Table Of ContentIn Defense of
Affirmative
Action
"Barljara Bergmann cuts throuoh tlie
nonsense and obfuscation swirlinii aionnd
this debate and replaces i—t with good old
common sense.' Susan Fahidi
BARBARA BERGMANN
R.
In Defense of
Affirmative
Action
BARBARA BERGMANN
R.
ANewRepublicBook
BasicBooks
ADivisionofHarperCollins/'«Wis/?ers
©
Copyright 1996 by BasicBooks,
ADivision ofHarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States ofAmerica. No part of
this book may be reproduced in anymannerwhatsoeverwithoutwritten
permission except in the case ofbriefquotations embodied in critical
articles and reviews. Forinformation,address BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd
Street, NewYork,NY 10022-5299.
DesignedbyElliottBeard
LibraryofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bergmann, Barbara R.
In defense ofaffirmative action / BarbaraR. Bergmann.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN0-465-09833 9 (cloth)
ISBN 0-465-09834-7 (paper)
—
1.Affimiative action programs—Tnited States. 2. Minorities
Emplovment -Government policy—United States. I.Title.
HF5549.5.A34B47 1996
331.13'30973 dc20 95-40201
CIP
/RRD
97 9899 00 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To the two white men I know best,
my husband Fred and my son David,
who want a world better than the one we have
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
one Thinking about Affirmative Action 1
two Is Discrimination a Thing ofthe Past? 32
three How Exckision Occurs 62
four Goals: SpUtting the Pie 83
five Thinking about Fairness 98
CONTENTS
viii
six Does Affirmative Action Hurt
Its Intended Beneficiaries? 131
seven Opinions Pro and Con 149
eight Alternatives to Affirmative Action 166
Notes 181
Index 199
Acknowledgments
i hanks are due to Robert Post,
Harriet Baber, Fred Bergmann, Faye Crosby, Fred Graham, Mary
Gray, Heidi Hartmann, Emily Hoffnar, JuHe Nelson, Bernice San-
dler,Air Force Lt. C. Smith, SandraTangri, and Carol Ullman, all
ofwhom read parts ofthe manuscript in its various incarnations.
Some of the material in chapter 7 previously appeared in
"Probingthe Opposition toAffirmativeAction," Gender, Work, and
Organization 2, no. 2 (April 1995), and is reprinted with permis-
sion.The photograph on p. 140, © 1991 by the WashingtonPost, is
reprinted with permission.
Thinking about Affirmative Action
W
hen Bill Clinton was campaign-
ing forthe presidency in 1992 as the candidate ofthe Democratic
Party,he promisedto appointacabinetthat"looked likeAmerica."
At the time Clinton made his rather poetic promise, nobody,
including his political enemies, spoke out against it. Nobody said
that attempting to fulfill that promise would be a bad idea.
A cabinetthat really looks like theAmerican labor force would
have six ofits fourteen seats filled by white and minority women
k and two of its seats filled by minority men. As Clinton's cabinet
selection process was approaching its end in early 1993, only two
ofthe appointments had gone to women. Feminist organizations,
1
2 IN DEFENSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
concerned that women would again be restricted to the marginal
role they had played in all previous administrations, urged pub-
licly that more women be appointed. Women reporters at Clin-
ton's news conferences kept asking him about it.
This pressure provoked an angry outburst from Clinton. He
said that those pressing him to appoint more women were "play-
ing quota games" with the selection process, implying in his
response that he himselfdisapproved ofquotas. The truth, how-
ever, was that Clinton did want to appoint more women than his
predecessors had, and he had apparently decided that three was
the number he wanted. Many reasonable people would call that
"setting up a quota," since Clinton was trying to appoint women
to apredetermined numberofslots.Atthatpoint,with fewvacan-
cies left, the simplest and most practical way to ensure the
appointment ofa third woman was to earmark one ofthe remain-
ing slots for a woman.That Clinton had done so became nakedly
obvious when his first female candidate for the office ofattorney
general ran into trouble. He then putforward a second woman for
thejob and discarded herin turnwhen a problem arose. His third
woman candidate was appointed and confirmed. She, like the
other two, was obviously capable, qualified, and experienced. But
bythattime itwas clearthat Clinton had not been lookingfor the
"best person" for the post of attorney general without regard to
sex or race—he had been looking for the "best woman."
The Clinton cabinet episode raises questions that always arise
when attempts are made to increase the gender and racial diver-
THINKING ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 3
sitv in any group of employees. One fundamental question is
whether diversitN ofsex or race or ethnicity in the cabinet was a
worthy and important goal. How much harm would have been
done if Clinton had appointed a cabinet consisting entirely or
almost entirely ofwhite males.^ He might simply have explained
that each cabinet officer he appointed was, in his honest opinion,
the best he could select from the wide range ofcandidates ofboth
sexes and all ethnic and racial groups that he had considered.
Would real harm have been done to the country's interests?
Inthinkingabout that,we can note that presidents have always
taken care to see that all geographic regions are well represented
in the cabinet. Seeking that kind of diversity is not considered
wrong;itis thought ofasjust beingfairto all sections ofthe coun-
try. People in the West would be surprised and suspicious and
hurt ifthe cabinet turned out to contain only people from east of
the Mississippi. Clinton's selection ofa cabinet that was markedly
short of women and minorities would have done something far
worse—it would have dealt a major setback to the pride and sta-
tus of people in those groups. It would have strengthened the
hand ofthose who think women, blacks, and other minorities do
bestinthejobs theyhave traditionallyheld and should staythere.
A second question is whether Clinton could have succeeded in
assemblingareasonablydiversecabinetwithoutsettingup numer-
ical goals by race and sex. Could he have avoided a cabinet that
was completely or almost completely composed of white males
without paying attention to the race and sex ofthe candidates as
