Discerning Part Of Many Affirmative Action Policies example essay topic

One person who is constantly seen as the leader for racial equality and fairness in all aspects of life made a famous speech, in which Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Now, there are job opportunities and college acceptances being opened up as a racial benefit not because of the content of their character or any other distinguishing attribute than being an underrepresented minority [in many cases, the color of their skin]. The concept of Affirmative Action was a good one, bringing a diverse and level playing field into being; however, its purpose has been fulfilled and it has now evolved into a discriminatory policy itself, hence it should be at least reformatted if not completely terminated. Affirmative Action's original purpose was to be a management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity.

A central premise underlying Affirmative Action is that, absent discrimination, over time the management's workforce will generally reflect the gender, racial and ethnic ratio of the labor pools where the management recruits and selects from. (Affirmative Action 1) Affirmative Action promoted diversity in the work place and in the classrooms of higher institutions for learning, giving people who were qualified yet incapable of being offered a job because of discriminatory practices. Bob Herbert put it best when he said, "The purpose of Affirmative Action was to promote equality; not give minorities an unfair advantage because of race or ethnicity". (Herbert 1) Before we look at the birth of Affirmative Action, the dawning of what was thought to be an age of indiscriminate policies and actions, we must look at its conception. Why was Affirmative Action deemed necessary?

The policy, which was implemented by federal agencies enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two executive orders, provided that government contractors and educational centers receiving federal funds must develop such programs and it grew from this. The program was further enhanced by the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972 which set up a commission to enforce the policy. In this time period many capable minorities whose applications for universities and labor positions were not even considered solely based on their ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, or other attributes unrelated to their capabilities of carrying out the proposed education or job. Answering the call of the public, Congress and the White House aided in the birth of this righteous policy. Affirmative Action became a rapidly expanding program as it grew and developed.

For example: "The Georgetown University Law Center, a Catholic and Jesuit institution established in 1870, refused to accept any black Americans until 1953". Shortly after Brown vs. Board of Education the Georgetown University Law Center adopted vigorous programs to make restitution for its near century of denying entry to nonwhites. Approximately twelve percent, which is the same percentage as the nation as a whole, of its student population is now black. (Drinan 12) Not to say that the practice went along without fault, in 1974 the case of The University of California Regents vs. Bakke appeared before the Supreme Court. Accusations of "reverse discrimination" were being made, on the basis that certain people who were not "underrepresented minorities" and were better qualified were being denied admission because of certain quota systems established by Affirmative Action. The court ruled the quota systems unconstitutional, but did not outlaw all forms of Affirmative Action, nor did it alter the program in any other way; instead, it supported the pursuit of diversity in institutions of higher education and businesses.

By giving the preferred quota positions to minorities, the program is actually advancing others on the basis of race. Laws were passed, such as Proposition 209, as efforts to create a more just way of allowing for equal. The valiant attempt where, "Proposition 209 outlawed race as a factor in allowing or preventing admissions at the University of California", proved fruitless because they were too specific and did not encompass all people affected by this good policy gone bad. (Drinan 12) "When you look at Affirmative Action with a discerning eye, you see that not only is it unjust as you say, but it is excessive also.

A minority gains as much weight on a college application as an entire point in cumulative GPA". (Orfinger interview) The very vices Affirmative Action was designed to cure are now being applied in an effort to promote not racial equality and fairness but, diversity. The program in itself is hypocritical on a three fold basis. One, it does not practice what it preaches. Its original intent, as previously stated, was to ensure equal employment opportunity; yet, it now employs practices that favor people stringently based on ethnicity, gender, race, and other such factors. Two, in a democracy such as the United States, the foundation of the government and the overall drive of the people are towards majority rule.

Affirmative Action gives preference to the minority thus, directly opposing any democratic ideology. Three, the concept of two wrongs don't make a right is a valid one. When one person suffers, their suffering will not be relieved because another person suffers. Similarly, the repression of a white Anglo-Saxon does not make the former discrimination of a minority any more righteous or moral.

Affirmative Action's original purpose was well thought out and justified but, as we have too often learned: good intent does not always yield good results. Many possible solutions to the problem are now at hand, some would say elimination of the program. The final termination of the program should only be used as a last resort if alterations to it cannot yield more amiable results. One solution would be to eliminate the thought of a right or wrong number of each type of person to be admitted to a job or school. Applicants should be judged on an individual basis putting weight on what they control and what they regulate; for example: grades, tests, and personal achievements. Many people want to know what the public's opinion on Affirmative Action is.

On the question of whether Affirmative Action is still needed today to help minorities over come discrimination fifty-one percent said it is needed. When asked which was thought to be a bigger problem, however, blacks and Hispanics losing out because of racism or whites losing out because of Affirmative Action, only forty-four percent said that blacks and Hispanics losing out was a bigger problem. (Lester 1) One can infer from these polls that many people still think that discrimination is a problem in the United States, conversely, those same people consider blacks and Hispanics losing out because racism is a lesser problem than whites losing out because of Affirmative Action. The other thing that you see is that the public is split on the issue, which some would say shows a trend against Affirmative Action since when the program began its support grew to unprecedented measures.

One man made an influential statement to me. I was conversing with my cousin, Jake Hurwitz, during a visit; we were discussing how exactly Affirmative Action aided the enhancement of the entire student body through diversity. He said, in reference to his own college experiences, "I'm not here to enhance any white kid's education, I don't give a damn how their education turns out. I'm here to get a J.D. and get a better life for my family and my community". I think this goes to show that, though selfish, the common goal of the people accepted to a university is not to achieve diversity in the aide for people of there race but rather, to enhance their own opportunities. In many cases considering Affirmative Action, people turn to the courts to decipher the right and wrong of the situation.

