Research Paper

In 1964, The United States Government enacted the Civil Rights Act, which protected the rights of racial minorities. That law criminalized discrimination against African-Americans and other minority groups. However, it was easy for employers or educators to reject these minority groups by using other excuses to hide their prejudices. In an effort to combat stealth forms of discrimination, the United States government applied different processes of affirmative action. The implementation of affirmative action helped open doors for many minorities. Currently, African-Americans have moved into every employment field and now have opportunities available that were unavailable before, including rising to the presidency of the United States. I believe that affirmative action is now obsolete and the United States should abolish its practice due to the progress made by all minority groups.

Scholars, who theorize on issues such as affirmative action, have split it into two different forms. The two types of affirmative action are procedural or weak affirmative action and preferential or strong affirmative action. Procedural affirmative action requires that society make a significant effort to treat all races, sexes, and other identity groups as equal without any special treatment, while preferential affirmative action is when a society attempts to correct any perceived imbalances among various minority groups by giving those same groups preferential treatment. In fact, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order in 1965 to promote the idea of preferential affirmative action. While the process helped many underrepresented groups enter many different fields that society had previously excluded them from in the past, affirmative action is now a hindrance in promoting equality.

Often, preferential affirmative action will create situations where a business is order to meet diversity quotas will not promote the most qualified individual. This is commonly known as being passed over. If an African-American is the more when applying for a job, the company should hire the more qualified person barring any nepotism or favors. This is not to say that racism no longer exists in the United States; however, race is a near non-issue in hiring. Corporations and businesses want the person who will generate the most revenue. This is relative to the idea of the free market where in the best ideas generate the highest values. Thus, the best corporations will hire the best employees regardless of race. The evidence of the progress of African-Americans becomes clear during black history month. Television and newspapers regularly feature celebratory content in regards to the many successful endeavors of minorities.

While there are some successes like Barak Obama, John McWhorter, or Richard Parsons, there are still persons of minority ethnicities that do not succeed.. However, sometimes the unsuccessful minorities attempt to abuse affirmative action in order to get ahead regardless of their efforts. For instance, in 2009, twenty firefighters passed a promotion exam given to mostly Caucasians along with a few Hispanic and Black candidates. However, because very few minorities passed the exam, the state decided to disregard the results and no one received any promotions. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut violated the rights of the firefighters denying their promotions (CNN.com). This is considered a case of reverse discrimination, which is ironic because the state wanted to avoid any discrimination lawsuits. The entire suit was a waste of time and taxpayer money. If lawmakers abolished affirmative action before the lawsuit, the deserving firefighters would already have the promotion.

The public sector is not the only place where preferential affirmative action interferes. The private sector is also pressured to hire minorities at all costs, even if they are not the best qualified for the job. The philosopher Thomas Nagel believes that sacrifice is required in order to advance opportunities for minorities and women. Nagel states that, “policies of strong affirmative action must reckon with the costs of some lowering in performance level: the stronger the preference, the larger the cost to be justified.” (Nagel) This means that businesses will have to adjust to lowered productivity standards in order to raise the prospects of the disadvantaged.

While it may seem like a good gesture to hire a minority or disabled person in order to level the playing field, diversity should not be the driving force of employment in a corporation like the preferential affirmative action ideal requires. A business is in existence to turn out a profit and if that main goal should not be compromised in order to give special treatment when none is needed. . Although Thomas Nagel believes that affirmative action will become obsolete at some point, he states that it will not occur in this generation. Nagel believes that “Affirmative action has not done much to improve the position of poor and unskilled blacks. But increased access to higher education and upper-level jobs is an essential part of what must be achieved to break the structure of drastic separation.” (Nagel) What Nagel fails to realize is that there are social programs already in place that help poverty-stricken individuals like welfare with job searching and Financial Aid which is available for all including minorities. Additionally, affordably priced colleges like the City University of New York offer exceptional courses at the fraction of the cost of Ivy-league schools. More focus should be placed on education and earlier preparation of higher learning.

While on the subject of education, there have been studies, which state that preferential affirmative action does not benefit minorities in colleges as well. In the article, “Explaining the Black Education Gap”, John McWhorter states that affirmative action does not help students and uses statistics to defend his argument. He states that in 1997 “70,000 students applied for admission to American law schools,” however; only 16 black students that applied scored a 164 or higher on the LSAT, which puts them in the bottom quartile of the entering class at the nation’s top six law schools. In contrast, over 2500 white applicants had a score above 164.

