Affirmative Action Programs Should Not Be Successful

In the reading “At the Elite Colleges” by Peter Schmidt the nature of admissions in top colleges was discussed in relation to class and race status. Schmidt states that affirmative action is often serving white populations of upper middle class females rather than those in minority races and ethnicities. This was a great relevant point, especially when considering why affirmative action was proposed and enacted in the first place. Affirmative action was created to serve those who are part of groups who had been quashed in some way by oppression. This stands in stark contrast. Colleges often make excuses for these undeserved admissions because, they are looking for future donors or are aiding an athlete. However, this is still inexcusable. On

Affirmative Action is one of the many social issues facing America today. Affirmative action was signed into place in 1961 by President Kennedy and allows minority groups or people who face discrimination to become employed or get an education that is equal to that of a white male. Groups that Affirmative Action aims to help are women, blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities. While these policies were signed to slowly rid the workforce and schools from discrimination, it hurts people who do not face discrimination, specifically whites. Many white men and women lose special opportunities to work or go to college because of certain standards that the Affirmative Action laws require. Universities and the military require a certain number of minorities in order to meet the standards and have a more diverse atmosphere. An example of this is the California V. Bakke supreme court case of 1978.

Many people ignore the blinding facts that support white privilege but are aware that it exists in society. White privilege impacts every decision made within the educational system. When applying to colleges, a white student is 78% more likely to get accepted than a student of color with identical successes. A study done in 2011 by the US Department of Education suggests that whites are not only more likely to get accepted, but are more likely to receive their bachelor’s degree once they enter (2011 US Department of Education). This recent study demonstrates that white privilege is still relevant in society and must be altered. Even if the education system is not consciously making an effort to support white privilege it is evident that it

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

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 questionable existence of affirmative action continues to create a pervasive tug of war between proponents and opponents of affirmative action. The cornerstone of affirmative action policies initiated from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unequal—ultimately forever changing the system of education in America. This groundbreaking decision served as a gateway, with the goal of “leveling the playing field” and remedying the grotesque American past rooted in harsh racial discrimination against non-white individuals, primarily of African American descent. As a result of swift implementation of affirmative action policies, cultural and racial diversity quickly diversified

Bollinger [2003] , a 43-year-old white female applicant was rejected from the University of Michigan despite being in the 86th percentile nationally on the Law School Admissions Test. During the litigation, university officials admitted that Grutter would have been accepted into the school if she was African American, Hispanic, or Native American. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the law school’s policy to be legal in a five-to-four judgement because the justices believed it was “narrowly tailored” to create a diverse student body. The narrow tailoring system has been legalized but it has been put under heavy scrutiny. An admissions process can’t establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or have separate admissions tracks for different races. This loophole for affirmative action is inefficient

The lifelong dream of a virtuous student, acceptance into a prestigious college of choice, crushed by the prejudice of a single law. Hopes upon hopes of attaining one’s dream job, demolished due to the same impassive law. Affirmative action, a national dilemma, continues to crush the dreams of many across the country; although meant with noble intentions, affirmative action offers an ineffective, impractical, and useless rectification to correct a historical social evil, the growing imbalance of different ethnicities. Instead of augmenting this common problem, affirmative action plays a critical role in reverse discrimination, equating race to diversity in opinion, and destroying the idea of meritocracy.

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a

College is a privilege that is now accessible to many people. It has not always been this way though. Lack of money, being deprived of representation, or racism hindered one’s chances in to getting into higher education, especially a minority’s chance. In order to raise against the barriers, President John F. Kennedy created the affirmative action program to provide equal opportunities for everyone, whether in education or in the workforce. Even if this was a program created in the 1960’s, problems continue to present itself as shown through the many court cases, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Fisher vs. University of Texas, Grutter vs. Bollinger et al, and Hopwood vs. State of Texas. Thus, racial inequality and affirmative action

A topic like Affirmative Action is one that I usually try to avoid during casual conversation because in can quickly turn a conversation hostile. One of the reasons that these conversations turn hostile is due to the fact that I am a white male, which, many would see as two facts that automatically make my opinion on the matter inadmissible. With that being said, just because I would rather not discuss it on a regular basis does not mean that I do not have an opinion on the matter. Also, just because my skin tone and gender would have landed me on the better side of the fence in the past, does not mean that I do not have educated and sympathetic opinions on the matter. Ultimately, I see Affirmative Action as a positive thing which is meant to help out groups of people who are struggling to accomplish what many would call the "American dream". However, I do have several quarrels with how Affirmative Action is carried out.

Combat racism, with more racism. That is a strategy that seems so backward in thought that it should not be a program in modern American government and yet is still very active today. Affirmative action is defined as “the practice of improving the educational and job opportunities of members of groups that have not been treated fairly in the past because of their race, sex, etc” (Merriam-Webster). Affirmative action creates a blatantly unfair advantage in college and job applications to non-minority races and is ultimately a racist law. Affirmative action is most prominent in the College admission process, where its racial prioritizing is the most blatant. In 2005, it was found that the acceptance rates for African Americans at MIT were 98.7% higher than the acceptance rates for Whites or Asians (College Admission Officers). Affirmative Action was passed in 1961 by John Fitzgerald Kennedy to combat racial tensions in college admissions and the workforce. It gave an opportunity to minorities that may have been previously set back from racist laws and rules to have a chance at changing their lives for the better. This artificial raising of minority opportunities has lasted for more than two generations and has long outlived its purpose. Affirmative Action in its modern day use is racist at the expense of the non-minority race(s), and was meant for minority advancement in a world where it was almost impossible. Today, all races are equal in the eyes of all the

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

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.

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