FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative Action 
As Nick Catoggio went to his mailbox, he knew that his acceptance letter from Harvard
University had arrived. Although Nick was nervous, he knew that his hard work in high
school had gained him admission into one of the world's most prestigious institutions of
higher learning. Because of his grade point average of 4.0 in high school, his numerous
extracurricular activities, and a combined score of 1440 on his SATs, Nick believed that
he would almost be guaranteed admission to Harvard. When he opened the letter however, he
was shattered when he read the words, "We regret to inform you ..." He immediately called
his friend Richard Sahk, who had also applied, to tell him his news and to see if Richard
had received his letter from Harvard. Richard said, "Yeah Nick, I got in!" Nick was
astonished. Richard's GPA was only 3.7, and he receive a combined score of 1100 on his
SATs. After a long pause he replied, "It's because I'm black, Nick," Richard felt bad for
his friend. Both he and Nick had realized that he was accepted by Harvard because of his
race. Nick was mad because he was qualified and didn't get in; Richard felt upset because
he wasn't as qualified as Nick but was admitted because of his race.
This is an anecdotal example of one of the many criticisms of affirmative action. In
fact, the whole controversy over preferences based on race and gender has been debated
ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
I believe that Affirmative action should be discontinued, this program is a new kind of
discrimination to counter the past discrimination and this defeats the whole idea of the
program.
Affirmative action is defined, as a program ensuring that a predetermined proportion of
jobs or college admissions go to African Americans and presumably, other minorities and
women as well (Woods 102). Also, James Q. Wilson in the winter 1996 issue of The New
Republic takes affirmative action to mean the selecting of persons based on their group
membership (23).
Nicholas Lehman writes that affirmative action today refers to  stuff that helps black
people. By this, he says that affirmative action today has come to mean everything from
preferential college admissions to the way news is covered to what's hung in museums to
corporate promotional practices (84).
According to Nicholas Lehman, affirmative action started out as Executive Order 10925.
Lyndon Johnson, the incoming vice President asked Hobart Taylor Jr., the lawyer son of
one of his friends, to work on a draft of an executive order that would ban
discriminatory hiring by Federal contractors. Taylor later said that he was searching for
something that would give a sense of positiveness to performance under executive order,
and I was torn between the words 'positive action' and the words 'affirmative action.' .
. . And I took 'affirmative action' because it was alliterative (40).
Even during Johnson's proposal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the issue of racial
quotas was controversial. Said then-Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, ... I know
what will happen if the bill is passed. I know what will happen if there is a choice
between hiring a white man or hiring a Negro both having equal qualifications. I know who
will get the job. It will not be the white man (Lehman 40).
The people who seek to abolish affirmative action claim that more qualified students are
being displaced by less-qualified students. But there are no more or less
qualified students, only students who can benefit from attending a university such as
Michigan get a chance, and no one knows in advance who they are. 
The opinions that accompany the various Supreme Court cases concerning affirmative action
have been perplexing, and, at times, contradictory. Woods Geraldine referred to the
opinions of the justices as pieces of a puzzle that no one, including the court itself,
knows how to solve completely (65). This confusion is probably the result of disagreement
among the justices. Many of the cases involving affirmative action have been decided by
very close votes. Even when the justices vote the same way, their separate opinions often
explain what they agreed for entirely different reasons.
Let's take the example of the case, "The Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke." On October 12, 1977, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear case no.76-811. Both
proponents and opponents of affirmative action waited to hear arguments about whether a
white male, Allan Bakke, should be admitted to medical school at U.C. Davis.
On the application form, Bakke noticed that there was an item that stated, Applicants for
economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds are evaluated by a special
subcommittee of the admissions committee. If you wish your application to be considered
by this group, please check this space.
A special taskforce had been created by the University to help bring in more minorities
and economically disadvantaged students into the school. This task force was included in
the admissions process and was charged with helping to evaluate the applications of
minorities and economically disadvantaged persons.
After being rejected by Davis several times, Bakke sued the school claiming that he had
been discriminated against because of his race. Bakke believed that some of the students
that had been accepted by Davis were less qualified, looking at MCAT scores, than himself
but were admitted because they were members of minority groups.
The University countered Bakke's argument by explaining that all the students at Davis
were fully qualified. Because society's past discrimination against minorities, the
school claimed that it was justified in considering race as one of the factors in the
admissions process. The University also stated that it trained physicians who were more
likely to serve disadvantaged communities after graduation.
In June 1978, after several lower courts had ruled in favor of Bakke and the subsequent
appeals of the University of California, the court announced its decision. Four justices
voted to admit Bakke to the medical school at U.C. Davis. Another four justices voted in
favor of the University of California. In their view, the school's admissions program was
constitutional and Bakke's rights had not been violated. Justice Powell broke the
deadlock. He agreed that Bakke should be admitted because the admissions process was
unfair, but he did not rule against affirmative action. He said that those types of
programs could not assign a particular number of places to minority candidates,
however they could take race or ethnic background into consideration as a positive factor
in their consideration of candidates (Woods 68).
For years, this colleges and universities have interpreted this ruling as meaning that
they could use race, ethnicity, and gender as criteria in the admissions process. As
Lemann put it, The decision may have been a statesman like piece of juris prudence, but
in admissions office circles, it is widely viewed as meaning that it's O.K. to reverse
discriminate as long as you're not really obvious about it (85).
Proposition 209 is a California ballot initiative voted on in November, 1996. It will
change the constitution of the state of California. This proposition prohibits
discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. The so-called
California Civil Right's Initiative, which is neither civil nor right, is really a
deceptive attempt to constitutionalize gender discrimination and slam shut the doors of
opportunity that both women and people of color have fought so hard to open. It places a
hurdle to minorities and women that is not placed to others who seek legislation to
benefit them. he elimination of affirmative action programs for women and minorities run
by the state or local governments in the areas of public employment, contracting, and
education that give "preferential treatment" on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity,
or national origin would have a devastating affect on the minorities in the society but
at the same time we need to keep in mind that the common person is also existing in this
society to be successful and not to be denied what he/she deserves just because there
were injustices done to the minorities and these injustices should be reversed.
