Ruiz
1
Affirmative Action was created by the Civil Right Movement in the mid-1960s. The
movement, led by Black activists such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the congress of Racial
Equality (CORE), was solely aimed at eradicating racial discrimination and segregation by
pushing for laws that would emphasize color-blind principles of justice and equitable rights.
However, it was President Lyndon Baines who implemented and signed the Civil Rights Act of
1964 into the United States of America landmark legislation. The ex-president said, “You do not
take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to a
starting line of a race and say ‘you are free to compete with all the others’, and still justly
believe that you have been completely fair” (www.bibookreview.com). Subsequently, there is an
ongoing debate as to whether affirmative action is beneficial or harmful to the American society.
Those in favor would agree that affirmative action promotes equilibrium between minorities
(women, Blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans) and majority (White men) by providing
preferential treatments to the minorities just as it has catered to the majority. Minority leaders
such as Rev. Al Sharpton Black, civil rights activist and a democratic candidate for Presidency,
and Nathan Glazer an emeritus Professor of Sociology and Education at Harvard University and
a writer on racial relationships, education, ethnicity, immigration and multiculturalism, argued
for affirmative action that it promotes equal access to education. They believe that it reduces
discrimination and aids in diversifying the education and employment systems. However, an
article entitled “Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination” written by Charles T.
Canady stated that “In actuality, of course, affirmative action is first and foremost a powerful
engine for perpetuating preferential treatment and discrimination based on race, sex, ethnic
Ruiz
2
origin, or some other approved badge of victim status. It is not about assuring equality of
opportunity but artificially-that is, judicially-enforcing equality of outcome.” Affirmative action,
in a nutshell, is a justification for promoting revenge against all majorities (Whites) irrespective
of what economical background they may come from and since most minorities (Blacks, women,
Hispanics, Asians) have been known to struggle both in the past and present, it may be fair for
them to have a break at the expense of others without consideration to social justice. Ironically, it
was due to the same preferential treatment within most White communities that caused most
minorities to call for equality. Therefore, affirmative action does not help to provide equality or
aim to achieve a color-blind society but rather promotes more discrimination and more racism.
Thus, affirmative action should be abolished for the greater good of the society.
A black reverend, civil rights activist, social justice and a democratic candidate for
president, Rev. Alfred Charles “Al” Sharpton Jr., one of the strongest supporters of affirmative
action, believes that “Affirmative action makes up for past injustice. Until blacks, women, and
other minorities are proportionately represented in the upper classes of the economy and the
workplace, society owes them a hand up. Government should actively enforce Affirmative
Action laws in the private companies” (http://www.onissues.org/Al_Sharpton.htm). In response
to this remark, I agree that minorities are underrepresented, but suggesting that preferential
treatment is the best remedy to this prevailing problem is not only wrong but also very
disturbing. He seems so concerned with evening the scores of past discriminations that he has
perhaps forgotten the hallmark on which the Civil Rights Movement was formed. The movement
was formed to address the plight of the oppressed, to alleviate the inequalities of racial
discrimination and to promote social justice and fairness for all people irrespective of their skin
color. Affirmative action aims to create equitable rights for the oppressed by providing
Ruiz
3
preferential treatments for the minorities because it believes that minorities have in a way suffer
in the hands of the majority (Whites). On the contrary, the Civil Rights Movement is there to
fight for individual’s rights, freedom, respect for dignity and equality regardless of race and
gender. The movement embodied one very powerful message: everyone should be treated
equally, with respect and dignity. So influential was that message that it was embedded inn the
Declaration of Independence: “all are created equal” and are “endowed by their creator with
certain inalienable rights”. Furthermore, an article by Charles T. Canady entitled “Affirmative
Action Harms Society”, stated that, and was in this light that President John F. Kennedy (1963)
declared that “we are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and it
is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are
to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow
Americans as we want to be treated.” He then called upon Congress to pass legislation that
would eliminate the system of segregation and he empowered lawmakers to make a commitment
“to the proposition that race has no place in American life of law” (Canady’s article).
