e-learningsite.com

free essays
Free essays

Arguments against affirmative action

ARGUMENTS AGAINST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 4

Argumentsagainst affirmative action

Theadvocates of affirmative action policy claim that this policy aims athelping persecuted minorities, but in reality, these initiatives harmthe intended beneficiaries. An African-American researcher, ThomasSowell, reveals that, at present, most Americans will not visit blackdentist or physician, because of the assumption that they wereadmitted to position they held as well as to medical school through“special preferences” and relaxed standards. Same assumption isapplied to many other professionals, as well as other beneficiariesof the affirmative action. Even when a minority professional isqualified, she or he will still be shunned due to the stereotypecaused by affirmative action. Moreover, the affirmative actionreprimands students and workers form majority groups most of whom areinnocent and industrious. According to Aaron Biterman, a libertarianactivist through affirmative action many American has been undermineddue to past actions of the ancestors. Innocent people are reprimandedbecause of what guilty people have done. In year 2002, about 16openings out of 100 at the University of California wereautomatically allocated to minority students (Rai &amp Critzer,2000).

Accordingto Stephen Yates, an economics professor at the University ofMichigan, being a black student automatically counts for 20 pointstowards admission, whilst perfect SAT score get only 12 points. Sinscommitted by Caucasian people’s fathers that the current generationbears no responsibility are enough to make white American lose job oreducation opportunity, for which they are better qualified.Affirmative action should be abolished because it defies importantindividualistic American ethics of business. Biterman argues thatJapanese and Jews have prospered in America through smart investment,hard work, and personal responsibility. Therefore, African-Americans,women, and Hispanics should learn from experiences of their burdenedbrethren. Gender, ethnicity, and skin color are inconsequential inthe present capitalist system however, merit is consequential andthat why Japanese and Jews are not “oppressed minorities” anymore(Rai &amp Critzer, 2000).

Affirmativeaction policy was started to guarantee fair admission practices, aswell as to rectify racial discrimination that existed for a longperiod. Currently, this policy is outdated and causes a reversediscrimination through favoring particular groups of people over theothers, on bases of racial preference instead of academicachievement. Moreover, people are making concern that the minoritygroups are being treated differently and stigmatized by professorsand peers, who believe that success of the minority groups ininstitutions of higher learning is unearned (Rai &amp Critzer,2000).

Onecan view affirmative action as unconstitutional under the Clause ofEqual Protection in Fourteenth Amendment to United StatesConstitution. At the same time, the policy many is illegitimate underTitle VI of Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination becauseof color, race, or origin of a person. Affirmative action policylowers the standards of students and makes them less accountable. Inthe case of, the standards for grade point average or test scores arelowered to favor underrepresented groups, many people argue that thestudents will just strive to achieve the lower requirements. Besides,policies of affirmative action do not help students who areeconomically disadvantaged. A study by Hoover Institution discoveredthat an affirmative action only benefits upper and middle classminorities. Most of the opponents argue that diversity in aninstitution of higher learning is paramount, but affirmative actionserves to intensify racial prejudice. Since there is no relationshipbetween intelligence and skin color, affirmative action policy isunnecessary (Rai &amp Critzer, 2000).

Reference

Rai,K. B., &amp Critzer, J. W. (2000). Affirmativeaction and the university: Race, ethnicity, and gender in highereducation employment.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.