As previously discussed, the case of the University of California Regents vs. Bakke, a supreme court case heard in 1978, some measures of Affirmative Action were ruled unconstitutional while the court chose to continue to promote the goals of diversity. Interests have recently been growing in the fight against Affirmative Action, this caused by the growing fame of two cases: Gratz vs. the University of Michigan and Gutter vs. the University of Michigan. These cases have been heard in a U.S. District Court, U.S. District Court of Appeals, and are awaiting the ruling after being heard by the Supreme Court. In the U.S. District Court the presiding judge, Duggan, said, .".. It is clear from the University Defendants' extensive briefing on the issue that the 'actual purpose' behind the University's race-conscious admissions policy was not to remedy past or present discrimination [as was required for an Affirmative Action plan to take place and be deemed constitutional], but rather to achieve diversity".

Duggan went further by saying, "The fact that none of the evidence cited by Defendant-Intervenes even discusses past or present discriminatory conduct towards Native Americans is further evidence that the University's race-conscious admissions policies were not designed with a remedial purpose in mind". (Gratz 6, 11) The University's case was once again struck down in the U.S. District Court of Appeals and proceeded to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled yet, but is expected to rule in June. The case is expected to be a 5-4 ruling with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor being the swing vote. "Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, broke his customary silence during oral arguments to closely question a university lawyer about whether Affirmative Action has furthered the broader social goal of racial understanding and harmony. 'Do you think your admissions (policies) at least provided some headwind toward that?' Thomas asked".

("Affirmative Action Cases") From the first two rulings, it is obvious that the justice system is making an attempt to dissuade the abuse of Affirmative Action. The Supreme Court, the law of the land, however holds all the power and their decision will affect many to come. The support of Justices such as Scalia", 'Does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between eight and twelve percent, but it is a quota if it is ten percent?' asked Justice Antonin Scalia. 'Once you use that term 'critical mass,' ' you " re in quota land.

' " ("Affirmative Action Cases") shows, in some people's opinion, that the court's vote leans towards supporting its predecessors. The fact of the matter is that the Justices' opinion is one with "all similarly situated" and will affect more people than just the plaintiffs. Affirmative Action is often thought to be a black and white issue, however it spreads across a wide variety of divisions. Blacks are the largest of the underrepresented minorities and have the most to lose by the court's decision. Asian's have become less and less involved with Affirmative Action as it grew and have gained their own positions without the aid of the program. The Asian minority is commonly stereotyped as highly intelligent, and in this example they prove that the stereotype may actually be fact.

They are seen by many as the success story of Affirmative Action in that they used it as a stepping stone and are now self reliant, as is the majority. They now tend to score higher on standardized tests and achieve greater GPAs than they did before Affirmative Action aided their progress. Hispanics follow blacks in the Affirmative Action plan in that they are a smaller minority and do not have as many reserved seats through the program as do the blacks. The discerning part of many Affirmative Action policies is that the most underrepresented minority, Native Americans, are often excluded from the plan.

Thus far the focus of Affirmative Action has primarily been race and ethnicity, while preference has always been given by colleges on things other than tests and GPAs. Oftentimes a person gains admission because of being athletically inclined, being from a high school at which the college would like to recruit more actively, gaining political influence by accepting the son or daughter of a president or congressman, or, as in Michigan's case, just to promote diversity. George W. Bush for instance had average marks in high school a 566 Verbal and a 640 math score on the SAT and was accepted to Yale. His life experience was commonplace for Yale: fancy prep school, prosperous and influential family. He was accepted because both his father and grandfather were alumni (which many colleges smile upon), and his father had great political influence. It has even been reported that Harvard accepts forty percent of applicants who are children of alumni but only eleven percent of applicants generally.

(Kinsley 1-2) Affirmative Action's honorable beginnings have become tainted with corruption and abuse they have betrayed in hypocrisy their very objectives. Any reasonably minded person can see that this amiable program must be modified to better accomplish its original goals. Remedies have been proposed the only thing left is to act upon them. We must all strive to create a world free of discrimination: discrimination against the minority, discrimination against the majority, discrimination against everyone.

We know that two wrongs don't make a right, and it is time for us to step up and correct the mistakes made in the past. If you believe that you have too little say to make a difference, join the millions of little voices by writing or calling your congressman and let them know how you feel about somebody else sitting in your seat at college, strictly because of an unjust policy.

Bibliography

Affirmative Action". The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (c) 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002 on Infoplease.
com. (c) 2002 Family Education Network.
8 Apr. 2003 web "Affirmative Action Cases Go Before Supreme Court" Associated Press.
web April 10, 2003 Drinan, Robert F.
Justice and Equality" America, February 17, 2003 12-13.
Herbert, Bob. "Looking Back at Uglier Time". The News Journal, February 27, 2003: 4 A Hurwitz, Jake.
Interview. April 19, 2003.
Jennifer Gratz & Patrick Hammacher vs. the University of Michigan Case No. : 97-CV 75231-DT.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern District. Kinsley, Michael. "How Affirmative Action Helped George W". Time: Online Edition. January 27, 2003: web 409553, 00.
html? cnn = yes Lester, Will Associated Press March 8, 2003.
Poll: Public Split on Affirmative Action. web Orfinger, Rick, Honorable. Interview. April 6, 2003.