Editing Affirmative action (section)

== Responses ==
Proponents of affirmative action say it aims to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.<ref name="Christophe Jaffrelot pg. 321">Christophe Jaffrelot, India's Silent Revolution: The rise of lower castes in northern India, p. 321. 2003</ref>
Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and slave laws.<ref name=twsL13 /><ref name="Melvin 2020" /><ref name="clinton2.nara.gov" /> Critics of affirmative action have suggested that affirmative action hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within [[minority group]]s at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups.<ref name="Cultural Whiplash 2006">''Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination'' / Patrick Garry (2006) {{ISBN|1-58182-569-2}}</ref> 

A 2017 study of temporary federal affirmative action regulation in the United States estimated that the regulation "increases the black share of employees over time: in 5 years after an establishment is first regulated, the black share of employees increases by an average of 0.8 percentage points. Strikingly, the black share continues to grow at a similar pace even after an establishment is deregulated. [The author] argue[s] that this persistence is driven in part by affirmative action inducing employers to improve their methods for screening potential hires."<ref name="Miller 2017">{{Cite journal|title=The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|volume=9|issue=3|pages=152–190|doi=10.1257/app.20160121|year=2017|last1=Miller|first1=Conrad|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Legal scholar [[Stanley Fish]] suggests that opponents of affirmative action often argue it is a form of [[reverse discrimination]], and that any effort to cure discrimination through affirmative action is wrong because it, in turn, is another form of discrimination. He says this is a false equivalence, since those opposed to affirmative action are motivated "not from any wrong done to [them]" but by a desire to continue marginalizing others.<ref name=":2">{{cite magazine |last1=Fish |first1=Stanley |title=Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/race/fish.htm |access-date=2 March 2019 |magazine=The Atlantic |date=November 1993 |archive-date=28 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200828041855/https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/race/fish.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> Journalist [[Vann R. Newkirk II]] says that critics of affirmative action often claim court cases such as ''[[Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)|Fisher v. University of Texas]]'', which held that colleges have some discretion to consider race when making admissions decisions, demonstrate that discrimination occurs in the name of affirmative action. He says this is one of several "misconceptions" often used to engender "white resentment" in opposition to affirmative action.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Newkirk |first1=Vann R. |title=The Myth of Reverse Racism: The idea of white victimhood is increasingly central to the debate over affirmative action |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/ |access-date=2 March 2019 |magazine=The Atlantic |date=5 August 2017}}</ref> 

According to scholar George Sher, some critics of affirmative action say that it devalues the accomplishments of individuals chosen only based on the social groups to which they belong rather than their qualifications.<ref name="Sher, George 1983, p.40">Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays in Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p. 40.</ref><ref name=sowell>{{cite book |last1=Sowell |first1=Thomas |title=Affirmative Action Around the World |date=2004 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0300107753|title-link=Affirmative Action Around the World }}</ref> Legal scholar Tseming Yang and others have discussed the challenges of fraudulent self-identification when implementing affirmative action policies. Yang suggests that because some individuals from non-preferred groups may designate themselves as members of preferred groups to access the benefits of such programs, this requires the "necessary evil" of verifying individuals' race to prevent this.<ref name=sowell/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yang |first1=Tseming |title=Choice and Fraud in Racial Identification: The Dilemma of Policing Race in Affirmative Action, the Census, and a Color-Blind Society |journal=Michigan Journal of Race and Law |date=2006 |volume=11 |pages=367 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1718&context=facpubs |access-date=2 March 2019}}</ref> Critics of affirmative action also suggest that programs may benefit the members of the targeted group that least need the benefit—that is, those who have the greatest social, economic and educational advantages within the targeted group—or may lead the beneficiaries of affirmative action to conclude that it is unnecessary to work as hard, and those who do not benefit may perceive hard work as futile.<ref name=sowell/> Political scientist [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]] has said that beneficiaries are often wholly unqualified for the opportunity made available, citing [[The Bell Curve|his belief]] in [[scientific racism|the innate differences between races]]. He reaffirmed these views in his essay "The Advantages of Social [[Apartheid]]", in which he advocates separation of people based on [[race and intelligence]].<ref name=murray>{{cite web |title=Charles Murray |url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray |website=Southern Poverty Law Center |access-date=2 March 2019}}</ref> 

