Affirmative Action: A Flawed Policy
- Daber A. Starcomed
- Jun 22, 2017
- 4 min read
I find it fitting that my first article for The Modern Conservative is an evaluation of one of the most debated and controversial topics in modern politics: affirmative action. As with any discussion, the best way to start is by defining and understanding the subject matter. The National Conference of State Legislatures defines affirmative action as “[policies] in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society.” Today the most well-known and disputed application of affirmative action occurs with college admission, where particular minorities are given advantages in enrollment. The justification for these policies is both to promote diversity and to counter discrimination from the past and present, yet, when looked into further, neither holds any merit.
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement encouraged politicians to create laws ensuring the discriminated had equal opportunities in both work and education. Kennedy coined the term affirmative action in Executive Order 10925 when he declared all government employees be treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This notion of equality is one of the most valuable and powerful principles in American politics, yet the means by which it is achieved have become outdated and in need of revision. As society has become less and less discriminatory, the laws have remained for the most part unchanged, providing minorities with advantages they no longer need. In college selection blacks and hispanics are favored, even though they may be on the same playing field as all other students.
Many will dispute this, asserting that racism does still exist today, so much so that affirmative action must be in place to protect minority applicants from otherwise racist admissions officers. At first the claim seems plausible; these supporters have history on their side. They believe that the racist background of the United States is enough to imply institutional racism still exists today. I beg to differ. How can there be institutional racism when there is not a single law that discriminates against any race? (Spare affirmative action of course.) Institutional racism only occurs when the laws themselves discriminate, not because some people are arbitrarily deemed racists. Another great question to ask is this: Why don’t asians get advantages from affirmative action? The Japanese were heavily discriminated against during WWII, to the point where they were placed in internment camps. And so were the Chinese, who, in the past had not only cultural but also legal disadvantages in the United States. “In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which ... suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years.”(USDS) If affirmative action wanted to correct historical racism, why does it make it so difficult for asians to get into college? Since there isn’t a reasonable answer to either of these questions, it’s safe to say affirmative action does not counter the institutional racism that apparently still exists today. But, whether or not it stops racism is all but irrelevant. Race, with regards to privilege, isn’t nearly important as financial background.
Rather than race, the primary factor that should be considered for giving students advantage is economic background. I’m baffled as to why affirmative action isn’t applied to poor people and instead is used to benefit certain racial groups. Minorities (and all lower/middle class students for that matter) who apply to college feel the burden of tuition infinitely more than the hard-to-pinpoint ‘institutional racism’ that supposedly holds them back. Yes, financial aid programs do exist, but there are still unaddressed disadvantages like inferior school districts and standardized tests that benefit the wealthy.* If it truly wanted to help those in need, why doesn’t affirmative action benefit applicants with a lower household income?
To make matters worse, affirmative action can also hurt those who receive it. In having these unnecessary advantages, minority groups don’t have to work as hard or be as talented as other students. Ironically, this ends up hurting them in the end, as it places them in academic environments they are not prepared for. In 2012, the US Department of Education reported that while 60.2% of whites earned a four year degree after being enrolled in a public university, only 39.7% of black students did the same. Since less than half of black scholars can handle their colleges, and they are the main recipients of affirmative action, it is safe to say that, in the end, the policies are detrimental to its ‘beneficiaries.’ Affirmative action harms the very groups of people it tries to privilege, as it throws them into conditions they are not prepared for.
Another weak argument for affirmative action is that of diversity. Take North Carolina State for example, a college that believes in “the power that emanates from … integrated educational institutions where people of various backgrounds might talk, argue and think together.” While it is undeniable that diversity is beneficial in growing, learning, and spreading ideas, increasing the number of certain minorities enrolled is not necessarily the way to do so. Racial differences are not the same as cultural differences; two people of the same race can come from different backgrounds, so, if schools really wanted to improve diversity, they would seek variation in the beliefs and ideas of their applicants rather than the color of their skin. Ironically, the two races that happen to be the most culturally unique are the two that are most disadvantaged by affirmative action. Asians and Indians in particular have some of the most varied cultures and perspectives, as they come from eastern societies with strong traditional values. Clearly affirmative action doesn’t actually have anything to do with creating a more diverse environment. Diversity is simply an excuse used in an attempt to justify these outdated and discriminatory policies.
* The rich do better on standardized exams as they can afford test prep services. With a good enough tutor, almost anyone can achieve high scores on these tests.
Sources:
Comments