|
Many upcoming high school graduates have aspirations of continuing
his or her education at a major university. In order to become accepted
into a college of one’s choice, he or she must dedicate time and
efforts to obtain the grades required. People have been taught that
through hard work and dedication comes the reward of a better future.
Although this seems to be the ideal and just situation, our nation has
made the effort to give more equality to the minority groups through
affirmative action. At the time when affirmative action was first
introduced, it may have been the most plausible reparation; however,
many Americans in both majority and minority groups are feeling the
repercussions of the act. Affirmative action has evolved into a road
block for hard-working students who strive for a good education more
than it has helped the minority groups (“Negative”). Affirmative action
was adopted to create opportunities for minority groups but, in turn,
has created reverse discrimination and preferential treatment in
college admissions.
There is evidence to show affirmative action has not met its
expectation, but first, its history will help to give a better
understanding. Affirmative action by definition, according to WordNet
2.0, is a policy designed to redress past discrimination against women
and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and
education opportunities. The United States Congress passed the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit segregation in public accommodations and
discrimination in education and employment. Afterward, on “September
25, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued the Executive Order
#11246, which required federal contractors to take ‘affirmative action’
to remedy past discrimination against African Americans” (“United”).
Without realizing it, President Johnson took part in a very
discriminating act.
The Civil Rights Act passed during a time when minorities felt as
though they deserved retribution for the many years of suffering they
endured. America’s effort to rectify this led to affirmative action,
which allows women and minorities not to be overlooked in college
admissions. Many see this as a step toward the end of racism; however,
many Americans, including those of minorities, view affirmative action
as an “. . . attempt to end discrimination with discrimination”
(“Affirmative”). Furthermore, it somewhat indicates minorities are
incapable of accomplishing such goals on their own.
History tells the purpose behind affirmative action, but does
evidence prove its failure? “Reverse discrimination” is often the
choice phrase many people use to describe affirmative action. In an
attempt to eliminate racial preference through college admissions, the
government, unintentionally, created a new age of discrimination. An
example of the reverse discrimination is in the case of Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke, in which a white applicant was
denied admissions because of race (“History”). “. . . when colleges
judge an application by which box is checked under race, this is
distinguishing the feature of each applicant’s race, which is by
definition, racial discrimination, . . .” (“Negative”).
Another objection to affirmative action is the research done to
prove it is preferential treatment. Before the affirmative action law
was passed, the percentage of minorities enrolled in college was 4.9
percent. The percentage grew about 2 percent every ten years after
1970; however, in 1995, the portion of black students attending college
had dropped to 25 percent below that of white students (Eisaguirre
93-94). As evidence to show racial preference is used when considering
an applicant into college, Lynne Eisagiurre states the following:
A study published in the November 1992 issue of Academic Medicine
shows that minorities with low grade point averages and low Medical
College Admissions Test scores will in most years find a medical school
that will accept them about 30 percent of the time, whereas whites with
the same credentials will get in about 15 percent of the time. ( 95)
Not only is preferential treatment a disadvantage to those of the
majority group, it affects those among the minorities as well. It has
become an ongoing complaint with the minorities, generally African
Americans, that “one of the most troubling effects of racial
preferences for blacks is a kind of demoralization” (Steele 573). The
use of affirmative action sends out a message to all of America that
minorities need all the help they can get in order to be successful.
This is not true. Minorities are very well capable of possessing a
successful future without the aid of the government. As Steele explains
it, “preferential treatment is an implied inferiority” (573).
Another example is the grounds on which affirmative action was
created. It was developed to right a wrong, in other words, an attempt
to eliminate gender and racial bias in America by compensating for the
past. Therefore, it makes minorities think of themselves as a victim of
“past victimization” rather than seeking achievements based on their
hard work (Steele 578). Affirmative action does not mend the
inhumanities of the past. Perhaps society could better serve these
minorities by lending a helping hand to those who seek success but are
not in the position to achieve such goals on their own (“Affirmative”).
On the other hand, there are those among the American population who
agree with affirmative action. It has been argued that with affirmative
action the less advantaged minorities are offered a chance at an
educational future, whereas without it, most would not be admitted into
a university. With this offer, minorities are given a positive
influence. Also, it brings diversity into the classroom, subjecting
students to interact with their peers in hopes of becoming more
open-minded. Celia Wolfe-Devine emphasizes minorities will contribute
to students and act as role models through the continuance of
affirmative action (79).
In an effort to create opportunity for minority groups in college
admissions, affirmative action has caused an adverse reaction with
reverse discrimination and preferential treatment. While affirmative
action has opened the door for minorities, at the same time it has
closed the door for non minority groups that otherwise qualify but are
left out because of race. In conclusion, affirmative action should be
discarded and admissions should be based solely on the individuals’
qualifications. Without gender or race being the main qualifier for
admissions, the graduating rate would increase as well as the quality
of life on campus.
Works Cited
Eisaguirre, Lynne (1999). Affirmative Action: A Reference Handbook.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Retrieved 29 November, 2004 from
<http//:ebooks.abc-clio.com/?1576072584>. p. 93-95.
Hoffman, Chelsea. “Affirmative Action–Moral Compensation or Reverse
Discrimination?” The Colby Reader. Colby College. 26 November, 2004.
<http://colby.edu/par/Winter%2000/AFFIRMATIVE%20ACTION.htm>.
“Negative Action by our Universities.” 26 November 2004. <http://mail.rochester.edu/~nc002h/negative.html>.
Steele, Shelby. “Affirmative Action: The Price of Preference.” The Longman Reader. Ed.
Linda Stern. New York: Pearson Education. p. 571-575.
“Supreme Court of the United States: Affirmative Action.” Microsoft Encarta Multimedia
Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2003.
“United States (History): Affirmative Action.” Microsoft Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2003.
Wolfe-Devine, Celia. Diversity and Community in the Academy:
Affirmative Action in Faculty Appointments. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1997.
WordNet. CD-ROM. Vers. 2.0. Princeton University: 2003.
|
(0 vote)