Haibo's Arguments Concerning The Mismatch Theory

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

Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. When the emphasis is placed on aiding people with certain skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, affirmative action sets the races further apart than before. Could this be just another form of segregation? The attempts at boosting minorities to the level of the others have grotesquely failed. To raise minorities the government has pushed down the majority group, fueling racial conflicts. In addition, lowering the bar for minorities for admission into jobs or schools has created a harmful atmosphere for them. Because some of them could not originally qualify on merit and skills, many face failure or extra hardship when they get ushered into their job or school. As Charles T. Canady said in his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., "Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged" (43). Meanwhile the majorities receive punishment because of their lack of a specific skin tone or origin. "Entitlements by race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation-categories that in no way reflect merit-" Shelby Steele described, "are at the root of the great social evils in American life" (175). It is unfair to reward or turn away applicants because of something that is only theirs by ascribed means. When prospective college students or job applicants are considered, the competition should be solely based

The fact that, in most cases, a minority student will get accepted over a white student with the same or almost the same qualifications is causing controversy all over the nation. This is precisely the definition of affirmative action. In an excerpt titled Affirmative Action and the College Admissions Process from the book, 8 Steps to Help Black Families Pay For College, by Thomas and Will LaVeist, it is stated that, “affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups.” This leveling of the playing field leads to the very broad generalization and misperception that the policy is allowing less-qualified minorities to take the place of the more-qualified whites.

Politically speaking, the United States is a country founded on the principles of equality, one that strives to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally and have equal opportunities. Despite all of this, the United States is not predicated on equal outcomes and, as such, some people will naturally rise while others fall. To some, this may seem unfair, but the truth is that, guaranteeing equal outcomes for all people, would severely undermine the foundation on which the United States was built while also threatening its democracy since, to guarantee equal outcomes, some overriding governmental body would have to take the necessary steps to do so. Since affirmative action is a step toward guaranteeing equal outcomes – even when these outcomes should not be equal – it should be prohibited from having any place in the college admissions process. Instead, there should be more emphasis on guaranteeing equal opportunity, and this can be done by “strengthening public education…we must make certain that every child in public school can learn as much and go as far as his or her talents permit” (Summer, 2012, p. 3). Strengthening public education so that the standards are higher and there is a more rigorous curriculum would lift everybody up equally, and would therefore be more in step with American’s democratic ideals than admitting students into college simply based on

Ultimately the lack of reliable resources and preparation from underfunded schools leads African American students into being unprepared for college and jobs, once again reinforcing a vicious cycle of poverty within the community. Gillian B. White, a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, wrote a chilling article regarding the systematic racism that is deeply embedded in the American school system. In the article The Data: Race Influences School Funding, White states “At a given poverty level, districts that have a higher proportion of white students get substantially higher funding than districts that have more minority students” (White). In this quote White explains the clear correlation of race and inadequate funding in the American school

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

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 from the 1960s has generated a more diverse society and it focused mainly on opportunities for middle-class African-Americans pursuing an approach to exceptional jobs and higher education. “Affirmative action has done more to advance fair treatment across racial lines than any other recent public policy. If affirmative action did not exist, the United States would be a vastly more segregated country. Without such efforts, most white Americans would have far less contact with their fellow black citizens.” (171) In other words, without affirmative action, diversity could no longer survive. Black Americans would be stigmatized and condemned as a subordinate group even more so. In the 1978 Supreme Court case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell offered firm standards for racial modification. He argued that adjustments to color-blind strategies could be commenced to remedy race-based detriments when two circumstances are met. There has to be a pure connection to affirmative action’s remedies and past harms based on race. Also, the tie between past actions and present policy must be sturdy and accurate. Powell also believed if there is a non-racial way to chase a specified goal, that way should always be the preferred route. Affirmative action is legitimized because the detriment of blacks in the Roosevelt and Truman years satisfies Powell's “strict-scrutiny” test. “Combining Powell’s principles and Johnson’s ambitions . . . push us forward to a framework for public policies that can respond to the injuries inflicted by officially sanctioned

Abstract liberalism involves race related issues in the language of liberalism; whites can appear reasonable and moral, while opposing almost all practical approaches to deal with racial inequalities. “Racial ideology “laissez fare racism” or “competitive racism” or argue that modern racism is essentially a combination of the “American greed” with anti-black resentment.” (Bonilla-Silva, Pg.30) The author suggests that these principles are evident when discussing issues such as affirmative action, interracial relationships, neighborhood, and residential segregation. There’s an interview in the chapter where a college student named sue at SU, is asked; if minority students should be provided unique opportunity to be admitted into universities?

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

The equal opportunity that affirmative action provides has also increased the amount of minority applicants applying to each school. It has “resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community” (Messerli). Since the playing field has been evened, it has encouraged more of those who are disadvantaged because of their ethnicity to apply for and get admitted into college. However, the quotas cause schools to admit under qualified students of minor races who don’t meet the limit over highly qualified students who’s race has reached the limit.

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.

Affirmative action has also given an advantage to undocumented students over citizens of non-ethnicity. Non-citizens will be more likely chosen to attend a university, or program over a citizen of non-ethnicity with the same grades or scores. Ethnicity will have a bigger voice in the college experience now than in any other time; and merit will be given to the un-naturalized rather than the citizens. Though it is true that immigrant students do receive government aid, let's face the fact. These are kids and young adults who were brought to the U.S. without any say. Kids who were criminalized at the age of one and up for a choice made by relatives. These immigrant students have been given government aid not because of want but need; “ They are survivors, almost all of whom have overcome the odds of growing up in tough neighborhoods and impoverished immigrant families to remain in school and to succeed” (American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California 2015). The aid is given to those of a certain group, and who have proven to be unable to live without it. Apart from the basic necessities, these college student will not receive healthcare, FAFSA, welfare or the right to vote. Thought true that affirmative action will give a preference to race; the students chosen for fields in law, medicine, etc are all very well qualified. Being chosen does not mean passing, hard work is needed to succeed, that is nothing these students are not unaccustomed to. There will be shortages in teaching, nursing, the service sector and other occupations that will threaten the economic standpoint of the country in the years to come (American Civil Liberties Union

Due to strong racial tensions, colleges believe admitting individuals in accordance to race is a positive liberal act, however affirmative action is evolving into quite a social strain. Colleges that endorse affirmative action are alleviating racial pressures based on college demographics but creating repercussions that are impacting all races and ages. If we continue burying the issues with affirmative action, we will not only be lessening the meaning of education but creating isolation between cultures.

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