|
|  |
|
The Biology of Race
(In modern day society, the concept of race is a widely accepted quality of humans. Race is characterized by the color of an individuals skin color and their ancestry. The former, most widely recognized as an indication of ones race, is accompanied by the presumption that the genetic and biological causes responsible for it, originate from people with a great degree of genetic variations within the human species. But what is the relationship between skin color and genetics? Is it important enough to divide humans into separate races? Does the term race have any scientific merit or is it a manifestation of social stratification?
Phenotype and Genotype
According to James King, author of The Biology of Race, Physical characteristics such as hair color, eye color, height, skin color, build, etc., are the components that make up an individual. These are the observable characteristics that can be inferred as inborn qualities. From these qualities we assume that the traits are inherited from the parents. The genotype is the genes that are directly given to the offspring, and the phenotype is the consequence of those genes. For example, we can assume that an individual with blue eyes has received the blue eye color gene from both parents and no genes for brown eye color, because brown is a dominant gene and blue would not be observable. So the Genotype of blue eyes is two blue eye genes and the phenotype is the blue eyes that we can see (King 111-114).
People of European dissent tend to embody a variation of skin color. Variation within groups is as strong as the socially recognized variation between ethinicities. There seems to be a direct relation between parents and their offspring. When two parents of similar phenotypical pigmentation produce offspring. The offspring usually embody the sane color. However, unlike eye color, phenotypically dissimilar pigmentation produce offspring, that offspring tends to be intermediate. Oddly enough, when two of these intermediate parents produce offspring the result is often to the extreme of the original parents (King 212).
Pigmentation also has a key environmental factor, writes L.C. Dunn author of Heredity and Race (315). When individuals with pale skin color are exposed to long periods of direct sunlight the result is darker skin. As the original skin color gets darker the effect of exposure to the sun diminishes. The darker the skin the greater the resistance to the damage the sun can cause. Hence, the minimal need for darkly pigmented people to darken. In this instance it is difficult to infer genotype from phenotype (315).
The Geography of Race
It is hard to ignore the fact that the different proposed races of the human species have originated in separate isolated regions of the earth. And where crossroads have been formed between these regions a blend of the races has developed.
There are three factors of geography that may be attributed to race (Dunn 315-321).
1. Physical barriers such as mountain ranges, oceans, desert regions, etc.
2. The effect of geography on climate which leads to the variations within species.
3. Of less impact are the chemical or mineral variations in terrain and soil.
Physical barriers keep interbreeding between different regions to a minimum. They restrict the movement of genes from spreading to other populations. In prehistoric times, the ability of human kind to break these geographical barriers was small. Once established in an area, years of isolation lead to a variation within that population that other populations would not have had access to (318). These factors in racial variations had a direct impact on the next two.
Climate has a direct effect on the pigmentation of races. In areas where peoples were exposed to more direct sunlight, skin pigmentation becomes increasingly darker. As stated earlier, the skin develops darker pigmentation to effectively protect itself from the sun. In areas where less sunlight is experienced, the skin does not develop this quality genotypicaly, but embodies the ability to adapt rapidly when exposed to the sun (Dunn 315).
Skin pigmentation is determined by the amount of melanin present in the skin. The more the melanin the darker the skin. All races of the human species have this characteristic. There are isolated instantances of albinos, which are present in every race. This is a genetic mutation that lacks any pigmentation in eyes, hair, and skin (King 114).
In subtropical areas, where tree cover is scarce, such as the African Savannah, the people living there develop extremely dark pigmentation. In southern Asia, the sun exposure was consistent but it was not as strong and tree cover was present which caused the peoples skin to darken to a lesser degree. In European areas, the cloudy cover enabled the people to survive without this quality. As you move further north into the Arctic region, the sun becomes stronger and the glare off the snow mix to create a people more similar to the Asian people ( Dunn 318-320).
The third factor of chemical or mineral variation in the terrain is quite complicated and best understood by a simple example. In New Zealand, the natives centuries ago had a legend of the good lands and the bad lands. In the bad lands, the cattle and people were often struck with a sickness, today identified as pernicious anemia. The anti-pernicious factor in humans is a compound of cobalt and in areas where the sickness occurred, cobalt was minimal in the soil. This further prevented the movement of people (Dunn 320).
Races or Variations?
The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races. Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment. The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases. A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive (Boyd 45).
It can also be argued that the geographical factors stated above are the same factors that have been responsible for the evolution of all species. Nature and its woes had an influence on the variations that were experienced by the people. But the amount of time that it takes for a new species to develop is immense. Human beings started to expand out into the world about 25,000 years ago. This leaves little space for the evolution of separate species. At this same time, the people were beginning to develop technology. It was rather primitive, but its purpose was to make survival easier. Humans are the only animals that do not adapt to the environment, but rather adapt the environment to fit their needs. So, with a brief period, being subject to nature, humans adapted to their environment physically, but with the quick advancement of technology the impact of nature became minimal (Dunn 48-51).
