Chris Loggia
Persuasive Essay
3/20/13
Fight Racism by Fighting Affirmative Action
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character (King “Martin…Text”).”
On August 28th, 1963, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. shared his dream in front of over
250,000 individuals on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial as part of the March on Washington
for Jobs and Freedom to fight to end racism in America. During the 1950s and 1960s, African
Americans were heavily discriminated against. African Americans were refused service at many
restaurants, not allowed to use particular bathrooms or water fountains, and they certainly were
not offered an equal opportunity to be employed as whites were. Over the span of nearly a
decade, civil rights activists including Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and the Greensboro
Four (“The Greensboro Four”), invigorated both the African American community and some of
the more liberal white community to take action to “end” racism in America. Eventually, through
their solidarity and efforts to end racism, activists succeeded in outlawing any form of racial
discrimination with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by President Lyndon B.
Johnson. In 1965, these civil rights activists provided minority groups with the first step toward
empowerment as the activists’ protests led to the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as detailed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The erection of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission marked the beginning of Affirmative Action in America
as the Commission enforced the portion of the Civil Rights Act that forbade race to be taken into
1
account when hiring workers. Although the progress was slow in the beginning, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 did significantly increase the number of minorities in the white collar workforce
(Frank “Time…Action”). Gradually, with expected resistance, the American society began to
accept the concept of equal opportunity as federal law promoted the hiring of minority citizens.
Unfortunately, racism in America persists today regardless of the advancements made in
integrating the labor force by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Racism still
exists in part due to the modern-day efforts and effects of affirmative action in both the
employment process and in the college admission process. To put an end to racism, employ a
globally competitive labor force, and to provide minority groups with an equal opportunity in the
college admission process and job selection process, the American government must stop
enforcing affirmative action.
Take a second to think about the concept of affirmative action. The American
government currently enforces racism through its practice of affirmative action. How so?
Affirmative action, both in the college admission process and the employment process,
intentionally creates a distinction between individuals based on their race. Separating people into
different groups based off of the color of their skin sounds quite familiar doesn’t it? It sounds
just like labeling certain bathrooms for “whites only” and particular water fountains for “colored
use” doesn’t it? The bottom line is that the practice of purposefully dividing individuals into
groups based on their race is racism. To be fair, affirmative action has significantly increased the
diversity of the American workforce. In 1995, minorities constituted approximately 27% of the
labor force. The proportion increased to 33% in 2012 (Burns, Barton and Kerby “The State
of…Workforce”), and is expected to rise to nearly 50% by 2050. It must be noted, however, that
the
2050
statistic
is
inflated
due
to
2
projected
Hispanic
immigration
totals
(“Futurework…Century”). The question then remains as to why racism has still persisted in
America if affirmative action has helped improve the diversity of the workforce. The answer lies
in the fact that the affirmative action fosters a culture that tolerates racism. Former Louisiana
governor Mike Foster discussed why affirmative action must be curtailed in reference to Martin
Luther King Jr.’s writings when he said, “I can't find anywhere in his writings that he wanted
reverse discrimination. He just wanted an end to all discrimination based on color (Coates
“Louisiana…Action”).” Affirmative action supposedly offers all individuals an equal
opportunity for employment. Unfortunately, the separation based on race labels minorities with
stereotypes. White citizens often see affirmative action as a way to allow racial preference to
exist. Consequently, rather than applauding minority groups when they achieve occupational
advancements, the American society has developed a resentment towards minorities because
they feel that those same minorities were undeserving of the position initially, and only advanced
due to racial preference. Tennessee senator Jim Summerville agrees and stated, “Special
preference through affirmative action has become a quota system and is harming people that are
qualified. Minorities can still be hired without affirmative action if they’re qualified. They can
earn it. They have earned it. They do earn it (Celock “Jim…Action”).” The resentment that has
developed due to affirmative action is detrimental in the fight against racism for a couple of
reasons. Although some white citizens would disagree, the reality is that minorities have
advanced in their careers due to merit rather than the color of their skin. The resentment ensures
that whites may never truly respect the progression of minority groups. In addition, whites use
the resentment as a channel to dump all of their failures and shortcomings on. The fact that
whites blame minorities for their personal shortcomings will continue to permit racism to survive
in American society. Curtailing affirmative action will effectively remove the resentment that
3
whites feel towards minorities due to racial preference. Without affirmative action, all
individuals can be grouped into one category: Americans. Race would no longer be a factor in
the selection process. America could then become a “color-blind” (Becker and Kohn
“Two…Action”) society where former stereotypes would gradually subside in order to improve
our cultural deficiency.
