Creating a System that is No Longer In Need of Affirmative Action Policies

As a student in college, I appreciate diversity in the classroom because students learn better in a diverse environment. When I applied to college I could not help but be a little jealous that I am not a minority. I was not able to check the “correct” box on my application. Affirmative action policies in higher education institutions have caused a great amount of controversy in the past couple of years. As students we worked very hard on essays, SAT classes, and a good GPA. It is disheartening to students who work so hard and apply for admission and are rejected while their friends, who are minorities, apply and receive admission when they are not as well achieved. As a student, I want to know that working hard and being well qualified compared to other applicants will guarantee admission.

Affirmative action policies have become incredibly controversial recently because they have become outdated. Even though we know that people learn better in a diverse environment, it does not seem right to reject applicants who are more qualified than those being admitted. Affirmative action has been called “reverse racism” and has begun doing exactly the opposite of what the policies were created to do. These programs lead some students to believe that they can rely on their race or ethnicity to help them get admission. There is a problem with these policies because it does not make sense to reject a student who is well achieved and qualified and accept a student who is not just because their race will fulfill a certain amount of diversity. We all understand that there have been wrongs done in the past, but we like to hope that our country has moved past them.

Affirmative action policies were created in 1965 during President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. In 1965 President Johnson made an Executive Order “mandating government contractors to ‘take affirmative action’ in all aspects of hiring and employing minorities” (Garrison-Wade). In the same way “many colleges and professional schools started to recruit minority students as a part of their educational mission” (Garrison-Wade). This began a process in which admissions processes “took race into consideration.” These policies were created in the 1960’s when minorities were being discriminated against. They were created to force companies and admissions officers to hire and admit minorities.

The court system has become involved in trying to fix issues people have with affirmative action policies. The first case the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action was in 1978, Regents of University of California v. Bakke. In this case “Allan Bakke, a white applicant, claimed he was wrongfully denied admission to medical school at the University of California to make room for less qualified minority students” (Garrison-Wade). This case was brought to the Supreme Court, who ruled that “the establishment or use of ‘racial quotas’ in determining admission violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment; however, institutions of higher learning can still consider race as a factor, among many, in the admission process” (Garrison-Wade). The most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court involved the University of Michigan’s admission process. The Grutter v. Bollinger ruling in 2003 allowed the University of Michigan Law School to use of any sort of race based affirmative action policies (Garrison-Wade). In the same year the courts ruled on, Gratz v. Regents, stating “the university’s undergraduate College of Literature, Science, and Arts could not use an admission process that awarded points based on an applicant’s race and ethnicity” (Garrison-Wade). These decisions have essentially changed the system by outlawing the ability to give “extra points” to applicants (Garrison-Wade).

If we look at the history of affirmative action policies they were created for a reason and did serve a purpose. These policies have become outdated. There needs to be a new approach to making the system “fair” without allowing those who are not qualified to be admitted. In order to make this system fair all students must be offered the same sort of opportunities through public institution in elementary and secondary educational systems before they begin applying for admissions in higher education levels. The only way to rid the system of affirmative action policies is to create a system that does not need them. As much as no one likes to admit it all public school systems are not equally equipped with teachers, money, supplies, and some of the most basic tools needed to give a student a good education. I have family who has begun lying about their address in order for their children to receive a good education. My ant does not want her children to be forced to go to the school in the district they live in because it offers such a poor education. There needs to be an answer to creating equally equipped public schools in all districts.

One way to create an equal system is to force equal funding for all public school systems. U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa says, “unequal funding and affirmative action are directly related” (Dervarics). There are too many school districts that receive inadequate funding, which creates a system in which “too many low-income, minority children attend inferior local schools with few resources and an insufficient tax base” (Dervarics). If all students are given the same opportunities in elementary and secondary education levels then there would be no need to assume that because an applicant is of a certain race or economic standing they did not receive the same opportunities in elementary and secondary education levels. Many justify the use of affirmative action because of the unequal funding given between rich and poor school districts. If the root of the problem, funding, is fixed then there will no longer be a need to have programs making amends for limited opportunities given in elementary and secondary education (Dervarics). This justification will no longer exist when the school systems are all made fair.

The second part to the creation of a new system is to create one that offers fair educational opportunities to all. Making sure that all school districts are equally qualified in seven specific areas: “curricula, trained teachers, books, class size, libraries, facilities (including computers), and guidance counselors” (Dervarics). The standards for all of these areas need to be met or else government officials will enforce them and take away certain “administrative funds” (Dervarics). In the same way that the government can enforce a drinking age, which is a state law (as is education), the Federal government can remove funding for other things, for example highways, while the states make the mandatory adjustments in the areas the federal government wants changed. This idea is “the Student Bill of Rights.”

