Implications Post

Analyzing the issues of affirmative action, I have found that the school of thought for the various sides of debate is the U.S. Constitution and what it means for its citizens. Both sides argue that affirmative action is either protected or not protected under the law. I have found that if the debate over affirmative action is not resolved, there will be implications that greatly affect the academic community of the future. If affirmative action is not stopped by policy, then there will continued increase in minority student’s acceptance into higher education, taking the place of qualified whites, and therefore lessening the ability of our academic society to grow to its potential. In other words, if whites are continued to be discriminated against then the academic world will not hold all of its higher thinkers and problem solvers. Some argue (link 42) that the end of affirmative action will end diversity in colleges, but what is diversity compared to high academic standards? If the U.S. wants to be competitive in academia and new technology, we must allow for qualifications to out shine race, otherwise the country will continue to fall behind competitors. With a continuation of affirmative action whites will continue (link40) to receive the blunt end of government assistance, keeping low income white families, low income.  Polls have shown (link 41) that many Americans are currently opposed to affirmative action, a clear indicator that if affirmative action continues there will be continued debate and uproar over affirmative action policies. Affirmative action must end, upholding the constitution, or equality will not exist for all citizens.

Friends Best Bloopers- Mental Health Break

Theory Post

Affirmative action, the policy itself, derived from the Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s. The government and society as a whole sought to decrease the level of discrimination in education (and the workforce). Affirmative action was a way to ensure diversity and level the playing field for higher education. In the early 1960’s only 4%  of college students was African American. Therefore, it was commonly thought that something must be done to ensure that admission offices did not discriminate against minorities. However, in the 21^st century, society’s common view that affirmative action is needed has decreased. Many feel that discrimination no longer exists in the world of academia. It is thought that affirmative action has run its course and then some. At this point, where discrimination against minorities is not an issue, whites have become the target for discrimination against the highly regarded diverse student body. Some claim affirmative action has only increased race consciousness in society. However there is still the idea that minorities will digress back if this policy is outlawed. One Supreme Court Judge  believes that more time is necessary before affirmative action is not required to ensure equality. The differing ideals on affirmative action will only end once an example is set. An example would mean an outlaw of affirmative action by a Supreme Court ruling, giving proof that, more than likely, affirmative action is not needed to keep admissions for minorities. More specifically, if applications did not allow race to be documented and other criteria, like legacy, to be put on the application, then no one could debate that race was a factor in higher education. In other words, policy will be crucial to end the debate on affirmative action as no university or college will want to be the one to denounce affirmative action, for fear of seeming racist. 

How long will society ride the coattails of their parents?

At many prestigious universities, admission offices regard the “legacy” of a potential student highly. In other words, if an applicant is the child of alumni, this will increase the chances of admittance. Legacy students have been added to the topic of affirmative action due to its preference for white students. Historically, many Universities have had white alumni; therefore spawning generations will have white legacy students. Many argue that affirmative action allows universities to have the ability to permit legacy students to have increased credentials for gaining admittance. Meaning, affirmative action allows for point systems based on criteria that are out of the control of applicants. This in turn discriminates against minorities. So in essence, not only does affirmative action discriminate against whites, but it also discriminates against minorities, countering its whole goal.  Legacy students provide a system where universities can potentially gain more donations from alumni by admitting their children. This act, though may provide monetary gain, inhibits students who have high potential but lack parents who were fortunate enough to go to college.  At many universities, legacy students constitute 10 to 25% of students. That is possibly 10 to 25% of students who did not actually have the academic qualifications to attend the school where academics are key. This system creates a society where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. It goes against the American ideal of moving up in economic class. Allowing students to gain a degree at a prestigious university just because their parents did is not going to increase the overall intelligence of society and promote the common good. It will simply be a waste of an education that could have been given to someone who deserved the opportunity and had potential. 

Obama, cut to the chase.

President Obama discusses affirmative action and how it should not be considered such an issue. Well, it is. So make up your mind and take a stance.

Analysis Post

Affirmative action is defined as policies that promote the inclusion of minority groups to promote equal opportunity, while not discriminating against any group. Affirmative action began in 1961 by John F. Kennedy, in accordance with the civil rights movement to ensure that minorities were given equal opportunity.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 began a movement of equality among non-white races.  Under affirmative action the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling would have effects on higher education as well.  Affirmative action, at its arrival, was thought to be a solution for discrimination and ensuring that white dominance did not continue. In the 1978 case of Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court ruled that quota systems were not permissible, meaning a University could not require that a certain number of admitted students were of a minority, but that affirmative action policies were allowed, as long as they “harmed few as possible.” In the last decade a 2003 University of Michigan case ruling reinforced the Bakke ruling saying that affirmative action admission processes are in fact still legal and still necessary.  In recent years, affirmative action has been cause for discourse. Today, many feel that though affirmative action was once needed, but is outdated and no longer required to prevent discrimination. Others feel that without affirmative action, society will regress back into days where minorities were not given the opportunities that whites were.  Various groups have reasons for concern and have contributed to discourse in the debate. Universities, minorities, whites, politicians, the Supreme Court, and feminists, have taken stances on the issue. Affirmative action policies allow for women, minorities, and legacy students to reap benefits, potentially over other students. 

Both stances on affirmative action use the U.S. Constitution as basis for argument. This school of thought creates arguments for both diversity and reverse discrimination. The U.S. Constitution, under the 14^th amendment provides equal protection for all under the law. This amendment provides arguments both for and against affirmative action.  The argument in favor of affirmative action claims that under the amendment, minorities should be required to have equal opportunities and therefore need affirmative action to ensure that. Those against affirmative action claim that under the 14^th amendment majority groups are being discriminated against and do not have equal protection due to affirmative action. The indecisive and unclear claims from the constitution leave room for interpretation and debate. 

