Introduction: Affirmative action in higher education should be abolished. College admissions should be based on what the admissions board is looking for, not what the government says should be required. In this paper, I will present evidence to support that position. At one time, affirmative action was a needed and legitimate policy. Segregation has existed way too much in the past and has left people out of jobs, out of certain areas of town, and schooling.

We needed to make a law that would get rid of segregation, and help everybody assimilate or just live peacefully without discrimination. When a majority the southern where rebelling and would not allow African Americans in their stores, schools, etc, affirmative action was justifiable. But is it today? Much of the affirmative action debate is, and should be centered on education. Many of the critics whom at one time also believed that the preferential treatment shown to lower the discrimination towards minority groups is something that should be eliminated.

Being that American society has become less discriminatory, affirmative action may be less necessary. Discrimination is something that will always be an issue; there will always be backwards individuals who cannot overlook their own prejudices for the greater good. However, there are fewer of these people. With declines in racism, we should also seek to eliminate the reverse racism now being displayed towards college while male applicants. This is an issue that effects potential students, and those who get rejected merely apply to another school. How can this issue of accepting minorities over others because be brought to the attention of the lawmakers without making it seem as if there will be less opportunities for minority groups? Equality is a very sensitive topic that has to be danced around with the potential for a misconception of what is trying to be achieved.

In the early 1960's the federal government implemented programs such as the National Defense Student Loan Program (N DSL), work-study programs, and the National Defense Educational Act (NDE A). These programs made it easier for minority groups, especially African Americans, to receive financial help. Equal opportunity grants also helped enroll more minorities, especially blacks. At the time, these programs were necessary for the advancement of the American society, along with changing a lingering stigma that plagued some Americans and that was prevalent during this time period. I doubt this stigma is still around today. If it is, I am unaware of it.

31. 5 percent of blacks and other non-Hispanic minority families in the U. S. live at, or below the poverty level. This does show how some forms of aid are needed to help out minority classes in funding of their secondary education. But does this mean that we should also them into universities ahead of more qualified white applicants? From personal experience I know that it was hard for me to get accepted into a university due to my poor high school grades.

However, I did not blame the state or federal government. I blamed myself for not being more devoted to my academics earlier in my life. However, I was able to attend Lock Haven University after going through a 'summer development' program making me a full time student. I have heard of minorities who where accepted to other state universities that require better high school GPA's along with better SAT scores than LU. These Universities are ones that I applied to with better scoring in both areas then others that I know got accepted.

The only difference was race. I do not blame those individuals, but I do blame the government and the laws that support this. Racism is racism, be it involving the majority or the minority. Secondary education should be a privilege that requires hard work and be equally open to all, with no exceptions. Favoritism in Grades 'Just as we believe that good test use practices advance high-standards learning and equal opportunity, we know that educationally inappropriate uses of tests do not' (The College Board Review). College is hard enough to get into, let alone finish.

That is why that now, more then any time, we should abolish affirmative action - which is racial favoritism in university admittance. When high school students are tested, there is more on the line then their high school education. When a teacher is distributing grades and knows that if test scores are higher, then they will receive greater funding, from there a greater step is taken. With more lenient test scores in high school, there is less emphasis placed on SAT's, but high schools may distribute grades in accordance with what an individual needs to go to college. In a predominantly white high school, this tends to not be the case. However, in inner city schools I have heard this as being very prevalent.

I know of a few cases where minorities have been asked, 'whether they wanted to go to college.' If they said, 'yes,' then higher grades where given. The system that we have for letting individuals pursue their academic goals is centered on issues that should not even be discussed. College admissions should be based on the person achievements, not the area they grew up in or their race. I am not trying to portray an image of a single colored, single gendered school, or anything of the sort. Diversity is what makes college great; most people go through their lives without ever interacting with members of other races and backgrounds, where college can allow for this to take place. I enjoy this aspect acquired partially through the implementing of more generous funding for minorities and the diversifying of the admittance process.