=== Mismatching ===
''Mismatching'' is the proposed negative effect affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for them based on meeting quotas, which may increase the chance they drop out or fail the course, thus hurting the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action. According to this theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student may be admitted to a college that matches their academic ability and therefore has a better chance of graduating.<ref name="latimes.com">[https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sander26sep26,0,3998908.story?coll=la-opinion-center Does affirmative action hurt minorities?], ''Los Angeles Times'', 26 September 2007</ref><ref name="Quotas on trial">[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010803.asp Quotas on trial], by Thomas Sowell, 8 January 2003</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite journal |last1=Heriot |first1=Gail L. |author-link1=Gail Heriot |title=Want to Be a Doctor? A Scientist? An Engineer? An Affirmative Action Leg Up May Hurt Your Chances |journal=Engage |date=December 2010 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=18–25 |ssrn=3112683 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3112683 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=murray/><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121004223026/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/ The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action], The Atlantic, 2 October 2012</ref> 

In 2017, researcher Andrew J. Hill found that affirmative action bans resulted in a reduction in minority students completing four-year STEM degrees, and suggests this indicates that the mismatch hypothesis is unfounded. He says this is evidence that affirmative action may be effective in "some circumstances", such as in encouraging greater minority engagement in STEM degrees.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Andrew J. |title=State affirmative action bans and STEM degree completions |journal=Economics of Education Review |date=1 April 2017 |volume=57 |pages=31–40 |doi=10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.01.003 }}</ref> In 2020, researcher Zachary Bleemer found that an affirmative action ban in California (Prop 209) had resulted in average wage drops of 5% annually among underrepresented minorities aged 24–34 in STEM industries, especially effecting Hispanic people.<ref>{{cite thesis |last1=Bleemer |first1=Zachary |title=Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility after California's Proposition 209 |date=2020 |ssrn=3484530 }}</ref><ref name="auto"/>

In 2007, [[Gail Heriot]], a professor of law at the [[University of San Diego]] and a member of the [[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]], discussed the evidence in support of mismatching in law courses. She pointed to a study by [[Richard Sander]] which suggests there were 7.9% fewer Black attorneys than if there had been no affirmative action.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Heriot |first1=Gail |title=Affirmative Action Backfires |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118792252575507571 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=24 August 2007 }}</ref> Sander suggests that mismatching meant Black students were more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.<ref name=Sander>{{cite journal |last1=Sander |first1=Richard H. |title=A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools |journal=Stanford Law Review |date=2004 |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=367–483 |url=https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/01/Sander.pdf |jstor=40040209 }}</ref> Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including [[Ian Ayres]] and Richard Brooks from Yale, who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of
Black lawyers by 12.7%. Furthermore, they suggest that students attending higher ranking colleges do better than those who don't.<ref>{{cite web|last=Fisman |first=Ray |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/04/sanding_down_sander.html |title=Slate.com |publisher=Slate.com |access-date=11 April 2012|date=29 April 2005 }}</ref> A 2008 study by [[Jesse Rothstein]] and Albert H. Yoon said Sander's results were "plausible", but said that eliminating affirmative action would "lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools". They dismissed the mismatch theory, concluding that "one cannot credibly invoke mismatch effects to argue that there are no benefits" to affirmative action.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm | title=Attacking the 'Mismatch' Critique of Affirmative Action | work=Inside Higher Education | date=3 September 2008 | access-date=27 January 2016 | author=Jaschik, Scott | archive-date=13 December 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171213085052/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm | url-status=dead }}</ref> In a 2016 review of previous studies by [[Peter Arcidiacono]] and Michael Lovenheim, they suggested that more African-American students attending less-selective schools would significantly improve first-attempt pass rates at the [[State bar association|state bar]], but cautioned that such improvements could be outweighed by decreases in law school attendance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arcidiacono |first1=Peter |last2=Lovenheim |first2=Michael |title=Affirmative Action and the Quality–Fit Trade-off |journal=Journal of Economic Literature |date=1 March 2016 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=3–51 |doi=10.1257/jel.54.1.3 |s2cid=1876963 }}</ref>