Affirmative action is not a solution because not only does it target a specific group of people, it
promotes confusion and despair among those it claims to aid. For instance, an African American
male and female, a White woman and an Asian American male and female, each with equal
qualifications, and applied for the same position at the predominant White corporation. In
affirmative action’s point of view, the white male is technically disqualified due to his color, and
that leaves us with people of deferent races that may be classified as minorities. It is impossible
to award one member of the minorities such positions without offending and disappointing the
rest. Hence, affirmative action hinders the motive of the movement by promoting more racism
and segregation.
Ruiz
4
Affirmative action policies set most minorities up for failure. An example was cited in
Terry Anderson’s book The Pursuit of Fairness; A History of Affirmative Action. Anderson
wrote about the strategy the University of Michigan used to ensure diversity at the school; every
Native American, Black or Hispanic freshman applicant with a High School GPA of 3.0,
routinely receives twenty (20) extra points which equals to a white applicant with a 4.0 GPA.
Hence, “a white student with a GPA of 3.2 and a SAT score of 1600will be rejected; a black or
Hispanic would be admitted, even those with lower grades and scores” (Anderson, 268-269).
This school cares more about the title of being the best diversified university than the academic
welfare of its students. In an integrated class at this school, underrepresented students
(minorities) still have the short end of the stick. This is because their white counterparts are
intelligently more prepared than they are, and most of the white students are more likely to
graduate with honors than the minorities. Hence, it depicts minorities as incompetent and as
failures in the midst of the so-called diversity. In addition, affirmative action has wormed its way
into the employment sector as well to promote the so-called diversity. The employment sector is
the one place where meritocracy should prevail at all times. However, with race being the major
factor of deciding employment, the system of meritocracy becomes greatly weakened and, along
with its downfall, is the dream of attaining fairness dwindled away. Moreover, it elevates many
minorities into positions that are ill equipped, and may be unqualified, to handle effectively.
They are defied, overwhelmed and bombarded with learning new skills over a short period of
time, in so doing; they may be portrayed as lazy, inefficient and unproductive. According to
Ryan of The Daily Collegian Online, black conservation talk show host, Reginald Jones, said “I
don’t give three damns about what an employer’s goal is; all I want is the opportunity to perform
on my own merit” to argue against affirmative action, during a heated debate
Ruiz
5
(http://www.collegian.psu.edu). A system that does not value meritocracy is doomed to fail and
the unqualified candidates chosen in that system are the ones who bare the guilt and shame.
Because of affirmative action, most minorities may be held accountable for this collapse. Hence,
affirmative action is just another tool of oppression for minorities, thus should be done away
with completely.
Affirmative action promotes segregation. According to Anderson, a black sophomore of
the University of Michigan said, “I chose to come to U. of M. is their boastful reputation on
diversity, but… this campus is extremely segregated” (Anderson, 269). Here is an innocent
student who thought nothing of his acceptance at the school, only to be hit with the reality that,
he may not have been a student at the school, had it not been for his race. In agreement with an
edited article by Leora Maltz entitled At Issue: Affirmative Action which said, “engender[s]
attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke[s] resentment among those who believe that
they have been wronged by the government’s use of race” (19). Maltz also made mention how
minorities are labeled with a “stamp of inferiority” that can build up dependency in some and
false entitlement to preferential treatment (34). However, affirmative action may create tension
between White and minorities at the workplace, which makes building trust almost impossible.
Thus, most workers form alliances with other co-workers within their race as a means to secure
and protect their various jobs, which resulted in segregation at the job place. An invisible line is
then drawn; whereby workers become so consumed in protecting their own interests (e.g., job
tenure, working conditions) that the work itself takes second place. Subsequently, productivity
and efficiency at the workplace drastically decline. In addition, due to friction created by
affirmative action, there is no effective and free flow of communication because co-workers are
forced to be too polite around each other; lest they lose their jobs.
Ruiz
6
Affirmative action relies solely on reverse discrimination as a means to promote fairness.
It does not take into consideration social stratification of those it discriminates against: the White
majority. For instance, there are whites that belong to the social class of the working minorities.
