Affirmative Action for the Future

4. A Defense of Outreach Affirmative Action

4 A Defense of Outreach Affirmative Action Outreach affirmative action is easily the most defensible form of af- firmative action. Even strong critics, like Louis Pojman, Thomas Sowell, and Carl Cohen defend this particular form of affirmative action. Thus, Pojman supports what he calls “weak affirmative action,” which includes the “widespread advertisement to groups not previously represented in certain privileged positions.” Similarly, Sowell holds that Racial discrimination is [an] obvious area where merely to “cease and desist” is not enough. If a firm has engaged in racial discrimination for years and has an all-white force as a result, then simply to stop explicit discrimination will mean little as long as the firm continues to hire its current employees’ friends and relatives through word of mouth referrals....Clearly, the area of racial discrimination is one in which positive or affirmative steps of some kind seem reasonable.1 There is also considerable evidence that outreach affirmative action is needed. Social scientists have discovered that many employers tend to A Defense of Outreach Affirmative Action 37 recruit selectively and informally, directing their efforts at neighborhoods, institutions, and media outlets that have small minority populations or constituencies.2 For instance, in one study of Chicago area employers, it was found that in an effort to screen potential applicants, employers engaged in a variety of race-neutral recruitment mechanisms that had the effect of “disproportionately screen[ing] out inner-city blacks.”3 For example , 40 percent of employers failed to advertise job openings in newspapers and relied instead on informal employee networking to generate job applicants . Of those employers who did advertise job openings, two-thirds advertised in neighborhood or “white ethnic” newspapers rather than in “black newspapers.” Although some employers recruited in both metropolitan and suburban schools, many of these employers gave applications from suburban schools more attention.4 According to another study, about 86 percent of available jobs do not appear in classified advertisements and 80 percent of executives find their jobs through networking.5 Thus, there is much that businesses and educational institutions can do by way of outreach affirmative action to ensure that minorities, women, and economically disadvantaged candidates know about the availability of existing jobs and positions that in the past were foreclosed to them. In the construction industry, outreach programs sometimes require prime contractors to solicit bids and negotiate with subcontractors who are minority business enterprises (MBE) or women business enterprises (WBE) as a condition of getting a government contract. This requirement has signi ficantly increased the participation of MBE and WBE in the construction industry. However, under California’s Proposition 209 and other similar state propositions, local and state government can no longer impose this sort of requirement. Any outreach affirmative action program must be directed at other business enterprises (OBE) as well as at MBE and WBE, which can’t help but dilute the outreach that was previously provided to MBE and WBE. Nevertheless, some, but not all, of that effect can be achieved in certain contexts by including a preference for local subcontractors. Summing up the main requirement for outreach affirmative action is the following: All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that qualified minority, women, and economically disadvantaged candidates are made as aware of existing jobs and positions that are available to them as are nonminority, male, or economically advantaged candidates. ...