Affirmative action has also prevented America from maximizing the strength of its
workforce and consequently has led to America being less competitive globally. The aims of
affirmative action for the first several decades aimed to compensate minority groups (specifically
blacks) for the years of discrimination they faced. There is no doubt that the effort to compensate
minority groups by granting them an equal opportunity through racial preference was initially a
valiant and justified movement. Without affirmative action, the initial wave of successful
minorities would have faced a significantly more difficult time procuring employment and social
acceptance. Nearly 50 years later, it is time that racial preference finally comes to an end. As I
have detailed previously, the labor force as integrated minorities fairly well and it now seems as
though minorities are consistently being offered equal employment opportunities (Galvin
“Labor…2011”). Now that a sufficient amount of time has elapsed since the beginning of
affirmative action, minorities have been provided with enough time to be expected to compete
without any outside aid. The day has come that America returns to true competition in the
selection processes for colleges and employment to ensure the most qualified individual is
selected for the position. The negative effects of affirmative action on the labor force have been
realized in the statistics of college students that drop their major (Prince and Ryan “Is
it…Action?”). Affirmative action has led to a number of academically demanding schools
accepting a portion of students based off of their race rather than their academic performance.
4
The trend of accepting students based on race began in 1978, in Regents v. Bakke, when the
Supreme Court outlawed numerical minority quotas, but permitted race to be considered as a
“plus” factor in the college admission process. The ruling was slightly updated in 2003, in
Grutter v. Bollinger, when the Supreme Court outlawed admissions based off of a numerical
scale that automatically awarded underrepresented minorities with a 20 point bonus. Grutter v.
Bollinger still permitted race to be considered as an admission factor (“Affirmative Action”).
Both of these cases increased the number of minorities admitted to academically demanding
colleges over more qualified non-minority students. Besides the fact that the additional racial
preference contributed to the resentment that whites felt towards minorities, using race as a
factor in admissions reduced the competitiveness of America’s labor force because many
minorities dropped out of their selected majors. Studies show that minorities admitted to
particularly challenging colleges under affirmative action were more likely to drop their major
because they were unable to keep up with the curriculum. The increased likelihood to drop their
major is not to say that minorities are academically inferior, rather it demonstrates that minority
education at the most elementary levels needs to be improved, a matter that I will address later.
Either way, the fact of the matter is that had those positions been filled with academically
qualified individuals, the American workforce would be comprised of specialized laborers in
order to further American global domination. Instead, many of the spots used for minority
selections were “wasted” in the sense that many minorities dropped out.
Considering the current state of the American economy, our nation can’t afford to put
anything other than our best foot forward when it comes to our labor force if we wish to regain
global dominance and improve the economy. To provide future firms with a competitive edge,
affirmative action must be discontinued to ensure that racial preference doesn’t prevent the more
5
qualified candidate from earning the position. In our current age of “social awareness,”
affirmative action often reduces the quality of the work force due to the pressure employers feel
to hire minorities even though they may not be qualified. For example, Dave Shiflett, of Rocky
Mountain News, reported about the new hiring practice of Rocky Mountain News. His boss had
sent a memo informing the staff that the new hiring goal would “address race and sex and should
be comprised of at least half women, and half non-white individuals (Shiflett “Rocky Mountain
Hire”).” Using a little bit of logic here, the desired workforce can be attained by hiring five black
women, or by hiring five white women and five non-white men. The implied hiring strategy
means that a white man either has at best a 50% chance of being considered or possibly even no
chance at all. Regardless of race, a failure to consider all candidates could potentially result in
the failure to realize the strongest candidates. Obviously such hiring policies significantly reduce
the potential for the American labor force to compete globally. The incident at Rocky Mountain
News is not an isolated case. In 1994, at St. Bonaventure University, 22 professors were fired, all
of them were male. The president of the university bluntly declared the decision was made to,
“protect the small number of women on the university staff (Palis “Affirmative…Effects”).”