A 2011 study of data held by Duke University said there was no evidence of mismatch, and proposed that mismatch could only occur if a selective school possessed private information about students' prospects at the college which it failed to share. Providing such information to prospective students would avoid mismatch because the students could choose another school that was a better match.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arcidiacono |first1=Peter |last2=Aucejo |first2=Esteban M. |last3=Fang |first3=Hanming |last4=Spenner |first4=Kenneth I. |title=Does affirmative action lead to mismatch? A new test and evidence |journal=Quantitative Economics |date=November 2011 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=303–333 |doi=10.3982/QE83 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A 2016 study on affirmative action in India said there was no evidence for the mismatching hypothesis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bagde |first1=Surendrakumar |last2=Epple |first2=Dennis |last3=Taylor |first3=Lowell |title=Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India |journal=American Economic Review |date=1 June 2016 |volume=106 |issue=6 |pages=1495–1521 |doi=10.1257/aer.20140783 |url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles/attachments?retrieve=_ipe5iZhjGakTC0SaPxwDx2piOS0fkOa }}</ref>

=== Polls ===
According to a poll taken by ''[[USA Today]]'' in 2005, the majority of Americans supported affirmative action for women, while views on [[Minority group|minority groups]] were more split.<ref name="usatoday.com">{{cite web |date=20 May 2005 |title=Usatoday.Com |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm |access-date=28 April 2014 |publisher=Usatoday.Com}}</ref> Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women, though a majority of both do.<ref name="usatoday.com">{{cite web |date=20 May 2005 |title=Usatoday.Com |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm |access-date=28 April 2014 |publisher=Usatoday.Com}}</ref> However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.<ref name="usatoday.com">{{cite web |date=20 May 2005 |title=Usatoday.Com |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm |access-date=28 April 2014 |publisher=Usatoday.Com}}</ref> Also in 2005, a [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49% opposing), with support and opposition among [[Hispanic people]] falling between those of black people and white people. Support among black people, unlike among white people, had almost no correlation with political affiliation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Jeffrey M. |date=23 August 2005 |title=Race, Ideology, and Support for Affirmative Action |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/18091/race-ideology-support-affirmative-action.aspx |access-date=11 March 2013 |publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]}}</ref>

A Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 found that 55% of Americans felt that affirmative action, in general, should be discontinued, though 55% supported it for people with disabilities.<ref name="june32009">{{cite web |date=3 June 2009 |title=U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Abolish Affirmative Action |url=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1307 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210424203526/https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1307 |archive-date=Apr 24, 2021 |publisher=Quinnipiac University Poll}}</ref> The [[Quinnipiac University Polling Institute]] survey found 65% of American voters opposed the application of affirmative action to homosexuals, with 27% indicating they supported it.<ref name="june32009">{{cite web |date=3 June 2009 |title=U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Abolish Affirmative Action |url=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1307 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210424203526/https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1307 |archive-date=Apr 24, 2021 |publisher=Quinnipiac University Poll}}</ref>

A Leger poll taken in 2010 found 59% of Canadians opposed considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.<ref>{{cite news |last=Akin |first=David |author-link=David Akin |date=12 August 2010 |title=Canadians against job hiring quotas |url=http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/12/14998311.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104145049/http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/12/14998311.html |archive-date=4 November 2012 |newspaper=Toronto Sun}}</ref>

A 2014 [[Pew Research Center]] poll found that 63% of Americans thought affirmative action programs aimed at increasing minority representation on college campuses were "a good thing", compared to 30% who thought they were "a bad thing".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Drake |first=Bruce |date=22 April 2014 |title=Public strongly backs affirmative action programs on campus |url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/22/public-strongly-backs-affirmative-action-programs-on-campus/ |access-date=16 March 2017 |website=Pew Research Center}}</ref> The following year, [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] released a poll showing that 67% of Americans supported affirmative action programs aimed at increasing female representation, compared to 58% who supported such programs aimed at increasing the representation of racial minorities.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Riffkin |first=Rebecca |date=26 August 2015 |title=Higher Support for Gender Affirmative Action Than Race |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/184772/higher-support-gender-affirmative-action-race.aspx |access-date=16 March 2017 |website=Gallup}}</ref>

A 2019 [[Pew Research Center]] poll found 73% of Americans believe race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions decisions.<ref>{{cite web |date=8 June 2023 |title=More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions Decisions |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/}}</ref> A few years later in 2022, a Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans believe race or ethnicity should not factor into college admissions decisions.<ref>{{cite web |date=26 April 2022 |title=As courts weigh affirmative action, grades and test scores seen as top factors in college admissions |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/26/u-s-public-continues-to-view-grades-test-scores-as-top-factors-in-college-admissions/}}</ref>