The history of Affirmative Action ultimately began two hundred years ago with the founding of our nation. The Constitution, which is the basis of all laws in society, was drawn up and signed by many men who themselves owned slaves. As time progressed, it became necessary to create a “Great Compromise,” which stated that blacks were now allowed to be counted as three-fifths of a person for voting purposes. Nearly, one hundred years later, slaves were freed. However, these newly freed slaves were now placed in a more perplexing situation than they were initially. They were now a large group of people who knew little of their newly founded rights, and for the most part uneducated. Sadly, the leaders of this country failed to realize that freeing this group of people was not enough. The result was a new class of people who were uneducated, by no fault of their own, and then were told that they were now on their own. These people navigated through a stranger’s culture and society.
A similar effect occurred after World War II when the men who had been away at war returned to find their wives wearing their pants and doing their work in the yards and factories.
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was written and again defined all men and women, of any race or origin, to be equal. However, this act mistakenly led Americans to the assumption that the problem of racism would be solved. It soon became evident that anyone who is educated to perform a task, can do so. Finally the playing field appeared to be level. Unfortunately, however, everyone was not willing to play fairly or equally. Hence, the necessity to have policies such as Affirmative Action arose.
The phrase “Affirmative Action” was first used as a term to describe racial discrimination in Executive Order No. 10,925 issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy issued this order in hopes that federal contractors would take affirmative action and ensure that job applicants and employees were treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin “ (Pasour, 1989). Yet, few people actually knew what the order stated and what exactly its requirements were. It soon became apparent that this Order was actually a concept.
According to a recent review made by the White House to President Clinton, Congress defines Affirmative Action as, “any effort taken to expand opportunity for women or racial, ethnic and national origin minorities by using membership in those groups that have been subject to discrimination as a consideration” (Congress, 1995). The Affirmative Action policy was originally designed to give equal opportunity based upon ability alone and to eliminate race and or
gender as a deciding factor during admission to a school or job. It was created especially to aid minorities. Often underrepresented minorities are defined as African Americans, Hispanics, women, the handicapped, the elderly, and veterans. Individually, these groups of people make up a small percentage of the population as a whole. Yet, combined this group of people represents the majority of the work force. In essence, Affirmative Action means equal opportunities for minorities and all people who may be advantaged or disadvantaged. Affirmative Action does not require quotas. Employment and enrollment quotas are set up by admission directors and by employers as one way to protect themselves against lawsuits but can often lead to more severe consequences.
Many students today agree that the idea behind the Affirmative Action policy is not without merit, yet the way in which it has been applied in society can be detrimental. Ernest Pasour, a junior at Athens Drive High School in North Carolina, describes Affirmative Action as being, “detrimental to the operation of the job market, to white males, and even to the groups it is supposed to benefit” (Pasour, 1989). His argument appeared in the magazine, The Freeman. Pasour argued that this policy promotes the hiring of less skilled workers and students into universities simply to appear politically correct. He supports this argument citing that colleges and universities have quotas for how many blacks it is necessary to enroll to “round out” their freshman classes. This has caused many schools, such as Indiana University, to declare their stance on the issue up front. Indiana University has posted its mission statement concerning Affirmative Action on its website: “Because justice and equality are essential to a healthy, productive work and educational environment, we actively work to: eliminate inequality and discrimination, foster a climate of tolerance and inclusiveness, and promote opportunities for full participation in university life...” (Brand, 1992). Another example is the University of California at Berkeley which used the practice of preferential admissions for minorities even though the graduation rate for minorities was low. Sixty-six per cent of whites or Asian Americans graduate while only 27 per cent of blacks graduate (Pasour, 1989). Critics question why Berkley continued to admit so many African Americans when such a low percentage made it to graduation. They argued that this actually hurt the University’s retention rate for students each year. Furthermore, they argued that Berkley was a perfect example of reverse discrimination.
Although controversy encompasses Affirmative Action, most people will agree that
such a law is a necessity if society is ever to make its dream of the equality for all people a reality. Michael Lewis, a student at Virginia Tech, argues, “Until one admits that he (she) is over privileged, he (she) will never be able to understand the use of Affirmative Action. A quick glance at America today, however will show that while we are by far the greatest and richest nation in the world, we treat some more greatly and richly than others... Only by looking at the world through different viewpoints can one understand the purpose of this law” (Lewis, 1996). Lewis explains that he had a “warped” experience with Affirmative Action and the idea of racism in general, saying that it was too easy for him to discount this policy as simply being reverse racism and ineffective. He was able to come to this conclusion because he looked at his actions, which in themselves were not racist, and assumed that he should not have anything taken away from him by someone who did not work hard enough to reach the status that he has in life. However, Lewis says that he failed to recognize privilege due to his race and his sex. He describes teachers who treat males differently than females in the classroom and blacks differently than whites. He also describes storeowners who will glare suspiciously at black youths who enter their stores while white youths will scarcely receive a glance. Such treatment is unmitigated and unnecessary, yet it is reality. Ultimately, the need for Affirmative Action can be determined by 2 questions. Are minorities and women underprivileged in today’s society? If so, doesn’t it stand to reason that whites and males are therefore over privileged? These questions most often are answered “yes” (Lewis, 1996).