Race can also be examined from the angle of interbreeding. For example the Drosophila. A species of flies. Has a number of documented strains. When these strains are interbred, fully fertile and sometimes even larger flies are produced. Yet, when these hybrids reproduce, their offspring are prone to genetic defects and infertility. Further breeding of these offspring leads to more extreme cases of the same. This scenario has been documented in many different animal species (King 118).
This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The races of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of races.
Information provided by: http://www.louisville.edu/
Source: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm
AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race
Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996
PREAMBLE
As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.
POSITION
We offer the following points as revisions of the 1964 UNESCO statement on race:
1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.
2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.
3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.
5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications. Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.
6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.
7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.
Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction
have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.
8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.
9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.
10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.
11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
"The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true. The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning." Robert K. Merton.
Dr. Alfred C. Maldonado's Editorial:
I have used R. Wilkins' May 1995 article in The Nation, cited just below here, and have roughly adapted his timeline.
Wilkins, R. (1995, May). Racism has its privileges: The case for affirmative action. The Nation, pp. 409-410, 412, 414-416.
Some grossly ahistorical and misinformed people allege that since the modern civil rights movement of the 1960's, the passage of the legislative statutes strengthening civil rights, employment rights, etc., and the real application of the American Judeo-Christian complex of morals and values, that the American black has now had enough time to catch up with whites in most areas of economic, social, and political life.
Therefore, like other immigrant groups to this country, African Americans should have caught up with other ethnic and racial groups. IF they have not, it is not because of racial and ethnic prejudice or American racism, which they contend does not exist, except in isolated instances or it went out in the 1960's. Of course, African Americans are not "like other immigrant groups to this country." From the beginning in 1619, they were brought here in chains, dehumanized, and defined as chattel property, with no human rights.
To people who believe the above, I propose a simple timeline, which I believe anyone can grasp, to see if African Americans have had time to catch up.
- Between 1619, when the first African slaves were brought to the East coast, and the present, 2003, is a total of 384 years. American blacks have been in this country for almost 400 years.
- From 1619 until 1865, when the Civil War ended, "freeing" the slaves, we have a total of 246 years of bondage, slavery, and the "peculiar institution." Almost 250 years of slavery for African Americans in America.
- From 1865 to 1965 is a period of one century, 100 years, in which in practical and everyday life, American blacks, particularly in the South, were not subject to the protection and due process of the local, state, and federal laws or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The heyday of Jim Crow, lynching, individual and state-sponsored terrorism, torture, and general terror. This was even though, in formal written terms, they were guaranteed many of these rights. Only in scattered and isolated areas of the US were blacks afforded some of the everyday rights and protections that white Americans take for granted every day.
- By 1972, most of the so-called landmark legislation had been enacted that secured or strengthened civil rights for minorities in the US. Affirmative action was instituted under Nixon's adminstration.
Consequently, African Americans have had the same basic rights, including legislation designed to strengthen their basic and supposedly guaranteed civil and human rights for a litte over 30 years. Remember: 30 years is the equivalent of ONE GENERATION AND A HALF.
YET, MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EXPECT BLACKS TO HAVE MADE UP THE DISTANCE AND DIFFERENCES IN LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IN ONE GENERATION AND TO HAVE ALL THE SAME EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES WHITES HAVE IN THIS COUNTY.
THE IMPLICATION OF SAYING "THEY" HAVE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO CATCH UP BY NOW: IF THEY HAVEN'T, IT IS THEIR FAULT, WHICH IMPLIES THEY ARE LAZY, ETC. SAME OLD, SAME OLD.
American Racism: A core American value since 1607!
Census Bureau Releases Update on
Country's African American Population
The Commerce Department's Census Bureau today issued new data on the African American population showing that 79 percent of African Americans age 25 and over had earned at least a high school diploma and 17 percent had attained at least a bachelor's degree by March 2000. Both percentages represented record levels of educational attainment.
The Census Bureau cautioned the public not to confuse the new estimates with Census 2000 results, which are scheduled for release over the next three years.
According to the 2000 estimates, there were 8.7 million African American families. Less than one-half (48 percent) of all African American families were married-couple families, 44 percent were maintained by women with no spouse present and 8 percent were maintained by men with no spouse present.
Other highlights:
Among African American men age 15 and over, 39 percent were currently married, 3 percent were widowed and 10 percent were divorced.
Among women, the corresponding proportions were 31 percent, 10 percent and 12 percent. A similar proportion -- 42 percent -- of African American men and women had never married.
African American families tend to be larger than White, not of Hispanic origin families. For example, 21 percent of African American married-couple families had five or more members, compared with 12 percent of their White, not Hispanic, counterparts.
African American women, age 16 and over, were more likely than their White, not Hispanic, counterparts to participate in the labor force (64 percent compared with 61 percent). For men, the reverse was true. African American men had a participation rate of 68 percent compared with 74 percent of White, not Hispanic men.
Among African Americans age 16 and over who were employed, 25 percent of women and 18 percent of men worked in managerial and professional specialty occupations.
