Policies which are created to ensure equal opportunities for all persons are acceptable, and in fact are mandated by the constitution, however when these policies exceed their original intention and attempt to intentionally favor minority individuals, they become self-defeating. The most controversial legal issue pertaining to equality rights is the one regarding affirmative action, a concept whose existence has led to numerous problems within the constitution, and more than enough animosity that is largely race-based. The legislative policy of affirmative action breaches its very goal of achieving a completely unbiased society as there are no limits as to how affirmative action is taken; the effects of it are problematic both in long and short terms; and the rights of minorities to function in society will eventually be solely determined by legislation, not by their own worth as individuals.
An important concept to consider is that, unlike anti-discrimination laws that protect the rights of all individuals, affirmative action policies have no limits placed on them, a fact which could lead to a situation in which reverse-discrimination becomes inevitable, and majority individuals are no longer able to prosper as easily as they once could. Dinesh D’Souza, conservative thinker and author, states that “Racism…has no redeeming features.” The attempt of applying affirmative action as a tool of defeating racism only develops it on a larger, more global scale. It is inevitable that this will spring an assault on the constitution, with people from both sides declaring victimization at the hands of the government. In terms of a legal perspective, affirmative action policies are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “Prohibits discrimination in all programs on the basis of color, race, or national origin.” This one sentence in itself is arguably part of the most significant piece of legislation regarding discrimination in American legal history. Affirmative action is undeniably illegal, as it does indeed discriminate on the basis of race. The supreme court of the United States has only just begun to realize this, through a lawsuit filed against the University of Michigan:
“In the spring of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court…heard arguments in two cases that will profoundly impact the future of affirmative action in higher education. The lawsuits against the University of Michigan’s Law School (Grutter v. Bollinger) and the undergraduate College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (Gratz v. Bollinger), both challenged policies that consider race/ethnicity as one factor among many in their admissions decisions. The decisions handed down in these cases, heard concurrently, will affect access to colleges and universities for minority students for years to come.”
In these cases, university officials admitted that race was, among others, a factor in determining entrance into the school’s law program. The detriments of this are obvious. However, officials at the University of Michigan did not simply admit to making race a factor, but, as it was later discovered, were actually guilty of having a higher absolute standard for white students. This is a chilling fact, as it means that not only is it possible–and, in fact quite likely–that white students in other universities are suffering the same fate and are completely oblivious to it, but also demonstrates the detrimental power of affirmative action, which can clearly be so concealed as to go unnoticed as a result of its non-specific nature. The problem lies in the fact that affirmative action allows for an interpretation that is too open-minded, allowing race to be used as a single factor yet placing no limit as to what degree it can be so.
Because affirmative action is not actually a right according to the constitution, rather a policy which is intended to balance the notion that anti-discrimination laws are being broken, the effects are all the more problematic. Not only does such a policy of proportional representation assume that institutions are inherently discriminatory, but also suggests that minority individuals are somehow more deserving of handouts than majorities. It also allows feelings of guilt within whites to become a dominating idea in the largely white-controlled legal system, which in turn leads to the belief that diversity through means of such justice, are necessary means for ensuring equality. African American Dutch Martin argues that Affirmative Action is undeniably flawed: “They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), oftentimes to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites).”
Evidently, the legal system will suffer greatly if majority individuals who are more qualified are rejected, as they will be ones who have legitimate claims to discrimination lawsuits. Thus, this will be seen as being more based on racial discrimination if they are, in fact more qualified than the minority individual who took their position. Consequently, this creates a vicious cycle that will continue to occur numerously, defeating the purpose of Affirmative Action itself.
The other problem associated with the ambiguity regarding the limits of affirmative action is the fact that, as the standards for minorities are lowered, their ability to function in society in the future will be determined more so by law, and not by their own merit. More to the point, whites who are currently being rejected on the basis of race will have to–and most likely will–work much harder to separate themselves from minority applicants who were selected ahead of them. Due to the uncertainty linked to Affirmative Action, the future of minority success may become completely reliant on government intervention. Furthermore, as minorities begin to slip even further down the ladder in terms of being legitimately qualified for certain positions, affirmative action will have to take on an even greater role. Otherwise, minorities will grow increasingly less capable of achieving without some sort of government intervention, as it is absurd to assume that a group of people will reject something that essentially gives them a free passage through life. The root cause of this is the fact that affirmative action policies are chiefly focused on simply changing the system, as opposed to changing the individual. But is it really worth it? Has it really shaped the system and spread equality (in some way, shape, or form) to society? Columnist Larry Elder mentioned in an article that, “…black-white income gap narrowed well before affirmative action took hold. In 1959, among intact families outside the south, a black family earned 78% of what a white family earned…Ten years later, black families earned 91% of that of a white family.” Since it has already been established, that cases such as that of the University of Michigan do occur it can be concluded that proportional representation on the basis of race will only become a more condemning practice. Continuous abuse of affirmative action will result in disharmony within the legislative system, and society on a whole will begin to suffer if minority individuals are given special rights, as ‘political correctness’, rather than justice, will become the ideal by which policies will form.
“Since each man gives himself to all, he gives himself to no one; and since no associate over whom he does not gain the same rights as others gain over him, each man recovers the equivalent of everything he loses, and in the bargain he acquires more power to preserve what he has.” –Jean Jacques Rousseau
It is quite clear that Affirmative Action undermines the goal of achieving a completely unbiased society due to the fact that there are no limits as to how affirmative action is taken; the effects of it are problematic both in long and short terms; and the rights of minorities to function in society will eventually be solely determined by legislation, not by their own worth as individuals. The only thing that affirmative action ‘affirms’ is the fact that the legal system can be manipulated and the constitution unofficially amended to give authority to any group of people seeking quick, destructive change in society. Globally, societies have conformed, been confined and restricted, and given false hopes of what is truly right for them as individuals through governments and those in power; yet in the end, it is solely the in the hands of that individual to decipher what is truly best for them.
Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free
Property of EssaySwap.com
