Before America was established as even a colony, whites have oppressed minorities. This oppression forced minorities to live an underprivileged lifestyle while the whites remained, for the most part, on the upper levels of society. As the civil rights movement began to fight for equal rights, the idea of affirmative action was introduced as a way of compensating for the opportunities minorities may not have had that white people most likely had. Supporters of affirmative action saw this as an opportunity for universities to broaden their admissions’ diversity spectrum and to give opportunities to less fortunate people. Although these intentions may have been noble, this method can reduce the opportunities of other applicants. Because of this, not everyone agrees with the idea of affirmative action. Not only do white people see this as a problem, but minorities are worried that they may viewed as “lesser” because of the help that affirmative action gives them. Affirmative action itself is very respectable and progressive idea but when put into practice, it cannot operate without some sort of discrimination to a group of individuals.
 |
| Trans-Atlantic Slave Trading Ships Courtesy of The Library of Congress |
"...weak preferential treatments (also called tiebreak programs) favor minority applicants insofar as they possess the same qualifications as majority applicants... strong preferential treatments are based primarily on recipients’ demographic status" (Chatard 388)
To understand what affirmative action really is, it is important to look at the history behind it and how it has developed over the years. African slaves were first brought to America in 1619, during the colonization of Jamestown. Over the next century, approximately six to seven million africans were brought to America as slaves for the soul reason that they were cheaper and that their skin could more easily identify them as a slave. It was not until 1863 that africans were given freedom through the Emancipation Proclamation declared by Abraham Lincoln. Even then, it took two full years and reconstruction to truly end that slavery. Although slavery was over, nearly every former slave was left disenfranchised. They had no money, no education,or any home to go to. Many former slaves resulted to sharecropping where they were still oppressed and given almost no opportunity to help themselves. In addition to the exploitation of former slaves by sharecropping, in the south, anti-black laws were established to separate the two races from one another. Fast forward another seventy years to the decade of the 1950s. Two prominent civil rights activists took action against their races oppression: Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm X promoted force and at times violence to fight back and gain equality from whites. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign was rooted in non-violence and solidarity toward equality and and end to oppression. His voice was heard and this prompted the Civil Rights act of 1964. Through this act, affirmative action was introduced in society as a way of aiding the less privileged.
On June 4, 1965, President Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action. In a speech addressed to Howard university, Johnson described why affirmative action was needed in the up
and coming decades.
 |
| President Johnson Signing the Civil Rights Act Courtesy of The Library of Congress |
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now you are free to go where you want...you do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.” (Johnson)
His point does hold much weight. If we as a country truly claim ourselves as equal, then we must elevate those whom we once oppressed. We must raise them so they have the same opportunities and abilities to compete and collaborate with us white people. So on September 24, 1965, executive order 11246 stated that affirmative action shall be legally enforced. Affirmative action was in practice for about thirteen years without much protest until in 1978, when Allan Bakke took a stand against it. Bakke was prospective medical student at the University of California who was denied twice even though minorities who had lower test scores were admitted. In this case, minority students were separated and put in a different pool of applicants where 16 of 100 had to be minorities. Because of his rejection, he sued the Regents of the University of California and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The supreme court declared that “while race was legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not” (Brunner 1). Although the court ruled in favor of Bakke, the vote was split 5-4 and many of the critical issues of affirmative action were never addressed.
 |
| The University of Michigan Seal |
and voting booths across the country, and the fate of this policy is uncertain"(Henry 680). Just by looking at the perpetual over ruling of case to case, one can arrive at the conclusion that this is an issue that is very hot in our society today.
Having examined the history of this topic, it is now critical to observe the repercussions on those in modern society. The most offensive result of affirmative action is the stigma it leaves on minorities. Because of affirmative action, many whites who have been denied from a college have a tendency to discriminate minorities. They will be more prone to think that someone's race was the sole reason of their acceptance. Under affirmative action, this may be a fair assessment because race is a legitimate factor. However, for those minorities whose race was not a factor, it is insulting and even racist to be associated with such category. In response to the president of the University of California at Berkley who said that premier colleges would not be diverse unless we used racial preferences, Joseph Phillips responded, “What he’s saying is that there is a monopoly on brain power, and that black students don’t have it in sufficient quantity to show up in significant numbers in our nation’s campuses.” Phillips’ point holds a valid argument. Regardless of someone’s past education or socioeconomic background, we as a majority associate race as a factor for their success and not skill. Affirmative action is the fuel for this animosity and tension. As a result, affirmative action is counterproductive to ending racism and promoting equality. “There is no monopoly on brain power,” says Joseph Phillips, “[black people] can compete on the athletic field, ...in the symphony halls, ...and in the classroom.”