Thus, these whites can relate to the financial struggles of their counterparts because they are
experiencing the same fate. Hence, affirmative action’s justification for denying these
underrepresented whites an opportunity to achieve their American dream is not only wrong but
also discriminatory. An illustration cited in Maltz’s book, said that Jennifer Gratz, a working
class white female who was rejected by the University of Michigan in 1995 based on affirmative
action, was labeled as a “racist bitch” by supporters of affirmative action, because she decided to
fight for her rights as an American citizen by suing the University of Michigan. She responded to
the assault by saying “I’m exactly the opposite” and added, “I’m standing up and saying people
should be not be treated differently because of their skin color” (34). In the Gratz case, she was
not only rejected by the university but also stigmatized for life as a “racist bitch”. Hence,
affirmative action caused her both financial and emotional distresses, which are unjustifiable and
demeaning. Gratz is one of the many white victims whose lives have been distraught by
affirmative action. In this regard, affirmative action should be eradicated.
In conclusion, generally, for members within a society to peacefully co-exist and promote
harmonious interaction, there are six core values that need to be present: trustworthiness,
fairness, respect, caring, responsibility and citizenship. Affirmative action only looks at fairness
from the view point of the minorities, thereby, infringing on the rights of others. It tends to
ignore the welfare of the majority in the society by providing preferential treatments to
minorities, which could result or promote segregation. In a segregated society, there is no mutual
trust, respect, or harmony and the society as a whole is predisposed to collapse and failure. In the
Ruiz
words of Williams, “preferences attack the dignity of the preferred, and cast a pall of doubt over
his competence and worth.” Thus, achievements gained through their toils and talents then
become invisible and thus regarded as favors from affirmative action. To quote Rev. Sharpton
from his book with Karen Hunter entitled, Al on America, he said “never compromise your
dignity for any amount of success, any amount of money. Your dignity and self-respect is more
valuable than any of those things” (207). This quote is to remind anyone who is still lost in the
woods, that affirmative action considers all minorities as a weaker opponent to whites thus
incapable of standing on their own two feet. Affirmative action is constant reminder that racism
still exists, it allot blame and distraught on anything good and pure it touches. For all these
reasons, affirmative action should be done away with.
7
Ruiz
8
Work cited
Anderson, Terry H. The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action.
New York: Oxford University Press 2004.
This book provided a detailed background behind the creation of affirmative action. It
talked about the advantages and disadvantages associated with its existence.
Canady, Charles T., and Grapes, Brian J. ed. "Affirmative Action Harms Society.”
At Issue: Affirmative Action. Opposing viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale.
CUNY- LaGuardia College. 20 Oct. 2007.
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovcr/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID
=T010&prodld=OVRC&docld=EJ3010001208&source=gale7srcprod=OVRC&userGrou
pName=cuny_laguardia&version=1.0>.
This book comprises of opposing viewpoints on affirmative action each emphasizing the
negative or positive aspects of affirmative action.
Canady, Charles T. “Affirmative Action Has Hindered Civil Rights.” Ed. Mary Williams
Opposing Viewpoints: Interracial America. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. CUNY-LaGuardia College.19
Nov. 2007.
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovcr/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID
=T010&prodld=OVRC&docld=EJ3010148222&source=gale7srcprod=OVRC&userGrou
pName=cuny_laguardia&version=1.0>.
This article argues against Affirmative Action Policies and stated several factors to
support this claim. It accusations ranged from providing unequal treatment, neglecting
individual’s dignity and being misleading.
Ruiz
9
Hunter, Karen, and Sharpton, Alfred Rev. Al on America. New York: Kensington Publishing
Corp 2002.
This book is an autobiography of Rev. Al Sharpton which is centered on his take on
issues affecting the American Society.
Sharpton, Alfred Rev. (http://ontheissues.org/Al_Sharpton.htm).
This is a website centered on America Presidential Candidates where each candidate can
freely express their stand on pressing issues affecting the American Society and their
corrective measures for these issues.
Williams, Mary E. ed. “Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination.”
Opposing Viewpoints: Discrimination. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Opposing
Viewpoints: Resource Center. Thomson Gale. CUNY – LaGuardia College. 20 0ct. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/ovcr/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID
=T010&prodld=OVRC&docld=EJ3010125245&source=gale7srcprod=OVRC&userGrou
pName=cuny_laguardia&version=1.0>.
This article elaborates into details why Affirmative Action promotes reverse
discrimination. It goes in depth on how Majority (Whites) get tramped upon by
Affirmative Action.