I do not find that affirmative
action is ethical; I agree in principle with the ideology of equality for
everyone, however, not at the expense of others. Affirmative action essentially
places us back at square one but on the other side of the fence. Racism, a form
of discrimination based on an individual’s race, is appalling, flipping the
coin to frame it as a positive from the minority’s perspective is no less malevolent.
LaFollette (2007) presents affirmative action as “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities
and women in hiring and school placement.” The missing link here is at a cost
of segregating other applicants, based on their race or sex. The Lancet identifies
affirmative action to have been “first used during the 1960s to describe
federal initiatives that allowed employers, school admission boards, and other
gatekeepers to economic and academic opportunities to take into consideration a
qualified applicant's race, national origin, sex, or disability”(Affirmative
action, 1999). The principle of equality for everyone cannot be managed by regulations.
The
largest obstacle that has thwarted the underlying principle is a clear understanding
and practical application of its policies. This is unlikely to occur through
regulation as “affirmative action is a controversial and often poorly understood
policy (Crosby,
2006, p. 01). A study from 2006 boasts why “affirmative action is needed”
however that is can also have “unintended
negative consequences” but further if implemented appropriately it can prove to
be “most successful” (Crosby, 2006, p. 01).
I agree in large along with other
general oopponents of
affirmative action who argue that “favoring one applicant over another on the
basis of their race, national origin, or sex is antithetical and that the
rights of the individual should not be sacrificed to address grievances of
certain groups” (Affirmative action, 1999). Further, “Affirmative action is a
form of reverse discrimination in which less qualified individuals are given
preference over better qualified individuals solely on the basis of their race
or sex (Affirmative action, 1999).
In a
study from 1999, the AAMC reported that almost 40% of the decline in applicants
from minorities was due to a drop in applications in four states where state
affirmative action programs have been banned: California, Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi (Affirmative action, 1999). The social aspect is minorities
seemingly did not apply if they did not have an edge on the competition. This
is an example of an unintended consequence. Whether it be they felt their individual
attributes and qualifications would not have been fairly weighted or that they
weren’t going to be favored based on their race it places the system in disorder.
Affirmative
action has been a hot topic at the Supreme Court level lately. The Supreme Court’s
general approach to affirmative action in universities admissions decisions, “educational
diversity is an interest sufficient to overcome the general ban on racial classifications
by the government” (Liptak, 2013). The University of Texas at Austin has been
under scrutiny for its seeming race bias on accepting of applicants. The
pursuit of educational diversity, a five-justice majority said in the Grutter
case, permits admissions personnel at public universities to do what the
Constitution ordinarily forbids government officials to do — to sort people by
race (Liptak, 2013). However, the good news from this case is that “Strict
scrutiny,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “does not permit a court to accept a school’s
assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without a
court giving close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in
practice” (Liptak, 2013).
In contrast, equality is important.
Ending discriminating practices both for and against applicants, including
affirmative action, is the best solution for the future. We cannot right the
wrongs of the past on someone else shoulders. Acknowledging the past, acceptance
of the error in our ways and education to the masses is the appropriate corrective
action.
References
Affirmative action. (1999). The Lancet, 353(9146),
1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/198971547?accountid=27203
Crosby, F. (2006).
Understanding Affirmative Action. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 585-611.
Retrieved from
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029
LaFollette,
H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden,
Mass: Blackwell Pub. (71-99)
Liptak, A. (2013, June 24). Affirmative Action Case Is Sent Back to
Lower Court - NYTimes.com. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/affirmative-action-decision.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment