What's your take on affirmative action?

Answer 1

As a law professor, who usually only sees the "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" type answers to this question, what an interesting array of answers you garnered.

Although affirmative action was set forth to "end" discrimination, it has, in the end, become a form of discrimination itself. As with college admissions and GPA cutoffs, affirmative action becomes a cause celebre for many, both in the majority and the minority.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. You have two people, A and B, applying for admission to a certain college. There is only one seat available in the class. How do you best figure out which one to admit?

If A has a 4.0 and B has a 3.9, is that enough of a difference to admit A? What if A went to a school that is on probation and B went to the most rigorous high school in the country? Same result?

What if they both have the same GPA from the same school...now what? Where do you look in their records to see which student to admit? Eventually, you look to their race. What if A says "decline to state" or "other" when A is really caucasian (or asian, or african-american) and B actually states their race (whatever it is). Should A be punished (or rewarded) for that choice? Should we not allow people to say what race they are, and decide solely on merit? If so, we are back to the 4.0 versus 3.99 again, and you better make sure you get straight A's (if not straight A+'s) so you can go to college or get a job.

Should we allow people of mixed race to decide which race they are going to "choose" for purposes of the application? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, race is self-determined. Does that mean I get to pick whichever race I want regardless of my ethnic heritage? Seems like the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

Schools NEED simple guidelines because there are just so many applicants per seat. Same for employers. Even after GPA cutoffs and SAT/LSAT/MCAT numerical cutoffs, there are STILL too many applicants per open seat. Typically, at any given law school, there are 10 QUALIFIED applicants (regardless of race) for every seat available. Yet, the courts (yeah, I know, I'm part of the whole legal machine) continue to strike down quotas (see Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, U.S. Sup. Ct., 1978), percentages, and every other "quantifiable" method of affirmative action. We are allowed to use "race as a factor" but not "race as a determination." Yet, when it comes right down to it, it will be "race-determinative" because there are just too many people trying to squeeze into the seats available. Now you just won't be able to tell who was "denied admission" based on their race because we aren't allowed to make it "race-determinative." We can show that there were 10 qualified applicants for the single seat, that everyone had at least as good a GPA, LSAT/GRE/MCAT score, and that we didn't admit a whole bunch of people REGARDLESS of race. The person that got the seat was chosen for "other" reasons. We liked the number of letters in their first name. We liked the way they signed their name. We rolled dice. We threw all the applications up in the air and the one that landed on top won. These are LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE methods of choosing, but selection determined by race is not. Sometimes, I am ashamed of being a law professor. This is one of those times.

Do we throw out affirmative action altogether? I don't think so. There are just too many ways to keep a given race out of the workforce or out of the classroom. But since there are so many ways to discriminate, I think affirmative action needs to be seriously revisited in terms of practical effect. We need to find a way to provide equality without discriminating against ANYONE, whether majority or minority.


Great question!

Answer 2

I went to the University of Michigan while they were enduring a suit that ultimately made it the United States Supreme Court regarding their affirmative action program. I support affirmative action, in the broadest sense. No ethnicity, race, gender, etc., should have a sense of entitlement in the United States of America. I think that arguments against AA are founded on elitism. AA is a good thing for many, many people who would otherwise not enjoy access to the same level of education and resources that whites (Caucasions) take for granted (white skin privilege). Take care.

Answer 3

let me break it down. affirmative action is a good concept. it is suppose to put qualified minorities into positions that they would not get because employers discriminate based on race. many people think affirmative action is a mechanism to discriminate against whites. that's wrong. it's to keep white employers from hiring all whites to the exclusion of qualified minorities (which includes women).

now, the problem is that some people dont know how to properly use affirmative action programs. they often hire less qualified minorities for positions that they cannot perform. which doesnt help anybody and perpetuates the bad rep.

Answer 4

I don't think affirmative action is the solution. It's there because of past actions of a group of narrow-minded people. There are only some people that behave that way, not everyone. It would be nice, if EVERYONE was given a fair chance in all aspects of life, but we know that won't happen. Racism should be out of the picture; it's 2006. It still exists, however, and there are some people that won't change.

Answer 5

I think the only legitimate justification for affirmative action is that it prevents discrimination. So it is sometimes necessary. But affirmative action has many effects that are harmful both to members of the "majority" and "minority" ethnic groups. Qualified whites resent someone getting ahead at their expense perhaps in part because of their ethnicitiy. And qualified minorities may be stigmatized because everyone thinks they only got their position because of their ethnicity. Also, we don't do anybody any favors by placing unqualified people in positions they are not qualified for. Ultimately, that leads to failure.

Answer 6

It depends. I think it's good that we are required to hire an equal amount of minorities that are in the population. It can stop discrimination in the work place, other times I think that people like the NAACP take things too far and are out of line sometimes, like a boy called the teacher a fa-get, the teacher said "how would you like if I called you a ni---r" and the boys parents called the NAACP and they got all hyped up. He wasn't calling the boy one, he was relating it to what the boy was calling him, using it as an example. So in that case I don't think the teacher was wrong and sometimes people take things a bit too far. To me it's just as wrong to call someone a name based on their sexual preference as it is to call someone a name based on their race.

Answer 7

i think it's reasonable, necessary, and a blessing to intelligent, underprivileged minorites. my father was able to get out of the ghetto and become a physician because of affirmative action. that, in turn, improved my quality of life, for which i am very grateful. when my dad lost his job and my family lost all of our money, affirmative action helped me pay for my ridiculously expensive college.

the fact is, it's very difficult to move up in society without a college degree. it is unfair to deny anybody, regardless of their ethnicity or (more importantly) socioeconomic demographic, the right to an education if they desire to pursue one.

Answer 8

its hurting our company. My employer promotes by way of color not skill. Affirmative action is a bad idea.

Answer 9

It sucks. Asian males have the hardest time getting into colleges and getting jobs because there are so many that are qualified but they must keep the percentages of races. Its actually becoming a form of racism itself

Answer 10

It is only adding to the problem by telling people they cant make it on their own. It is helping form the mentality that minorities are owed something when we all have the same opportunity to make something of ourselves.