The rather diffuse basis for continuing such affirmative programmatic policies in the continuing fostering of development involves an almost Orwellian manipulation of terms such that we create a process, where, although clearly not allowed to function in an overt and systemic fashion, racist policies are fostered by the creation of a series of policies that are so subtle that it is at first difficult to realize that they are racism. But since these processes have not achieved the desired result of programmatic pressures to diversify we can be certain, even in the absence of the most remote form of empirical proof, that a subtle form of racism is functioning:

Subtle discrimination is made up of covert, ephemeral, or apparently trivial events that are frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator and often not evident to the person injured by them. By definition they are not legally actionable; they happen wherever people are perceived to be "different." These "microinequities" interfere with equal opportunity by excluding the person who is different and by interfering with that person's self-confidence and productivity.


Indeed, the difficult here is that this covert and subtle racism which is such a negligible force that it cannot even be perceived enough to be proven or litigated in a court of law. It is this sort of racism that confronts in public education today where very few traces of perceivable racism remain except in a few minor vestiges that will most certainly serve to lead to some outrageous lawsuit resulting in a massive settlement. Indeed, it is against this sort of racism that we must battle; we should not assume, as we tend to do with so many other logical things, that, simply because there is absolutely no evidence for this form of racism that it does not exist. No, we cannot let ourselves be bound by "logic." What cannot bend to the dictates of "what is reasonable" even if it is the only conclusion that "makes sense." Instead, we must willfully cling to this abstract construction that, empirically, might be viewed as the most fanciful chimera in order to continue to legitimate our system that realizes that meritocracy can never be places above progrmatic diversification, regardless of the effects.

Indeed, it is not acceptable to s suggest that the process of integration is a slow one that takes a good deal of social time and that this might be the reason why diversification proceeds at a slower rate then we would like. No, clearly subtle racism is the answer here, and it is upon the presumed existence of this never observed phenomenon that we can base the reasonability of affirmative action:

Gary Orfield, in a sweeping survey of higher education in the past 30 years, asks for a renewed commitment to equity and access. Ruben Navarrette, Jr., and Michael A. Olivas remind us why affirmative action was necessary. In so doing, they show some of the errors of its opponents. Jeftrey F. Milem and Helen S. Astin, using survey data, suggest that our work for equity has produced an ironic result: affirmative action, broadly defined as a quest for equity, has significantly changed faculty minds but not faculty hiring practices. Specific disciplines and institutions might wish to test this finding.


Thus, we must continue to see the benefits raised by the process of Affirmative Action and ignore its negative components, such as tokenism or a tendency to accredit all minority accomplishment to an uneven playing field. It is more important to enforce diversity and make reparations for the United State's past crimes, rather than to listed to the dictates of so-called common sense and logic.


Doyle, Rebecca. "Students Express Views on Racism, Discrimination." The University

Record. Retrieved December 2, 2003, at


Rowe, Mary. "Fostering Diversity: Some Major Hurdles Remain." Retrieved December 2, 2003 at

Stimpson, Catherine. "Rethinking Affirmative Action." Retrieved November 2, 2003, at