America has an excellent array of university's that help with the furthering of education. Be that as it may, an issue of possible consideration is that whether we should put our money into the building of more universities to allow for everybody to have a better chance in attending, so that the current system of ever growing class sizes and flooding of applicants may start to decline. Wars have been fought, people lost lives, and many lives have been devoted over the acquiring of equal rights. The discrimination involved in governmental hiring or college quotas is not at the same level as the latter, but does carry with it laws that should be upheld but are not, for instance. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. When exceptions are made, they are to be made only after strict scrutiny of any reasons proffered as justification for classifying Americans by race or ancestry (later to be shorted to just race).

(College and University Journal V. 79). This equal protection of laws does not single out those who discriminate, but also those who favor. Favoritism or forcing companies to hire or universities to admit so many of a certain number of a minority group does just that, favor. By singling out a group for promotion but neglecting the others because of insignificant facts are also not just racist, they are flat out wrong. Course curriculum has also come under scrutiny due to the nature of is pupils.

Core material is centered on what was considered by conservative President Ronald Reagan as being 'too lax and liberal.' The response to this comment by liberal educators was that of our universities as being 'too ridged and traditional' (Educational Theory V. 52). Course curriculum though is one that may have changed due to higher minority levels in college, but I will not downplay the importance of this, nor will I say that it should be changed. This is one aspect that is a must for a student to further the ability one has to work side by side among people of different nationality's or people who share different morals / goals etc, where this aspect greatly influences a open minded individual. In the past few years a major reason for affirmative action, not just involving colleges, but in every aspect, was during the Reagan/Bush administration, when they made the decision to not enforce certain federal policies on affirmative action. By doing so, it was felt primarily by minority groups, being that an overwhelming majority of these groups relied on this money to help pay for there post high school education.

Without the extra money coming in, minority groups started on the decline of what there current levels of enrollment status are in the state system. The drop in minorities during this era is a little misleading, since overall enrollment figures dropped as well during this period. The argument for affirmative action has some valid points. First, a majority of minority groups attend inner city schools that do not prepare them for college.

It is not their fault that they grew up in an environment that did not support them. They also would say they need to have accommodations made that would help support them and their attempts to better themselves. They also would like to stress the fact that a majority of minorities are in poverty. Advocates for preferential treatment would probably argue that the government is always trying to better those in need. The homeless are in need and the government gives shelter and assistance. The elderly need help with medical bills.

So new laws promoting free or cheap medical care are always arising. The poor have welfare, and the poor children have more assistance attending college then those more fortunate. Another argument that may be made for affirmative action is, that all it does is place the minorities on the same level as the white population. They need the assistance in some cases to put themselves in a position to better themselves.

Do they or are this just another reason to try to gain money and benefits? I do not believe it is, but I do believe that an individual is required to try to keep what he / she has without obtaining something of a greater level. It is for this reason alone that I feel that these laws will take a long time to change. Any individual who is given something favorable is very reluctant to see it change, especially when it requires that person to either work harder or live with less. To do this would take much work and lobbying throughout our government. I doubt in my lifetime we will see changes. Conclusion: The college community through the college entrance exams usually measures learning capacity or capability.

For example, if a student scored above 1200 on their SAT's then he or she would be considered as having a great chance in succeeding in the collegiate environment. A fallacy that is prevalent is that minorities score much lower then the white majority. This is not true; there is a small gap, but it is not significant. Yes minorities quite often do have to deal with crowded classrooms, teachers with less advanced degrees, and the lack of counseling recourses that are available for predominantly white, suburban schools.

However, is this a reason to give funding to those who lack? America is based on the ideological belief that 'you can be whatever you want to be, or, work hard enough and you will achieve your goals.' To place this belief in the minds of all youth should be enough. To place this in the minds of all the same youth but then give preferential treatment to the minority class is a blatant display of reverse racism that should be done away with henceforth. References Cited The College Board Review; August 1999, No. 188 Leonard Board-College Student; September 2001 V. 35, No. 3 Comparative Educational Review V.

47; No. 1, February 2003 The College Board Review; No. 189/190, January 2000 College and University Journal V. 79; No. 1, Summer 2003 Educational Theory; Winter 2002, V. 52 N.

1.