Minority groups and others in support of affirmative action base arguments on grounds of past and current discrimination. The NAACP claims that due to past inequalities of race, minorities are still at a disadvantage economically, therefore need affirmative action to ensure opportunities for higher education. This argument is flawed in that it is directed toward the past rather than the present situation of minorities in America. Though others before us have been discriminated against does not mean that we should be forced to fix the injustice of decades before. Others claim that minorities need affirmative action because discriminatory attitudes still exist, deeming government intervention necessary. Though it is plausible to suggest that discrimination does still exists, I would also make the claim that minority discrimination does not exist in higher education admittance. If anything, diversity is highly valued. 

Those that lie in the stance against affirmative action argue admittance of minorities without higher qualifications leads to reverse discrimination. Whites and other majority groups are discriminated against as spots and opportunities are left open for those who are minority. The reverend  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., begs “for his children to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by their character.” Those who oppose affirmative action use this as argument that even Martin Luther King Jr. was against affirmative action, asking for race to not be considered. The quote implies that affirmative action upholds the idea that race is a dominant factor in college admissions and discriminates against those within the majority. Another source claims that sometimes minorities are admitted to schools where the academic level is too advanced for those were admitted due to affirmative action. This source suggests that this would inevitably cause minorities to be less successful if they could not keep up academically.  

Bias is a major influence in the debate for and against affirmative action. For instance, the leader of the Michigan initiative to ban affirmative action welcomes the Ku Klux Klan and other white separatists groups who want to “ban the mixing of races.” This is bias based on an emotional attachment to the subject, a bias that many would agree is based on ignorance. Bias exists on the other side of the spectrum as well. One argument claims that affirmative action is necessary because racial bias exists in standardized test. This claim was presented without evidence or support. 

The topic of legacy students being admitted to Universities has become an issue of affirmative action; one that was not a part of the policy decades ago. Under affirmative action, many claim that legacy students, students who have had parents attend certain colleges, are gaining admittance not on qualifications but on the fact that their parents are alumni. Some are calling it “affirmative action for the rich”. Basically, the argument is that legacy students are taking spots of those more qualified simply because their parents were wealthy enough to gain admittance. One biased blogger claims that allowing “stupid rich people” into Ivy League schools cannot help society, as in the case of George W. Bush. Those who aren’t  fortunate enough to have parents who attended such colleges are left alone for no apparent reason. However others claim that admittance of legacy students affects few and encourages alumni to donate money. It is not in any way appropriate to leave deserving students outside of school for merely a generation below an alumni. One article also claims that typically only private schools take legacies. However, I personally filled out public school applications where a significant portion asked if family members had attended and graduated from the school. This is one more aspect of affirmative action that allows for those with certain qualifications to take spots from those who have no choice in the matter of parent qualifications. 

Politicians throughout the ages have been involved with affirmative action. Barack Obama , unlike many left of center politicians has different views of what affirmative action should be today. He believes that affirmative action should be driven more towards economic class rather than race and gender. Many believe that his election should be the end to affirmative action because if an African American can be elected President, surely affirmative action is no longer needed. George W. Bush differed slightly from typical Republican constituents by supporting affirmative action in the sense that race does need to be treated sensitively and regarded.  Politicians have often taken stances on affirmative action as it has been an issue of debate for the last 50 years. However, like many political issues ease is cautioned as this issue can easily deter a mass amount of voters if they feel differently on the subject. The political discourse of affirmative action often occurs when Supreme Court cases arise or more on state levels. For instance President Bush delivered his opinion further after the University of Michigan Supreme Court rulings. 

Affirmative action is in the sphere of debate for the upcoming primaries. In Arizona, Proposition 107 plans to end affirmative action for minorities and females, in both education and employment. This proposition has brought affirmative action into the debate of primaries and what effect this will have on society. The debate has caused feminist groups to stand up against the bill. Typically, feminists groups such as the National Organization for Women, have been pro affirmative action, claiming women are still oppressed and need representation for higher education. I have to wonder however if this bill may very well be the start to end reverse discrimination.  If this proposition is passed, the end to affirmative action will be near. It takes only one ruling to stop this action in its tracks, creating a domino effect. Affirmative action has run its course, serving it purpose and then some. If Proposition 107 can be passed in this primary, majority groups will seek once again equal opportunity, at least in Arizona, allowing for race and gender no longer to be an aspect for admission.

Too smart? Too bad.

Too long have Asian Americans been neglected by the affirmative action process. While the benefits reap for African Americans and Hispanic Americans while applying to universities, the exact opposite occurs to a different kind of minority. Similar to that of Caucasians in the process, Asian Americans are denied the opportunity to higher education to less qualified applicants. Empirical evidence is difficult to find, since the admissions process is subjective- based entirely on a group of peoples decision. One can study individuals’ criteria compared to other students and then look to their race. The case of Garret, an Asian American is one of these cases, where the admissions process simply appears to be unjust. Garret had a 3.5 GPA in his undergraduate studies and an above average MCAT score, yet in his applications to 20 different medical schools he got denied to all of them. These credentials are typical of a student who would be admitted to medical school. This implies that Asian Americans while applying to certain schools- if not all public schools- lose credentials merely due to their race. At earlier points in history, when Asians were under represented in universities, affirmative action gave way for an abundance of qualified Asians to receive a higher education. However, affirmative action has run its course, producing opposite effects of its original motive. Asians now represent one fifth of the students in medical school and medical schools are turning their heads to different minorities. This prioritizes African Americans over Asians similar to how it would put females over males when applying to engineering school.