{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01994750656167979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002099737532808399, 'mean_word_length': 5.395973154362416, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
11. Affirmative Action as Equalizing Opportunity: Challenging the Myth of “Preferential Treatment”

Affirmative action is an issue about which there has been considerable public debate. We think, however, that it is a policy that has often been misunderstood and mischaracterized, not only by those opposed to it, but even by its defenders.' In this essay, we intend to describe these misconceptions, explain why we consider them to be misconceptions, and put forward a much stronger defense of affirmative action policies than that which is usually offered. In the first section, we examine and challenge prevalent misrepresentations of the scope of affirmative action policies -both misconceptions about the groups of people these policies are designed to benefit and about the benefits they are intended to achieve. In the second section, we address misunderstandings about the rationales for affirmative action policies and take issue with those who regard affirmative action as bestowing "preferential treatment" on its beneficiaries. We argue that affirmative action policies should be understood as attempts to equalize opportunity for groups of people who confront ongoing forms of institutional discrimination and a lack of equal opportunity. In the third and fourth sections respectively, we take issue with (1) those who defend affirmative action on the grounds that it is nothing more than a form of compensation; and (2) those who defend it merely on the grounds that it promotes diversity and a range of other long-term goals. We argue that such rationales mischaracterize affirmative action as providing justifiable "preferences" to its beneficiaries. In the last section, we contend that the "stigma argument" against affirmative action dissolves when these programs are understood to equalize opportunities rather than as initiatives that merely bestow preferences on their beneficiaries.