Affirmative action is a controversial subject. Supporters (myself included) think it’s a necessary corrective for societies marked by harmful discrimination at both the institutional and social level.

Detractors think it merely shifts the burden of discrimination and breeds complacency.

Most of the time I find this opposition bizarre and overtly racist or sexist. While opportunities for certain groups may be reduced through affirmative action policies, it is usually because those groups received lavishly disproportionate opportunities in the past.  

As a US citizen, I’m most familiar with my country’s model, which was enacted to moderately counteract the racism and sexism that has plagued our society since its inception.

But I digress.

Recently, India’s affirmative action model has come under fierce opposition. More than half a million people from the Patel community mobilized last week in Gujarat to protest caste-based job quotas.

The scale of outrage is unprecedented in India and is particularly surprising given the Patel clan’s past support of Prime Minister Modi, a champion of the quota system.

To put this clash in a broader context, let’s look at some affirmative action models around the world that have faced criticism.

1) India

India’s caste system has been in place for more than a millennium and it intentionally breeds inequality. Traditionally, an Indian’s lot in life has been determined from birth. Educational, employment and domestic opportunities were strictly limited depending on the caste a person was born into. Gender is also an intrinsically limiting factor, with only 24% of Indian women in the workforce in 2011. However, gender-based affirmative action has increased political involvement among women and participation in certain careers such as aviation and finance. 

Beginning in 1950, the government introduced affirmative action to help groups from lower castes receive public employment. Over time, the groups of people eligible for affirmative action has increased, perhaps as a way to appeal to more voters.

Lower caste groups are determined by a host of factors including access to education, water, sanitation and others.

In some areas, 50 percent of public jobs are set aside for members of neglected classes.

The quotas have mostly done what they were set out to do. The Dalits caste, for instance, makes up around 16% of the population. They represented 1.6% of senior civil servant posts in 1965. In 2011, that number rose to 11.5%.

But just 2% of the population is covered by the policy, since most Indians do not have formal government jobs.

Some critics believe the quota system is directly related to the country’s widespread bureaucratic corruption.

Affirmative action in colleges first arrived in the 1920s and has been less controversial, elevating the educational attainment of lower castes.

2) South Africa

South Africa’s Apartheid government aggressively marginalized and oppressed the majority black population through a slew of laws reminiscent of the US’s Jim Crow era and all of imperialism.

Following Apartheid, the government tried to roll this system back and correct the gross racial imbalance that had been in place.

The Employment Equality Act, 55, arrived in 1998, 4 years after Apartheid ended. The law enacts employment quotas for businesses to follow and tries to level educational opportunities.

Inequality was then further addressed through the Black Economic Empowerment.

Racial inequality is still acute in South Africa, with the minority whites owning more than 80 percent of farmland.  

Opponents raise the argument that the policy “unintentionally discriminates” against whites, thus contradicting itself.

A more credible argument is that inequality is not truly addressed because elite blacks have mostly benefited from the policy, leaving behind the general public.

3) Malaysia

Malaysia’s affirmative action policy favors ethnic Malays, the majority group, mostly as a way to siphon power from the ethnic Chinese who have historically owned the majority of wealth.

In public universities, 70% of slots are reserved for the majority Bumiputra group. Civil service jobs are 85% held by Bumiputra, who make up more than 50% of the population.  

The working-class Indians who account for 11 percent of the population are neglected by this system, and there has been an exodus of skilled and educated workers in recent years.  

4) France

France has always steered away from direct affirmative action policies, instead preferring to distribute more funds to schools in impoverished neighborhoods.

The country even avoids measuring race, ethnicity and religions in censuses as a bold symbol of a “color blind” culture, as if such a thing ever existed. 

In 2014, the country reversed course and introduced a policy that grants the top 10 percent of students from each school a spot in the top 10 universities. Recognizing that racial, ethnic and religious groups tend to live clustered together, this attempts to address inequality.

5) Brazil

Rio de Janeiro instituted a racially based quota system for universities in 2000.

This policy quickly came under attack because of the racial ambiguity that pervades the country.

Opponents argued: How can quotas be put in place when the vast majority of people can assert some claim to the newly advantaged (previously oppressed) race after generations of miscegenation (a word with nasty historical connotations, I know).

The policy was crippled early on and has since faded.

While affirmative action has always provoked dissent, I still think it’s an effective and necessary policy when tailored to the realities of a society.

Inequalities exist. Inequalities are self-perpetuating. These should be self-evident truths.

The best way to address inequalities is to implement policies that benefit the disadvantaged.  

I do think that adding an economic component to affirmative action policies may be the best route for empowerment. It would also placate some of the outrage these policies cause.

An economic component would benefit the most impoverished in society, which would still often be marginalized races and ethnic groups.

But such a model would give every poor family a chance to be uplifted and would also limit the possibility of policies helping only the upper class of targeted groups.  

Ultimately, educational and economic opportunities should be available to all people regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion and other factors. 

If you agree, go to TAKE ACTION NOW to call on world leaders to provide education for the world's most vulnerable populations. 

Share your thoughts with me on Facebook or Twitter!