Running Head: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative Action:
No Longer Needed for Entrance to Higher Learning
Joseph A. Lubin
Bellevue Community College
Abstract
Affirmative action, which has been around for nearly thirty years, has done its job. It came about through the civil rights era and was to promote a more diversified educational experience for all ethnic groups. Thus allowing for minority students an opportunity to apply for and enter an institution of higher learning no mater what color skin they have. However, in the process of affirmative action to achieve its goals, it has created dependency and tension. Dependency has taken root on the part of minority groups and tension has arisen from those students who receive reverse discrimination.
Affirmative Action:
No Longer Needed for Entrance to High Learning
The goal of affirmative action was to help relieve "the past effects of discrimination by giving some form of preferential treatment to ethnic minorities and women" (The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1995). The program helped to jump-start our society by becoming more widely diversified and ethnically mixed in higher education. This has been achieved through opening doors that may not have been as accessible without affirmative action. Affirmative action, however, can be compared to that of "developing nation status". In economics, "developing nation status" is given to certain countries that are in their infancies and are not yet able to compete with others in the world market. Yet, problems arise when a particular country and/or industry, after competing in the world economy, still feels that it needs preferential treatment. How much time is sufficient for a group to recover from past injustices?
Many people in the state of California feel that enough time has been given to the program of affirmative action. This was shown through the passing of Proposition 209, which was passed by 54% of California voters (Dolan, 1997). Proposition 209, which was passed in November of 1996, forbids racial, ethnic and gender preferences by state and local agencies in hiring, contracting and university admissions, thus ending many affirmative action programs (California State Attorney General, 1996).
As found in an opinion article by Michael S. Greve (Feb. 14, 1997; Los Angeles Times):
California of 1997 isn’t Mississippi of 1962; it’s the most multiracial, laid-back state in the country. A state where white males form a numerical minority is an extremely unlikely site for a supremacist conspiracy. It is, on the other hand, a very likely site for a populist backlash against an uncontrollable multiracial spoils system. To paraphrase CCRI sponsor Ward Connerly, California grants "Juan" a preference over "Chang" in 1997 because "James’" grandfather discriminated against "Willie’s" grandmother in 1937. California discriminates against Asians in college admissions and makes up for it by granting them preferences in contracting. (CCRI: California Civil Rights Initiative)
Even though Proposition 209 is constitutional, as it has been reaffirmed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Dolan, 1997), it is seen by many in the nation as a digression of civil rights. Bigotry is found throughout the country yet, by continuing the program of affirmative action through such acts as college admissions, it will only incite greater malice from those affected by reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination happens towards those individuals who are not in a minority classification. An individual may have qualified for entrance into a college, competitive school or department within a university but, due to his or her not falling into a minority classification, is now passed over and not given any consideration for admission. Many articles have been written, polls and surveys taken, and discussion groups have come about concerning affirmative action. Those who had opposed Proposition 209 still fear that the proposition, which was birthed in California, will spread throughout the rest of the country.
Affirmative action has and still is creating dependency. Although the program has been in existence for nearly three decades, many feel that minorities still need a greater "helping hand" when competing for entrance into colleges. As stated in an opinion article by Geoffrey Taylor Gibbs (June 1, 1997; Los Angeles Times):
One of the practical effects of affirmative action in college admissions has been to lower the admissions bar for African American and Latino students. At any given multiethnic high school in California, an Anglo senior might need, at a minimum, a 3.7 grade-point average to get into the college of his choice. On the other hand, previous admission data at the same college might show that his African American and Latino classmates could expect to be admitted with, for example, a GPA of only 3.2. Few educators, parents or even students themselves would deny that if you set lower expectations for children, the likely result would be lower achievement.
This dependency will continue if it is not stopped and therefore fulfilling a self-prophetic assumption. An assumption that, as a minority, the only way to achieve a higher standing in life is from special assistance. Instead of using affirmative action as a means of college entrance, minorities should be focusing on true merit of educational achievements. An example of how affirmative action worked in the university system of California, would be an automatic 300-point advantage in their 8,000-point admission system to blacks, American Indians, and Mexican-Americans (Daniel B. Wood; March 01,1996; The Christian Science Monitor). Neither the pigment of a person’s skin nor the roundness nor slant of a person’s eyes should ever affect the admissions process of a college. The Department of Education should be focusing on ensuring that every student is capable of competing equally to enter college. This could be accomplished through proper funding and training at both the primary and secondary levels of our nation’s educational system.
