Alisha Peru
ENGL 1030
7 May 2017
Prof. Van Essen
Affirmative Action – Still the Correct Action to Take?
If two people receive exactly the same grades in high school, should one be given precedence over the other because of their family’s racial status? As I sat in the lobby one afternoon, I was given the opportunity to listen to a conversation between two students on opposite ends of what we will deem the “affirmative action spectrum.” We will call the first student Maggie and the second, Ronda; both attend the same university. Maggie, who is a full-time student, comes from a Caucasian, lower middle-class family. She received high grades in school and completed the FAFSA prior to attending college. Her parents are both teachers and receive a relatively low income. Ronda is a full-time student, too, with parents who immigrated to the United States from Mexico.
Ronda has a full-ride scholarship and she explained that one of the reasons why she was able to have all of her schooling paid for is because her parents are immigrants. Ronda continued to voice that her grades, however, were the main reason why.
Maggie, being someone who also maintained very high grades, spoke up and shared some information about her parent’s low income. She did not receive a full-ride scholarship and has to work extra hours to be able to pay for tuition and board. Maggie lightly contended a bit of sadness or hurt, but then ended the conversation by sharing that she was still happy for Ronda (“Affirmative Action Conversation”).
Hypothetically, if Ronda and Maggie received exactly the same grades in high school and came from families with the same level of income, should Ronda have received more scholarship funds than Maggie because her parents were classified as immigrants? These types of questions are on the minds of many and whether you realize it or not, you or someone that you know has most likely been affected by affirmative action policies. This is something that impacts everyone in our country.
Affirmative action has been a topic of controversy for quite some time. Lawsuits have arisen, as well as debates, over whether or not this policy should still be implemented and if so, how. While affirmative action was originally created to help ensure equal opportunity for all, many now believe that the order is backfiring with a kind of “reverse discrimination.” When employers and colleges take race into account in viewing applications, it begs the question of how equal the playing field truly is. Should race even be a factor? This question has caused a division amongst citizens nationwide and it is imperative that we find a solution to foster equality. In the words of integrationist Melba Beals, “If one person is denied equality, we are all denied equality” (Beals, preface).
Affirmative action began in the early 60’s, amidst the explosion of Civil Rights advocacy that resounded throughout the nation:
On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which included a provision that government contractors ‘take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.’ The intent of this executive order was to affirm the government’s commitment to equal opportunity for all qualified persons, and to take positive action to strengthen efforts to realize true equal opportunity for all. (“Brief History”)
Today, affirmative action is prominent in many college and job application processes; it receives attention from the media and court in disputes regarding such.
Take the University of Texas, for example. The university has decided that unless an applicant is in the top ten percent of their high school graduating class, they will take the applicant’s race into account when deciding whether or not to admit said prospect into the school. An applicant named Abigail Fisher, who applied to the school in 2008, was denied admission; She believed that she was not accepted into the university because her Caucasian race was not considered “diverse” enough. While the intent of affirmative action is to prevent discrimination, the rising disagreement with its current implementation now begs the question: “Should the policy of affirmative action justify the use of race on applications and in admissions?”
Some universities support the idea that having a study body that encompasses the “full spectrum” of racial and ethnic backgrounds is essential to preparing students for the real world. They believe that to maintain this kind of diversity, they need to take into account the race of the students that they admit (“Who Supports”). This is the same type of reasoning that the University of Texas has adopted.
Others, like Jennifer Gratz, the CEO of the XIV Foundation for equal treatment, hold the view that processes that use race as a factor in admissions are a form of discrimination. She also contends that “Racial preferences rob recipients of the pride of ownership in their accomplishments” (Gratz). Take this example of a recipient of unwanted preferential treatment from the American Civil Rights Coalition video, “An Act of Courage”:
Ashley graduated from high school at 16 years of age with a 4.3 GPA and scored a 32 on the ACT. . . She was active in numerous extracurricular activities and, not surprisingly, was accepted into every college to which she applied. Ashley did not want racial admissions boosts, and she did not need them. She knew, however, that she would get them anyway because she happened to be black. Despite her hard work and impressive accomplishments, she feared ever having a bad day or getting an answer wrong in class lest her peers think she got accepted only because of her skin color.