All those in support of this legislation believe that “the quality of a student’s education shouldn’t be determined by the digits of their zip code” (Dervarics). Essentially, the idea behind improving elementary and secondary educational systems and making them equal will make affirmative action policies irrelevant. All students will be given the same opportunities to receive a good, quality education before applying into higher education levels. The creation of a system, in which all those who participate are always on a level playing field, will make affirmative action irrelevant and pointless.

Simply disregarding the fact that our public educational systems at the elementary and secondary levels are unequal and removing affirmative action policies would be unjust. The system needs to be altered before these programs are eliminated because they were created for a reason and have accomplished the goal of achieving a sort of equality in the system.

Others have the view that affirmative action programs need to be eliminated and that they are of no help in our culture. Dr. Shelby Steele, “a well-known Black conservative,” believes that affirmative action has not been of any aid to the black community but has in fact held it back. He says that affirmative action policies were created out of “white guilt” (Roach). He believes that laying blame upon “white guilt” is not right (Roach). Blacks should be able to respond to the system’s “call for excellence,” on their own, without help from, “white guilt” (Roach). It is impossible for anyone to respond to the “call for excellence” unless they are offered an equal opportunity to receive a high-quality education at the elementary and secondary educational levels. The only way to make the Black community, any community, able to respond and able to compete at the higher educational level is to give an equal opportunity to receive a good, quality education at elementary and secondary levels. By simply doing nothing the system will fail.

Affirmative action programs are slowly but surely being outlawed in admissions processes. More and more people believe “treating members of various groups differently in the pursuit of diversity or social justice…is downright immoral” (“The Color”). The only way to make the process fair to all those who go through the admissions process in higher education is to create an equal standard of education at the elementary and secondary levels.

Get a More Detailed Look at Sources I have Cited

Bollinger, Lee C. “Why Diversity Matters.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 53.39 (2007): NA. General Onefile. 18 Oct. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

This article shows on a broader level the need for affirmative action programs. There is a need for diversity in all levels of education which means that there should not be cases in the Supreme Court trying to overturn a case that ruled that “separate is inherently unequal,” these court cases are examples of the lack of progress our educational systems have made in 60 years. The author also shows the necessity of diversity in school systems of all levels. This article will be used in my essay to show how the court system and voters are hurting the educational systems by deciding that these programs should be illegal.

Bridglall, Beatrice L. and Edmund W. Gordon, Eds. Affirmative Development: Cultivating Academic Ability. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2007.

In Chapter 4 of this book, Affirmative Development as an Alternative to Affirmative Action, the author writes about an alternative to affirmative action. The chapter begins by summarizing the history or affirmative action and its use in education and then proceeds to list the differences between affirmative action programs and affirmative development programs. This chapter will be used as another example of how the idea behind affirmative action can still be in place while the programs are changed slightly to receive fewer criticisms.

Dervarics, Charles. “Lawmakers Link Affirmative Action, K-12 Funding Issues.” Black Issues in Higher Education 20.8 (2003): NA. Academic Search Premier 21 Oct. 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com.

This article makes the argument that “unequal funding and affirmative action” are very clearly related to one another. U.S. Representatives from the Black Caucus argue that the lack of funding justifies affirmative action in admissions because it brings about diversity in admissions. This article will be used to defend an argument in support of affirmative action stating that there can no be “color blind college admissions” unless there is an equal amount of money given to poor and rich areas. In my essay this article will be used to show why affirmative action programs should be in place and how they affect a specific demographic of our society.

Feinberg, Walter. On Higher Ground: Education and the Case for Affirmative Action. New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.

In chapter three of this book, A Case for a Backward-looking Gender- and Race-based Policy, the author presents an alternative to race-based affirmative action programs and also displays different criticisms people have towards affirmative action programs and legislation. The author presents an idea of need-based affirmative action as opposed to race-based affirmative action. This chapter will be used in my essay to display an alternative to race-based affirmative action as well as defend the whole idea of affirmative action in the first place.

Garrison-Wade, Dorothy F., and Chance W. Lewis. “Affirmative Action: History and Analysis.” Journal of College Admission 23 (2004). Ebsco. 21 Oct. 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com.

In this source the two authors effectively give a brief history of affirmative action. The article also cites seven specific ways to analyze the success and effectiveness of affirmative action programs and legislation. In my essay I will use the information from this article to help analyze the effectiveness of different affirmative action programs and legislation. This source also contains direct quotes from president Lyndon B. Johnson, the president who first passed affirmative action legislation, which I will use to explain the history of the legislation.

