First, affirmative action actually strengths an organisation’s claim to be meritocratic. The status quo already favours certain people. The structural barriers that were erected against marginalised groups, such as not being able to vote, work in many professions or enter university, have contributed to the inequality that we see today. The philosophy underpinning a sensible affirmative-action policy should be that of restorative justice.
The second argument is expediency. Affirmative action is not always necessary, or the best way to achieve equal representation. However, it is the quickest. Alternative strategies can take years or even decades to create institutions that truly reflect the societies they serve. It is unfair to tell those who have already faced discrimination that they have to wait longer until they can finally have an equal shot at success. At Oxford University, the number of successful applicants identifying as black has risen from 1.1% in 2013 to 1.9% in 2017. That is commendable progress, but it is shocking that one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015. Affirmative action could be a speedier remedy.
What about the argument that affirmative action reduces quality? The evidence doesn’t support this. The work of Mary Nugent and Mona Lena Krook found that rather than diminishing the quality of the intake of politicians in Britain, the Labour Party’s all-women shortlists (AWS) have led to the selection of high-calibre candidates who are much more engaged, for instance, by asking more parliamentary questions, than their non-AWS colleagues.
Another common argument against quotas is that they are patronising to the very groups they aim to help. Again, if affirmative action is framed as a push towards a more meritocratic playing field, rather than a leg-up above it, it needn’t cause resentment and feelings of belittlement. Of course, there might be circumstances where there is almost unanimous agreement amongst a group of potential beneficiaries that an affirmative-action policy would do them a disservice. In that situation, a different type of policy might be preferable.
