Affirmative Action : An Unfair Tool For Disadvantaged Minority Students

The institution of public education has been one of the most controversial establishments in the United States since its inception. More specifically, equality in the conditions and the opportunities it provides has been sought as one of its major goals. There is little doubt that minority ethnic groups have struggled to achieve educational equality, just as they have struggled for equality in other aspects of life. One way that minorities have tried to achieve equality in education is through lobbying for help in college admissions for their respective groups. This social practice has been debated on many grounds, including necessity and

Being admitted into college is a difficult process, one that requires students to be diligent in their studies, engage in a number of extracurricular activities, and overcome the everyday pressures and challenges that high-schoolers face across the country. Admittedly, not everyone in the United States is born with the same opportunities as socioeconomic factors as well as historic injustices have contributed to a society in which some people are far more likely to achieve upward mobility – of which, obtaining a college degree is a necessary part – than others. While there is need to rectify this reality,

For some students, race is a central part of their identity. The struggles they face with it determines the achievements that they can present to the admissions officers. Despite the current ban on the usage of race in college admissions in Michigan, admissions officers should not ignore any part of a student’s unique circumstances, which may be related to one’s socioeconomic status, race, or both. In the article, “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid,” Kozol argues that the ongoing racial segregation and the lack of funding in schools consisting primarily of blacks and Hispanics are putting the poor and minority children at an disadvantage by not providing them a chance to have good teachers, classrooms, and other resources. While universities use scores to assess the academic ability of a student, minorities who attend schools segregated based on race or socioeconomic status may excel at what they are given, have the

Stanford students David Sacks and Peter Thiel describe how, “rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus… if preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.” The bias present in Affirmative Action does not mend what it was originally put in place to fix, discrimination of the disadvantaged. Instead, it misplaces students who are qualified. The unfavorable system of preferential admission disregards a more promising system of admittance.

Newspaper headlines and public forums demand educational reform with growing frequency. Race-sensitive admissions policies are often at the center of these debates. For example, according to the Los Angeles Times on March 21, 2001, the Los Angeles Community College district trustees are scheduled to vote for a resolution to support the University of California’s move to reinstate affirmative action in its admissions policies. This reinstatement has visible student support as seen in the March 15, 2001 rallies at the UC Regent’s meeting in which over 1,000 supporters of affirmative action came out to voice their opinion. This activity closely follows two other perceived victories for affirmative action proponents when two recent court

Every year, millions of students apply to colleges and universities in the United States. The status of their application, whether they get accepted to or rejected by the school of their dreams, may ultimately be determined by two words: affirmative action. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to correct past injustices, means to right the wrongs of the past, positive steps to correct past discrimination (Affirmative 1). However, for those exceedingly qualified members of a majority group who do not get accepted while less qualified minority members do, affirmative action begins to insinuate reverse discrimination, the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Reverse 1). Affirmative action is a topic of contention that has been disputed in the court systems for roughly four decades. It is now time that affirmative action in college admissions be abolished because it erroneously implies that diversity is more imperative than merit and unjustifiably discriminates

The Bakke Vs. The Regents of University of California case is one of the most well known supreme court cases in America dealing with the topic of affirmative action. Stated by Eastland, “affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society” (10). In 1978, the plaintiff Bakke filed a suit against the University of California, claiming that his rejection from the school was a result of racial discrimination and that it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, and the California Constitution (Posner 171). The U.S Supreme court ruled that affirmative action was constitutional, but not the use of racial quotas. The significance of this case is that it dealt directly with two major theories prevalent to minorities and race: Their assimilation into the university setting using affirmative action, and also the systemic racism that these groups faced as well. More specifically however, the Bakke Vs. the Regents of University of California case can be explained by systemic racism more so than assimilation, because systemic racism was and still is in effect in these educational institutions. Even with the inclusion of programs such as affirmative action that are supposed to combat systemic racism and simplify assimilation, American institutions were built upon ideological processes that

