By Dr. Massood Omrani
Assistant Professor, College of Business & IT
Lawrence Technological University
Even though one might initially wonder what similarities exits between tariffs and affirmative action, in reality both are designed to protect the underprivileged and uncompetitive segments of the workforce in the United States.
For example, tariffs represent a government policy within the realm of international economics and business, while affirmative action is an internal socio-economic policy aimed at rectifying historical injustices. Despite operating in different spheres, these two policies share conceptual similarities and are both needed to safeguard the financial well-being of individuals.
The United States, like many other countries around the world, imposes taxes and tariffs on certain imports to shield domestic industries and their workers from international competition.
Although tariffs are known to have adverse financial effects on the nation as a whole and its consumers, they are utilized to safeguard jobs that might otherwise be lost when local producers must contend with foreign competitors offering cheaper goods due to greater efficiency.
Affirmative action, on the other hand, aims to provide opportunities to underprivileged individuals who, due to historical circumstances such as slavery or gender discrimination, have been deprived of access to proper education and skills necessary to compete in the labor market. These policies seek to level the playing field for marginalized groups and ensure they have fair opportunities for employment and education.
Both tariffs and affirmative action are intended to assist those who are unable, for various reasons, to compete on equal footing in the labor market. However, it’s intriguing to consider why some politicians, particularly Republican nationalists led by President Donald Trump, advocate for tariffs while vehemently opposing affirmative action.
The policy of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States as a means to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process. Subsequently, it was expanded to address gender discrimination. According to Wikipedia, Affirmative Action originated from Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, which mandated that government employers refrain from discriminating against any employee or applicant based on race, creed, color, or national origin.
On September 24, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued another Executive Order (No. 11246), replacing Executive Order 10925 and reaffirming the federal government’s commitment to promoting equal employment opportunities through a positive, ongoing program in each executive department and agency. Affirmative action was further extended to include sex through Executive Order 11375, amending Executive Order 11246 on October 13, 1967. Its original purpose in the U.S. was to compel institutions to comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases and scrutiny regarding its constitutional validity. In 2003, the Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (539 US 244) regarding affirmative action in higher education allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in student admissions.
Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract underrepresented racial groups who often face lower living conditions. Several states, including California, Michigan, and Washington, have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting public institutions, including schools, from practicing affirmative action.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have the discretion to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions. By then, eight states had already banned affirmative action. Critics argue that colleges sometimes use illegal quotas to discriminate against individuals of Asian and Caucasian backgrounds, leading to numerous lawsuits.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 6–2 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by its potential to bridge employment and pay inequalities, increase access to education, promote diversity, and address perceived and documented injustices.
Now, let’s turn our attention to tariffs. As briefly discussed in the preceding paragraph, most economists believe that tariffs have a significantly negative impact on the well-being of a nation’s people when used on imports, despite potentially saving a few jobs in non-competitive industries. In essence, governments may compromise the financial welfare of their societies, contribute to unemployment in export-related sectors, and cause higher prices—resulting in reduced consumer purchasing power—by imposing tariffs to protect jobs in industries unable to compete fairly in the global market. Some industries struggle to compete internationally due to factors such as inefficient labor or outdated technology.
Consequently, governments intervene by levying taxes on imported goods to temporarily support struggling industries, with the hope that they will eventually become competitive without government assistance. In essence, industries competing with imports receive government assistance to gain a competitive advantage. This mirrors the intent of affirmative action policies, which seek to provide opportunities to groups that have historically faced barriers to competitiveness.
The question arises as to why some politicians support tariffs while opposing affirmative action. Is it because industries protected by tariffs hold more sway in the political arena compared to the groups benefiting from affirmative action? Or is it because affirmative action primarily benefits Black people, women and other people of color, while tariffs predominantly protect uncompetitive White workers?
In conclusion, while tariffs and affirmative action serve different purposes, they both aim to address socio-economic inequalities and provide assistance to marginalized groups. However, the political motivations behind supporting one policy while opposing the other warrant further examination.
Dr. Massood Omrani is a senior fellow at The PuLSE Institute. He can be reached at info@thepulseinstitute.org