Affirmative action has been a contentious topic in the United States since its widespread introduction in 1965 at the hands of then-president John F. Kennedy. However, the US is not the only nation facing internal conflict about the viability of affirmative action as a policy in the workplace and academia.
In 2012, Brazil implemented a nationwide mandate to implement affirmative action at all federal universities—and the mandate stands to this day. In contrast, the United States ended its support for AA in 2023 with the landmark Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, judging that college admissions processes incorporating this diversity strategy violated the Fourteenth Amendment. By comparing these two countries’ unique attitudes and approaches toward affirmative action, it is possible to glean whether AA is an effective method of facilitating diversity in higher education institutions.
Understanding Affirmative Action on a Global Scale
Affirmative action encompasses a wide variety of strategies to increase diversity and inclusion in traditionally majority-dominated spaces, such as education and employment. The prevailing sentiment—that increasing diversity by incorporating greater representation from minority and underserved groups will reduce the quality of an institution’s production or education—has led to conflict with other groups who allege that greater diversity is beneficial for a country’s growth and equity.
Thanks to increasing support for affirmative action approaches, it is now possible to begin gleaning meaningful data from these strategies.
Brazil’s Affirmative Action Approach
Brazil’s 2012 mandate supporting affirmative action at federal universities sought to increase the number of BIPOC students in education. Now, several years after its implementation, the data begin to show that AA has produced numerous benefits, not just for students, but for their communities as well.
A Standardized Methodology
One of the most notable elements of Brazil’s approach—and what differentiates it from many other countries, including the US—is its standardized methodology. All federal universities were required to implement affirmative action in the same manner. This allowed for consistent results by reducing variables in diversity and inclusion.
Federal institutions were required to reserve at least 50 percent of their seats for students from minority groups. This 50 percent was bifurcated into one half allocated for Black and Indigenous Brazilian students and the other half for low-income individuals.
A Reduction in Disparity
The largest and most immediate change resulting from Brazil’s affirmative action approach was a notable reduction in opportunity disparity. The number of minority students attending federal universities has quadrupled, now reaching over one million as of 2023.
Increased Leadership
Additionally, affirmative action resulted in a nearly 10 percent increase in leadership roles for Black, Indigenous, and minority students once they began their careers. Former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva noted during his term that if one attempted to find a Black dentist, Black doctor, or any other type of minority individual in a leadership or professional position, this task would be difficult. Now, however, affirmative action has reshaped this landscape.
The Quality Concern
The primary pushback against affirmative action has always been the potential reduction in educational quality should low-income, less privileged students take up space in universities. While evidence does indicate that some high-income students transitioned to private universities to avoid the influx of minority participants, studies demonstrate that BIPOC who took advantage of affirmative action initiatives performed at a level similar to their peers, even in the most selective programs.
When Affirmative Action is Banned: A US Case Study
The situation in the United States is not as clear-cut as in Brazil. Due to the varied approach to affirmative action, results were less consistent before the Supreme Court’s ban. What can be gleaned from Brazil’s example, however, is that when done with intention, affirmative action affords minorities numerous benefits. However, strategies for increasing diversity must be aware of the cultural and socio-economic factors that are shaping the process.
Race-Neutral vs. Race-Targeted Policies
Across both US and Brazilian implementation of affirmative action, one factor consistently appeared: the efficacy of race-targeted policies. When comparing BIPOC participation and resulting outcomes in higher education, universities that implemented a race-neutral policy saw no changes in their diversity and inclusion. However, those that went a step further to incorporate race-targeted policies quickly experienced a jump in participation.
Thus, any institution considering options for diversifying their participant base must understand that taking a neutral stance has minimal or no effect on BIPOC inclusion. If affirmative action is ever to find success in the United States, it must be achieved with intention and standardization. For now, universities must learn from the benefits reaped by Brazilian institutions and consider how they can proactively welcome underserved and minority groups without encroaching upon the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action and quotas.