The 1999 median household income was the highest ever recorded, in real terms, for African Americans ($27,910).
Half (51 percent) of African American married-couple families had incomes of $50,000 or more, compared with 60 percent of their White, not Hispanic,counterparts.
In 1999, the poverty rate for African Americans fell to a record low of
23.6 percent.
About 47 percent of African American householders were homeowners.
These findings on the African American population are available in two
different products released today. One is a series of 21 tables from the
March 2000 Current Population Survey (CPS) titled Black Population in theU.S.: March 2000, PPL-142, covering such topics as age, marital status, family type and size, education, occupation, income, poverty and housing. They also show comparable national data for Whites, not of Hispanic origin.
The other product is a special edition of the Census Bureau's monthly Facts for Features, celebrating African American History Month in February. It consists of narrative on many of the same topics as the tables, plus national-level population projections and population by state and county.
Increasing Diversity in the U.S. Hispanic Population: 1990-2000.
There are more than 35 million people of Hispanic origin in the United States, and the 2000 Census indicates that they are more diverse than they were in 1990. U.S. Hispanics of Mexican originthe largest Hispanic groupadded more than 7 million people over the decade. But the fastest growing group, in percentage terms, was "other" Hispanics, whose population increased from 5 million in 1990 to 10 million in 2000. Many of those who chose "Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" on the census form were immigrants from Central or South America. "Other" Hispanics also include a growing number of people with multiethnic backgrounds who do not identify with a single country or region of origin.
Although the total U.S. Hispanic population is becoming more diverse, many states and cities continue to attract/host Hispanics from particular countries of origin. For example, Floridahome to Miamis "Little Havana" communityis where 67 percent of Cuban-Americans reside. Over 60 percent of Hispanics from Puerto Rico, on the other hand, live in New England and Mid-Atlantic states. Mexicans are highly concentrated in the West and in some Midwestern states, with particularly large settlements in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, and Texas. "Other" Hispanics are concentrated in the largest states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida), as well as New Jersey and New Mexico. The regional concentration of different minority groups is linked to historical circumstances and migration streams.
U.S. Hispanic Population, by Place of Origin, 1990 and 2000
|
|
|
|
Percent increase |
|
|
1990 |
2000 |
1990-2000 |
|
Total |
22,354,059 |
35,305,818 |
57.9 |
|
Mexican |
13,495,938 |
20,640,711 |
52.9 |
|
Puerto Rican |
2,727,754 |
3,406,178 |
24.9 |
|
Cuban |
1,043,932 |
1,241,685 |
18.9 |
|
Other |
5,086,435 |
10,017,244 |
96.9 |
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000.
U.S. Hispanic Population Growing Fastest in the South
The Hispanic population is highly concentrated in the southwestern United States, and in a few metropolitan areas outside this region, such as New York, New Jersey, and Chicago. According to results from the 2000 Census, half of the U.S. Hispanic population lives in just two statesCalifornia and Texas. Although California is home to the largest number of Hispanics (11 million), New Mexico has the highest concentration of Hispanics (42 percent).
But one of the big demographic stories of the decade has been the dispersion of Hispanics out of these highly concentrated locales to smaller cities and even rural areas in other parts of the country, especially the South. Between 1990 and 2000, the most dramatic Hispanic population growth occurred in North Carolina (394 percent), Arkansas (337 percent), Georgia (300 percent), Tennessee (278 percent), and South Carolina (211 percent). Nonetheless, Hispanics still represent less than 6 percent of the total population in each of these states. In Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia, the Hispanic population accounts for less than 1 percent of the population.
|
|
THE FOLLOWING WORKS FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION ARE AVAILBLE TO MY STUDENTS FOR FURTHER READING AND/OR CLASS PRESENTATIONS.
An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1965. Randolph B. Campbell. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press, 1989. 306 pages.
The Human Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science. Pat Shipman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. 318 Pages.
The History & Sociology of Genocide: Analyses & Case Studies, by Frank Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990. 461 Pages.
Racism: A Short History, by George M. Frederickson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. 207 Pages.
Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, by Audrey Smedley. Boulder, CO.: Worldview Press, Inc., 1993, 340 Pages.
Race and Human Evolution, by Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. 462 pages.
The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing & the Psychology of Genocide, by Robert Jay Lifton. NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1986.
Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, & Ordinary Germans, by Eric A. Johnson. New York: Basic Books, 1999. 636 Pages.
The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945, by Nora Nevin. New York: Schocken, 1973, 768 Pages.
Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996, 622 Pages.
Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present, by Deborah Dwork, & Robert Jan van Pelt. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996, 443 Pages.
Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany, by John Weiss. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publishers, 1996, 427 Pages.
Justice at Nuremberg, by Robert E. Conot. New York City: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 1983. 593 Pages.
Tyranny on Trial: The Trial of the Major German War Criminals at the End of World War II at Nuremburg, Germany, 1945-1946, by Whitney R. Harris. Dallas: SMU Press, Inc., 1999. 635 Pages.
