Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination

Affirmative action has been a controversial topic for many years. This policy was created to ensure equal opportunity for minorities and women in the workforce and educational institutions (Gross, 1977). Over fifty years ago the policy has proven to have a positive effect; but now, many think the policies are no longer needed and that they lead to more problems than they can possibly solve. One side of the argument believes that affirmative action is detrimental to creating a color blind society. The people on the other side of the argument believe that affirmative action promotes the hiring of unqualified individuals just to please society. The policies associated with affirmative action create ratios and quotas to pressure companies to hire based-on race or gender and not on merit. Affirmative action leads to preferential treatment and reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action diminished discrimination against minorities and women, but in turn has caused discrimination against white men. The policy started in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the beginning, affirmative action only targeted reducing "racial imbalance" in the work place: later changed to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts (Zelnick, 1996). Women, elderly, people with disabilities, and all people of color are protected by affirmative action. "The policy goes a step farther by requiring employers to take ‘affirmative' steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers" (Yates, 1997). This starts the controversy with affirmative action.
One heavily debated topic of this debate deals with the usage of "quotas". By law, quotas are prohibited. However, the question is still up in the air whether they exist or not. Thomas J. Kane defends the usage of quotas by using this analogy: "Reserving a parking space for a disabled person has only a ‘minuscule effect' on the availability on parking spots, but it frustrates every driver that passes it." (Fobanjong, 2001) Affirmative action activists argue that the policy does not force employers to hire a predetermined number of any races (Stein, 1997). However, according to K.L. Billingsley,
"One day in January 1995 a number of companies in San Diego, California, woke up to find that they had a "deficient work force." it meant that under San Diego's new Equal Opportunity Ordinance, the companies were guilty of "a statistically significant underutilization of ethnic or gender groups in any occupational category" (1998, Page 1).
These companies are among the many that were threatened with fines if they did not represent a "politically acceptable statistical percentage" number of workers (Yates, 1997). Mike Welbel, owner of The Daniel Lamp Company, experienced this firsthand when his company was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mike was accused and taken to court based on racial discrimination. Prior to this situation discrimination meant "refusal to hire for a desirable position, based-on a group characteristic" (Roberts, 1995). However, the word took on an entirely different meaning following this situation. Now it meant "lack of a politically acceptable statistical percentage" (Yates, 1997). Politically acceptable meaning the percentage of members of targeted groups in the local or regional population. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) computer was the foundation to prosecute Mike Welbel. The company's computer claimed, "Based on 363 companies employing 100 or more people and located within a three-mile radius of The Daniel Lamp Company, Daniel Lamp should employ at any given moment exactly 8.45 blacks" (Yates, 1997). Undoubtedly, that is a quota. Although backers of affirmative action try to disguise the use of quotas with wordiness, it is clear any way that this is looked at, they are using quotas. This means that if a white man and someone belonging to a group protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were applying for the same position with a company, and the company was low on their representation of a certain minority group, he would get it over the white man; even though the white man may be more qualified. Even though law clearly states the EEOC can not set quotas, they continue to exist.
Another highly controversial issue dealing with affirmative action is the fact that colleges are forced to accept prospective students based on race instead of merit. School officials say that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity (Roberts, 1995). John Fobanjong (2001) elaborates on this subject by stating:
" Some companies feel that affirmative action leads to a variety of benefits, including increased productivity, diversity of ideas, a more rational personal policy, and improved community relations" (21).
Nancy Stein along with many others who believe affirmative action is a necessity, claim that an "anti-affirmative action position assumes a narrow, over-simplified conception of merit based on test scores, grade point average, or other measurable standards"(2). They also argue that there is a small correlation between performance or professional success and test scores (Stein,2). However, Nancy Stein claims, "There is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources, and test scores" (3) Activists of this policy feel that college admission tests "tend to reflect the experiences of middle-class students and their access to higher-quality education than that available to less-advantaged students" (Roberts, 6). Therefore, making them culturally biased. On the other hand, critics of affirmative action argue that the students of low-income families who may have also have suffered discrimination became or remained impoverished because of racism (Gross, 34). Choices an individual makes have a greater impact on his or her living conditions than anything else. "Illegitimacy, substance abuse, and poor study and work habits can mire an individual in poverty as surely as racism can" (Zelnick, 3). Others also argue that the majority of the students affected by affirmative action are eighteen-year-olds, born in 1980s. Roger Clegg points out:
