本周，我们的话题是平权法案，我们认为我们应该关注的问题是，平权法案是太少还是太多，“太少还是太多什么?“你问。它带来的种族公正太少了吗?因为它做得还不够远吗?或者它带来了太多的种族仇恨——因为它走得太远了?我担心正确的答案可能是两者兼而有之。平权法案还没有开始成为实现种族公正的充分工具，但是，尽管如此，它产生了比它应得的更多的种族仇恨。

但并不总是如此，正如最初设想的那样，它的设计是为了克服过去种族歧视的影响，当时黑人经常被告知他们不需要申请。它是对1964年《民权法案》(Civil Rights Act)要求的补充和实现，该法案一举宣布歧视为非法。但是，即使法律说，“从今以后，将不再有进一步的歧视”，你也不能仅凭一笔就消除几十年来种族不公正的挥之不去的影响。这就是肯定行动的作用。

Many people now think of a affirmative action as a form of reverse discrimination, as a system in which whites and blacks are not held to the same standards, in which a less qualified black person can be hired or admitted over a more qualified white person – all in the name of racial diversity, And they complain that whatever the racial sins of the past, two racial wrongs don't make a racial right.

But reverse discrimination was never the idea! The point was to level the playing field. Institutions had to “act affirmatively” to ensure that their candidate pools included previously excluded minorities. The idea was to actively seek them out, to openly welcome them, and to allow them to compete on fair and equal terms with whites. This idea has, I think, simply become part of our employment and admissions DNA. Nobody would think of going back to the old days, when you had to be part of a good old boys club to get a job or a spot in a prestigious university.

But there is no denying that affirmative action has evolved considerably from its initial beginnings. What started out as a tool for ameliorating the effects of past discrimination has become more of a tool for increasing diversity, at least somewhat independent of explicit discrimination. In its earliest form, affirmative action was more e focused on fair and open processes and making sure that they are not infected with bias. In its latter form, it has tended to focus on actual results. It’s this more recent approach to affirmative action, I think, that causes all the political and emotional turmoil over affirmative action. It’s certainly harder to justify. And the resistance and resentment it sometimes engenders is hardly surprising, I’d say.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking diversity. Diversity is a very good thing. If we’re given two equally qualified candidates, one of whom adds diversity and the other doesn’t, of course, we should choose the candidate that adds some diversity. But how far should we take this reasoning? Should diversity only be used to break ties? Or should it diversity be regarded as a positive qualification, all on its own. If so, how many points should you get just for being black or being a woman. Unfortunately, start thinking this way, and you’ll quickly get to something that goes against the idea of equality and starts to sound a little like reverse discrimination. The problem is that there seems to be a degree of tension between diversity and merit. If there wasn’t we could just select on the basis of merit and let the diversity take care of itself. But clearly we can't do that – or at least the practice of Affirmative Action seems to presume that we can’t.

也许我们可以从另一个角度来看待它。或许，我们应该在普遍存在隐性偏见的背景下考虑平权行动。也许它能帮助我们避免这种偏见。假设我们做一个小实验。我们给了两个招聘委员会，两份几乎相同的简历——它们之间只有一个微小的、无关紧要的差异。其中一个有一个听起来很有盎格鲁味道的名字——比如杰森。另一位有一个听起来很像非洲裔美国人的名字——贾马尔。这不重要，不是吗?名字到底有什么意义?但现在，关于隐性偏见的肮脏小秘密已经被公开了。 In set up after set up like this, it turns out that the candidate with the black sounding name will be judged to be less qualified than the candidate with the Anglo sounding name. Same for female names. Same for Hispanic names.

据我所知，还没有人试图为平权法案辩护，理由是它将帮助我们免受隐性偏见的影响。但你可以看到这样的争论是如何进行的。人们曾经希望，如果我们有公平的程序和标准，积极寻找被排除在外的人，一切最终都会好起来。我们可能都不需要平权法案了。但普遍存在的内隐偏见的事实表明，我们永远无法克服歧视，无论我们多么努力。重点不在于人们一定会更喜欢自己的同类。关键是，即使我们努力做到客观公正，内隐偏见的现象也表明，我们可能注定会失败。我们永远不能真正确定我们没有被自己的偏见所控制，或者我们在诚实地应用公平、公平和客观的标准。

但如果我们不能真正相信自己的判断，那我们该怎么办呢?没完没了的辩论，诉讼和种族分裂?这就是为什么加州决定少数族裔学生甚至不能接受智商测试，因为担心他们无意中受到歧视。我完全不相信平权法案真的能帮助我们对抗隐性偏见。但也许值得一试。其他一切似乎都不起作用。但是，嘿，没有人能保证实现真正的种族公正会很容易。