Terror in the Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews, by Jack Nelson. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississippi, 1993.
Anti-Semitism: Causes and Effects. An Analysis and Chronology of Anti-Semitic Attitudes and Practices, by Paul E. Grosser and Edwin G. Halperin. New York: Philosophical Library, 1983, 438 Pages.
Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986, by David Montejano. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1987, 383 Pages.
They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821-1900, by Arnoldo DeLeon. The University of Texas Press, Austin, TX., 1983. 153 Pages.
A Death in (Jasper) Texas: A Story of Race, Murder, and a Small Town's Struggle for Redemption. Dina Temple-Raston. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2002. 316 Pages.
Hate Crime: The Story of a Dragging in Jasper, Texas, by Joyce Kings. New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 2002. 225 Pages.
Flames after Midnight: Murder, Vengeance, and the Desolation of a Texas Community (Kirven, TX). Monte Akers. The University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 220 Pages.
White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America. Edited by Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg, Nelson M. Rodriguez, & Ronald E. Chennault. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1991. 354 Pages.
Slavery in the United States, by Louis Filler. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998. 195 Pages.
Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, by Robert William Fogel. NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, 539 Pages.
The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870, by Hugh Thomas. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1997, 998 Pages.
Religion and the Antebellum Debate Over Slavery, Edited by John R. McKivigan & Mitchell Snay. Athens, GA.: University of Georgia Press. 391 Pages.
Census Bureau Releases Population Estimates
by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin
The Commerce Department's Census Bureau today released estimates as of
July 1, 2001, of the nation's population by age, sex, race and Hispanic
origin. They are the first such estimates released by the Census Bureau
since Census 2000.
The tables include five-year age groups (to 100 and over) and median age
by sex, the distribution of each racial group by broad age categories and
the number of people of a specific race or of two or more races. The
following table provides a summary of basic race and Hispanic-origin
estimates.
Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin:
July 1, 2001, and April 1, 2000
(In millions, except percentage change)
|
Change 2000 - 2001 |
| |
July 1, 2001
|
April 1, 2000 |
Numerical |
Percentage |
|
Total population |
284.8 |
281.4 |
3.4 |
1.2 |
|
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) |
37.0 |
35.3 |
1.7 |
4.7 |
|
One race |
280.7 |
277.5 |
3.2 |
1.2 |
|
...White |
230.3 |
228.1 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
|
.......White alone, not Hispanic or Latino |
196.2 |
195.6 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
|
...Black or African-American |
36.2 |
35.7 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
|
...American Indian and Alaska Native |
2.7 |
2.7 |
0.1 |
2.3 |
|
...Asian |
11.0 |
10.6 |
0.4 |
3.7 |
|
...Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander |
0.5 |
0.5 |
|
3.0 |
|
Two or more races |
4.1 |
3.9 |
0.2 |
4.6 |
|
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races1 |
|
White |
233.8 |
231.4 |
2.3 |
1.0 |
|
Black or African-American |
37.7 |
37.1 |
0.6 |
1.7 |
|
American Indian and Alaska Native |
4.3 |
4.2 |
0.1 |
2.2 |
|
Asian |
12.5 |
12.0 |
0.5 |
3.8 |
|
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander |
0.9 |
0.9 |
|
3.2 | 1The five numbers add to more than the total population because individuals may be of more than one race.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Jim Crow Laws: Texas |
|
|
Twenty-seven Jim Crow laws were passed in the Lone Star state. The state enacted one anti-segregation law in 1871 barring separation of the races on public carriers. This law was repealed in 1889.
1866: Education [Constitution]
All taxes paid by blacks to go to maintaining African schools. Duty of the legislature to "encourage colored schools."
1866: Railroads [Statute]
"All railroad companies shall attach one passenger car for the special accommodation of freedmen."
1871: Barred segregation on public carriers [Statute]
Public carriers prohibited from making any distinctions in the carrying of passengers. Penalty: Misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $100 to $500, or imprisonment from 30 to 90 days, or both.
1876: Voting rights [Constitution]
Required electors to pay poll tax.
1879: Miscegenation [Statute]
Confirmed intermarriage law passed in 1858. Penalty applied equally to both parties.
1889: Railroads [Statute]
Railroad companies required to maintain separate coaches for white and colored passengers, equal in comfort. Penalty: Passengers refusing to sit where assigned were guilty of a misdemeanor, and could be fined between $5 and $20.
1891: Railroads [Statute]
Separate coach laws strengthened. Separate coaches for white and Negro passengers to be equal in all points of comfort and convenience. Designed by signage posted in a conspicuous place in each compartment. Trains allowed to carry chair cars or sleeping cars for the exclusive use of either race. Law did not apply to streetcars. Penalty: Conductors who failed to enforce law faced misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine from $5 to $25. The railroad company could be fined from $100 to $1,000 for each trip. Passengers who refused to sit in designated areas faced fines from $5 to $25.
