Wise. Tim J.. (2005). Affirmative action: Racial preference in black and white. Reviewed by Sharon Yee, Arizona State University

Wise. Tim J.. (2005). Affirmative action: Racial preference in black and white. N.Y: Routledge. Pp. vii + 196 $17.95   ISBN 0-415-95049-X Reviewed by Sharon Yee Arizona State University April 29, 2006 Affirmative action is a hotly debated and often misunderstood policy. According to Zack (1998, p. 49), “affirmative action is a proactive attempt to correct inequalities due to race by affirming, or taking positive action for, those who are disadvantaged on the grounds of race.” Often critics of affirmative action forget that it was originally intended to rectify past discrimination based on race through public policy. In Affirmative action: Racial preference in black and white, Tim Wise takes a unique approach to analyzing affirmative action policy by demonstrating that it is Whites, not racial minorities, who benefit most from racial preference in education. This book was written to provide the reader with “a clear, social justice-oriented defense of affirmative action” (Wise, 2005, p. 9). He organized his arguments into four different sections: Affirmative Action Past and Present, White Racial Preference in Education, Responding to Critics of Affirmative Action, Defending Affirmative Action: It’s About More Than Diversity. Chapter 1: Affirmative Action Past and Present This chapter provides the reader with historical context, statistics, and rationales as to why affirmative action policies need to be improved. Wise claims that affirmative action was created in response to white racial privilege and that it is important to understand the roots thereof: “If anything, although they have served as important reforms, affirmative action efforts have not gone nearly far enough, in light of how American’s political, economic, and educational hierarchies remain so completely white dominated, as will be seen” (p. 11). Understanding white racial privilege permits the historical efforts of people of color to be seen as not antagonistic, but rather as a response to a non-color blind meritocracy. Wise begins this first chapter by calling for affirmative action initiatives to go further to reduce white racial preference and provides examples as to why this would be necessary by assessing the job market. Through the support of multiple statistics, Wise concludes that wage gaps at all age levels exist between people of color and Whites despite controlling for similar background characteristics. His analysis begins with contractors. The Office of Federal contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) “is charged with monitoring affirmative action efforts” for contractors, however Wise provides startling statistics on the different ways that white racial preference can be seen in the contracting industry through governmental funding and bank loans for both racial minorities and White women. His main argument is that “affirmative action’s biggest problem is that it has not done enough [emphasis in original text] to root out white racial preference in the job market” (p.26). Wise also discusses the historical background of white racial preference. He begins with incidents in 1690 and progresses throughout history to show incidents of white racial preference in well known American historical government documents including the Constitution of the United States and the Homestead Act of 1862. Housing discrimination also is examined in this chapter. Wise claims that housing acts were created by Whites and excluded people of color since there was a belief that neighborhood stability only came from having residences that were homogeneous in race and social class. Wise concludes this chapter by exploring the concept of “reverse discrimination.” He summarizes numerous statistics with the conclusion that “most Whites today reject the notion that the government should play any role in preventing discrimination, let alone enforcing affirmative action laws” (p. 35). He also briefly explores the affirmative action claims filed with the EEOC and concludes that the majority are filed by people of color, not Whites. Wise draws the reader back to the crux of the argument which is white privilege in education. He claims that due to longstanding barriers encountered by African Americans in attempts to acquire capital, they are less likely than Whites to inherit or otherwise benefit from family wealth. Moreover, he cites several studies that have concluded that racial gaps in inherited assets exist and that “Whites are between 2.2 and 3 times more likely than Blacks to receive an inheritance or other from of intergenerational wealth transfer, and that the average value of inheritances received by Whites is as much as 3.6 times higher” than that of African Americans (p. 34). He also writes that “the typical [W]hite family has wealth and net worth that is nearly eleven times that of the typical [B]lack family, and eight times higher than the typical Latino/a family” (p. 34). This gap in family wealth allows White families to have a higher income and thus potentially send their children to a better school or have more disposable income to purchase educational resources for their children. Chapter 2: White Racial Preference in Education Chapter 2 explores the ways that Whites receive preferential treatment in the education system through economic means, tracking, discipline, and language. Wise claims that education is not the common equalizer, but rather serves to maintain and reinforce hierarchical divisions among both races and classes (p.38). He provides historical accounts of how former Presidents of the United States have assisted in the segregation of education for some and not for others, and claims that the educational system is still unequal. There is a gap in the educational quality received between students of color and White students, which increases from the time they are in elementary school to the time they attend college, if they attend. One of the reasons for this gap is the unequal funding per student that schools receive. According to Wise, minority schools can have up to $1,000 