The use of race-conscious admissions policies at her university saddled Ashley with an unwanted stigma based on her skin color. It reinforced stereotypes of inequality and special treatment, forcing her constantly to feel the need to prove that she deserved to be in the classroom. Rather than helping Ashley, racial preferences obscured the legitimacy of her achievements. She wanted to be judged as an individual; instead, she worked twice as hard to overcome being judged for her skin color. (Gratz)
Should this kind of academic stereotype be imposed on those who do not want it? It forces some to become victims of an unwanted handicap.
I believe that some of those who support affirmative action do so with good morals and intentions. We share a commonality in agreeing that racism is still a factor in America today and that it has not yet been completely overcome. I take the stance that the concept of affirmative action in itself does not need to be completely done away with, but that the next step to breaking free from racial stereotypes is to stop classifying college and job candidates based on their race. I propose that universities and employers take a step forward, towards complete equality, by turning a “blind eye” to race, as much as possible, when determining whether or not to hire or admit someone. The racial classification section on applications should be removed. I believe that in order to achieve true equality, true opportunity for all, race should no longer be taken into account in regards to such.
I agree with some affirmative action supporters in the case that there are still people out there who may discriminate. To cater to this very real concern, I propose that we still monitor university and job diversity, but only after said applicants are hired or admitted. This allows for the doing away with racial sections on application forms, but still gives us a way to make sure that there is not racism at work. Only after citizens are accepted into the college or hired at a specific location should they be given racial quota paperwork to fill out. If it is noticeable in a school or company that certain races are not righteously being hired or accepted, or vice versa, steps can be taken to correct the discrimination – if it is ruled as such. There can be specific fines and legal consequences put into place. I urge us, as a nation, to give this new process of admissions and hiring an opportunity to succeed.
Many of those who support affirmative action are the ones who are benefiting from its implementation. “”Affirmative action benefited me directly, and I am now able to give something back to the society that gave me a hand,” voices nontraditional college graduate Albert Vetre Lannon (Rockwell). Antonia Hernandez also supports affirmative action, being another recipient of its benefits. She shares her story: “I am a kid out of Garfield High School in East Los Angeles. I am a pretty bright individual, and I had decent grades. I was just dirt-poor. My parents lived in the projects and I dreamed of going to Cal State L.A., because it was just across the street. That is as far as my dreams would take me. I am sure that I was judged by standards other than just grades or test scores [. . .] They saw in me a burning determination, the drive, the willingness to work. They gave me a break, but I am not the only one. It happened to thousands of Latinos who went to medical school, to architectural school” (Rockwell).
Even though citizens such as Albert Vetre Lannon and Antonia Hernandez are happy with the way things are going in regards to affirmative action, if the way that it is being carried out violates the fourteenth amendment, should such practices truly be allowed to continue? In 1977 and 1978, a case involving such arose within the court system. The University of California at Davis Medical School implemented a program that reviewed college candidates via two separate application processes. There was a candidate review group for the general public and another for those who were deemed minorities or disadvantaged. A specific number of spots were open for each of those two groups. Allan Bakke, who was considered to be in the general public category, was not admitted because his applicant score was not considered high enough. He applied to the university more than once and even though there were spots within the minority category that were still not filled, he was not accepted into the school. Bakke’s score was higher than the scores of those who were accepted through the disadvantaged and minority group application process (“Regents of the Univ.”).
The argument for holding the disadvantaged and minority applicant group to lower score standards may be based upon the view that these students were given less opportunity to succeed in educational areas when they were younger. This lack of opportunity is compensated through such a score “handicap.” While I can see the good intentions within this concept, it is interesting to note that throughout the four-year span of time that this type of admissions process was in place, 0% of the many disadvantaged whites who applied were accepted. The court ruled that The University of California at Davis’ Medical School violated the Equal Protection Clause within The Fourteenth Amendment (“Regents of the Univ.”).