Madison, Gary J. “Nationwide attack on affirmative action: Michigan loss leaves proponents retooling their strategy for future battles.” Black Enterprise 37.7 (2007): 29(1). General Onefile. 17 Oct. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

This article shows the reaction of the black community to the Michigan voters’ decision to vote against affirmative action in university admissions. This article shows that there is a significant amount of people who do not want there to be any sort of affirmative action programs in college admissions. This will be used in my essay to show that voters do not wish for there to be any sort of affirmative action legislation or program in college admissions and the reaction the black community has to the decisions to eliminate these programs.

Massey, Garth. “Thinking about Affirmative Action: Arguments Supporting Preferential Policies.” Review of Policy Research 21.6 (2004): NA. Academic Search Premier. 21 Oct. 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com.

The authors of the article “Thinking about Affirmative Action Arguments Supporting Preferential Policies,” seek to show six different arguments in support of affirmative action policies. The first three are used quite commonly, like the argument for making amends for past wrongs, etc. The second three are not as common and are much stronger arguments for these programs. This article will be used to find a new and different way to support affirmative action. Also this article uses specific examples to back up each argument for these programs causing these points to be much stronger and arguable than others.

Mitchell, Alison. “Defending Affirmative Action, Clinton Urges Debate on Race.” The New York Times (1997): NA. Academic Onefile 21 Oct. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com.

This article is an example of president Bill Clinton stating his clear support for national as well as state, specifically in California, affirmative action programs and legislation. President Clinton is an example of how high up support for affirmative action programs goes and the lengths at which a man with his amount of power can go to in order for legislation to be effective. This article will be used in my essay to support affirmative action programs and to show the actions that can be taken by political figures to pass legislation and influence the opinions of voters in certain directions.

Reyna, Christine, et al. “Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action.” Political Psychology 26.5 (2005). 21 Oct. 2007 Http://search.ebscohost.com.

This article shows that there is middle ground between those who are opponents or those who are proponents of affirmative action programs and legislation. This source has statistical evidence of the overlaps in their opinions. The source goes through to show how the authors conducted the study and who the participants were etc. This source will be used in my essay to show the overlap in people’s opinions. Using the different polls that were taken in the writing of the article as statistical proof of these overlaps.

Roach, Ronald. “Living In A Post-Affirmative Action World.” Black Issues in Higher Education 20.1 (2003): 32. Academic Search Premier. 8 Oct. 2007 http://search.ebscohost.com.

This article was written before the Michigan ruling on its affirmative action programs for law school admissions and shows the different reactions people could have to the ruling. Stating that the amount of diversity in admissions would be very small because of the elimination of these programs. This article will be used in my essay to show the different expectations people have in a world that has no affirmative action programs in place. The results show statistically how people would vote for the programs and the different reactions scholars hope would come about once the ruling is made.

Schmidt, Peter. “Supreme Court Shows Increased Skepticism toward Affirmative Action.” Chronicle of Higher Education 53.1 (2006). 21 Oct. 2007

http://search.ebscohost.com.

This article uses the specific example of the courts to show the attack on affirmative action programs and legislation. The article cites specific court cases as examples of these attacks. This article will be used in my essay to show specific examples of why the courts have begun attacking the affirmative action programs. This will be used in an argument against affirmative action programs to show an example of how our governmental system has an influence on the different programs that exist or why they do not exist.

“The Color of Change; Why are we still debating whether race should be a factor in college admissions?” Newsweek (2006): 52. General Onefile. 17 Oct. 2007

http://find.galegroup.com.

This article makes an argument that we as a society put way too much on affirmative action. The programs were not created to amend everything wrong with our society. In my essay I will use this article to show that the affirmative action programs did what they were supposed to when they were first created but have evolved and changed into something that could arguably be a negative thing.

An Argument Over Preferential Treatment

Affirmative action programs were created in the 1960’s to make opportunities for minorities that had not been available before. President Andrew Johnson, the president who passed the affirmative action policies, stated, “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights” (Garrison-Wade).  President Johnson made the idea behind his speech real by signing the Executive Order which mandated “government contractors to ‘take affirmative action’ in all aspects of hiring and employing minorities” (Garrison-Wade).  Recently, affirmative action policies have been under great scrutiny and have been the subject of several Supreme Court cases. The most recent case is the Gratz v. Bollinger case, which made giving “extra points” to certain applicants, based on race or ethnicity (Garrison-Wade). Affirmative action is still defended by some as a promotion of diversity, but at the same time it is called reverse discrimination by giving more emphasis on someone’s race rather than actual achievements.