Recent articles and statistics declare that there has been undeniable progress in many admissions processes in both colleges and the job market. However, minorities and women still remain economically disadvantaged in today’s society. The black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are white males (A Fact-Finding Report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995); in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 1.6 percent of whites (Bureau of Census, 1993). In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994); only 0.4 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are Hispanic (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The best way to deal with these problems is to provide educational. The only way to eliminate these problems is to educate people. Some minority students seem to not have the credentials to attend selective colleges, but should they be denied the chance to be taught at such a college? While black students admitted to elite institutions may have lower SAT scores than whites, their scores are above average for all college applicants. When minority students attend these universities, nearly 80 percent of blacks graduate within six years, and the more prestigious the school, the more likely they were to finish. According to studies, blacks are also just as likely as whites to go on to earn advanced degrees in law, business, or medicine (Gergen, 1998). These statistics dispel the argument that minorities are “simply lazy.” Based upon these studies, minorities are just as likely as white people to go on to college and graduate. The problem is that all students have to begin from somewhere, and the first major step begins with high school. A student’s ability to get into a selective college is determined by his academic performance in high school and on the school in which he attended. These factors play a deciding role in one’s ability to get accepted to a prestigious college or university or to get accepted to a college at all.
When considering the requirements to be accepted into a top university, it is easily understood that all colleges desire the best of the best. Such colleges are going to see many 4.0 grade point averages and many strong recommendations from teachers. Thus, colleges are going to look at all the details in their best effort to distinguish one student from another. One of the things they will observe is the high school that the student attended. Consider this: a student graduates from a school in the inner city with a 4.0 grade point average. Another student graduates from a prestigious school in the suburbs with a 3.8 grade point. The student in the first case was not able to afford to attend the prestigious high school, but he or she made the best of the situation. In the second case the student, by no feat of his or her own, was fortunate and able to afford to attend the prestigious high school. He or she too did his/her best and attained a 3.8. However, having not attended the prestigious school, the first student was not able to take some of the advanced classes the second student had taken because the school did not offer them. As a result, the first student simply may not receive the same overall quality of education the other student received. Consequently, if only a few spaces remain in the college’s incoming freshman class, they will be more likely to accept the student from the prestigious high school.
Can they really be blamed for doing so? They have a few spaces left; they want the best of the best, so they admit the student who has the honors and the A.P. classes. Perhaps unknowingly, the college just discriminated against the student from the inner city school. Since he or she did not come from a wealthy family, he or she could not attend the prestigious high school. Since he or she did not attend the prestigious high school, he/she is not allowed to attend the prestigious university. Hence, an on-going cycle develops where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. At some point the cycle must be broken. The fact that the student attended the inner city school, where it can be difficult to succeed, and yet was able to succeed in such an environment, needs to be not only recognized, but applauded.
In an ideal society Affirmative Action would not be necessary. If racism, sexism, and hate did not exist in the minds and hearts of society’s people there would be no controversy. Nevertheless, people do discriminate against other people, and it is not right and not fair. There are people who want an answer to this problem and are trying to change things in a positive manner. However, there are “some people who favor Affirmative Action want to base the decision totally on race and are, however unwittingly, supporting the very thing that they are working against...” (Armintor, 1996). The answer to this problem is not to place quotas on colleges and businesses. The answer is not to lower standards in society in order to have all people equally represented in these fields. The answer is to educate people so that they can raise themselves and achieve in competitive business and academic world. In the Bible it says give a hungry man a fish and he will eat for that day, teach a man to fish and he can eat forever. It is the responsibility of all people in society to help all people succeed by educating them.
This country has survived by elevating individuality, by preserving a person’s dignity and sense of purpose, and by removing barriers created by scared and ignorant people. If this country is to continue to thrive, it must stop discriminating against those who are trying to succeed, and it must start helping those who have been left behind. Affirmative Action was not designed to solve the problem of racism and sexism itself and people have to realize that a mere law could never solve such a problem. Nevertheless, until we are able overcome ignorance and discrimination, laws such as Affirmative Action will remain necessary.
Works Cited
Armintor, C. Affirmative Action Falls Prey to Race Confusion. 1996. 10 October 1998
Brand, M. Indiana University Office of Affirmative Action. 1992. 20 October 1998
Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey. Income, Poverty, and Valuation of Non-cash Benefits. 1993. 10 October 1998
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Fact Sheet. 1994. 10 October 1998
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Making Full Use of the nation’s Human Capital. March 1995. 10 October 1998
Gergen, D. “Why Race-Sensitive College Admissions Policies Work.” U.S. News & World Report Vol. 125 (October 1998): 84-85.
Lewis, M. Rethinking Affirmative Action. 1996. 5 October 1998
Pasour, E. “Affirmative Action: A Counter-Productive Policy.” The Freeman (January 1989): 24-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment