This increasing diversity has sparked a debate on what is fair and equal for the individual as well as America's society in areas ranging from education to the workforce. In attempt to remedy these inequalities, affirmative action was implemented, but instead it has only created more problems. Despite its admirable goals, affirmative action is not helping the people it is targeted to help and is actually hurting the American population.
Barbara Reskin, a Ph.D. and Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, explains that affirmative action “is not a single policy but a set of processes and practices” (Reskin 1). For more than four decades, these practices have developed, all with the same goal: to “actively [prevent] discrimination” (Reskin 1).
Affirmative action was intended to create greater equality of opportunity in the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explains that “no person in the United States: on the ground of race, color, or national origin” be deprived the benefits of, be denied participation in, or in any other way be subjected to discrimination in any activity or program that receives financial assistance from the Department of Education (Title-34). Although this act is the first time affirmative action became law, it is only one of many antidiscrimination laws.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the “development, defense, and contestation” of affirmative action has “proceeded in two streams” (Fullinwider). One stream is administrative and legal, as courts, executive, and legislative departments of government have applied and enforced “laws and rules requiring affirmative action” (Fullinwider). The second stream of affirmative action is public debate, where the practice of “preferential treatment has spawned a vast literature, pro and con” (Fullinwider).
One example of public debate is that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination,” and that it is punishing white males for something they are not responsible for (Post 115).
The U.S. Commission of Civil Rights on Affirmative Action claims affirmative action plans necessary to “make equal opportunity a reality of historically excluded groups” (Robinson 262). Few Americans would disagree with the necessity of creating equal opportunity for everyone regardless of race. Affirmative action was designed to create equality for all Americans. Affirmative action was intended to help those that were being affected because of past discrimination, immigrants, and the lower class.
Affirmative action was intended to help those who could not help themselves, especially those lower class minorities who do not have the means to succeed. Ironically affirmative action gives an “unfair boost” to those individuals who have the capacity to make it on their own (Machan 191). Tibor R. Machan, a Philosophy professor from Auburn University, points out that currently affirmative action programs have “little value” for minorities throughout the country (Rubio 169).
Professor Machan explains, “The irony is that mandated affirmative action may not really help…those who can use the help.” Instead it is the middle-class, “the very people who can routinely make it on their own and have every chance to do so,” who seem to be getting the extra, “unfair boost” (Machan 191). As a refugee from Hungary in 1953, Machan is one example of someone who decided he would succeed in America despite the fact that he was an immigrant and part of a lower class. He was capable of reaching his potential without the extra boost the US government now offers.
Most often policies of affirmative action are likely to provide opportunities to the “advantaged without adequately remedying the problems of the disadvantaged” (Robinson 335). Affirmative action is intended to help the disadvantaged, yet very few are actually benefiting from its programs, and those that are seem to be the middle class that are capable of making it on their own.
Affirmative action was also designed to help immigrants. Although Professor Machan himself was not a product of affirmative action programs, he explains that affirmative action provides necessary help to some new arrivals in the United States by providing a way for them to succeed in a foreign country. Even most Americans would agree that indeed some immigrants do benefit from affirmative action, needing the extra help to do well in this competitive world. And yet, most are very capable of making it on their own. In these cases affirmative action becomes more a matter of “charity and goodwill” than anything else (Machan 186).
An example of capable men that were allowed “easy access” to something that others had worked harder to attain is that of four white men who were denied admission in 1992 to the University of Texas Law School at Austin (Robinson 330). The Fifth Court of Appeals found that this university had given “unjustifiable preference” to African American and Mexican American applicants. The Texas cutoff scores for placing “nonminority students… were higher than those used for categorizing African American and Mexican American applicants” (Robinson 331). This is another example of mandated affirmative action programs that are intended to help society by leveling the playing field.
