Essay, Research Paper: Affirmative Action 2

Affirmative Action Discriminates
Who would have thought that the laws passed by the government to ensure
equality and to eliminate discrimination would indeed accomplish the opposite? While
there are those who are within power and choose to be ignorant by supporting and
enforcing this failed concept, there are many others who become victims everyday at the
hands of discrimination, the very problem that affirmative action is supposed to eliminate.
Affirmative action does not reward those who have the skills, the experience, or who have
worked their way up to a particular job. In actuality, affirmative action hurts everyone in
some form or another. First, it hurts those who possess the qualifications for a particular
job, yet are denied a job because of the rules of affirmative action. Second, it hurts females
who do not possess the same qualifications as males, yet are still given a job for the simple
reason that they are a minority. Affirmative action causes certain institutions to lower the
standards for a particular position, and has therefore committed a disservice towards
minorities by giving them a certain status without having to earn it. In essence, this is
called charity. Third, because affirmative action lowers the standards for a particular
position, it hurts everyone who relies on certain institutions to provide excellent service or
product.
The idea of affirmative action and the actual use of the policy have become
completely contradictory. The simple reason why affirmative action was created was to
eliminate the discrimination of minorities. Unfortunately, the topic of affirmative action
has become much more complex because certain people, especially the government, have
lost sight of the way discrimination should be handled. It seems that the only way the
government can eliminate the discrimination of minorities is by giving a
free ride to those who are undeserving, and by discriminating against the majority
instead. In the mean time, many people, specifically white males who have worked their
way through school or through a job up to a certain position, are being told they do not
possess the qualifications for that certain position that they worked so hard for. In truth,
white males do not possess the skin color or gender to fulfill the required quota laid out by
the government. Is this not discrimination? According to the dictionary s definition of
discrimination, it is. An example of this discrimination is outlined in an essay by Wendy
McElroy, who explains that her friend, who was a white male, was passed over for a
promotion at an ivy-league school even though he had been teaching there for seven years,
was immensely popular with the students and staff, and had written a book and several
journal articles (1). Obviously, his qualifications were in good order, but the department
head had told him that the department needed more visible women and minorities
(McElroy 1). It did not matter that the person hired was less experienced and had fewer
credentials.
Donald M. Stewart, president of the college board, recently wrote a memo to
members of the college board outlining an issue with affirmative action and the SAT. He
explained that some universities are under immense pressure to ax the SAT as an
admission requirement (1). For example, in Washington, the center for Individual Rights
has sued the University of Michigan on behalf of white students who allege that they were
denied admission while African-American and Hispanic students with lower test scores
and grades were admitted (Stewart 1). This goes back to the definition of discrimination,
where non-whites were accepted even though they were less qualified for admission. What
is the reason for studying and doing well in school, when in the end it all comes down to
your skin color? The University of California is considering dropping the requirement of
the SAT because of the recommendation from the Latino Eligibility Task Force, which has
a desire to see more Hispanic students eligible for admission (Stewart 2). This is where
charity comes into play.
The brief definition of charity is the giving of alms. Generally, in charity, the rich
give to the poor. The question is, does the black male who received the job as supervisor
of the packaging line want his job because he earned it, or because it was given to him out
of pity? I believe the answer to that question should be obvious. Of course, not all
minorities are poor. Then again, isn t affirmative action implying that minorities do not
have the same opportunities as majorities because they come from less fortunate
backgrounds, and require special attention? I agree that some minorities require special
attention. That attention however, should not be the taking of jobs from one race and
giving them to another. The attention should be focused on the origin of the problem,
which would be lack of opportunity for minorities. The reason there are less Hispanic
students admitted into the University of California is not because the SAT is
discriminatory, but rather because of the lack of educational opportunity, poor academic
preparation, and socioeconomic factors which do not provide the same opportunities for
Hispanics as whites (Stewart 2). You should not fix that problem by giving away other
people s jobs but rather by educating minorities and urging them to work their way up to
the jobs they want. This, of course, is a general solution, which could be discussed in great
length in another paper.
Then what about women? Women are minorities in the workforce as well. This is
true, but the solution should not be to take away jobs from men and give them to women
who are less qualified. The idea of affirmative action was to stop the deliberate
discrimination of women and to give them the same opportunities as men. Instead, women
are now being hired for jobs because they are women, not because they are qualified. I
now ask, is there a solution to this problem? Is there a problem? I believe in two solutions.
The first being if the woman is more qualified for the job than the man, then she should get
the job. I also believe if an institution requires female representation to better serve the
public, then the woman should be hired. An example of this would be in law enforcement.
Women police officers can provide a different perspective on certain situations when male
police officers may not be able to; because males and females are different sometimes
mentally and physically, a combination of these differences may prove helpful in certain
situations. Many of these situations may deal with other women, in which case a woman
police officer may react better than a male. However, hiring women just because they are
women and not because they qualify for a job, makes no sense and could prove costly in
the end.
Affirmative action is a form of charity that hurts the workforce and the economy.
It punishes people who have worked for what they have and gives other people
opportunities they have not earned. The reasons for why minorities do not have the same
qualifications as the majority is a separate issue and should not be confused with the issue
at hand, which is the discrimination against those who have the qualifications for a
placement in an institution. Unfortunately, our own leaders, who make the laws and in
whom we place all our trust, have made the mistake of confusing these two separate
issues. The question now is, can we open up our minds and try to fix what is becoming a
serious problem in this country and is really only a matter of ignorance? My short term
answer is that I hope so. Unfortunately, the immediate solution to the problem lies in the
very hands of the government which has confused the issues in the first place.