1907: Streetcars [Statute]
Required all streetcars to comply with the separate coach law passed in 1889. Penalty: Streetcar companies could be fined from $100 to $1,000 for failing to enact law. A passenger wrongfully riding in an improper coach was guilty of a misdemeanor, and faced fines from $5 to $25.
1909: Railroads [Statute]
Depot buildings required to provide separate waiting areas for the use of white and Negro passengers.
1914: Railroads [Statute]
Negro porters shall not sleep in sleeping car berths nor use bedding intended for white passengers.
1915: Miscegenation [State Code]
The penalty for intermarriage is imprisonment in the penitentiary from two to five years.
1919: Public accommodations [Statute]
Ordered that Negroes were to use separate branches of county free libraries.
1922: Voting Rights [Statute]
"in no event shall a Negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic party primary election held in the State of Texas" Overturned in 1927 by U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon.
1925: Education [Statute]
Required racially segregated schools.
1925: Public accommodations [Statute]
Separate branches for Negroes to be administered by a Negro custodian in all county libraries.
1925: Miscegenation [Penal Code]
Miscegenation declared a felony.Nullified interracial marriages if parties went to another jurisdiction where such marriages were legal.
1926: Public carriers [Statute]
Public carriers to be segregated.
1935: Health Care [Statute]
Established a state tuberculosis sanitarium for blacks.
1935: Public carriers [State Code]
Directed that separate coaches for whites and blacks on all common carriers.
1943: Public carriers [State Code]
Ordered separate seating on all buses.
1949: Employment [Statute]
Coal mines required to have separate washrooms.
1950: Public accommodations [Statute]
Separate facilities required for white and black citizens in state parks
1951: Voting rights [Constitution]
Required electors to pay poll tax.
1951: Miscegenation [Statute]
Unlawful for person of Caucasian blood to marry person of African blood. Penalty:Two to five years imprisonment.
1952: Health Care [Statute]
Establishment of TB hospitals for blacks.
1953: Public carriers [Penal Code]
Public carriers to be segregated.
1956: Public accommodations [Municipal Ordinance]
Abolished previously required segregation in the city of San Antonio's swimming pools and other recreational facilities.
1958: Education [Statute]
No child compelled to attend schools that are racially mixed. No desegregation unless approved by election. Governor may close schools where troops used on federal authority. |
A Very Special Thanks to Dr. David Pilgram, Ferris State University, and the Musem of Jim Crow, for their kind permission allowing me to use their material on this page.
Jim Crow: American Apartheid and Racism
Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system that operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-Black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that Whites were the Chosen people, Blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation.
Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, buttressed the belief that Blacks were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to Whites. Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the White race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to Blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-Black stereotypes. Even children's games portrayed Blacks as inferior beings. All Major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of Blacks.
The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations: Whites were superior to Blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior; sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America; treating Blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions; any activity which suggested social equality encouraged interracial sexual relations; if necessary, violence must be used to keep Blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy.
The following Jim Crow etiquette norms show how inclusive and pervasive these norms were:
A Black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a White male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a Black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a White woman, because he risked being accused of rape.
Blacks and Whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, Whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.
Under no circumstance was a Black male to offer to light the cigarette of a White female -- that gesture implied intimacy.
Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended Whites.
Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that Blacks were introduced to Whites, never Whites to Blacks. For example: "Mr. Peters (the White person), this is Charlie (the Black person), that I spoke to you about."
Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to Blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma'am. Instead, Blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to Whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.
If a Black person rode in a car driven by a White person, the Black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.
White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections.
Stetson Kennedy, the author of Jim Crow Guide, offered these simple rules that Blacks were supposed to observe in conversing with Whites:
Never assert or even intimate that a White person is lying.
Never impute dishonorable intentions to a White person.
Never suggest that a White person is from an inferior class.
Never lay claim to, or overly demonstrate, superior knowledge or intelligence.
Never curse a White person.
Never laugh derisively at a White person.
Never comment upon the appearance of a White female.1
Jim Crow etiquette operated in conjunction with Jim Crow laws (black codes). When most people think of Jim Crow they think of laws (not the Jim Crow etiquette), which excluded Blacks from public transport and facilities, juries, jobs, and neighborhoods. The passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution had granted Blacks the same legal protections as Whites. However, after 1877, and the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, southern and Border States began restricting the liberties of Blacks. Unfortunately for Blacks, the Supreme Court helped undermine the Constitutional protections of Blacks with the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which legitimized Jim Crow laws and the Jim Crow way of life.
