Pro/Con: Does affirmative action address racial injustice

Pro:

By Maggie Robak
Opinion Editor

Affirmative action was created in order to compensate for centuries of racial injustice by helping minorities escape poverty. Although generally unpopular, affirmative action initiatives have been successful in creating and improving diversity.

While some criticize the policy’s effectiveness, making up for centuries of injsutice takes time. Affirmative action programs have made a difference in creating equal opportunity for minorities. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Labor, affirmative action has helped 5 million minorities and 6 million women move up in the workforce since its creation, proving the success of the program.

A new bill (SB 185) being considered by California Governor Jerry Brown has reignited the debate over affirmative action. If passed, race and gender will be considered in the admissions process at California’s public universities. SB 185 reintroduces affirmative action initiatives, 15 years after a ban on affirmative action principles were imposed by Proposition 209. The bill will bring back much needed programs to increase diversity and equal opportunity.

In 1997, Proposition 209 eliminated all affirmative action programs. This had a detrimental effect on the progress affirmative action previously made. In 1995, a study conducted by the University of Michigan, showed that minority students constituted 21% of the freshman class in the University of California system; however, in 1998 (after the Proposition 209 took effect) only 15.5% of the entering class consisted of minorities, despite a significant increase in the number of minority high school graduates in California.

According to the United States Department of Labor, 72.7% of college graduates is currently employed. Therefore, affirmative action programs improve the success of minorities and should not have been eliminated.

Education and a work environment are best if they are diverse. A workforce or school is the most effective if it reflects society as a whole because with diversity comes many different perceptions and new ideas. Most public universities produced a significant decrease in admissions of minority students, which creates a less diverse atmosphere and a feeling of isolation with minorities.

While many criticize affirmative action, stating that it leads to discrimination against other races, this is not true. Affirmative action initiatives do not state that a minority is a higher priority than another. The initiatives do not support the sole domination of these groups. SB 185, if passed, would allow universities to once again consider race and gender when admitting students. However, it does not allow the universities to give preference to a certain race.

Opponents say that this policy is not effective in decreasing poverty and improving the quality of lower-level education. While they may be correct that affirmative action is not the most effective way to accomplish these tasks, these are not the goals of affirmative action. Affirmative action initiatives were created to increase equal opportunity, not for the elimination of poverty. The cause and need for affirmative action initiatives stems from centuries of maltreatment of minorities and women, not from poverty and poor education.

Opponents also claim that people who are more qualified than minorities may not be treated fairly. This situation is similar to that of the national Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. However, this bill clearly states that California State Universities can consider race and gender along with other relevant factors and cannot accept a person solely based on race.

Affirmative action, overall, has been effective in combating discrimination and providing compensation for those wronged in the past. A continuation of the policy will diversify campuses and will benefit everyone.

Con:

By Michael Powell
Opinion Editor

American treatment of minorities has been shameful. From African slavery, to Japanese prison camps, the effects of this treatment are still around and will not cease to exist anytime soon. However, the federal and state policies, based on the idea of affirmative action, have not been effective in bettering the condition of African-Americans and other minorities and are in need of reform.

For the past four decades, the states and the federal courts have provided for quantitative preferential treatment. Affirmative action, however, has a long way to go in order to accomplish its intended goals. According to the National Poverty Center of the University of Michigan, 73% of impoverished children are either black or hispanic. The reality is that federal measures do not tackle the root causes of poverty. Thus, the solution does not lie in racial preferential treatment; it lies in the pursuit of increased general employment of all Americans.

Federal statistics, dating back to 1975, show that whites have nearly double the educational advantage over minorities. Furthermore, 49% of black and hispanic students attend high-poverty schools. Therefore, state and federal laws that promote affirmative action are just addressing symptoms of the greater problem of widespread poverty.

Affirmative action attempts to curb this trend, but it is not a long-term solution. To address the inequalities in education and incomes, the government should end crippling programs like No Child Left Behind.

According to a study at UC Berkeley, NCLB perpetuates the problem of low education quality among African-Americans by basing performance on tests, which disproportionately hurt minorities.

The stress on the use of tests ultimately hurts African-Americans, who are born into higher rates of poverty and into unfunded school districts. Instead of using affirmative action as a remedy to the problems of minorities, the government should aim to fix the fundamental problems.

Proponents of affirmative action claim that it is beneficial for society and educational institutions because it diversifies campuses, decreases poverty and levels the playing field for minorities who, they claim, would otherwise stay impoverished.

Affirmative action actually furthers the class divide within minority committees by catering to qualified, well-educated minorities, while failing to address the problems that keep the rest of the community impoverished and unprepared for higher education and employment.
California’s SB 185 introduces affirmative action initiatives for the first time since Proposition 209 eliminated such programs in 1997.

This bill allows race to be used as a way to make selections among equally qualified candidates for UC college admissions. Someone who is outright unqualified would not be hired solely based on race because of the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that outlawed the use of race as the sole criteria.

Legislation encouraging the use of race as one of the factors for college admissions and employment does not help minorities meet the “equally qualified” guideline for affirmative action. Without qualified candidates, affirmative active is rendered useless. SB 185 doesn’t focus on eliminating economic barriers to educational inequality and doesn’t truly help the disadvantaged.

The state of California and the federal government should initiate a comprehensive program that combats poverty and the low quality of education. Instead of focusing on race, California should focus making candidates more qualified, thus getting rid of the need for affirmative action. Only then will the letter of the law carry out its intended spirit; to ensure that all Americans, black or white, have a truly equal shot at economic success.