University of California Board of Regents has seen a significant drop of applications from Black and Latino students since the decision to ban race in admissions. Many may have qualified (and many did qualify) to enter on their own academic achievements; however, they chose not to apply for reasons of unfounded feelings. When questioned as to the reasons for not applying, many that were surveyed believed that they were not welcomed. An example of how another student responded after attending Admitted Students Day—a reception that he called "just a big room full of white people" (Amy Wallace; June 28, 1997; Los Angeles Times). This remark was coming from a Latino student. One who graduated UC Berkeley, with a double major and honors, after being accepted into law school (this particular student declined his slot and then chose to go to Columbia Law School in N.Y. instead). Instead of being proud of being accepted on their personal achievements and accomplishments, many individuals are still using affirmative action as a crutch. In an interview with Amy Wallace, of the Los Angeles Times (June 28,1997), one person was quoted as saying, "They say your race doesn’t count for who you are. That’s a horrible statement. My whole heritage, my whole culture—they ‘re going to say that doesn’t mean anything?"
A lack of self-worth has permeated in the minds of many minorities, which has been brought about through affirmative action. From information gathered by Gallup Poll reports, most blacks want government to make a "special effort" to help minorities (The Washington Post, June 17,1997). Another poll conducted by a Washington Post-ABC News survey:
…Found 17 percent of whites polled think blacks and other minorities should receive preference in college admissions to make up for past inequalities; 49 percent of blacks think minorities should get preferences (The Washington Post, June 15,1997).
A change needs to take place and soon. Otherwise, this dependence will only continue to grow. Inequalities brought about from past wrong doings are a sad and an unfortunate fact. However, the program of affirmative action today, only brings to mind the inequalities of the past and fosters new hatreds of today. Reverse discrimination was shown and brought to light to Ward Connerly, a University of California regent, and was cited in The Christian Science Monitor, by Daniel B. Wood (March 01, 1996):
…A white couple from San Diego whose son was not admitted to the U. of C. medical school. After obtaining UC records through the Freedom of Information Act, the couple took their findings to a UC regents meeting while Connerly was head of the board’s finance committee. "My mouth fell open," he says. "They showed you had a better chance to win the California lottery than to be admitted as a white or Asian with a 4.0 grade average over another minority with a 3.2 average."
Our nation is rich in both ethnic and cultural diversity. However, as stated by Jennifer Nelson, executive director of the American Civil Rights Institute in Sacramento, "Diversity in and of itself does not enrich the educational process" (Wallace, 1997). Therefore, it is time to bring the program of affirmative action in the role of college admissions to a close. Not just in California, as it has occurred through Proposition 209, but let it happen through out the rest of the country as well.
References
Affirmative Action. (1995). The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press [CD-ROM]. Available: Microsoft Bookshelf 1996-97 Edition.
Biskupic, J. (1997, June 15). Skeptical About Affirmative Action at Colleges. The Washington Post, pg. A08
California State Attorney General (1996). CA Secretary of State – Vote96 – Proposition 209 [Online]. Available: http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/BP/209.htm [1997, Aug. 2]
Dolan, M. (1997, April 9). U.S. Panel Upholds Prop. 209. Los Angeles Times, pg. 1A
Gibbs, G.T. (1997, June 1). At Last, a UC Admissions Plan That Rewards Merit. Los Angeles Times, pg. 6
Glassman, J.K. (1997, June 17). The Divide is Narrowing. The Washington Post, pg. A17
Greve, M.S. (1997, February 14). The referendum process accomplishes what pork barrel politics won’t. Los Angeles Times, pg. 9
Wallace, A. (1997, June 28). Fallout From UC Preference Ban. Los Angeles Times, pg.1
Wood, D.B. (1996, March 1). Why a Man Who Knows Racism Fights Affirmative Action. The Christian Science Monitor, pg.1