            Affirmative action was created to give opportunities to minorities that were once not given, and has been used to create a large amount of diversity in higher education admissions and job opportunities. One of the first reasons minorities believe that these programs should be in place is to make amends for past discriminations and to allow the errors in the system to be corrected (Massey). Before the president mandated that companies and universities “take affirmative action” there was an extreme amount of discrimination against those whom were minorities causing the need for these programs (Garrison-Wade).  The concept of affirmative action makes amends for past discrimination by creating more motivation and benefit to those who would ideally not be given those opportunities due to economic status, etc. Diversity is half of going into higher education: “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to all students’ training for the new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (Bollinger). Having these policies in place makes up for the lack of funding and ability of the educational systems of certain communities. If the inabilities in these systems were amended, then there would be an effort to change the abilities of those going through the system. Those who support this idea would begin to say that if we amend the inabilities in the systems then there would be no need for affirmative action programs.  Some believe that these policies are unnecessary to begin with and serve no purpose other than to create policies of “reverse racism.”

             Racism is defined as discrimination of someone based on race or ethnicity. Affirmative action programs give benefits and priority to certain groups based on their race and ethnicity. Affirmative action is called by those who do not agree with it “reverse racism.”  US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun expressed a feeling of turning a concept to equality “upside down,” stating, “to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently” (“The Color”). There should instead be an approach to change the school systems to help make them better so that there would be no need for the affirmative action policies at all. The Supreme Court agreed in Gratz v. Bollinger: “the court voted 6 to 3 to strike down a point-based admissions formula used by Michigan’s chief undergraduate school, based on its conclusion that, by automatically awarding sizable point bonuses to applicants from certain minority groups, the undergraduate school treated students differently based on their race” (Schmidt). The very first case to go against affirmative action programs in admissions was Regents of University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Racial quotas were found to be illegal in this case. The court system has gone against affirmative action policies showing that these policies have become outdated in out court systems, which is the most impartial branch of our government. This shows that there needs to be a different approach to the whole idea of creating diversity.

            What if there was a completely different approach to affirmative action programs? Affirmative development is a different approach to race/ethnicity-based affirmative action. This idea “targets larger and more diverse groups: those that are low on wealth and wealth-derived capital resources”(Bridglall). This policy would bring about an end to racial issues with affirmative action.  This program has the idea that we should not be arguing over ways for people to get “opportunities to enter.” Rather, they insure the “opportunity to develop and qualify” (Bridglall). This would bring back ideas all three positions can agree on. First, the school systems need to be made fairer. Second, the amount of funding given to public school systems needs to be evened out because, as long as the funding for the educational systems stays imbalanced, different groups will remain at a disadvantage if they do not receive equal education (Dervarics).

            Affirmative action will remain an extremely controversial issue. There is slim chance that people will argue that diversity is not an important factor in growing up and the way we view the world we live in. Affirmative action had a good intention, but “was never meant to carry the weight society threw on its shoulders” (“The Color”).  People can do things to help achieve equality in opportunities while at the same time not having any sort of “reverse racism.” We should support diversity, but not at the expense of someone’s achievements. Affirmative action needs to be tweaked to create programs that focus on making a person more qualified without just giving someone an opportunity based on race. 

            

Affirmative Action's Creation

Affirmative actions programs came about in the mid-1960's during the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty. The programs specifically went into effect in late 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an Executive Order that made all government sponsored groups "take affirmative action," to create more diversity in hiring and employment. Affirmative action programs have become extremely controversial and have been the subject of several Supreme Court cases. The first case was in 1978 California v. Bakke. This case involved a white student applying for admission into the medical school at the University of California, who was denied admission so that room could be made for those applying who were minorities and less qualified. The court ruled that there could be no “racial quotas” in admissions because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment. This ruling did not totally rid the admissions process of race and ethnicity biases because higher education learning facilites could still use race as a factor in admission. The most recent cases occurred in Michigan Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Regents. The first case Grutter v. Bollinger ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could use “race-based affirmative action to diversify the student body.” On the other side Gratz v. Regents ruled that the university’s undergraduate College of Literature, Science, and Arts could used any form of race based affirmative action programs to help grant admissions to minorities into the university.
The issue of affirmative action has been debate since its creation in the 1960’s. Many believe it to be a form of reverse racism that is granting jobs to those who are not as qualified to do them because of their race. Rather than hiring people and admitting those who have the best achievements and are the most qualified half of an admissions process has become which race you check off when you apply, take the SAT, or do most anything. We like to believe that our county has moved past race and has begun awarding jobs and admissions to those who are indeed the most qualified, but our country still cannot look past race. Whether or not affirmative action programs are a good thing is up to the individual. These programs do indeed increase diversity and grant opportunities to those who were once not allowed to have any sort of opportunity at all. These programs do have benefits, but are the benefits worth costing a very qualified person their job?