Affirmative action is necessary, even if sometimes off the mark
“University of North Carolina can consider race in admissions, federal judge rules” (Washington Post,
Oct. 18)
Through nearly four decades of teaching at half a dozen schools, I was occasionally asked to serve on a hiring committee, as a member of the “hit squad” seated around a table, interrogating applicants for a job as an English teacher.
One year there were four of us on such a committee, and we took our responsibility seriously. Our decision would change someone’s life and impact the institution for many years to come; it was made more complicated by the school’s affirmative action policy.
Not that we disagreed about affirmative action, which we all embraced. As educators, we were thoroughly familiar with this country’s history of racism and its vestiges that rendered access to equal rights, employment, and advancement more difficult or out of reach for minorities.
Technically, we were a screening committee, since our department supervisor actually made the final decision. And when it was strongly suggested that we make sure to include a minority candidate in our list of five finalists, we were happy to oblige.
Next, we were tasked with ranking the five in descending order, from our highest to lowest recommendation, before sending the list to our supervisor. And we were pretty confident in the accuracy of our ranking since it was based on how well each performed in a practice teaching demonstration. How could we go wrong? Each finalist took over an existing English composition class for one period. They were told what the class was working on that week so that they could prepare a lesson.
Then, for 50 minutes, each applicant conducted a class with 25 students while those of us on the screening committee observed and took notes.
I recall being blown away while observing the teaching demonstration of Applicant A, a candidate around 40 years of age with prior teaching experience who was what we call a “performance teacher.” A dynamic communicator, Applicant A personably engaged with either the entire group or with individual students with energy and curiosity, while manifesting mastery of the subject, and talking off the cuff with self-deprecating humor in between.
Later the same week, we sat in on the teaching demonstration given by Applicant B, also around 40, who appeared nervous, if not genuinely unhappy to be put in this situation. Applicant B neglected to explain the objective of the lesson to the class, instead pointing to a student to read the first item in a writing exercise. Applicant B declared the student’s response as incorrect, though it was not. When another puzzled student questioned the fact, Applicant B chided the entire class for unpreparedness, with a knowing glance to those of us in the back of the room.
After observing the other three applicants, we unanimously agreed to give Applicant A the highest recommendation, and Applicant B the lowest or 5th rank. The other three applicants fell somewhere between.
After receiving our list, the supervisor personally interviewed each finalist and subsequently hired Applicant B who had received our lowest ranking, but who was also the lone minority candidate among the finalists.
It was not the decision I expected, but I understood the supervisor’s decision as a well-meaning attempt at affirmative action.
Even the best teachers occasionally flop, and I hoped that Applicant B would grow into the job with more experience, and with the help of a mentoring program for new teachers involving frequent evaluations by the dean and multiple professional development opportunities.
Meanwhile, I remain convinced of the value of affirmative action.
It is crucial, however, to apply the practice with more care and discretion, and to expand the pool of minority candidates from which to choose.
Though the consequences of affirmative action are sometimes imperfect, it remains a viable tool to achieve equality for minorities, and to improve mutual understanding and harmony among us all.