Affirmative Action Debates in American Government Introductory Textbooks

Abstract

Affirmative action debates remain hotly contested across America. Given how the topic is presented in respective disciplines and core textbooks, students are often misinformed. Introductory textbooks may be one of the few places where students are exposed to significant discussions on affirmative action. In this study, we examine affirmative action policy in American government introductory textbooks published between 2005 and 2014. Our study is modeled on previous, similar analyses of introductory textbooks. We use content analysis to examine the extent to which affirmative action discussions challenge or reinforce affirmative action myths and meritocracy. We conclude that textbook discussions that emphasize the policy intent over policy interpretation tend to debunk affirmative action myths and meritocracy. Meaning, the policy intent focus-presented as the "equality of opportunity" view-challenges historical discrimination and racism while the policy interpretation focus-presented as the "equality of outcome" view-seems to reinforce negative views.

Where Are the Women? An Analysis of Gender Mainstreaming in Introductory Political Science Textbooks

“…Future research should also take a cue from (Cassese et al, 2015) and examine the inclusion of gender in higher-level textbooks. Additionally, this article provides limited evidence to support Wallace and Allen's (2016) finding that the framing of policies that tackle systematic exclusion can either challenge or support unsubstantiated myths about merit, gender, race, and political representation. This suggests that comparing the framing of minority representation across sub-fields could provide insight into whether the discipline, through its textbooks, is perpetuating or dispelling such myths.…”

“…As Wallace and Allen (2016) clearly demonstrate, how an author frames the subject is pertinent to how students will likely understand and internalize the subject. In the Heywood text, the author frames descriptive representation as a problematic practice in a democratic society.…”

White and minority employee reactions to perceived discrimination at work: evidence of White fragility?

“…Many consider “fairness” and “meritocracy” as cornerstones of American values (Crosby et al , 2003; Williams et al , 1999), and affirmative action policies violate traditional American values of self-reliance and hard work (Hughes, 1997; Hines, 2016). They use coded language such as “merit-based,” “fair competition” and “less qualified”to imply that affirmative action is unfair and disadvantages Whites (Bonilla-Silva and Forman, 2000; Wallace and Allen, 2016). This “race-blind” perspective shields Whites from acknowledging their privilege, which in turn reinforces their dominance and racial comfort (DiAngelo, 2011).…”