The Economics of Modern Affirmative Action Beneficiaries

Critiques of Claudine Gay noted her thin publication record that enabled her to gain tenure at Stanford and then Harvard.  They only lightly touch on her ability to gain admittance to Harvard’s undergraduate program: Her wealthy black immigrant parents and enrollment at an elite prep school (Exeter).  This background had become increasingly commonplace at Ivy League universities, especially Harvard.

U.S. affirmative action policies did not make distinctions within the black population.  As a result, descendants of twentieth-century black immigrants were the major beneficiaries of affirmative action at the most elite universities. Highly selective colleges increasingly have admitted the sons and daughters of voluntary black immigrants to the U.S., rather than descendants of enslaved blacks forcibly brought to America’s shores; and a disproportionate share, like Gay, attended elite private prep schools.  As a result, black students from immigrant families comprise over 40 percent of the Ivy League black student population even though they are only 10 percent of the U.S. black population.

In a 2021 interview, a descendant of slavery, Mariah Norman, discussed how children of immigrants dominated the black student environment at Harvard. She pointed to the Nigerian Students Association that claims 200 members, suggesting that one-third of Harvard’s black student body is in the club. And while the Black Students Association encompasses all, there wasn’t an organization solely for black students like Norman until students got together in 2021 and formed one.

The U.S. is not alone in having affirmative action policies generate unintended beneficiaries.  In the UK, after the public airing of claims of racial insensitivity among the royal staff, a number of institutions initiated affirmative action policies. One example was the new National Health Insurance hiring requirements in parts of London for all positions:

If a white candidate is chosen, the panel chairman must write a report explaining why they were “more suitable” for the role. It does not apply the other way around.  They must also provide “justification” as to why any ethnic minority candidate was not chosen and provide detailed “scoring notes” as evidence. Alongside this, they are required to suggest how the failed applicants can “develop their experience, skills, or aptitude” for a better chance next time.

It is likely, however, that the hiring results for the most desirable positions will do little to change key disparities, given the dramatic differences among British Caribbean black and south Asian immigrant groups.

Black population growth over the last few decades has been overwhelming among African immigrants. Today, there are twice as many British blacks who have African ancestry as those that have Caribbean ancestry. African immigrants have poorer background but higher levels of education, on average, than those of Caribbean descent.  In 2018, the share of 14 to 16-year old students of African descent scoring Grade 5 or better on both reading and math was 50 percent greater than those of Caribbean descent, and slightly higher than the white score; and will be more likely to be accepted at the most desirable universities.

The Indian population in the UK has educational attainment and incomes well above the national average. While twenty years ago, Indian residents were the vast majority of south Asians, recent immigration from Bangladesh and Pakistan has changed that. Today, they represent the majority of south Asian residents, but score significantly lower than Indian residents on high school A level exams. However, affirmative action policies like those promulgated by the National Health Insurance do not differentiate so that the most desirable jobs go to Bangladeshi or Pakistani immigrants.

Similar intragroup differences exist among Israeli’s Arab citizens of Israel.  The Druze and Christian Arab populations comprise about 20 percent of the overall Arab populations and have far superior educational credentials. Fully 70.9% of Christian high schoolers achieve college-entry matriculation grades, slightly higher than Jews (70.6%), and higher still than Druze (63.7%) and Muslims (45.2%). 

Greater educational achievement is reflected in greater occupational attainment. Among Druze and Christians, 7.0% and 7.7% were employed as managers and in STEM fields, respectively.  By contrast, among other Muslims, only 2.7% and 4.8% were employed in those fields.  Thus, affirmative action policies when hiring for high-paying positions may perpetuate the inequality within the Arab community.

Years ago, Thomas Sowell suggested that even well-intentioned programs can increase inequality within disadvantaged groups.  He noted, “[T]hey help the affluent members of disadvantaged groups while the lower members of those groups fall further behind than ever before.”  For general employment and educational initiatives, Sowell is arguably incorrect: Affirmative action can help all sections of the disadvantaged population. However, when recruiting for the most desirable colleges, and most desirable occupations, Sowell may be right.  In the U.S., the UK, and Israel, it has been the most educated subgroups that have gained a disproportionate share of entrance into the most desirable colleges and most desirable occupations.  This adds another dimension to concerns with affirmative action programs.