What Is Affirmative Action In Peter Schmidt's At The Elite Colleges

Proponents of affirmative action believe that it is a necessary step toward racial equality. Opponents argue on the basis of “reverse racism,” which claims that affirmative action keeps certain members of the majority ethnic group out of jobs or other positions that they deserve solely because of quotas that must be filled. The positive effects of affirmative action are the basis behind the arguments of those who support considering ethnicity and race as a part of admissions.

Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. When the emphasis is placed on aiding people with certain skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, affirmative action sets the races further apart than before. Could this be just another form of segregation? The attempts at boosting minorities to the level of the others have grotesquely failed. To raise minorities the government has pushed down the majority group, fueling racial conflicts. In addition, lowering the bar for minorities for admission into jobs or schools has created a harmful atmosphere for them. Because some of them could not originally qualify on merit and skills, many face failure or extra hardship when they get ushered into their job or school. As Charles T. Canady said in his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., "Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged" (43). Meanwhile the majorities receive punishment because of their lack of a specific skin tone or origin. "Entitlements by race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation-categories that in no way reflect merit-" Shelby Steele described, "are at the root of the great social evils in American life" (175). It is unfair to reward or turn away applicants because of something that is only theirs by ascribed means. When prospective college students or job applicants are considered, the competition should be solely based

The revered civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, don’t discriminate people because of their race. This should hold true in all aspects of life. Every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, which is why affirmative action is inherently racist. Affirmative action refers to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of minorities and women in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities. It is responsible for colleges discriminating against Eastern Asians and whites and for employers hiring workers based off of skin color rather than skills or experience. People can’t change their race (except for former president of the Spokane N.A.A.C.P. chapter, Rachel Dolezal, apparently), yet many colleges and employers favor certain races over others by using quotas, or a fixed number of people of each race.

In Professor William Shaw’s The Organization and the People In It, Shaw delves into the debate that is affirmative action. According to Shaw, “affirmative action means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, either in the company itself or in the larger society”(Shaw, p. 437). Affirmative action promotes the diversity of job opportunities for both genders and all races. Some of the opportunities can cause an unfair advantage to minorities when paired against equal or sometimes better-qualified white counterparts. This can become a moral issue by causing unfair advantages to some people. By attempting to level the playing field, affirmative action actually over compensates for potential discrimination and can place white males at a disadvantage. Affirmative action attempts to balance the application system for college or postgraduate work, however at the expense of some qualified students.

Stanford students David Sacks and Peter Thiel describe how, “rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus… if preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.” The bias present in Affirmative Action does not mend what it was originally put in place to fix, discrimination of the disadvantaged. Instead, it misplaces students who are qualified. The unfavorable system of preferential admission disregards a more promising system of admittance.

Many schools would give these students extra points on their scores for their admissions decision. Further, schools would nearly accept all students of minority backgrounds provided they had qualified grades. Many felt these policies leave behind students of other backgrounds with unfair opportunities. Students of white or Asian backgrounds are not awarded these privileges. Affirmative action is not based on geography or economic status. It is solely based on the ethnic background of the student. It is possible a wealthy minority student would receive admission into a top school over an impoverished white student.

Many people ignore the blinding facts that support white privilege but are aware that it exists in society. White privilege impacts every decision made within the educational system. When applying to colleges, a white student is 78% more likely to get accepted than a student of color with identical successes. A study done in 2011 by the US Department of Education suggests that whites are not only more likely to get accepted, but are more likely to receive their bachelor’s degree once they enter (2011 US Department of Education). This recent study demonstrates that white privilege is still relevant in society and must be altered. Even if the education system is not consciously making an effort to support white privilege it is evident that it

In this area both minorities and non-minorities are discriminated against, when affirmative action was in use the admissions board was divided into two groups one for minorities and another for non-minorities, standards for both groups were different. Once again affirmative action is showing favoritism. A recent example of affirmative action in collegiate admissions includes Gratz and Hamacher vs. University of Michigan. Gratz and Hamacher alleged that unlawful preference to minorities in University of Michigan undergraduate admissions. This also reminds me of when I was a senior in high school, several black colleges wanted me to come to there school to play football on a scholarship. What they did not tell me was that I would receive a minority scholarship not a football scholarship. Basically they found a loophole; they could recruit white players and give them minority scholarships and still have the same number of football scholarships to give out. They were getting a two for one deal by improving their number of minority (white students) students and getting football players at the same time.

The various alternative forms of Affirmative Action all have received national attention. Yet, the country is divided on all of these issues, specifically how university admissions should assess issues of merit and diversity against national fundamental issues of diversity and fairness.

California's decision in 1996 to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United States. But in the four years since Californians passed Proposition 209, most states have agreed that killing affirmative action outright would deepen social inequality by denying minority citizens access to higher education. The half-dozen states that are actually thinking about abandoning race-sensitive

In fact, as Sabbagh notes, as more and more blacks gain these prestigious jobs because they are educated at an elite university, “racial identification” will decrease and eventually disappear as the stigmas associated with African-Americans regarding economic and social class will also disappear (Sabbagh). Thomas argues that these affirmative action programs “stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority” due to the possibility that they were accepted because of their race, not because of their academic qualifications (Grutter 1002). However, this only exists when there are quotas, either publicized or kept secret. When quotas do not exist and universities are permitted to keep their decisions as secret as possible, deracialization becomes an achievable

The fault in special admissions programs is that they will use skin color as a more important factor than academic and personal merit. Thus, those who deserve advancement may not receive it, due to affirmative action and the associated reverse

Abstract liberalism involves race related issues in the language of liberalism; whites can appear reasonable and moral, while opposing almost all practical approaches to deal with racial inequalities. “Racial ideology “laissez fare racism” or “competitive racism” or argue that modern racism is essentially a combination of the “American greed” with anti-black resentment.” (Bonilla-Silva, Pg.30) The author suggests that these principles are evident when discussing issues such as affirmative action, interracial relationships, neighborhood, and residential segregation. There’s an interview in the chapter where a college student named sue at SU, is asked; if minority students should be provided unique opportunity to be admitted into universities?

College is a privilege that is now accessible to many people. It has not always been this way though. Lack of money, being deprived of representation, or racism hindered one’s chances in to getting into higher education, especially a minority’s chance. In order to raise against the barriers, President John F. Kennedy created the affirmative action program to provide equal opportunities for everyone, whether in education or in the workforce. Even if this was a program created in the 1960’s, problems continue to present itself as shown through the many court cases, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Fisher vs. University of Texas, Grutter vs. Bollinger et al, and Hopwood vs. State of Texas. Thus, racial inequality and affirmative action

To understand affirmative action we must look back in history. According to Cornel West,The fundamental aim of affirmative action was to put a significant dent in the tightly controlled networks of privileged white citizens who monopolized the good jobs and influential positions in American society. (Curry 32)