Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is always a hot topic for debate. The argument for AA is obvious, to help disadvantaged groups and diversify the classroom and workplace. However, many people oppose affirmative action, claiming reverse discrimination. There are even people aided by affirmative action that argue against it, suggesting it’s insulting to assume an advantage is needed for them to compete with the majority.
Harper and Reskin show that the debate on AA is a detailed one, having bans placed on AA only to have them overruled. Harper and Reskin mention the Gratz v. Bollinger case. This case dealt with AA and admission into law school. In the details of the case, it was noted that there were two ways that an individual could receive added points to admissions scores, being an athlete and being of a minority status.
Affirmative action seeks to remove discrimination from work and educational environments by favoring people of minority status. The goal is to strive for equal rights and opportunity. But is affirmative action supposed to be the long-term fix for issues of inequality? Focusing more on improving grade school and high school standards may be a better long term tactic for reducing inequality in higher education admission. In the early years of AA, government decision makers and judicial decisions viewed it as temporary (373). I think selection, in any circumstance, should be merit based.
Comments
I agree that selection should be based on merit as well. But I do not see what affirmative action and merit have in common. I believe that one of the most pathetic comments on society is the lack of importance put on diveristy. When we decide what schools to send our children to or where to buy our next house I would venture to say that most people do not ask about the levels of diversity in the school, or neighborhood. Instead we worry about property value, crime rates, the "quality" of the school, and where the nearest mall is. Affirmative action is something that puts a much needed value on diversity and that is why our country so desperatly needs it. The merit of applicants to a University is not at stake here what is at stake for some ignorant white powerholders is their monopoly on Harvard and big business in general. No one says a word about the legacy admission rates even though they are AA for the privleged. Universities, and businesses should strive to reach a larger audience of applicants. We need to start realizing the benefits that come along with diversity and start making it a priority. And that is why I think AA is a great thing for our country.
Posted by: Caitlin Haugan | April 10, 2007 7:40 PM
In response to Caitlin, a few points:
1) "Affirmative action is something that puts a much needed value on diversity and that is why our country so desperatly needs it."
I think it's a stretch to say that our country "desperately needs" affirmative action, given that it hasn't been wildly successful at any level (only marginally so), and it has been wildly unpopular in some cases where it has been successful (ie busing).
Also, that statement doesn't even consider any of the many negative arguments we discussed in class this morning.
Furthermore, you're pre-supposing that we're badly in need of diversity all across the nation. We have plenty of diversity in some places. We're less racially homogeneous than many nations. It depends on what you're talking about and what sectors we're discussing.
2) "When we decide what schools to send our children to or where to buy our next house I would venture to say that most people do not ask about the levels of diversity in the school, or neighborhood. Instead we worry about property value, crime rates, the "quality" of the school, and where the nearest mall is."
Why should one care less about practical concerns like the value of their home, local crime rates, and proximity to convenience centers than they do about making sure it's "racially diverse"? Also, many places (commercial apartment complexes for example) either won't or can't legally divulge any form of demographics information about their residents to non-residents.
3) "The merit of applicants to a University is not at stake here what is at stake for some ignorant white powerholders is their monopoly on Harvard and big business in general. No one says a word about the legacy admission rates even though they are AA for the privleged."
As I mentioned in class, I tend to view legacy admissions as more like sanctioned bribery than AA for the rich. The difference being that the legacy admissions aren't necessarily white--well, realistically, they often are, and that's not fair... but this is more of a class issue, not a race issue. We're opening up a whole different can of worms if you want to talk about the rich abusing and out-maneuvering the poor, which they do amazingly well with a longstanding tradition of it to make them feel less bad about it. :P
4) "We need to start realizing the benefits that come along with diversity and start making it a priority."
Only if the benefits of forced diversity outweigh the benefits of other things we could spend time or money on, like improving primary education for targeted schools to promote a more equal playing field (as Patrick suggested). For that to hold, you'd have to prove that those benefits actually do outweigh others.
I'm not trying to come down on your post... just responding to the points as I see it. :/
Posted by: Cam | April 10, 2007 11:16 PM