As for a review of surveys and polls regarding affirmative action, Charlotte Steeh and
Maria Krysan have reviewed the major polls and surveys conducted by major organizations
over the past 25 years. Among the polls and surveys they looked at the following:
? ABC News/Washington Post surveys
? Associated Press/Media General surveys
? CBS News/New York Times surveys
? Detroit Area Study
? The Gallup Poll
? General Social Survey
? Harris and Associates surveys
? Los Angeles Times surveys
? NBC News/ Wall Street Journal surveys
? National Election Studies
? Princeton Survey Research Associates surveys
? Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press surveys
One of their discoveries is that there were very few systematic attempts to survey public
attitudes about affirmative action in the first twenty years of affirmative action. It
wasn't
until the mid-1980s that there were systematic attempts to identify trends in public
opinion concerning affirmative action.
Despite this lack of replicated data, the authors were able to come to some conclusions.
1. Public opinion towards affirmative action is fluid. The deciding factor in whether
people support affirmative action programs or not depends upon the wording of survey
questions. If a question is worded to emphasize the preference or quota aspect of
affirmative action, then people will tend not to support these types of programs. Also,
questions that are worded so that they tap into the individualistic aspect of what the
authors call the American creed tend to be result in lower support for affirmative
action.
2. There is a large difference between the levels of support for affirmative action
programs between blacks and whites. Black support for preferences and economic aid
exceeds 40 percent in all of the surveys and polls studied. White support for these same
types of affirmative action, however, generally is below 20 percent. It should be noted,
however, that black support for economic assistance for blacks and other minorities
dropped from about 80 percent at the start of the 1970s to about 40 percent at the start
of the 1980s.
3. More people believe that reverse discrimination occurs than actually is reported.
Between 64 and 80 percent of people believe that reverse discrimination occurs at least
occasionally. This is contrasted to roughly 5 to 20 percent of whites who reported that
they themselves or someone in their families had been denied a job or promotion (27).
Looking at these surveys in more detail, Alpern noted that women were divided on the
issue of affirmative action. Only 49 percent of women polled thought that a policy that
ensures equal opportunities for women should be continued. Forty-one percent
thought that this kind of policy should be discontinued. Nonwhite women, however, tended
to support affirmative action policies. Roughly 75 percent of nonwhite women favored a
policy to ensure equal opportunities for both women and blacks.
On the other hand, Alpern noted that very few women believed that they themselves had
benefited from affirmative action policies. The Hart-Teeter poll showed that only 9
percent of all women and 11 percent of working women responded that they had themselves
benefited from such programs. In a Newsweek poll conducted by the Princeton Survey
Research Associates in March of 1995, 27 percent of women thought that their gender had
been helped a lot by affirmative action programs (68).
Contrary to previous findings, however, roughly half of respondents in the Hart-Teeter
poll were against requiring employers to seek out qualified minority and female
applicants for jobs. Once again, however, the word required may have affected
respondents' affitudes towards compensatory type of affirmative action programs.
In summary, the results of surveys and polls regarding approval of affirmative action
programs differ dependingpn how survey questions are worded and also the race, gender,
and political orientaion of respondents.
After my examination of the history of Affirmative Action and the various court cases and
surveys, I found Out that equality of oppurtunity has become a basic economic ideal for
United States. Americans appear in general agreement that merit should be the only
criterion for advancement in life. Yet it is also widely ackhowledged that women and
blacks and also members of various other racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in this
country are seriously handicapped by their sex or origin rather than merely by any lack
of ability when they seek career advancement.
It's here that affirmative action comes into the scenario. Instead of providing a path
for these minorities and women to get on a level plane with the other so called preferred
people these types of programs actually drift them even further apart. Some women and
members of minority may feel insulted by this preferential treatment or may always find
themselves in a position to prove their worth. On the other hand, the deprived people may
increase their prejudice against them to a further degree because they feel that they
lost out, not to a better suited person, but to a privileged unworthy person. Therefore
plans like these must be done away with because they defeat their very purpose, as they
appear to be just as racist and sexist as the injustices they are designed to remedy.
It's just another name for discrimination or even reverse discrimination. Discrimination
for a good reason is just as terrible as discrimination for a bad reason. Affirmative
action denies women and minorities the right to compete as equals; indeed it actually
assumes that they cannot compete as equals, which is I am sure not its purpose.
When countering the statement that this kind discrimination is necessary to make up for
past it justices, I can all but simply defend my belief by appropriately saying that Two
wrongs don't make a right. Or, as the wise saying goes, You can't use alcohol to treat
alcoholism."
Bibliography
Works Cited
Kreitner, Robert, Kinicki, Angelo. Organizational Behavior New York: Bryant and Dillon 
published, 1998
Lehman, Nicholas. "Affirmative Action." NEW York Times 18 June.1995: 40-42,84
Steeh, Charlotte. Krysan, Maria. "Review of Surveys and Polls" Poll Trends, 1970-1995
1996
Wilson, James Q. "An Affirmative Action?." The New Republic winter. 1996: 102
Woods, Geraldine. Affirmative Action. New York, London, Sydney : Franklin Watts, 1989.
Steeh, Charlotte. Krysan, Maria. "Review of Surveys and Polls" Poll Trends, 1970-1995
1996
Argument in Favour of Proposition 209 , 
"Why are we opposed to Proposition 209?". FAQs about California votes no on 209 Feburary

18, 2000