Nicolas Sarkozy, years before his election as President, was the first politician to press for affirmative action in every domains. Forbidden in France, ethnic statistics would have given a more objective sense of what are the real issues, and especially how big they are. We still ignore how many blacks, arabs, asians or latinos we are in France, but the disparities between the different communities ‘are’ huge, although based de facto on subjective feelings. I had the chance to go to a top high school, and then do my classe preparatoire in an even more selecive section. I was the only ‘minority’student. No black, no Latino, White French people everywhere, and after having been confronted to this lack of diversity, I felt really supportive to any kind of affirmative action program that would be developed, and especially in the educational field so that we could reduce the disparities as early as possible. The question about affirmative action is totally recent in France. People are reluctant to any kind of support, hold in high esteem meritocracy and unfortunately, our constitution is not as protective as the American one. Nowhere you would find the equivalent of equal protection in the 14th amendment. Moreover, the action can only be taken through the political branch, because we do not have any equivalent of the U.S Supreme Court that would order any kind of desegregation or uphold a substantive university’s program of affirmative action. The representatives of the CRAN, among others, considered that America was the best example to follow, and, unsurprisingly, that we needed a Black president like B. Obama in our country. I was pretty ok with them, although Obama is technically not black but rather mixed. They also seemed to forget the fact that affirmative action was justified by (1)history and (2) the necessity of diversity, and that these interests could not be totally transferred in a country such ours.

Two different patterns of history. The US affirmative action example cannot be a model for any country given the partiucluarity of the US history. They argued that the two histories are similar, because in both minorities groups have been persecuted, discriminated and exploited. Would history be a compelling and legitimate reason to justify a similar policy as the one applied in the US? I don’t think so. Yes, French colonization left an open wounding in the minorities’ counscious, as strong as the US one. But we cannot compare both patterns. While African Americans suffered on the US territory, minorities’ ancesters technically did not. Besides, there were several degrees of colonization. While Algeria was the first colony of France, Morocco and Tunisia were mere protectorates. Then, according to their thesis , Algerians should be treated more favorably because they would have supposedly suffered more than Moroccans or Tunisians. Clearly, the concept of race would not make any sense at all, because all three of them are ethnically Arabs. Diversity was also argued as an emergency. France is indeed lagging in this area. The first black t.v speaker was appointed 2 years ago. The first Arab Minister-Justice- was appointed in 2007, as well as the first African American- Human Rights and Foreign Affairs-. Sadly, symbols are missing in France. But this feeling is only empirical, and a lot of minorities are succeeding in their own lives without being the subject of attention. Thus, until ethnical data could clearly show that minorities are less successful than mainstream French and constitute a legitimate and unquestionable evidence, Iam not sure how diversity could be upheld. So what should we do? Should we let racism and discriminations survive, or be fought with American ideals ?

To cut a French cheese, you need a French knife, not a US one. I am myself very concerned with problems of underepresentation of minorities in France, as well as racism and discrimination, although I would for the moment consider myself as blessed. But I think these people are wrong: France cannot set up an affirmative action policy that would be based on race. A much more efficient and legitimate way to tackle the evil would be to use the economic standard as a criteria. Help the poor, not the black or the arabs, just because they are so. It will have two main results: First we would end up by helping the minorities we want to help, because the economic and social situation is highly correlated to race. Besides, we would avoid what the US is now facing as a perverse effect of its policy, ie helping, through this device, middle class/ well-off/educated families.

I do think affirmative action in France is highly necessary, but should not be based on a racial criteria, not only because it would be silly of us from an historical point of view, but also because the time we get to something serious, the US would have modified their affirmative action policy, as O’Connor suggested in her opinion in 2003: ‘The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today’. (Grutter). While an African American figure has just been elected president of the USA, I am of the opinion that such a change will happen years before this period of time. Will it mean that we are about to consider poor people of the US as a suspect class? If France ends up by developing affirmative action based on such a mutable feature, will the U.S, for once, follow? Class, class, I need your thoughts.