Clearly the president of St. Bonaventure only considered gender rather than any valid measures
of teaching effectiveness. Discriminative events similar to those at Rocky Mountain News and
St. Bonaventure University bring along large social costs with them. If such discrimination
persists, the American workforce will become inefficient as less qualified individuals hold
positions and the more qualified individuals (trained in America) will depart for other nations
were their skills will be appreciated properly. Not only would our workforce become less
efficient, but foreign workforces would also improve their efficiency without any education
costs. Again, to ensure qualified individuals hold valuable positions in America to improve the
6
competitiveness of our labor force, the government must put an end to affirmative action. Just
think, although many sports are dominated by African Americans, professional sports teams do
not give white players a “plus factor” when evaluating their abilities to contribute to the team’s
overall success. Why should the “plus factor” be applied in the college admission process or job
search process?
Affirmative action would not be necessary if minority groups received better elementary
education. Enhanced education at a young age would level the playing field for minority groups
relative to their white counterparts regarding the college admissions process. The college
selection then affects their potential career paths. It is interesting to note that studies indicate that
affirmative action hardly helps the less fortunate portion of minority groups. Rather, the more
fortunate (wealthier and stable family background) segment of the minority groups enjoys a
disproportionate
amount
of
the
benefits
allocated
by
affirmative
action
(Sowell
“Affirmative…World”). Affirmative action, therefore, doesn’t typically improve the conditions
of the particular people that were intended to receive the aid! The true way to improve the
conditions of the less fortunate minority groups is to provide them with better elementary
education. All of the resources and effort put forth to maintain affirmative action could be
allocated instead to funding inner-city schools to provide them with better books, teachers, and
safer learning environments. Government subsidies that currently go towards universities that
implement some form of affirmative action could be transferred to the inner-city schools. Innercity schools would be the target schools simply because statistically speaking, the minority
density is significantly greater in urban areas than it is anywhere else in the nation. If inner-city
schools provided the targeted less fortunate minority groups with a better foundational education,
the gap in educational opportunities between minorities and whites would be significantly
7
reduced if not closed altogether. The reduction of the gap would then make affirmative action a
meaningless policy because theoretically both groups would enter the college admission process
on a fair and equal platform, making race an insignificant factor in the selection. With equal
educational opportunities, those individuals that work the hardest and are most capable will rise
to the top of the ranks, and earn the best jobs through fair competition. The most qualified
candidates would then make our economy more competitive. Former West Virginia Governor
Bob Wise said, "If attainment levels for minority students decline as projected, the country’s
economic standing – already challenged by China, India, and several other countries – will fall as
well (“Improving Minority Education”).” Attacking the issue of “less qualified” minorities at its
root, the inner-city education system, will defeat any possible needs for affirmative action
because all Americans will be given a fair chance of being admitted to college from day one.
Improving the quality of inner-city education would also serve to reduce the racism
evident in America. As minorities become more educated, they will enter universities and the
labor force with a higher degree of general education. The increased education and generally
more socially acceptable outward actions would lead to a decrease in the number of perceived
stereotypes by the white population (Pacha “Time…Action”). Although there will likely always
be a small amount of innate racism in America, improving the education of minorities will
certainly help reduce racism because whites will see just how similar they are to minorities. The
only difference is that whites were previously afforded a greater number of opportunities. Ideally
as the white population begins to recognize the difference lies in previously afforded
opportunities, a small cultural shift will occur and develop a true sense of equality along the
streets of every American town. Consequently, curriculums across the nation will mold children
starting at a young age to judge people based on their character instead of the color of their skin.
8
A general decrease in racism is possible if the government curtails affirmative action and
allocates the resulting efforts and funds towards improving inner-city schools.