Affirmative action widens the chasm between races and will foster racism until it removed from the college atmosphere. So why do we even have it? The fact of the matter is it very well may be the best system we have in place. Regardless of the harm it does, there are some who truly benefit from affirmative action. While examining history of African Americans, we cannot deny that they have been oppressed in the most despicable and inhumane ways imaginable. Even today, the majority of low income families in the United States are minorities. As citizens of this country, this should be an embarrassment. We promote ourselves as “the land of the free” when in actuality it is only free for those of wealth. We use affirmative action as a hope to elevate the poor to a better chance of a more successful future. Indeed, this is a noble idea and it surely is a model that we should reflect. But when the idea denies the opportunities of others from a different background, that is not an acceptable trade-off. If we truly strive for the best society, then we must never deny anyone the opportunity for a higher-level education.
In a hypothetical world without affirmative action, there are many ways that equality in education can be approached. Should there be more colleges to accept applicants? Should these colleges be free? What can we do to make sure everyone has an equal chance? The problem is not the colleges, but rather the equalization of high schools. In order to make college admissions fair, we must first make the "playing level" identical. If every high schooler was given the same education, everyone could compete with the same standards. In our society today we have private and public schools. We have rich suburban schools and rough inner-city schools. The education students receive are different from school to school. Having attended a very well established private high school school, I feel like I received a better education than many of my peers in other schools. This does not mean that I am automatically smarter. In fact, that could not be further from the truth. It is at this point where idealism and practicality become factors. Idealistically, high school should be as rigorous as possible, where students are pushed to learn and become educated to their greatest extent. Teachers should be masters of their class and offer everything possible for the growth of their students. Getting an A should not be easy by an means and GPAs should never be “inflated”. When it is time for a class to graduate, those who perform the best compete for the best colleges. Ultimately, everyone will be accepted to some higher level of education if they choose to do so.
In practicality, there will always be some sort of short coming, whether that be through the teacher or a student. Not every teacher who is currently hired is qualified to teach his or her subject. Because of this, not every student is given the same opportunities and the “playing field” for college admissions is not equal. Apart from poor teachers, not every student is capable of learning the quota. We as a society need to respect and understand this. How then can we give the most opportunities to those who are incapable of reaching the standard? In some cases, private tutors or outside learning may be useful, but this cannot fully be relied on. Simply, some students will never have the motivation to learn. Now in the real world, this is what really happens. A system of poor educators and a school-wide lack of motivation tend to occur in conjunction to one another. Not only do they appear jointly, but they also are associated with geographic locations with a high population of minorities. Quite simply, many minorities are given a less than average education and as a result, their performance suffers. This is practicality. Affirmative action offers these students an opportunity to rise up and use this second chance to get out of poverty and inspire others to do the same. Affirmative action offers those whom it benefits a tremendous opportunity.
So is affirmative action bad? To answer this question, you must ask yourself if you are striving for an ideal world or a practical world. Obviously, we all want an ideal world. But in order to get to that world, should we address questions with ideal answers or should we address them with practical answers? Until a better solution to affirmative action is proposed, it is the best answer we have to helping the underprivileged in a practical world. Someday, as a species, we can all aspire to view affirmative action as preposterous and antiquated practice. But until that day comes, the issue will always be with us.
P. J. Henry, et al. "Searching For Common Ground Between Supporters And Opponents Of Affirmative Action." Political Psychology 26.5 (2005): 667-682. JSTOR Arts & Sciences VII. Web. 17 May 2012.
ARMAND CHATARD, et al. "The Influence Of Education On Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: The Role Of The Policy's Strength." Journal Of Applied Social Psychology 42.2 (2012): 387-413. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 17 May 2012.