In 1890, Louisiana passed the "Separate Car Law," which purported to aid passenger comfort by creating "equal but separate" cars for Blacks and Whites. This was a ruse. No public accommodations, including railway travel, provided Blacks with equal facilities. The Louisiana law made it illegal for Blacks to sit in coach seats reserved for Whites, and Whites could not sit in seats reserved for Blacks. In 1891, a group of Blacks decided to test the Jim Crow law. They had Homer A. Plessy, who was seven-eights White and one-eighth Black (therefore, Black), sit in the White-only railroad coach. He was arrested. Plessy's lawyer argued that Louisiana did not have the right to label one citizen as White and another Black for the purposes of restricting their rights and privileges. In Plessy, the Supreme Court stated that so long as state governments provided legal process and legal freedoms for Blacks, equal to those of Whites, they could maintain separate institutions to facilitate these rights. The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the Louisiana law, declaring that racial separation did not necessarily mean an abrogation of equality. In practice, Plessy represented the legitimization of two societies: one White, and advantaged; the other, Black, disadvantaged and despised.
Blacks were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses (laws that restricted the right to vote to people whose ancestors had voted before the Civil War), poll taxes (fees charged to poor Blacks), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, only Whites could be Democrats), and literacy tests ("Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America's history"). Plessy sent this message to southern and border states: Discrimination against Blacks is acceptable.
Jim Crow states passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races. Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities. There were separate hospitals for Blacks and Whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations. In most instances, the Black facilities were grossly inferior -- generally, older, less well kept.
In other cases, there were no Black facilities -- no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat. Plessy gave Jim Crow states a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their Black citizens. Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited Blacks and Whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality. In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for Blacks and Whites. In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to play checkers or dominoes together.
Here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws, as compiled by the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site Interpretive Staff:
Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).
Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).
Burial.... The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).
BUSES.... All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).
CHILD CUSTODY.... It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negro (South Carolina).
EDUCATION..... The schools for white children and the schools for Negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).
LIBRARIES.... The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).
MENTAL HOSPITALS..... The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).
MILITIA.... The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).
NURSES.... No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed (Alabama).
PRISONS..... The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negro convicts (Mississippi).
REFORM SCHOOLS.... The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).
TEACHING..... Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).
WINE and BEER..... All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time (Georgia).2
The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. Blacks who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the White water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives. Whites could physically beat Blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-White: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials. Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control.
The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were LYNCHINGS. Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs. Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 Black men and women. Most of the victims of Lynch Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered. In the mid-1800s, Whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, Blacks became the most frequent lynching victims. This is an early indication that lynching was used as an intimidation tool to keep Blacks, in this case the newly-freedmen, "in their places." The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and Border States, where the resentment against Blacks ran deepest. According to the social economist Gunnar Myrdal: "The southern states account for nine-tenths of the lynchings. More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South."3
Many Whites claimed that although lynchings were distasteful, they were necessary supplements to the criminal justice system because Blacks were prone to violent crimes, especially the rapes of White women. Arthur Raper investigated nearly a century of lynchings and concluded that approximately one-third of all the victims were falsely accused.4
Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between Black men and White women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape. Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882-1951 were even accused of rape, Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect White women from Black rapists. Myrdal refutes this belief in this way: "There is much reason to believe that this figure (19.2) has been inflated by the fact that a mob which makes the accusation of rape is secure from any further investigation; by the broad Southern definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men."5 Most Blacks were lynched for demanding civil rights, violating Jim Crow etiquette or laws, or in the aftermath of race riots.
Lynchings were most common in small and middle-sized towns where Blacks often were economic competitors to the local Whites. These Whites resented any economic and political gains made by Blacks. Lynchers were seldom arrested, and if arrested, rarely convicted. Raper estimated that "at least one-half of the lynchings are carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action."6 Lynching served many purposes: it was cheap entertainment; it served as a rallying, uniting point for Whites; it functioned as an ego-massage for low-income, low-status Whites; it was a method of defending White domination and helped stop or retard the fledgling social equality movement.
Lynch mobs directed their hatred against one (sometimes several) victims. The victim was an example of what happened to a Black man who tried to vote, or who looked at a White woman, or who tried to get a White man's job. Unfortunately for Blacks, sometimes the mob was not satisfied to murder a single or several victims. Instead, in the spirit of pogroms, the mobs went into Black communities and destroyed additional lives and property. Their immediate goal was to drive out -- through death or expulsion -- all Blacks; the larger goal was to maintain, at all costs, White supremacy. These pogrom-like actions are often referred to as riots; however, Gunnar Myrdal was right when he described these "riots" as "a terrorization or massacre...a mass lynching."7 Interestingly, these mass lynchings were primarily urban phenomena, whereas the lynching of single victims was primarily a rural phenomenon.
James Weldon Johnson, the famous Black writer, labeled 1919 as "The Red Summer." It was red from racial tension; it was red from bloodletting. During the summer of 1919, there were race riots in Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; and two dozen other citizens. W.E.B. DuBois, the Black social scientist and civil rights activist, wrote: "During that year seventy-seven Negroes were lynched, of whom one was a woman and eleven were soldiers; of these, fourteen were publicly burned, eleven of them being burned alive. That year there were race riots large and small in twenty-six American cities including thirty-eight killed in a Chicago riot of August; from twenty-five to fifty in Phillips County, Arkansas; and six killed in Washington."8
The riots of 1919 were not the first or last "mass lynchings" of Blacks, as evidenced by the race riots in Wilmington, North Carolina (1898); Atlanta, Georgia (1906); Springfield, Illinois (1908); East St. Louis, Illinois (1917); Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921); and Detroit, Michigan (1943). Joseph Boskin, author of Urban Racial Violence, claimed that the riots of the 1900s had the following traits: In each of the race riots, with few exceptions, it was White people that sparked the incident by attacking Black people.
