part of a convocation ritual

Neither grades nor race is the sole factor universities take into account here at the time of admission.

"A high percentage of reservation means a higher degree of resentment over the unfair process." Thomas E. Weisskopf, Author, Affirmative Action in the United States and India

This is why Shirley Wilcher, interim executive director of the Washington-based American Association for Affirmative Action, says the backlash against AA is unreasonable. Colleges don't just consider grades for admission, even in the case of White students. They look for "interesting students. They look for interesting stories and experiences". Universities also take into account a student's statement of purpose, her hobbies, and her sense of self. Race is just one more factor on a long list of prerequisites for admission. Wilcher, therefore, says it's absurd to believe students admitted under AA are underqualified. "Colleges don't admit just anyone," she argues. "They admit students who they believe can survive the academic experience." More than Blacks, it's White females who have benefited from AA, yet few have criticised the advantages accruing to them.


All set for sail: US troops at a parade in Ellis Island, NY

In the absence of quotas, most universities decide on their own the number of students who ought to be admitted under AA.

California outlawed AA after Proposition 209, in 1996. Berkeley has seen a drastic drop in Black students.

Prof Kevin Brown of Indiana University says one method of deciding on the precise number is to have a notion of critical mass. "Invariably, this would be around 15 per cent of the total population of students in college. But unlike a fixed quota, the critical mass could vary," he says.

Such concepts, though, are the concern of just a fifth of all universities in the US. As Prof Orfield says, "This is because most of our universities are not very competitive. In most universities, they admit most of the students who apply." But AA has also transformed elite institutions like Harvard. "Before AA, the top tier of our system was overwhelmingly White," Prof Orfield points out.

AA is not restricted to the universities. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which requires that businesses and universities receiving federal contracts do not discriminate, and also that they must use AA in employment. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the US department of labour conducts regular evaluations, and cancels contracts of those found in non-compliance. It also gives awards every year to contractors who have established comprehensive workforce strategies to ensure equal employment opportunity.

Here again, though, there are no fixed quotas. Every company evolves its own AA policy, including recruitment and placement goals. "The AA regulations emphasise that goals are not quotas...the measure for compliance is a good faith effort," says Wilcher who headed the OFCCP during the Clinton years.

Three states though have outlawed AA. In November 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, a measure that outlawed racial preferences in the operation of public employment, education and contracting. Ditto Washington state and Florida. Incidentally, following Proposition 209, the University of Berkeley in California has witnessed a sharp decline in its Black student population.

Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, endorses such enactments. A Black himself, he argues, "Affirmative action confines Black people to a lifetime of differential treatment on the premise that they cannot compete." There's also the "social cost" of resentment among those who feel they have been kept out by less qualified people. "There is even more resentment when you are generations away from the harm that was done to one's ancestors. People who are benefiting now from AA never lived as slaves," Connerly points out.

He says the quality of University of California improved following the adoption of Proposition 209, and the university began admitting students on academic achievements alone. "Colleges are lowering standards to admit Blacks, native Americans and Hispanics," he laments, claiming children of these social groups are simply not interested in pursuing academics.


All together: University of Michigan students applaud a Supreme Court verdict favouring affirmative action in admissions

Supporters of AA, however, claim it's erroneous to link meritocracy exclusively to standardised tests. Test scores, as Prof Orfield contends, are crucially dependent upon students' family backgrounds, their wealth, their privileged schooling. "If you're going to just admit on the basis of test scores, you will be perpetuating social stratification, not just on racial but also on class grounds," he warns, claiming tests are imperfect indicators of what students could achieve in their life. "But if you consider merit to be determination and willingness to learn, and not just reflections of the opportunities you've had, you will identify different kinds of students. These students do just as well as ones you pick on the basis of test scores," he asserts.

Theodore L. Spencer, executive director of undergraduate admissions at University of Michigan, has this to say about the institute's experience of AA, "Many students come to this university to get a diverse experience. They feel diversity has helped them. Businesses also say that students who come from colleges with diverse backgrounds do better. The military has said the same thing about its leaders." This apart, Spencer says minority students who have graduated from good universities have done exceedingly well.

Wilcher agrees, contending that much of the Black middle class in the US owes its success to AA. For this reason alone, AA should continue, irrespective of the opposition to it. She says, "You will always have detractors who feel they will be at the losing end because they have to compete with people they wouldn't have had to compete against in the first place. But these people have the talent...they simply need to be given the opportunity." Those who have had the opportunity are making America proud. Think of Condoleezza Rice, think of another AA beneficiary—her predecessor Colin Powell.