per student less than non-minority schools (p. 46). This disparity in funds per student often results from funding based on property taxes, and therefore poorer districts can loose around $30,000 per classroom in resources, such as less qualified or unlicensed teachers and lack of supplies for students, when compared with wealthier districts, thus disadvantaging those of low socioeconomic status and racial minorities. The issue of tracking in schools is also explored. Wise discusses detrimental effects of tracking on low socioeconomic students and students of color: “Ostensibly to provide the most advanced students with the most challenging material and less advanced students with material they are capable of learning, so-called ability tracking plays out in a blatantly racist and classist fashion, depriving capable students of color and poor students of all colors of challenging educational opportunities, while elevating [W]hites to positions of academic dominance” (p. 50). He points out that through tracking the low-track students are taught to be good, conforming employees who have had their self-esteem and self confidence muted through low expectations of teachers, schools counselors, and administration. Thus begins a self-fulfilling prophesy for these students. On the other hand, high-achieving students are made more attractive to colleges though inflated Grade Point Averages, and they receive more time spent actually being taught by the teachers: “High-track English teachers also assign three times more homework, on average, than their low-track counterparts, and high-track math teachers assign forty percent more homework than those teaching lower-track math” (p. 54). Wise also explores the way that white privilege has infiltrated the educational superstructure in covert ways. Teachers are predominately White. They also hold different cultural values and can be racist: “even more disturbing than the low expectations teachers often have for students of color, one survey actually found a remarkably high percentage (twenty-six percent) of high school science teachers, ninety-four percent of whom are white, saying that it was either ‘definitely true’ or ‘probably true’ that ‘some races are more intelligent than others’” (p. 55). He claims that there are cultural differences in learning styles as well as interactions. He concludes that schools serve to reinforce the learning styles and cultural values of interaction of White students. White students even have the privilege of being disciplined less often than African American students, because the teacher’s “experiences in life (and likely in their own schooling), have been nothing like those of lower-income [B]lack and Latino/a students; as such, they may not be able to read the behaviors or attitudes of children of color properly” and thus punish them for not being “normal” (p. 56). Moreover, the language used in schools to describe minority and poor students, such as “underprivileged” and “at risk,” serves to maintain White privilege. Some coping mechanisms to combat racism in schools have been implemented, yet still reinforce White privilege. Although some teachers try to account for the racial discrimination in schools by treating all students the same, it often is to the detriment of the minority students as they do not have the same experiences as White students. Often minority students’ experiences are quickly dismissed and ignored. Multicultural programs also have good intentions yet do not question norm assumptions, but rather provide students with an activity to learn about an exotic “other.” Chapter 3: Responding to Critics of Affirmative Action Wise tackles three different critiques of affirmative action in education. The first critique is of the myth of reverse discrimination where Whites claim that people of color are usurping their slots in college admissions. He refutes this argument with statistics and studies that this may only be the case at elite institutions. Even at these institutions, racial minorities are admitted at such low rates that their numbers are hardly a significant threat to Whites. Even the suspension of affirmative action would only increase the White applicant’s chance of admission by 1.2 percent. Wise also shows that Whites benefit the most from preferential treatment since “legacy admissions” (children or relatives of alumni) often receive preferential admission status. Wise concludes his assessment of this myth with a critical analysis of the two University of Michigan court cases. The second critique is of the myth of lower standards and unqualified people gaining admission to collegiate programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Wise addresses the belief that African Americans have lower standardized test scores. One reason for the differential gaps is the socioeconomic status of the family: “Studies have shown that for every $10,000 less that a student’s family earns relative to another student’s family, the first student will, on average, receive fifteen fewer points on the SAT” (p.93). Secondly, Wise provides evidence as to why the SAT is not a good measure of academic preparedness because it does not have to do with one’s ability. In fact, “the correlation between SAT scores and overall four-year college grades or graduation rates has been so low that it is essentially nonexistent, explaining no more than three percent of the difference between any two students, even as the makers of the test admit” (p. 94). Thirdly, critics of affirmative action claim that students entering under these policies are under prepared and “over their head” academically, which Wise refutes by citing social imbalances, such as campus climate, and statistics for historically Black college and university graduation rates. Wise also discusses the concept of stereotype threat and the impact it has on African American performance, which is shaped by the external stigmas, racism, access to resources, and financial family background. Fourth, Wise provides an explanation of why there are racial gaps in the SAT, claiming that they are due to the way the exam is designed. Lastly, he claims that students who are “legacy admits” are the ones who benefit the most from special admissions, yet critics tend to ignore this type of affirmative action as it typically benefits the white, affluent community. Finally, racial stigma myths are discussed. One argument claims that the beneficiaries of affirmative action will become stigmatized by the knowledge of preference, either received or perceived. Wise refutes this claim by arguing that if proponents of this argument are so concerned about the psychological well-being of individuals who receive preferential treatment, then they should also be concerned about the well-being of “legacy admits” who are admitted based on their parent’s alumni status. Moreover, he claims that “twelve percent of African Americans support reducing or eliminating affirmative action, while fifty-three percent actually want to increase (emphasis in the original) affirmative action efforts” (p. 126). He also critiques the “model minority” myth. This myth plays off Asians against other minorities unfairly due to statistical manipulations taken out of context. Social and historical contexts need to be considered when analyzing this myth, which Wise does. The last racial stigma myth that Wise critiques deals with the idea of Black cultural deficiencies and anti-intellectualism cultural values. Wise looks at socioeconomic influences, and concludes that Whites and Blacks have roughly the same disparities when these factors, as well as parental marital status, are controlled for. On average, Black families tend to spend more time enforcing educational values than Whites or Asians, and Black students have a stronger commitment to educational attainment and success than their White counterparts. Chapter 4: Defending Affirmative Action: It’s About More Than Diversity Wise concludes his book with a critical analysis of the “diversity defense” used by those who support affirmative action. Wise claims this defense weakens the need for affirmative action because it focuses on how affirmative action benefits those who are already in power. This defense does not address racism, as it should, but rather ignores, helping to reinforce the notion that those receiving affirmative action are the “other” rather than also part of the norm. The “other” should serve to educate the “norm” about their cultural values and how the norm can benefit from this knowledge, experience, and interaction. This maintains the status quo by keeping the norm in control over the “other” (hooks, 2000). Likewise, although studies have shown that people enjoy diversity, those same people do not necessarily support affirmative action. Wise concludes this chapter and the book by calling for a new defense of affirmative action where racism and social context are at the crux of the defense. Concluding Remarks Wise, does a superb job of making his point and then providing ample evidence, both legal and statistical, to support it. He also provides hypothetical situations to support his arguments and challenges readers to question their own assumptions. Although the hypothetical situations are helpful, at times they were a bit abstract, wordy, and hard to follow. For example, he suggested a way that SAT scores could be used for admissions decisions: Indeed, top scorers on the SAT should be admitted first at all but the least (emphasis in the original) selective schools, where they should only be let in after students scoring 199 to 499 points lower. Low scorers, on the other hand, should be admitted last at the top and bottom levels of selectivity, but in the middle tiers of selectivity, they should actually be chosen ahead of applicants who scored 199 to 299 points higher. As if these configurations were not bizarre enough, middle-range scorers (1100 to 1199) should be accepted first at the least selective schools, last in the medium-selectivity schools, and next to last in the top schools, after those applicants scoring as many as 199 points below them. (pp. 108-109) Wise’s critiques are often hard hitting and well documented. However, his critique of the “model minority” for Asians was flawed. He paints a glamorous picture of Asian immigration, claiming that Asians who were socially desirable, such as those with college degrees, were able to come to the U.S (p. 131). However, he fails to account for illegal immigration of Asians and the complete historical context of Asians. Asians had to work hard to overcome racism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Chinese men were brought to the U.S. to build the railroads across America, and their family ties were given no consideration as they “were treated as individual units of labor” (Glenn & Yap, 1994, p. 118). African Americans were also treated as commodities rather than people, yet Wise fails to account for this similarity, thus romanticizing Asian immigration issues. Wise’s book can deepen the reader’s understanding of the impact of affirmative action in education. It would be appropriate for both the graduate or undergraduate level as it is written at a level that is appropriate for both scholars and laypeople. He sprinkles historical evidence to provide the reader with a more comprehensive background to the problem as well as to the solution. Wise is a well respected activist scholar. He is the Director for the White Anti-Racist Education Association and the Race and Ethnicity Editor for LiP magazine, which is a radical media magazine. References Glen, E. N. & Yap, S. G. H. (1994). Chinese American Families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the united states: A multicultural perspective (pp. 115-145). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Zack, N. (1998). Thinking about race. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. About the Reviewer Sharon Yee is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program at Arizona State University. She is currently the Project Manager for the Paul Robeson Research Center for Academics and Athletics at Arizona State University. Her research interests revolve around the intersections of race, class, gender, and athletics in higher education. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.