Affirmative Action
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
Affirmative action is an issue that directly affects me as a
college applicant. I may be refused entry to a college because another less
qualified applicant who happens to be a minority fills my slot. This seems to
me horribly unfair, and I disagree with any favoritism at all in terms of
college, jobs, and anything else applicable.
I
understand that minorities in the US are often underrepresented in the higher
echelons of society and education; however, I do not believe that the way to
fix this is by discriminating against people who are better qualified and will
perform better in the positions that are in question. In the Supreme Court Case
Regents of the University
of California v. Bakke (1973), the ruling
overturned the rejection of Allan Bakke on the basis of his race (white),
setting a precedent against affirmative action. Justice Powell, who cast the
deciding vote, wrote that choosing a student based on their race goes against
Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, which promises that no person will be
discriminated against on the grounds of race.
However,
more recent Supreme Court decisions have upheld limited affirmative action. Modern
arguments for affirmative action state that as universities are training the
future leadership of the US, students at college should roughly represent the
diversity of the US, because the leadership of the nation should represent the
diversity of the nation. I disagree with this because it seems to me that the
future should not lie with the most ethnically diverse leadership; rather the
most effective leadership. Basically, I think that discrimination based on race
should not exist, and people defending ‘affirmative action’ should call it what
it is; discrimination against people who work harder, score higher, and perform
better on the basis of their skin color and/or gender. This is exactly what rights
activists have been fighting against for generations. Is discrimination really
different just because it is aimed at white males instead of minorities and
women? I think not.
As someone who is undeniably white, I see your point. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who it's aimed at. Also, the discrimination doesn't address the issue of the underrepresentation of minorities.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few major variables that determine a person's success (the favorable or prosperous termination of endeavors), one being money (or lack thereof). Racial minorities (let's save gender discrimination for another time) tend to also come from low income households*, which greatly reduces the likelihood of them continuing their education past high school. This is a problem, considering that another success-determining variable is education (a Bachelor's degree is going to be worth more than a high school diploma in the global market). I assume that admissions counselors who support affirmative action are aware of this, so they favor minorities over Caucasians (it goes without saying that racial discrimination is a relatively common practice among employers as well).
The whole thing seems to be a type of intervention that is occurring too late in the game. If all races (or, at least, more of them) are to be equally represented, intervention has to occur early on. This would include improving and equalizing the quality of this country's public schools (and perhaps eliminating private schools so all that money rich people would be paying to a private school could go to public schools), as well as making sure that every child's basic needs are met.
I doubt there would be any need for racial discrimination in admissions offices if all the students that applied were given a more equal opportunity to exhibit academic excellence.
-Megan Grant
*Low income households usually live on low income property, which means that the property taxes are low, which leads to low quality public schools, which don't adequately prepare students for college-level work.
Excellent post, Tal! You were concise and straightforward in articulating your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI too think that discrimination based on skin color or ancestral origin should be nonexistent. In my eyes, all humans are a member of the same family. Clearly, this viewpoint is far from universal.
Usually, when analyzing any material that relates to racial discrimination (or any sort of discrimination for that matter), imagining the perspective of the minority helps me rationalize and even reform my own perspective (as a white male). However, in this instance, I do agree with you in that an ideal “higher echelon” of society should be comprised of the people who are the most “effective,” and not of a proportional duplication of the general US demographic. However, I do understand how minorities could perceive this unrepresentative distribution of race as oppressive.
It would be interesting to evaluate the “efficiency” of different races, in a completely respectful and humane manner. Maybe the reason that the higher strata of the US are composed of predominantly white males is because white males are more “efficient”?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReverse discrimination simply does not make sense. To discriminate against the majority, in order that the minority is not discriminated against, is comical. It's counter-productive, and it's not the answer. The whole reason affirmative action exists is because discrimination needs to be abolished -- not moved to a new arena.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the playing field of life is not even, especially for minorities. You could be as non-discriminant as you'd like and and the tributes from district eleven and twelve still wouldn't stand a chance. It's simply a matter of where they come from. The brain power is there. The human potential is equally great. But unfortunately, the environment which they come from is not up to par. The environment which they come from does not nurture them or encourage them to reach their potential. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of minorities come from these lesser-off districts. They really aren't given the same chance. They are caught in a viscous cycle, and there isn't much they can do about it.
So how do we even the playing field? How do we truly give minorities the equal opportunity they deserve? How do we help them into a position where they can perpetually be on the same ground as the rest of us? Reverse discrimination is not the answer. We must work to find a way to eliminate the meaning of "minority" and "majority." And this, as already proven, is not easy.
It is logical that education is the answer. What isn't obvious is that a good part of the education must be aimed at the majority. We must educate to render the words "minority" and "majority" meaningless. Only then - when the parameters of its definition are meaningless - will discrimination cease to be an issue.
Agreed. When things go wrong, there is point in wishing that they hadn't, only carrying on as best you can. In this case society, through wishing that minorities and/or women were not under-represented and to some degree shunned, has chosen to shun and under represent young white males. This is a ridiculous solution to an issue that people in general need to get over and move on from, instead of getting caught up in it and ruining everyone else s life because they feel bad.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not making sense, let me provide an example. When Martin Luther King Jr. made his now famous "I Have a Dream" speech, he did not say " I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves shall rise above the sons of former slave owners and be greater than all of them!" No. What he said was "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." Martin Luther King, the most famous equal rights leader, didn't call for pay back or punishments against the whites for crimes committed by their ancestors.He called for brotherhood and fairness. And we need to learn from this, for we do not, we not progress, and if we do not progress, then our great nation, which has achieved so much goodness in so little time, will fall. So please, everyone, stop judging a book by its cover, and please read the damn thing.
I think we might be exaggerating the negative effects of affirmative action a little here. While it is true that a middle class white male might have a marginally lower chance of acceptance into college based on his ethnicity, this doesn't mean that unintelligent people are filling those spots simply because a college wants to be diverse. The societal benefits of affirmative action cases far outweigh the minimal issues that they have caused for white males. Without these cases, far more discrimination against minority groups would be perpetrated in every sphere of society, whether it be education, the job market, or in politics. However, the feelings of discrimination against whites that I've read in your blog and in the comments are not completely unfounded. I agree that ethnicity shouldn't factor into college acceptance, but unfortunately we still live in a country where it is necessary. Republicans in southern states worked tirelessly, trying to keep minority voters from the polls. Racism is alive and well in America, and while it might seem like getting into college is a huge deal, compared with daily stop and frisks based on the color of your skin or having your own government take steps to disenfranchise you, white people still have it easy. This isn't to say that I wouldn't like to live in a world where affirmative action is no longer necessary, I'm just being practical because, to be honest, we haven't gotten there yet. All I'm saying is that if you want to take measures to eradicate discrimination, making things better for white college applicants isn't the way to start.
ReplyDelete