In the majority of the riots, some extraordinary social condition prevailed at the time of the riot: prewar social changes, wartime mobility, post-war adjustment, or economic depression. The majority of the riots occurred during the hot summer months. Rumor played an extremely important role in causing many riots. Rumors of some criminal activity by Blacks against Whites perpetuated the actions of the White mobs.
The police force, more than any other institution, was invariably involved as a precipitating cause or perpetuating factor in the riots. In almost every one of the riots, the police sided with the attackers, either by actually participating in, or by failing to quell the attack.
In almost every instance, the fighting occurred within the Black community.9 Boskin omitted the following: the mass media, especially newspapers often published inflammatory articles about "Black criminals" immediately before the riots; Blacks were not only killed, but their homes and businesses were looted, and many who did not flee were left homeless; and, the goal of the White rioters, as was true of White lynchers of single victims, was to instill fear and terror into Blacks, thereby buttressing White domination. The Jim Crow hierarchy could not work without violence being used against those on the bottom rung.
George Fredrickson, a historian, stated it this way: "Lynching represented...a way of using fear and terror to check 'dangerous' tendencies in a black community considered to be ineffectively regimented or supervised. As such it constituted a confession that the regular institutions of a segregated society provided an inadequate measure of day-to-day control."10 Many Blacks resisted the indignities of Jim Crow, and, far too often, they paid for their bravery with their lives.
By Dr. David Pilgrim
Professor of Sociology
Ferris State University
September 2000
1 Kennedy, Stetson. Jim Crow Guide: The Way It Was. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University Press, 1959/1990, pp.216-117.
2 This list was derived from a larger list composed by the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site Interpretive Staff. Last Updated January 5, 1998. The web address is: ttp//www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim crowlaws.htm.
3 Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma. New York: 1944, pp. 560-561.
4 Myrdal, op. cit., .561.
5 Ibid., pp.561-562.
6 Arthur. A. Rapier, The Tragedy of Lynching. Chapel Hill, 1933, pp.13-14.
7 Myrdal, op.cit., p.566.
8 W.E.B. Dubois, Originally in Dust of Dawn. Cited here from DuBois: Writings, Nathan Huggins (editor). New York: Viking Press, 1986, p.747.
9 Joseph Boskin, Urban Racial Violence. Beverly Hills, 1976, pp.14-15.
10 George M. Fredrickson, The Black Image In The White Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny 1817-1914. New York: Harper & Row, 1971, p.272.
http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/what.htm
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action
S. Plous
Wesleyan University 
The following essay appeared in an issue of the Journal of Social Issues entitled "The Affirmative Action Debate: What's Fair in Policy and Programs?" (Winter 1996; Volume 52, Issue 4, pp. 25-31). Feel free to download, print, cite, circulate, or add web links to the essay, but please include appropriate citation information when doing so.
|
During the past year, affirmative action has been debated more intensely than at any other time in its 30-year history. Many supporters view affirmative action as a milestone, many opponents see it as a millstone, and many others regard it as both or neither -- as a necessary, but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease. My own view is that the case against affirmative action is weak, resting, as it does so heavily, on myth and misunderstanding. Here are some of the most popular myths about affirmative action, along with a brief commentary on each one:
|
|
|
|
Myth #1: The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.
|
|
Although this assertion sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not eliminate racial injustice -- they reinforce it.
|
|
|
|
Myth #2: Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation.
|
|
Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (see Murrell & Jones, this issue, for an overview). For example, according to a recent report from the Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of noncontractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). 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.
|
|
|
|
Myth #3: Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today.
|
|
Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 72 cents for every male dollar. Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, half the median family income, and half the proportion who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1 below). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students on many campuses would drop below 2%. This would effectively choke off Black access to higher education and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.
|
|
Figure 1. Despite Black gains in median family income and the number of students attending college during the past 25 years, the ratio of White-to-Black advantage has remained virtually unchanged with respect to several common standard-of-living indices (based on data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1984, 1994). |
|
|
|
Myth #4: The public doesn't support affirmative action anymore.
|
|
This myth is based largely on public opinion polls that offer an all-or-none choice between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever. When intermediate choices are added, surveys show that most people want to maintain some form of affirmative action (see Table 1 below). For example, a recent Time/CNN poll found that 80% of the public felt "affirmative action programs for minorities and women should be continued at some level" (Roper Center, 1995a). What the public opposes are quotas, set asides, and "reverse discrimination." For instance, when the same poll asked people whether they favored programs "requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women," 63% opposed such a plan. As these results suggest, most members of the public oppose extreme forms of affirmative action that violate notions of procedural justice -- they do not oppose affirmative action itself.
