Madison OBrien CAS 138 T 1 April 2013 Affirmative Action: Not a Means to an End Affirmative Action may not

be a household term, but it most definitely is a household conversation. It is something that spouses may talk about when one person does not get the job that they were very qualified to get, or it may be between parents and children when a child gets rejected from a school that they most certainly deserved to be in. Although the specific term may not be used frequently within these conversations, it is indeed the word behind the discussions. Affirmative Action has existed for about 48 years starting with President Kennedy who established this project in order to, ensure that blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that had been the nearly exclusive province of whites (Brunner). It was meant to be an effective tool that would redress the injustices caused by our nations historic discrimination against people of color and of minorities. In this essay I will argue that in order for the United States to be a place where equality remains true, Affirmative Action must be eliminated in at least the context of college admissions. To support this argument, I will consider several points. Choosing another applicant over someone else based on race or ethnicity, is in my opinion reverse discrimination. Although it is true that diversity assists to improve and expand moral and cultural horizons, it is not right to ignore moral requirements, such as equal opportunity, that every person no matter the race/ethnicity deserves to have. In order to accomplish the goals of eliminating backlash effects and reverse discrimination, there needs to be a policy that does not allow college applications to require that you submit your racial and

ethnic background. This type of policy has support from individuals such as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. (Affirmative Action) When President Kennedy proposed the idea of preferential treatment in 1961, the country was in the midst of a profound series of changes regarding civil justice. Injustices that had once been imposed on minorities were beginning to be recognized, and people wanted to make up for the many years of oppression that held minorities back from advancing. During this time Affirmative Action did indeed seem socially appropriate and justified. But today, Affirmative Action is now becoming a threat to every citizens liberties. One of the many problems with this program is that at its very core, it is attempting to fight discrimination with discrimination. Arguably, there is an injustice that occurs when a university discriminates against a person who is not considered a minority simply to better the result of another racial group. An example of this is the Pollard v Oklahoma States Regents for Higher Education in 1998. During this case, Scott Pollard, a white student at the University of Tulsa was denied acceptance into Oklahomas Academic Scholars Program. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures official website, they note that, Allegedly, the program held varying test requirements depending on an applicants race and even gender (NCSL). If an applicants test scores were low, but they belonged to a certain minority race, then the scores were not as heavily considered. This clearly is an example of Affirmative Action infringing on the rights of wellqualified white or non-minority applicants. In fact, the court ruled in favor of Pollard, and in 1999 the state legislature amended the Oklahoma Academic Scholars Program and completely eliminated subcategories for both race and gender (NCSLl) . The outcome of this case, and what the court required the program to do, is exactly what I believe needs to be done country wide and in every college application. It is a policy that I

believe will specifically stop fighting discrimination with more discrimination and put an end to unfair advantages. Our country will never progress if we continue to show any signs of racial preference no matter the way in which it is being done. When someone is well qualified for a school and they are denied acceptance based on their failure to be a part of a minority, discrimination is still prevailing. A recent case taken up by the Supreme Court deals with this very idea. Recently, as of late March 2013, the Supreme Court took on a higher education Affirmative Action case that involves the state of Michigan trying to prohibit colleges and state employees from using race or ethnicity as a deciding factor for admissions. This goes to show how prevalent and contemporary Affirmative Action really is. It is not a tired and stale issue, but instead is one that is so rampant that the Supreme Court is obligated to handle it. Further, as claimed by Fox News, the Supreme Court actually announced last Monday (March 25) that, it would include a Michigan law that would bar public universities from considering race as an admissions factor in its review of Affirmative Action in higher education (Fox News). Additionally, in an article by Lawrence Hurley he states, The Michigan law bans preferential treatment toward any candidates in public university admissions (Hurley). This goes to prove that not only is Affirmative Action beginning to be reconsidered on a state level, but on a national level like the Supreme Court as well. Both the state of Michigan and the Supreme Court have recognized the repercussions of Affirmative Action and are attempting to end any type of discrimination by ending the use of race/ethnicity as a factor. It does not matter how big or small the action may seem, until this country rids itself of any signs of preferential treatment based on the color of ones skin or the national group they belong to, then this country will forever live in a state of inequality and racism. Racism does not always have to refer to blacks, Mexicans, Indians, etc. but it can also be relevant to whites who are now being treated with a bias (Hurley).

Affirmative Action not only leads to further discrimination, but it acts as a crutch for minorities who tend to lower their standards and quality of work. Students who fall under the category of Affirmative Action may not feel as accountable for their work and performance, thus leading towards lower quality. This opinion is supported by an activist on a well known political website Balanced Politics that states that, most people need an extra push or incentive to do their very best. By setting lower standards for admission or hiring, we are lowering the level of accountability. We should reward hard work, discipline, and achievement; we shouldn't reward a student simply because he or she is a certain race, nor punish another student simply because he or she isn't (Balanced Politics). Along the same lines as that, if a university allows a student acceptance into a school based on their race rather than their outstanding resume, then these students will often prove to be ill-equipped to handle the school in which they have been admitted. In an article in the Wall Street Journal, journalists Sander and Taylor support my belief when noting that, in fact, the majority of students admitted with large racial preferences struggle academically and often never come close to achieving their goals. At selective schools, more than 80% of blacks, and two-thirds of Hispanics, have received at least moderately large admissions preferences (Sander, Taylor). One argument that advocates for a continuation of Affirmative Action claims that students starting at a disadvantage need a boost (balanced politics). My response to that is sometimes the boost proves to be too much, and oftentimes students who do not have the ability to thrive in the university that accepted them, usually drop out and fail to graduate. The same Wall Street journalists go on to comment that, there is now increasing evidence that students who receive large preferences of any kindwhether based on race, athletic ability, alumni connections or other considerationsexperience some clear negative effects: Students

