Affirmative Action Should Be Abolished

Is affirmative action in higher education needed? This question provokes a myriad of emotions. Is affirmative action antiquated and unneeded in 21st century America? Or are the racial boundaries of this country’s ancestors still in effect? America’s Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” yet quotas, check marks, and plus factors give minority students advantages in the admission processes of the country’s universities and colleges (NARA).

Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).

Affirmative action in higher education should be abolished. College admissions should be based on what the admissions board is looking for, not what the government says should be required. In this paper, I will present evidence to support that position.

The various alternative forms of Affirmative Action all have received national attention. Yet, the country is divided on all of these issues, specifically how university admissions should assess issues of merit and diversity against national fundamental issues of diversity and fairness.

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

Affirmative action, and race-based admissions standards, are the best way to increase (or maintain) diversity at institutions of higher learning. In spite of its perceived flaws, it has increased the diversity at previously all-white institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Texas at Austin, and that diversity has allowed friendships to be formed that otherwise would not have been, has allowed students to learn from professors they otherwise would never have and allowed professors to learn from students from a wide variety of

If institutions of higher education are to keep open minded campuses, they will have to combat beliefs of mismatching so that Affirmative Action(AA) can keep making a difference. Diversifying schools, giving minorities the opportunity of receiving a quality education, and combating stereotypes are three of the many ways AA has been making a difference. Additionally, institutions can advocate for the success AA has had in educating minorities by promoting and advertising fellow AA beneficiaries at their campuses. An example would be the advertisement of Sonia Sotomayor who attended Princeton University thanks to AA. Through AA institutions of higher education are able to alter the social construct of their campuses in order to make the world a more accepting place for change and difference. AA is currently being viewed by some as a negative force for minority youth applying to colleges due to

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

In the United States justice is defined as equal treatment of all its citizens under the law. When one citizen is mistreated an injustice has been committed against all people. Affirmative Action is a program whose purpose is to make sure that citizens are treated equally by enforcing a set of policies which are designed to promote the inclusion of all individuals regardless of race, disability, sex, or religion. In the United States democracy we are all equal, but some groups have been enjoying more advantages in society than others for centuries. Current statistics show the depth of modern day racial gaps, which are rooted in historical discrimination and modern-day structural racism. Generations of nominal disadvantages have created

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

Discrimination and segregation have been inbred into America’s history from day one. Therefore, there have been many laws and bills passed to break down barriers between privileged whites and unfortunate minorities. Among these government actions are the 14th Amendment, Equal Pay Act, and the Civil Rights Acts. John F. Kennedy perhaps created one of the most heavily debated policies today, his Affirmative Action Policy. 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.” (“Definition of AFFIRMATIVE” 1). The definition itself is vague and open for a good deal of interpretation which causes much of today’s debates. The most recent interpretation of Affirmative Action came from the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin (UT of Austin). Fisher was a white individual who was denied acceptance into the university, and then filed a lawsuit against them. Fisher lost the case at the Supreme Court level in 2013, but the case returned in 2016 again with a much closer vote, so affirmative action is losing some of its power and will continue to be challenged for years to come, but is it worth the challenge (Kut.org 1)? Affirmative Action has served a vital role in the integration of race into universities and the workforce, but now it is outdated and an unnecessary requirement for schools and businesses.

The phrase, "If I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college” has been heard recently to explain some of the white people’s view on the topic of affirmative action in educational institutions (quoted in Wise, 2014). By first glance the programs seem as if they are favoring every race besides white because by the looks of it, it is giving the upper hand to every other group. However, by using some of the examples Tim Wise talks about in his article, “Whites Swim in Racial Preference” readers are able to see that the laws are only in place to help level the playing field for all races. Affirmative action programs are not in place to give an advantage to any single racial group but are there to help in eliminating racial profiling when applying for a job or going to college. His idea that whites are just swimming in the privileges like fishes swimming in water, totally unaware that it’s there, is a prime example of why Affirmative Action programs cannot be successful while the white privileges are still existing.

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

Joseph F. Healy in Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class speaks towards the end of the Chapter 5 about institutional discrimination and in turn about affirmative action. Affirmative action being a set of policies and actions which favors certain groups and minorities who have suffered discrimination based on their minority status in the past, this favoritism usually comes into play in relation in employment and education. It is also described in some cases as being “positive discrimination”. Affirmative action was implemented in the 1960’s and 70’s and remains a hot button issue since its implementation and I am personally of the belief that race based affirmative action in university settings in particular is counterproductive and serves no real