|
|
Table 1. Survey Results Suggesting the Public Wants to Reform Rather Than Eliminate Affirmative Action
|
|
|
Item |
n |
Responses in % |
|
In your view, should federal affirmative action programs that give preference to women and minorities be continued as they are, be continued but reformed to prevent reverse discrimination, or should they be ended? [NBC News/Wall Street Journal--8/95] |
1005 |
Kept as they are: 13
Kept but reformed: 57
Ended: 26
Not sure: 4 |
|
What is your view of affirmative action today--it is fundamentally flawed and needs to be eliminated, it is good in principle but needs to be reformed, or it is basically fine the way it is? [Gallup--7/95] |
1208 |
Needs elimination: 22
Needs reform: 61
Fine the way it is: 9
Don't know: 9 |
|
What do you think the federal government should do with its affirmative action programs...eliminate all of them, eliminate many of them, keep many of them, or keep all of them? [Gallup-7/95] |
801 |
Eliminate all: 11
Eliminate/keep many: 67
Keep all: 10
Don't know: 11 |
|
If you had to choose, would you rather see the federal government's affirmative action programs mended--that is, changed in certain ways--or ended altogether? [Time/CNN--7/95] |
1000 |
Mended: 65
Ended: 24
Kept as is (volunteered):1
Not sure: 10 |
|
What about affirmative action programs that set quotas... Do you favor affirmative action programs with quotas, or do you favor affirmative action programs only without quotas, or do you oppose all affirmative action programs? [Associated Press--7/95] |
1006 |
Favor with quotas: 16
Favor without quotas: 47
Oppose all: 28
Don't know: 9 | | |
|
|
|
Myth #5: A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued.
|
|
Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the Commerce Department, there are fewer than 2 million unemployed Black civilians and more than 100 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker were to displace a White worker, less than 2 percent of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1 percent. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995).
|
|
|
|
Myth #6: If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.
|
|
This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, have immigrated to North America -- often as doctors, lawyers, professors, entrepreneurs, and so forth. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face.
|
|
|
|
Myth #7: You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.
|
|
The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.
|
|
|
|
Myth #8: Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities.
|
|
Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a recent Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt that others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center, 1995c). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).
|
|
|
|
Myth #9: Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.
|
|
In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned seven different presidential administrations -- four Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, despite the current split along party lines, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Myth #10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.
|
Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:
 Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center, 1995d).
Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.
Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.
Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979).
Even though these selection procedures occasionally blend into one another (due in part to the difficulty of comparing incommensurable records), a few general observations can be made. First, of the four different procedures, the selection of women and minority members among equal or roughly comparable candidates has the greatest public support, adheres most closely to popular conceptions of procedural justice, and reduces the chances that affirmative action beneficiaries will be perceived as unqualified or undeserving (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994). Second, the selection of women and minority members among unequal candidates -- used routinely in college admissions -- has deeply divided the nation (with the strongest opposition coming from White males and conservative voters). And finally, the selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. By distinguishing among these four different selection procedures, it becomes clear that opposition to stronger selection procedures need not imply opposition to milder ones. What is needed, I would argue, is less of an effort to caricature affirmative action and more of an effort to discuss which of its many forms are beneficial.
References
Bureau of National Affairs. (1979). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Washington, DC: Author.
Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. (1984, June). Affirmative action to open the doors of job opportunity. Washington, DC: Author.
Ezorsky, G. (1991) Racism and justice: The case for affirmative action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1994). Effects of sex-based preferential selection and discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47, 133-157.
Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.
Ivins, M. (1995, February 23). Affirmative action is more than black-and-white issue. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 28.
Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 928-938.
Nacoste, R. W. (1985). Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 225-242.
Reverse discrimination of whites is rare, labor study reports. (1995, March 31). New York Times, p. A23.
Roper Center for Public Opinion -- POLL Database (Question IDs: USYANKP.95007.Q21 and USYANKP.95007.Q18A). [Electronic database]. (1995a). Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion [Producer and Distributor].
Roper Center for Public Opinion -- POLL Database (Question IDs: USNBCWSJ.080495.R20C, USGALLUP.95JL20.R24, USGALLUP.95JUL7.R27, and USYANKP.072195.R24B). [Electronic database]. (1995b). Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion [Producer and Distributor].
Roper Center for Public Opinion -- POLL Database (Question ID: USGALLUP.95MRW1.R31). [Electronic database]. (1995c). Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion [Producer and Distributor].
Roper Center for Public Opinion -- POLL Database (Question ID: USGALLUP.95MRW1.R32). [Electronic database]. (1995d). Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion [Producer and Distributor].
Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character: A new vision of race in America (pp. 111-125). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Taylor, M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143-178.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43-69.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1984). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1984 (104th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1994 (114th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wilkins, R. (1995, May). Racism has its privileges: The case for affirmative action. The Nation, pp. 409-410, 412, 414-416. 
Return to Links on Affirmative Action
|
|
|
