Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Is affirmative action still necessary?

The controversial issue of Affirmative Action (AA) was in the news again last week. A group of mostly white firefighters from Connecticut won a case against their city which had adopted a system of promotion based on race. The case attracted attention especially on conservative media outlets. Although that decision doesn’t end affirmative action altogether, it probably again brought up the question of whether it is still necessary today. In my opinion, it is!

The policy was first introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson as a sort of measure to try and “right the wrongs” of the past. It was designed to level the playing field in areas such as education and employment for underrepresented minorities and women who had suffered from years of injustices. The result over the years was more diversity in all areas involved and more opportunities for the aforementioned groups.

However, opposition towards AA has mounted since its inception. The 1978 Bakke case for example gave opponents the ammunition to label it a policy that causes “reverse discrimination.” California was at center again in 1996 when the infamous Proposition 209 banned AA in the state’s public institutions. Michigan had a similar occurrence in 2006.

Despite my support for the policy, I have to confess that there was a personal occasion when I was glad it had been eliminated in California colleges. I used to work part-time at a grocery store in an affluent, mostly white neighborhood. I befriended several customers whom I considered descent, intelligent, fair-minded. However, after I transferred to a fairly prestigious university, I got some sort of reality check when some thought I got accepted because of sports (which wasn't the case). That was very disappointing because, for me, they thought I wasn’t worthy of the better schools. I strongly believed they doubted my abilities solely based on the way I looked. So at that particular instance I was glad that AA was banned because it eliminated the probable reason number two (after sports) on their list.

However, I realized that this was a selfish thought and came to my senses. I grew up in a country where advancement (in school at least) was based on merit alone, but we didn’t have the same historical legacy as that of the United States. Some groups here, especially African-Americans, have long faced inequality, racism, and discrimination, all of which combined to prevent them from being on equal standing with the mainstream society today. Therefore, I feel it is important to have programs in place that can correct that situation. Opponents believe that the time has come to end them, but I don’t think 40 plus years of the policy can erase 400 plus years of injustice (in the case of blacks). It is obvious today that we haven’t achieved that level playing field yet, and so AA should remain.
 

African-Americans seem to be the main target of those against AA. They are accused of relying on these programs instead of advancing themselves on their own. These opponents use the success stories of other beneficiaries of AA such as Asians to argue that it’s not needed anymore. However, different racial groups had different experiences in this country. And with that in mind, isn’t it fair to say that, perhaps apart from Native Americans who lost their land, African- Americans had the worst experience in this nation’s history? I think it is!

The opposition also uses the argument that people today shouldn’t pay for what their ancestors did in the past. That’s a good point but should we forget about the descendants of the victims who today still suffer from the effects of those past injustices? Basically, what their argument amounts to is: the descendants of the perpetrators shouldn’t have to pay for past wrongs, but it’s ok for the descendants of the victims to keep suffering from the legacy of those wrongs. That is not fair.

Those who shout “reverse discrimination” should know that, even with AA, whites still get the majority of the slots based on their larger population; they just don’t get all of it anymore. Still, I’m prepared to accept some small changes to the current system. For example, maybe socio-economic status should be added to the list of requirements. This way, poor white males could get the same opportunities as the other beneficiaries because they may be the group that really got the end of the stick with the policy.

Affirmative Action is not perfect. Proponents and opponents alike can agree to that. However, without it, the progress that has been made since its inception will start to go backwards. Already, statistics show that the enrollment of blacks in California universities (for example) have gone down since Proposition 209 passed. As a nation that has to come to grips with its past and professes equal rights/opportunity, we cannot allow that trend to continue and so AA needs to remain.