The Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action

Ian Fleming once said, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. [But] three times is enemy action” (Ian Fleming). Not once nor twice, but many times throughout the history of the United States, and the world, discrimination, whether overt or subtle, has occurred and continues to take place. In the United States, discrimination has typically adversely affected the lives of non-white persons. People from minority groups are more likely to come from a lower socioeconomic background than their white counterparts. While prejudice and marginalization cannot be completely stomped out, these “enemy” actions can and should be weakened through current and future civil rights policies, including affirmative action.
Affirmative Action was put into
effect by the actions of President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s (Eisaguirre). The policies of this program have been active for almost over fifty years. An affirmative action policy is one where an organization or institution earnestly participates in ways to promote favorable circumstances for minority groups that have been excluded historically, especially in employment and education (Messerli). An example of this is a university giving minorities preferential treatment in its admission process.
The past racial and gender injustices that Affirmative Action seeks to rectify are the tribulations of African, Asian, and Hispanic Americans, and women. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court denied citizenship to any black person (Eisaguirre). This meant black people did not have the right to, most notably, a trial by jury, vote or run for office, and the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Even after the Civil War ended slavery, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that there will be “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites (Kelly). This helped to continue racial segregation in schools, the military, and public venues. Women were not given the right to vote, to voice their opinions, until 1920. For much of the twentieth century, African and Hispanic Americans were segregated to work mostly low-wage jobs that happened to usually be agricultural while their white counterparts were store clerks, store managers, or something usually higher than janitor or bell-boy (Leverenz). This inequality of working a dead-end job persisted through the 1960s and 1970s. In the earlier part of the twentieth century, by law, Asian Americans could not own the land they tended to (Leverenz). All of their hard work only achieved little for their advancement of their place in life, for there were and still are many benefits to owning land, such as building whatever size house one desires. In many states, women were barred from working in the fields of bartending, mining, firefighting, medicine, and law (Cleveland). One reason for this was because it was stereotypically assumed that women were only good insofar as being part-time or temporary workers. Women also faced sexual harassment in the workplace and lost their jobs if they got married or became pregnant (Cleavland). This only enforced another stereotype that the husband, or male figure in the family, should be the head-of-the-household, and thus should be responsible for bringing food to the table. It also limited the ability of a woman to become independent and self-sufficient. Well into the 1970s, Asian and Hispanic Americans and women could not receive a higher education at some private and public institutions (Leverenz). This derailed almost any hope of having a career in the future. Although to a lesser extent today, disparities, nonetheless, are still present.
Affirmative Action exists in other parts of the world, but it goes by different names. It is known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the United Kingdom (Vongs). In 2000 in Brazil instituted racial quotas in its university system that targeted blacks and those with some African heritage (Carneiro). This was mainly because they are those who were disadvantaged due to, like the United States, the country's legacy of slavery. Today Brazil’s policy include those students who are from public schools or low-income families. In South Africa, the Employment Equity Act of 1998 has had little impact on seventy percent of the country's population, black people. The country’s top companies are still dominated by whites, and affirmative action policies have benefited only a small number of blacks, mainly those of the upper class (Vongs). The rest of the majority still live in rural poverty, devastated by generations of oppressive apartheid policies. India is changing its caste-based system to one based on income level and class. The caste system separates people into differing social levels depending on class, language, religion, gender, tribe, and region. "Backward castes" eligible for preferential programs has been changed to "backward classes" (Daniel). This new system will also take into account additional factors such as proximity to drinking water.
Some people argue that affirmative action is only perpetuating what the Civil Rights Movement sought to abolish- discrimination. They argue that Caucasian students with better qualifications than their colored counterparts are denied admissions to universities, like Harvard, and that those universities engage in reverse discrimination (Morris). Additionally, opponents of affirmative action argue that some postsecondary schools are solely trying to fill racial quotas for government funding, even though there are other ways of fostering student diversity (Warren). It is true that not all whites have an advantage over all the people of minorities. For example, Cheryl Hopwood, of the affirmative action court case Hopwood v. State of Texas, was a Caucasian female from a family of very modest means (Sandel 167). She would no doubt have had more advantages if she was the daughter of Oprah Winfrey. Yes, Hopwood may have been more qualified, in terms of grades and test scores, than the minority student who received her spot at the university, but that student may have come from an even more disparate background. Perhaps that student had to work longer hours than Hopwood did to earn more money to cover college debt or help out his or her family. While the treatment of Hopwood may be unfair, we must not forget the racial injustices of the past whose consequences have left minorities with deep-seated disadvantages. There is also concern that affirmative action stigmatizes minority groups, lowers standards and performance level for admission, and condescends towards those groups by implying that they need affirmative action in order to succeed. To an extent, these concerns are legitimate.
Despite these detriments, affirmative action has been beneficial to society as a whole. Thanks to affirmative action, minorities have a better chance of attaining a quality education, brighter job prospects, and an overall increase in their quality of life. This way, they will be in a better position to contribute positively to society. Opponents of affirmative action often fail to mention the inherent disadvantages that lower-income and minority students must contend with from birth, and how those disadvantages tend to create a vicious cycle of poverty. To an extent, the claim that the rich get richer and the poor remain poor is true. Upward mobility for those of low income is already more difficult than for those of the middle and upper class. How did some people become low income in the first place? Well, some immigrants, especially those of color, are an example. Sometimes the education they received in their native country cannot hold up in the United States. My father was a practicing doctor in India, but then he moved to the U.S. and it was back to square one. Due to his minimal knowledge of the English language, and him being the pioneer of his family to the U.S., he failed the United States Medical Licensure Exam, and was reduced to going to school, again, to become a medical coder. Even so, a few years later he had to retire because he was involved in a near-fatal car accident. Now my family is stuck living off of social security. However, being born here, I have an edge that my father never had. Improving my lot begins with focusing on one thing: my education.
Attaining a quality education has many advantages, particularly higher income.
Many people agree with the statement that money makes the world go around. Money may not be the absolute key to happiness, but it does make things easier. So, that quality education is attainable but not guaranteed. Some are in a better predisposed position to receive admittance into an institute of higher learning than others. For example, colleges utilize SAT scores as a criterion for admission. High scores greatly increase one’s likelihood to be admitted. But how are they achieved? Well, let’s compare a black student with a white student, the latter usually having more resources at his disposal. Both are equal in their academic subjects. However, the white student achieved a much higher score on the SAT than his black counterpart. How did this happen? The white student probably could have afforded a tutor or multiple preparation books, while the black student could not but still tried his very best. This inequality due to socioeconomic status is what affirmative action seeks to rectify. In addition to these scores, GPAs, and extracurricular activities, affirmative action makes the college admission process more holistic. Through affirmative action, colleges can view some of the challenges minority students have faced in their lives and take that into account instead of blindly assuming that those students are less capable of high academic performance. They are capable, and only require the
proper resources. Once they have been admitted into a college, there are resources on campus those students can use to stay on track to graduate and earn their degree. Because another advantage of having a college degree is brighter job prospects.
With employment, along with education, not only does affirmative action give preferential treatment to minorities, but also to women and people with disabilities (“Hiring”).
In the past, women and disabled people were given lower wage jobs or no jobs at all compared to their male or enabled counterparts. Even though this still true to some extent today, without affirmative action this gap would not be closing. Sometimes disability insurance is still not enough to cover living expenses, and other times a family’s change in financial situation may force a wife or mother to work outside of the home. U.S government jobs are covered by affirmative action, as well as jobs offered by employers who have been required by court judgment to have a written affirmative action plan (“Affirmative Action” HR). With these bright job prospects, which can be further irradiated by having a college degree, minorities, women, and people with disabilities do not have to worry about remaining in the same niche for the rest of their lives. Although upward mobility is not always easy, affirmative action has removed some of the obstacles in the way, leading to a better quality of
life.
If not for affirmative action, having a good quality of life may remain just a dream for the aforementioned disadvantaged groups. Everyone has the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, meaning that it is not just handed out on a silver platter. Still, some go through more angst and hardship in that pursuit than others. The quality education and, in turn, higher paying jobs, are the two keys that can break the lock on the aforementioned vicious cycle by elevating one’s socioeconomic status. With money, one can provide himself with comfort and resources not previously available without the college degree and higher paying job, which themselves were seemingly out of reach, in the case of the disadvantaged groups, until affirmative action was enacted. The children of the beneficiaries of affirmative action are now more likely in a better predisposed position to compete with their white or male counterparts. Using the resources of their parents, as my son will, these children can thrust themselves and rise above what their parents were able, or not able, to accomplish.
Overall, affirmative action benefits U.S. society more than it hinders it. Our society is ethnically heterogeneous, but at the same time, albeit slowly, it is becoming a homogenous melting pot. The assimilation of minorities, especially those of low income, has become more feasible because of affirmative action. Diversity in universities and the workplace has been increased. Through affirmative action, higher education, higher paying jobs, and a better quality life have been realized by those coming to the U.S., and those already here, like women and disabled individuals, who seek the American Dream. As President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair" (“Affirmative Action” The). These “enemy” chains still bound disadvantaged groups, albeit to a smaller and more subtle extent. Nonetheless, with the help of affirmative action, those groups can and should rise to pool their attained resources to eventually stomp out this injustice, once and for all.