McWhorter also states that poverty is not the cause for the abundance of low grades among African-Americans; a majority of black families lives above the poverty line. The real issue, according to McWhorter, is the culture of victimology among black minorities. African-Americans are constantly viewed as “victims” because of the segregationist history in the United States. While social programs are available, the programs create a mindset where dependence on others is necessary in order to be successful. He considers these social programs the result of an influence of anti-intellectualism within the African-American community. McWhorter states, “this anti-intellectualism is the product of centuries of slavery and segregation during which blacks were denied education, but it has been perpetuated by the powerful strand of separatism in black culture, a legacy of the 1960s, that rejects as illegitimate all things ‘white.’” (McWhorter) John McWhorter believes that attention must be devoted to anti-intellectualism and victimhood if blacks want to raise their numbers out of poverty.

Additionally, John McWhorter poses a contrasting example that while Jewish people survived centuries of persecution and the Holocaust and they still expect their children to achieve any academic pursuit that they choose. He also shows that the Chinese were tortured in San Francisco up to the 20th century and were restricted to servant jobs but their children still excel. Yet people believe that Black students are unable to excel when they have not had to deal with quite as atrocious oppression as the Jewish and Chinese people. It seems that preferential affirmative action might foster a belief that they can achieve their goal with minimal sacrifice.

The Jewish and Chinese people have overcome great strife and have larger percentages of successful individuals than African-Americans have and it is my belief that affirmative action may be the culprit. Affirmative action affects other individuals as well, Philosopher, Steven M. Cahn states, “Preferential affirmative action has bred doubts about the abilities of those chosen while generating resentment in those passed over.” (Cahn) Individuals who have excelled in their skills but are rejected in favor of someone with fewer qualities have a right to be upset. Hard work should be rewarded and the best person for the job should be hired.

Cahn also states, “Recent defenders of preferential affirmative action now place emphasis on recognizing the benefits society obtains from members of different groups. This approach is now called ‘diversity.’” (Cahn) In order to avoid alienating other groups with affirmative action, diversity is now used to hire minority groups. It is the same practice wrapped up in a different package in order to please all groups. However, individuals of a certain race do not follow a stereotype and diversity can be achieved by hiring a person for who they are, rather than what race they are from. Celia Wolf-Divine has stated that “a Hispanic who is a Republican is no less a Hispanic, and a woman who is not a feminist is no less a woman.” (Cahn)

Regardless of the label is placed on preferential affirmative action; it still affects others in negative ways. In the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter, a white applicant for the University of Michigan Law School brought a lawsuit against the school because she was rejected for another student in the name of diversity. While she lost the case in the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor who voted in favor of diversity believed that at some point in the future, diversity may be unnecessary.

Justice Clarence Thomas, an African-American, viewed the general admission as flawed when stating, “no one would argue that a university could set up a lower general admission standard and then impose heightened requirements only on black applicants. Similarly, a university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant exemptions to favored races. The double standard is not fair or equal to any race. It shows preferential treatment to specific races, which is unequal.” (GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER) When Thomas discusses the view of the school and their argument in having educational benefits of a “diverse” student body, he mentions the inconsistencies of priorities. “The school refers to the compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body.” However, the school also makes another claim stating, “The need for openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide [legal] training without reference to any consequential educational benefits.” (GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER)

Moreover, Thomas notes that the institution wants diversity without educational requirements while stating that diversity has its own educational merits. The statements show that the school is more interested in diversity, rather than the actual educational benefits. This kind of affirmative action can lead to students who have lower grades receiving preferential treatment in school admissions based on the color of their skin and not their work ethic.

While preferential affirmative action improved the lives of African-Americans after the Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s, the idea has become obsolete and is now a burden to others. Companies hire employees based on the idea of productivity, and affirmative action will lower the performance level. Businesses may have to sacrifice their progress in order to promote diversity. While diversity is supposed to enrich the lives of others it employs an unfair double standard. Affirmative action no longer opens opportunities for minorities because opportunities are already available for the skilled, regardless of race. More studies based on anti-intellectualism in black culture should be performed, considering the effects from the denied education during the era of American slavery. The prospect of life enrichment is available through education and career opportunities, but the poverty-stricken minorities must take advantage of them in order to succeed.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2011

CNN.com. 25 November 2009. 14 May 2011 .

GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER. No. 539 U.S. 306 (2003) . Supreme Court. 23 June 2003.

McWhorter, John. "Explaining the Black Education Gap." The Wilson Quarterly (2000): 72-92.

Nagel, Thomas. “A Defense of Affirmative Action.” Philosophical Problems in the Law. Ed. David M. Adams. Belmont: Thomson and Wadsworth, 2005. 300-303.Print.