The Perils of Affirmative Action

In the very beginning of this nation's history, Americans were under the power of England's monarchy. At the point when they were able to overthrow the shackles of bondage, they created a Constitution, which declared its steadfast belief in the ideals of freedom, equality and the pursuit of happiness.

However, after the Declaration of Independence, with the Constitution signed and accepted by leaders of the new government, not every American citizen continued to be treated fairly. A good example would be the Negroes and Asians, more so their women.

First introduced by President Kennedy in 1961, Affirmative Action was intended to be a method of reducing the discrimination, which remained despite the civil rights, laws and constitutional guarantees.  It replaced the “Temporary Measure to Level the Playing Field” through offering of the same opportunities to all Americans. Affirmative action has been praised and pilloried as the answer to racial inequality.

While the Affirmative Action plan was aimed to have good effects, it resulted in exposing the flaws in the system as “Reverse Racism” began to emerge. Such flaws can be observed in the following scenario. The “Bakke” case came about when a Caucasian male was rejected for two years in favor of admitting other minorities through a quota system. According to A, Affirmative Action is most unfair.

There are a lot of qualified students who can not get into a decent college because of the presence of the racial quota schools are required to reach. This, along with other flaws, led to a mounting anger against Affirmative Action. Soon it became a Zero Sum Game, wherein jobs and opportunities became open to minorities but not to the Caucasians. During this period, Preferential treatment and quotas became implications of contempt and bias.

This evident violation of the Constitution prompted many to create a landmark law that will turn the tide once and for all. Affirmative Action was supposed to save America from racism and discrimination. Unfortunately. this directive failed and, in fact, even backfired. Instead of helping the oppressed, it made them look less worthy of respect.

Analysis

America has to be discourteously awakened by the Civil Rights Movement. Its people has to realize that there is still much work to be done with regards to racism in this country. When Martin Luther King, Jr. died, the nation was ready for a major change.

Ending segregation in the South, and improving the status of the Negro race, has become the appropriate thing to do. It was the late John F. Kennedy, the first U.S. President since Abraham Lincoln signed another landmark law, who proposed a directive that was supposed to improve the lives of all African-Americans in this country.

Barely a few months in office, JFK issued Executive Order 10925, which created the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Its main objective was to eradicate discrimination in the U.S., at least when it comes to the government and its contractors.

Every federal contract includes a pledge that the contractor will not discriminate based on the person's race, creed, color, or national origin. The JFK administration was calling for an Affirmative Action. The government that will simply no longer pay lip service to the ideals of freedom and equality. They shall deliberate about this issue.

The primary problem with Affirmative Action is that its nature is not exactly the huge civil rights boon that was promised.  In Stanford University, Robert Fullinwider wrote that Affirmative Action means taking positive steps to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas such as employment, education, and business, wherein they have been historically excluded.

In addition, there is a law which forces the issue that interest groups are encouraged to bring the issue to court and to pressure businesses and employers to comply.”  This means that while there are positive effects, it is still not broad or effective enough to deliver the necessary social change.

Furthermore, another important reason behind the inefficiency of Affirmative Action in addressing the social issue on racism is brought about by the increased racial tension it caused in the first place.  In this regard, Fullinwider wrote in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that when preferential selection, which is a bias based on ethnicity, Affirmative Action gives greater light to controversy.

The pendulum has swung to the other extreme. It implied that the government is trying to compensate for a lot of lost ground. It also implied that there is a deliberate act of atoning for past sins. However, the problem is that those who are so ardent about the issue are actually creating a reverse discrimination.

Instead of discriminating against the Negro, there is now discrimination for the Negro (Cowan 5).   These effects caused many social problems because it is being argued that reverse racism has  more detrimental societal effect than that of racism, per se.

James Nickel was able to put it compactly when he said that when groups who are being discriminated against for certain characteristics, which were morally irrelevant, are awarded because of these implies that the issue remains relevant. Instead having discrimination against people, there is not a kind of discrimination in favor of them. In the end, it is still both discrimination. (4)

In one of the more glaring examples of Affirmative Action gone bad was the case of The Regents of the University of California vs. Allan Bakke (Dwokin 103). In this particular case, the University of California Davis School of Medicine has an Affirmative Action program, which was designed to admit more black students than otherwise.

Among the 100 slots offered every year, only 16 slots were reserved  and available for blacks and other educationally and economically disadvantaged minorities.

As it turned out, Allan Bakke was forced to compete for the remaining 84 slots. However, he was rejected. The only problem then was that Bakke has significantly higher scores than the other black students, who were admitted to the program. Bakke sued the school, and the California Court agreed. The school appealed to the Supreme Court.

This shows that there is a growing difficulty in appreciating the Affirmative Action. Even liberals adopted the idea that this may also result in injustice.

Similarly, in the case of Wygant in 1986, the African-American employees kept their jobs while the Caucasian employees with seniority were downsized.  Recent cases also brought Affirmative Action into public view. As in 2003, the Supreme Court decided that there was a right of Affirmative Action in higher education.

The relevance of this decision is that it creates a measure by which Affirmative Action can be implemented.  In the 2003 Michigan Cases, it was stated that Affirmative Action was meant to promote a Compelling State Interest in diversity not only in a particular aspect of society, but also on all levels.

A similar case can be seen in the analysis of SAT scores in the 90s. According to researcher Byron Roth, elite US Colleges require a score of over 600 on the verbal portion for admission into their program. However, Roth found certain details that is foreseen to give advocates of Affirmative Action a massive headache.

Furthermore, he remarked that only 2 percent of those who scored above 600 were blacks. On the other hand, those Caucasians who scored above that level comprised of 73 percent. The same is found true for Math scores wherein only about 3 percent of the total population of black students scored higher than 600, while 13 percent of whites scored higher than 600. (265)

If Affirmative Action forces the issue of giving up slots to minorities, then how can this action be justified on the basis of fairness? Is it simply by rewarding people according to hard work? Bakke, alongside other Caucasian folks, clearly deserve equal treatment as do members of minority. It is inexcusable to give preferential treatment to black students or traditionally marginalized groups.

This is doing them a disservice. Instead of helping them become strong, this society is keeping them lame and bound to negative connotations of their social status. It is about time something is done in punishing discrimination. At the same time, equality should be promoted in the most appropriate means possible.

A common feature of Affirmative Action is the establishment of quotas, such as in employment or in the admission to academic programs. This may be a deliberate step to create a level playing field, but there are now evidences to prove the contrary. It is even ironic that the same people who are supposed to be assisted by Affirmative Action are the ones who are suffering from the recoil, so to speak.

For instance, there are increasing numbers of Jews and Asian who are now beginning to feel that Affirmative Action is actually hurting their chances to be admitted to academic programs (Swain 296). The number of Asians and Jews, who get high scores, would imply that not all can be included. That is considering that there are already reserved slot for other minority groups.

In this light, the exclusion predicament is one of the main reasons behind Affirmative Action not working in the United States.  While African-Americans are given more opportunities, in comparison to the past decades, it must be remembered that there are other races that comprise the population of the country.  There is no single race.  The United States is known as a melting pot.

As such, there must be equal opportunity for all, not just a select few.  This would be contrary to the provisional guarantee of fair and equal treatment to all. Moreover, the color of one's skin does not dictate his social status. In this regard, C also mentioned that there are also some Caucasians who are unable to afford education.