Tuskan Times May 2014 | Page 17

Affirmative Action: Why Some Americans Want to Legalize Racism

If you aren’t swayed by statistics, perhaps returning to the previously referenced personal example will do the trick. Sonia Sotomayor, an influential and accomplished individual who has reached the acme of her profession, claims to have lived the reality of affirmative action. Where might she stand today if affirmative action had been banned? How many potential Sotomayors are even now at their own crossroads?

It is true that other nations do not have the same affirmative action regulations as the US. However, they also lack the profound prejudice against minorities engrained in America since the well-intentioned hypocrisy of its founding; “…all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Translation of the implicit: huzzah for human rights, but we’re gonna keep those negroes picking cotton whether they like it or not.

Colleges take multiple aspects of a person into account when reviewing applications; one cannot be accepted anywhere by sole merit of skin color…but race matters enough that potential discrimination needs to be dealt with head-on using progressive strategies such as affirmative action. Changing government policy at this point in time on affirmative action turns the clocks backwards, not forwards; until we can accept that, we cannot equalize educational and professional opportunities across ethnicities enough to construct a future in which affirmative action truly won’t be necessary.

A New York Times interactive graph compares states’ minority population percentages where affirmative action has been banned to the percentages of minority students in freshman classes since the bans took effect. It shows that in each of five states, enrollment of minority students has dropped so that there is anywhere from a 2 to a 38 point percentage gap between college-age minority students and enrolled minority freshmen. You have to wonder about the fate of that other 38%. How might their lives be different if affirmative action had been in effect to give them a better shot at a degree? This question must have come up in the Lone Star State; The University of Texas, with an enrollment-minority population gap high of 24% for Hispanics and 10% for blacks, reinstated its affirmative action policy eight years after it was banned.

When applying to college, admissions offices take into account your grades, extracurricular activities, letter of recommendation--and skin color. This is part of a broader policy called affirmative action--that is, selecting a “minority” candidate (based on gender, race, sexuality, etc.) simply because he or she is a minority.

However, in a recent Supreme Court case, the justices voted 6-2 that an anti-affirmative action law in Michigan was valid and should be upheld. Now, universities in that state will not take race into consideration when selecting applicants.

Affirmative action is a mind-boggling policy to most Americans, and even more confusing for non-Americans who usually don’t have an equivalent policy in their own country. It seems that America is the only place where using someone’s skin color to make a judgment about them is seen as a progressive step forward.

It is usually described by supporters like this: “There are two identical applications. One candidate is a white, straight male. The other candidate is black/ an immigrant/ gay/ adopted, etc. Without affirmative action, the white, straight male will get chosen every time. The policy gives minorities more opportunities in regards to finding jobs and attending college.”

But that’s not an accurate description of what affirmative action is. First of all, identical applications don’t exist. No two people are exactly alike, and if an application shows that two candidates are, then that application is flawed. Second of all, affirmative action is, in reality, used like this: there are two applications, one (a straight, white, male’s) is slightly better than the other (which belongs to a person who is black/ an immigrant/ gay/ adopted/ etc.). The minority’s application nonetheless gets chosen so that a school or company can boast about high diversity.

I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing that affirmative action--while it certainly has good intentions--is actually hindering the end of prejudices. Allowing people to use their “minority” status as a crutch is not a pathway to a discrimination-free world.

By Malaika Handa

AGAINST