"They probably have not participated much in the work force; if they have, the laws prohibiting discrimination against them on the basis of race or ethnicity have been in effect since long before they were born" (2).
Therefore, they are "unlikely to have suffered the kind of systematic discrimination against him or her that would justify systematic discrimination in his or her favor" (Clegg, 2). There is a highly publicized controversy with the admission policies at the University of Michigan. They use a point system to determine worthiness of a prospective student. African American students are given a higher number of points just for being African American (Zelnick, 1996). Those points could be the deciding factor between a white and a black student. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the University Of Michigan's point system was unconstitutional. Using these means to determine a prospective employee or student's qualifications is outrageous. Implicating laws that give one race the upper hand does not promote equality like the program insists it does. Society's attempt to rectify a never-ending racial unbalance is causing more issues than ever.
Many also argue whether affirmative action creates animosity among different racial groups. On one side of this argument are those who believe there needs to be a systematic policy to reprimand the wrong doings against minorities in the past. They feel these policies are helpful and necessary to have a fair and equal society (Zelnick, 1996).
On the other side of the argument are those who feel like Joe Lieberman when he said, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators never intended" (Roberts, 1995). The policy penalizes any effort made by minorities to succeed with out help from anyone (Yates, 1997). Affirmative action has labeled such groups as people unable to make it in their own. Steven Yates further explains this by saying:
"Preferential policies have added fuel to racial tensions by incurring the resentment of those not in protected groups, those who are expected to pay the costs of reparation despite never having engaged in discriminatory practices themselves…"(3).
Thus creating resentment among those not in the protected groups.
Another highly debated subject with affirmative action is whether the policy promotes a color blind society or not. Activists of this policy share a similar opinion with Harry Blackmun when he said:
"In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat someone equally, we must first treat them differently" (Roberts, 4).
Many also argue that some stereotypes may have never been broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable (Stein, 1997). They believe these and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action (Roberts, 54). On the other hand, critics of affirmative action believe that the policy only draws attention to irrelevant characteristics that have no effect on ones performance. For example, there is no association between hair or eye color and professional success or performance. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence either (Fobanjong, 2001). Affirmative action is an unnecessary way to keep society's focus on race instead of merit.
People on the side of affirmative action believe that this policy needs to be used in order to give compensation for what happened to African Americans many years ago.
"Americans spent almost 250 years in slavery and another hundred years in legalized discrimination. Affirmative action was Johnson's way of trying to redress the wrongs of the past and prepare the nation for a future of equality where the American Dream would be available to everyone" (Zlenick, 2006).
However, the original perpetrators and victims are long gone and should not be forced to sacrifice job opportunities or college admissions when they were not responsible for the wrong doings in the first place. Backers of affirmative action continue to argue that even though preferential treatment does occur, "it is justified by the fact that because of past discrimination most women and minorities are too far behind economically to compete effectively" (Yates, 1997). It is absolutely absurd to use this argument that basically states that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative action is a failed attempt to level the playing field between different races and genders in the workplace; instead this policy creates reverse discrimination and should be eliminated.
There are many positives and negatives dealing with affirmative action. The policy's intentions were good; although that does not justify the backlash it has caused on American society. Affirmative action not only creates animosity between racial groups among the public; it also takes our focus off productivity in the workplace and school. In turn it has created a focal point on insignificant skin deep features which prevent a general success for everyone. Quotas and preferential treatment is not fair to any of the parties involved. Affirmative action is an unfair policy that gives an unfair advantage to minorities and women. The first step to creating a color blind society is to abolish affirmative action policies.

References

Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." Racism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Fobanjong, John (2001). Understanding the backlash against affirmative action. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gross, Barry (Ed.). (1977). Reverse discrimination. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Roberts, Craig, Stratton, Paul, Lawrence , & m (1995). The new color line. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Stein, Nancy. "Affirmative Action Does Not Create Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Yates, Steven. "Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Zelnick, Bob (1996). Back fire: A reporter's look at affirmative action. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.