|
Volume CXXXII, Number 20 |
 |
The case for affirmative action
BRYANT RICH
COLUMNIST
Recently, affirmative action has become a major topic of discussion and one of the more predominant issues in domestic politics. The President has come out in support of outlawing affirmative action programs. The suit brought by two caucasian applicants to the University of Michigan accuses the University of using a disguised quota system that discriminates against white applicants.
It is my observation that conservatives' criticisms of affirmative action are misplaced. They miss the spirit, intent, and effects of affirmative action. Affirmative action is not a discriminatory measure, but rather it seeks to level the playing field for minority applicants who are disproportionately disadvantaged. Its spirit is one that seeks to include, not exclude.
The University of Michigan's point system is not a disguised quota system. It adds 20 points to minority applicants, the economically disadvantaged, and athletes. Upon closer inspection of points categories, one would find that though such things as standardized test tutoring, trips to Europe over the summer to learn languages, trips to national leadership forums, and private schooling can also earn an applicant those 20 points. All of these programs are expensive, but can and are purchased by families with the means-families who are for the most part caucasian.
The President has argued that the University of Texas's guarantee of admissions for anyone in the top ten percent of their high school class will fix the affirmative action gap, but it has not. Minority enrollments for undergraduates at the University of Texas have dwindled. In addition, this plan does not account for graduate and professional school admissions in which minorities have fared even worse at the University of Texas. The disguised quota criticism also fails in that the same point system is applied to all applicants while quotas are not.
Unlike many undergraduate admissions programs of the past, which expressly prohibited minority applicants, affirmative action is clearly not discriminatory. African Americans lack the opportunities of many whites, but the percentage of those enjoying those benefits among African Americans is proportionately much lower. Also, the gap between the wages that African Americans earn and those that whites earn is disproportionately larger. Therefore, minority applicants have a disproportionately fewer advantages in preparation than many whites, so it is illogical to expect minorities to always be able to compete with whites on an equal plane. It is sort of like giving one child a 500 dollar paint set and another a box of magic markers (in many instances) and judging the artwork that they produce by the same standards. While they may both be equally talented artists, the child with the 500 dollar paint set is more likely to create better art even if the child with the markers is a better artist.
Though it is unpopular to do so, we must recognize why blacks tend to be disproportionately disadvantaged when compared to whites. The Republicans love to take credit for being the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves, but what about all of the discrimination that blacks have and continue to face? My mother, who attended Howard University for her undergraduate studies, has told me stories of some of her friends (sons and daughters of doctors) whose parents did not allow them to attend Ivy League institutions because they did not want to pay thousands to schools that would not accept them. Society continues to feel these effects to this day, despite all of the progress we have made.
One is able to find evidence of this in the popular conservative argument that affirmative action dilutes admissions standards. What about the credit that students receive for being descendent from alumni? This often gives applicants an added boost in their admissions profile (George W. should be especially familiar with this concept). Those that receive this boost are disproportionately Caucasian yet no conservatives have spoken out against these sorts of "Old Boy" advantages.
It is also interesting that many conservatives are in favor of racial profiling in law enforcement which definitely harms African Americans but are up in arms over race based profiling that may, potentially work to their detriment.
Let us not forget that discrimination still exists. Over our semester break The New York Times and The Boston Globe carried an article that described staggering statistics which showed that minorities with distinctively ethnic names (i.e. Jamal) were less likely to receive interviews at companies than those who had Anglo-Saxon names.
There is no easy answer to the Affirmative Action question. In my conversations with Caucasian friends, concerning affirmative action, they have expressed sympathy for my position even though some felt as though they had received the short end of the affirmative action stick. While I had no easy answer for them all that I could was offer my sympathies. For minorities and women, the primary recipients of the benefits of affirmative action, even if affirmative action as we know it is ended there will always be this problem: no matter how much we achieve we are always open to the criticism that our achievements are a result of racial preferences.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |