Opponent Of Affirmative Action Eastland example essay topic

Affirmative Action: Is it opportunity that is equal for all? According to Webster's II New Dictionary, the definition of affirmative action is: "A policy seeking to redress past discrimination by ensuring equal opportunity", but does the course of action as outlined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 truly ensure equal opportunity for all suffers of past discriminations in today's society? How far in the past do we go from which to set a standard by: a day, a week, months, years? What are the criteria used for measuring equality and how are those conditions determined?

Can an opportunity for equality for all truly be found? If one is to debate the merits and shortcomings of affirmative action, a full picture of the origins of this controversial plan may be in order. The article "Not Color Blind: Just Blind" by Marshall and Katzenbach, which endorses the continuation of affirmative action policies, states that the first use of the term "affirmative action" can be traced back to the early part of the Kennedy administration. (484). The expression was introduced into the American lexicon to help support an executive order that prohibited racial discrimination by government contractors in their employment practices. (484).

Both articles defend their positions by highlighting the weaknesses in their opponents's tance. For example, one of the arguments Marshall and Katzenbach presents state that people oppose affirmative action because they believe racial bias no longer exists, or "the playing field is level for all races". (486). The authors then go on to refute this belief by stating that "most African Americans and many whites believe that bias still exists". (486).

Likewise, in his article "Ending Affirmative Action", Eastland claims that the rationale of the original defenders of affirmative action was to "remedy ill effects of past discrimination of blacks". (478). But in his argument to reject affirmative action, he asserts that "when government has the power to sort people on the basis of race, racial discrimination often results because preferential treatment is never benign". (476) There is no argument from either side that at the time of the policy's induction in the early 60's, African-Americans were openly barred from many establishments. Thus, whether you were permitted entry to certain venues or allowed membership to certain organizations often relied on what your skin color was.

Due to this method of determining equity, it was deemed just to instate legislation that would help better to balance opportunities in the work and educational arena between blacks and whites. The methods that would be implemented to insure balance are part of what has caused the divisiveness of affirmative action today. Marshall and Katzenbach state that the colorblind society is yet to be achieved. In America there are still inequalities that all minorities experience, not just African Americans. It is for this reason that proponents of affirmative action feel the policy is still necessary in today's society.

Eastland, an opponent of affirmative action, argues that the policies that were implemented in the early 60's have gone too far, as they are no longer about creating equal opportunities in today's world. A system that was devised to "remedy the ill effects of past discrimination against blacks" has been revised and re-interpreted by the proponents of affirmative action to be inclusive of all minority racial groups. The reasoning behind the current rationale has been bent to suit an ever changing human landscape that is emerging, further blurring the line of what can be considered opportunity that is equal to all parties concerned. Eastland also points out that "affirmative action encourages Americans to think of themselves in racial and ethnic terms".

(479). As an opponent of affirmative action Eastland goes on to highlight that, because affirmative action propagates preferential treatment for minorities, it can also have the effects of stigmatizing those same minorities it was set up to assist. What has happened is that one form of bias has been replaced by another to measure a group. Sadly, one truth that can be said about life in general is that, simply put, it is not fair. Darwin proved this with his survival of the fittest hypothesis, and while Jefferson might have written that we as human beings all have equal rights as individuals, all individuals, and all rights, are not equal.

Philosophers have contemplated this conundrum for centuries, what or who should take precedence: the needs of the group over the wants of the individual, the needs of the individual over the wants of the group, the wants of the group over the needs of the individual, the wants of the individual over the needs of the group. This hairsplitting of wants and needs, groups versus individuals can go on and on. Certainly examples and quantification's can be presented and argued for any case given that would refute all other claims but the one proposed. Perhaps a more arbitrary form of inclusion, or exclusion, depending on which side of the fence one is getting the perspective from, is in order. If affirmative action is basically just a more elaborate way of identifying groups, why not change the criteria for how the groups are determined? Instead of basing the groupings on race, sex, religious or intelligence attributes, why not choose birth months or days?

While we all do have diverse backgrounds we all must also share a random pattern of birthdates. Or perhaps an even more random method of selection can be adopted. What about a lottery where all preferences, both good and bad, could be tossed aside for a possibility of pure chance? Perhaps when each person, regardless of his / her background, is given the exact same odds can the possibility of opportunity for equality for all be found.

Bibliography

Eastland, Terry. "Ending Affirmative Action". Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnett & Hugo Bedau. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2002.
476-481 Marshall, Burke & Nicholas deB. Katzenbach. "Not Color Blind: Just Blind" Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2002.
482-489 "Affirmative Action". Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary. Revised ed. 1996.