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.
No comments:
Post a Comment