California's decision in 1996 to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United States. But in the four years since Californians passed Proposition 209, most states have agreed that killing affirmative action outright would deepen social inequality by denying minority citizens access to higher education. The half-dozen states that are actually thinking about abandoning race-sensitive

The utilization of race in affirmative action policies in higher education has been a topic of contention for several decades now. Since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have seen some of the most heated debates over the fairness of affirmative action and the impacts on society the utilization of race creates. With such pending questions on fairness and of the constitutionality of affirmative action policies two major Supreme Court cases have arisen, University of California Regents v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, both impacting university admissions policies throughout the country and setting precedent in following rulings. Following the two rulings of these cases, I argue that affirmative action and the utilization of

On a personal level, society needs a shift in its approach to race. Instead of creating divisions, Americans should try to understand their biases. Recently, initiatives with this goal have sprung up in universities. Soon after the Civil Rights Act, many universities in America implemented affirmative action initiatives, which sought to level the playing field between white and minority applicants, the latter traditionally having a disproportionately low acceptance rate. Doing so increased the minority population on campuses and brought the issue of discrimination to the forefront of national attention. By acknowledging historical patterns of discrimination and taking explicit action to reverse that trend, a peaceful method to decrease racial inequality emerged. However, white applicants have protested affirmative action, labeling it “reverse discrimination.” Yet this only emphasizes the faults in racial understanding – members of traditionally privileged groups recoil at the notion of elevating minorities, not realizing that their lower starting place necessitates a boost later. For unity, both groups must reach a mutual understanding about race’s role in modern society.

Affirmative action has been one of the most effective tools to correct a history of inequalities in our nation’s history against people of color and women. The huge advances made during Civil Rights era still has not completely eradicated centuries of sexism and racism. Opportunities for advancement for those previously omitted remain few and far between in comparison to their counterparts. Race and gender are not, nor should they be, the only selection measure but they do warrant to be one of the many influences considered in college admissions, hiring, and awarding of grants and other forms of financial aid. Many prestigious and well regarded school universities such as Harvard and Stanford have been at the forefront of this ideal. Nonetheless, affirmative action remains a heavily contested social issue in the United States.

Affirmative Action has been around for many decades from around the 1940s. Although it has not always been called affirmative action, the official title was not introduced until the 1960s. Back then affirmative action was more known as segregation or discrimination in the workplace or there lack of. The women and people of color were the targets of discrimination, which several presidents tried to correct for equality.

For many the subject of affirmative action is worth protesting over, however, there are a few who would love to see the existence of affirmitive action abolished. Affirmative action has always been a long debated topic with two different communites arguing very different view points. Although affirmitive action can cause friction among many different opionated people, on the other hand, the results of the practice has ensured the college educations for many of minorities in America. Should this practice be allowed during the college admissions process is the question that remains to be debated. The right to attend college is considered to be a privilege for students who are able to enroll within a university of their choice. Those who

As a testament to the next discussion point of opportunities, especially within the realm of college admission, I have experienced firsthand the opportunities presented by affirmative action. As a low-income, first-generation college student, Virginia Tech had offered me a full scholarship based solely on merit and financial need. As a “minority” according to Virginia Tech, I had an

In recent years, the strongest failings of affirmative action have been revealed: the inability of minority students -- accepted on an affirmative action basis -- to graduate college (Ravitch, par. 7). While the United States and similar governments are trying to quell the ripples of racist and slavery-based pasts, the effectiveness of the strategies employed is being looked over. The ?social promotion? policies of affirmative action end up pushing students with inadequate grades into college where, when faced with having to make a return to remedial teaching, find that graduation is almost impossible (Ravitch, par. 11). The soul of the matter, suggested by Ravitch, exists at an adolescent level where a student?s social and/or family status affects how he or she learns. The end results of this inefficient system of balance, based on liberal society?s collective desire to have minorities catch up with the crowd, can be seen as