Some states, like California, have passed policies such as Proposition 209. This proposition declares that “[t]he state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting” (Nagel). Enacted in 1996, the effects of this policy have become a foundation for many of the arguments towards keeping affirmative action in place. After its implementation, “[t]he number of black freshman at Berkeley. . . decline[d] 57%. . .; the number of Hispanics, 40%. The drop at UCLA [was] 43% for blacks, 33% for Hispanics” (Krauthammer qtd in Nagel). These numbers, however, do not take into account the fact that there are not just two UC campuses, but eight. When the other six campuses were combined with the two more prestigious campuses listed above, “the drop was far less dramatic: for blacks, not 57% but 17.6%; for Hispanics, not 40% but 6.9%” (Krauthammer). Not too long after Proposition 209 was passed, the number of [UC] applicants who did not classify themselves based on their race jumped up to 15%. “Not counting these students and looking just at those whose race we know for sure, black and Hispanic admissions at the UC system declined only slightly, from 17.7% to 17.2% of freshmen. (African Americans going from 3.7% to 3.3%; Hispanics remaining steady at about 14%.)” (Krauthammer). There was even an increase in minority students accepted into schools that were not as competitive; UC Riverside saw a 34% black admissions increase and a 43% Hispanic admissions increase (Krauthammer).
Florida also became an example of how diversity can still be maintained, even without race-based admissions. After banning affirmative action back in 2001, the number of Hispanics enrolled at Florida State University and The University of Florida “tracked fairly closely with the overall growth of young Hispanics in [the state]” [see Fig. 1] (Fessenden and Keller).
These numbers, along with those of California, are interesting statistics to note when pondering upon the effects of implementing these types of “race-free” admissions systems throughout more states across the country. Supreme Court Justice Scalia contended “that universities in other states ‘can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these…[race neutral] alternatives as they develop’” (Carr).
One of the most unique aspects of affirmative action is the fact that it “favor[s] a group of people, rather than discriminat[es] against a group of people” (“Equal Protection”). It is the favoring towards one group that leads to what seems to be discrimination towards the other. This results in a kind of “inequality cycle.” When one is favored, the other suffers. How, then, do we break this trend? As mentioned before, I do believe that our country has come to a point in which we can work towards a new goal – the goal of true and complete equality. Racial stereotypes can work in two ways: they can cause harm to those being stereotyped or result in a form of favor. I do not feel that race should result in either of those two. Another negative aspect of keeping affirmative action policies in place in regards to applications is the fact that it may fuel racial tensions even more. If many minority groups, such as African-Americans, already feel that there is stress between them and Caucasians, will the idea of favoring African Americans add to the social war? This can create unnecessary feelings of jealousy, “resentment[,] and division among races while promoting condescension towards minorities. . .” (Wang).
Certain people may feel that enacting a policy to remove the racial classification section from applications will start an uproar of sorts. “There may be riots!” some may say. “Or protests!” When it comes to any new law or policy, there will always be those who disagree. It is a type of change and with change comes a stirring within the community. However, just because a policy may cause a bit of controversy does not mean that it is a bad one.
In order to achieve its full effect, a goal should be in place to eventually outlaw racial profiling on applications nationwide. However, because this may impose upon state rights and cause more tension than necessary, it is best to allow each individual state to decide for itself. This allows for a gradual implementation, rather than sudden one. When it comes to legal change, the “slow and steady” approach can help ease strife. People are also more willing to accept change when it is more gradual rather than sudden and shocking.
We, as a country, need to admit to and accept that the controversy over affirmative action is, indeed, a prevalent and pressing issue. It has a real and serious effect on the lives of many. Those on both sides of the argument can agree that every person should be given equal opportunities within occupational and educational environments. And while taking race into account when hiring and accepting students may have been an initial catalyst for positive change, it is now time to move one and end that form of racial classification. We can be the new catalyst for policy change by stepping up, taking action, and checking “decline to answer” on our applications from this point forward. If we want to continue walking towards the end of racism and inequality, towards the finish line, we have to be willing to take the next step.