There is a lot to be said for affirmative action and some of the good it has done by increasing the diversity present in campuses nationwide. It’s aided an entire generation of minority students, allowing access to higher education when, only a few years before affirmative action was instated in the 60s, it would seem an improbable dream. However, I believe that affirmative action ignores the crux of the problem it tries to amend: social class and inequities in public education, all the while exacerbating hushed racial tensions.
In regards to the admissions process, rather than altering standards for minority students why not provide adequate public education? It is the historic legacy of racism that reduces the number of minorities in universities, which includes poor schools that many minorities must unfortunately attend. A reallocation of resources would benefit everyone; all Americans would benefit from a shift of funds toward improving public education.
Results from last year’s PISA, an international standardized test, reveals that the United States falls behind sixteen of thirty industrialized nations in science and trails twenty-three in math. Apparently, even white and wealthy students suffer from educational malaise. Weaknesses in education are a national issue, and all students, regardless of social class, gender, and race, pay the penalty. There needs to be reform in public education, so that affirmative action will not be necessary in its current incarnation. It seems to me that affirmative action attempts to cure a social ill in its terminal stages rather than trying to purge the disease from its genesis.
So, how does creating an artificial equal playing field equalize minority students with their white peers? It doesn’t. Firstly, it reduces future occupational quality; and secondly, minority students who are admitted into universities below the usual standards are often unable to cope with such rigorous curricula. It immediately sets them up for failure, creating further setbacks.
Even if a minority is able to enter college eager and able to learn, there is still one more obstacle. In 2007, College Board reported the average cost of attending a four year public university was $17,336, a little less than half the amount for a four year private college; in contemporary America, race and gender are not major hindrances to attaining higher education-it’s affordability. Affirmative action should focus upon economic background rather than minority status. Is it fair that an upper-middle class Hispanic girl who hasn’t worked hard be given preference to a poor white boy who has? Even within racial strata middle and upper class minorities often benefit more than their lower class counterparts; chances are they’ve attended better schools and have the money to pay for a stellar university. Financial woes transcend sex and race. So, by focusing on providing improved financial aid to all American students, true opportunity and diversity may be achieved.
In addition, reverse discrimination sets the stage for heightened racial tension. Whites and Asian Americans (who are more adversely affected by the program than whites due to their large presence on college campuses; a June 2005 issue of Social Science Quarterly revealed: “eliminating affirmative action would significantly raise the number of Asian-American students, while having little effect on white students;” for example, “Asian-American students would fill nearly 80 percent of the spaces [at Princeton] not taken by black and Hispanic students”) may begin to harbor resentment toward blacks and Hispanics who benefit from affirmative action.
In a study performed by Gregory Maio of the University of Wales and Victoria Esses of the University of Western Ontario, fifty-one participants were presented a fabricated editorial advocating affirmative action for an obscure minority. The participants were then asked to rate their perception of that minority group. They were overwhelmingly negative. The test group also was not in favor of that minority immigrating to their country and responded negatively to immigration as a whole. The experiment illuminates an abhorrence toward the perceived privilege of minorities under affirmative action that in turn inculcates a dislike of minorities as a whole.
By prioritizing race and gender and highlighting minute and facile differences between individuals, affirmative action forces identity to become a more inflammatory issue. Columnist for The Business Journal of Milwaukee David Dodenhoff raises an interesting point: “The program essentially pits men, women, and minorities against each other as they compete for a paramount resource: higher education. It establishes a winner/loser dichotomy, which inherently causes suspicion among the losers whether they were rejected because of identity politics within colleges (though that may not be the cause).”
Affirmative Action implies that racism and misogyny-though prevalent in society-are as rampant as they were forty years ago. There is the implication that women and ethnic groups are unable to strive toward achievement on their own merits, that they require handouts and the door to be open for them. However, what irks me the most is the idea that it is justifiable that someone be allowed education at the expense of someone else. It is shameful that education cannot be accessible to all Americans regardless of race, gender, or social class.