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has not been achieved yet due to affirmative
action. The government simply needs to abolish affirmative action in order to end racism, to
develop a globally competitive work force comprised of the most qualified individuals, and to
improve inner-city education. Affirmative action has increased workforce diversity, but has
certainly failed to put an end to racism in America. In fact, affirmative action has permitted
racism to continue because the policy fosters resentment within white individuals hindered by
the process. Affirmative action also allows for racism to exist because it artificially draws
distinguishing lines in the sand to separate Americans as white, black, Hispanic, etc. Racial
preference has also served to introduce extensive social costs to our nation as many qualified
individuals can’t find work in America and emigrate in order to utilize their valuable skills. The
departure of skilled workers decreases the competitive economic edge America holds over other
nations. One of the biggest issues with affirmative action is that the designed program doesn’t
help the targeted minority groups. The failure to improve the condition of the less fortunate
minority groups has led to minorities experiencing a vicious cycle of poverty and poor
opportunities. Fortunately, some actions have already been taken to address all of these issues.
State governments including those in California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona,
New Hampshire, and Oklahoma, have already banned affirmative action throughout their states
(“Neb. Voters…Action”). California has had success after banning affirmative action.
Surprisingly, white student enrollment has actually decreased from 56.9% to 33.3% in 2005 at
the University of California, San Diego. In addition, the Asian-American minority group
experienced a significant increase in enrollment, increasing from 37.3% to 43.6% at the
9
University of California, Berkeley. African Americans initially experienced a 0.51% decline in
enrollment. Three years later, however, African American freshmen enrollment in California was
up by 1.7% (Niddle “Affirmative…Gains?”).” The Supreme Court will take part in the action in
the upcoming affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin as a white woman
named Abigail Fisher declares she was denied from the University of Texas at Austin because
she is white (Liptak “Race…Justice”). The decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
will be monumental in terms of the life of affirmative action across the nation. If the Supreme
Court sides with Fisher, it is likely that affirmative action will be nationally banned. If they side
with the University of Texas at Austin, however, affirmative action will likely continue for quite
some time. Either way, why should Americans be forced to wait for justice from the Supreme
Court? I urge Congress to create a “color-blind” society and free our nation from many ills,
namely racism, by immediately repealing affirmative action.
10
Bibliography
"Affirmative Action." New York Times. N.p., 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Becker, Kate, and Amy Kohn. "Two Opinions on Affirmative Action." Two Opinions on Affirmative
Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Burns, Crosby, Kimberly Barton, and Sophia Kerby. "The State of Diversity in Today's
Workforce." Center for American Progress. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Celock, John. "Jim Summerville, Tennessee State Senator, Proposes Ending Affirmative Action." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
Coates, Guy. "Lousiana Governor Moves to End Affirmative Action." Lousiana Governor Moves to End
Affirmative Action. N.p., 11 Jan. 1996. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
Frank, Marshall. "TIME TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION." Marshall Frank - Frankly Speaking.
N.p., 2 Aug. 2008. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
"Futurework - Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century - U.S. DOL." Futurework - Trends
and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century - U.S. DOL. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Galvin, John M. "Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity 2011." USA Bureau of Labor
Statistics. N.p., Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
"The Greensboro Four." North Carolina Museum of History. N.p., 2005. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
"Improving Minority Education." The Washingtion Times. N.p., 29 Dec. 2009. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
King., Martin Luther, Jr. "Martin Luther King's Speech: 'I Have a Dream' - The Full Text." ABC News.
ABC News Network, 28 Aug. 1963. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Liptak, Adam. "Race and College Admissions, Facing a New Test by Justices." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
"Neb. Voters Approve Ban on Affirmative Action - USATODAY.com." USA Today. N.p., 11 May
2008. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Niddle, Nadra. "Affirmative Action Bans in Universities: Who Gains?" About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27
Mar. 2013.
11
Pacha, Nicolas. "Time to Retire Affirmative Action." Minnesota Daily. N.p., 6 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Mar.
2013.
Palis, Lisa. "Affirmative Action And Its Effects." Study World. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Prince, Andrew, and Erica Ryan. "Is It Time to End Affirmative Action?" NPR. NPR, 21 Nov. 2007.
Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Shiflett, Dave. ""Rocky Mountain Hire"" UNZ.org. N.p., Dec. 1995. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
Sowell, Thomas. "Affirmative Action around the World." Hoover Institution. N.p., 30 Oct. 2004. Web.
20 Mar. 2013.
12