end up with poor grades (usually in the bottom fifth of their class), lower graduation rates, extremely high attrition rates from science and engineering majors, substantial self-segregation on campus, lower self-esteem and far greater difficulty passing licensing tests (such as bar exams for lawyers) (Sander, Taylor). When this is the case, instead of Affirmative Action giving minorities the extra tool to succeed and prove themselves in this country, it is instead acting as a tool that further stereotypes them. Advocates for Affirmative Action also declare that, some stereotypes may never be broken without Affirmative Action (balanced politics). Although I believe this statement to be false and I do in fact believe that they can be broken without Affirmative Action, the argument I would really make is that Affirmative Action actually successfully creates additional negative stereotypes. Sander and Taylor express the same opinion in their article stating that Affirmative Action does indeed fabricate a, stigma of being deemed Affirmative-Action admits to their black and Hispanic recipients. They are now considered the minority that cannot seem to graduate. If there was a policy that was passed eliminating all racial and ethnic questioning on college applications, then reverse discrimination and the hindering of equal opportunity could be avoided. Students would be accepted into schools that are appropriate for their academic level and instead of sinking in the masses they would have a better chance of shining among students who are equal to them. According to the New York Times, California, Texas, and Florida are already on board with this policy as they have eliminated Affirmative Action in higher education. Yes, getting rid of the ethnicity portion of the application may risk decreasing diversity on campuses, but having a student body who all deserve to be there and have equal chances of succeeding, in my opinion is more important that having a good average. In an article in the New York Times, journalist David Leonhardt comments on an Affirmative Action court case

stating the defenders of the program asserted that, Without diverse college classes, they argued, students will learn less and society will lack for future leaders (Leonhardt). But he goes on to note that Americans value diversity. But they value fairness more and that he resents colleges who reject an applicant for the sake of creating a group that demographically resembles the country (Leonhardt). Further, the elimination of the race/ethnicity section of the application would additionally give non-minority students more of a fair chance at getting into the college of their dreams. A students chances of going to their most treasured school should not be jeopardized by the color of their skin. The requirements that should be the jeopardizing factors are things like grades, extra curricular activities, essays, SAT, merit, recommendation letters, and the list goes on but none of them include what background you are. Race and ethnicity should not matter anymore, we as a society are trying to move on and improve, but if Affirmative Action is still active this simply cannot happen. Affirmative Action is not only bringing down minority groups by forcing them into an environment that they may not be capable of handling, but it is destroying the dreams and prospects of applicants who were denied acceptance due to the policy of Affirmative Action. Ultimately it is demeaning to true minority achievement. Even if the minority student was to succeed, there is the possibility of their success being labeled as a result of, Affirmative Action rather than hard work and ability (Balanced Politics). The article on Balanced Politics additionally argues that when their success is labeled as a result of preferential treatment, minorities now have to work twice as hard to earn respect. Once again, the whole point of the act is so that minorities are viewed as having the same abilities to succeed as whites, but in fact it does the opposite no matter how they try to get around it. Personally, in regards to jobs and the work force that I am surrounded by every day I would like to see the most qualified applicants filling the jobs. When I go into surgery I would

feel more comfortable having a doctor perform the surgery who I know got his degree and acceptance into medical school based only on his qualifications, than someone who had the edge because of their skin color. I would also have peace of mind knowing that the police officer patrolling my city and town was the most qualified applicant for the job based on his or her credentials and ability rather than ethnicity. Without the need for knowing a persons racial background we as a society have more of a chance at filling jobs with the correct applicant to do the best work possible. My point goes back to what I said about how eliminating Affirmative Action will lead to an elimination of a plethora of other problems. Along with the many others complications I have considered, under-qualified people taking jobs that effect other people is just another drawback to the program. But again the risk of those repercussions happening would be significantly decreased if we were to just rid ourselves of Affirmative Action. All in all, the point of getting rid of Affirmative Action is to ultimately create a truly color-blind society. Just as applications for jobs and schools do not ask for your weight, hair/eye color, height etc. because it does not have any baring or correlation to ones intelligence, the same should go for skin color. Why ask for someones skin color if you do not ask for their shoe size as well? Those are strictly superficial and literally physical requirements that do not prove how smart or disciplined a student is. It really just makes no sense at this point in our countries history to still have such juvenile acts being exercised. I think that it would be an extraordinary and moving experience to live in a society where skin color is ignored and regarded as much as hair and eye color are. And the only way for that to happen is if a policy is passed that at the very least eradicated any part of the college application that asks one to fill out their racial and ethnic background.

Works Cited "Affirmative Action." Affirmative Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. "The Case Against Affirmative Action." The Case Against Affirmative Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. Hurley, Lawrence. "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Michigan Affirmative Action Case." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. Leonhardt, David. "CAPITAL IDEAS; Rethinking Affirmative Action." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. "Resources: Online Voter Registration." Affirmative Action: Court Decisions. NCSL, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2013.

Sanders, Richard, and Stuart Taylor, JR. "The Unraveling of Affirmative Action." Wall Street Journal, n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 21013. "Should Affirmative Action Policies, Which Give Preferential Treatment Based on Minority Status, Be Eliminated?" BalancedPolitics.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. "Supreme Court Adds Michigan Higher Education Case to Affirmative Action Review." Fox News. FOX News Network, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2013.