wRITES CHOICE OF (Affirmative Action: Fair or Discriminating? – Critical Response/Analysis #2)
Affirmative action usually refers to positive discrimination. It is the action of providing special opportunities to disadvantaged members of society. The lesser disadvantaged in society are allocated special positions not based on merit but because of the fact that they are disadvantaged basing on race, sex, and other factors. The controversial factors about the issue include the fate of the qualified members of the society denied the opportunities only because all of them have been seized by the so called less advantaged. By setting up the measures of affirmative action, the government indeed had in mind preventing discrimination against not only employees but also all citizens in all public sectors. The government wanted all the public sectors to totally represent the community they served. However, it has become a subject of controversy with some people criticizing the matter and terming it as a form of reverse discrimination. The majority of opinions from the cases in the Supreme Court, e. g. Gratz v. Bollinger, are ruled unconstitutionally (William 373).
The debate on affirmative action appears as a form of preserving a narrow group interest. Indeed, basing on equality for all and on the fact that all human beings are equal, why should we not be given equal opportunities? Why should the qualifications in all public institutions not be made on merit? Due the fact that we all have equal opportunities, qualification for admissions in public institutions should be based on merit and not affirmative action.
A debate on the credibility of affirmative action in the admission at California colleges indicates the action terms to favor minorities in the State. There are principle reasons for supporters and opposers of affirmative action. The supporters tend to invoke the importance of diversity of backgrounds in the educational sector of the State. The State education should have an equal representation of both the advantaged and disadvantaged in the community. Meanwhile, the people opposing the affirmative action urge that the equal treatment entails how the equal rules are spread across the diverse population. Advocacy committees in the state, such as 80-20 Political Action Committee and activists from the Chinese language schools, opposed the reenactment of affirmative action. It was based on the fact that ever since it was revoked, the Asian Americans recorded an increase in the admissions in State owned educational institutions. If affirmative action is indeed fair to all individuals, then how the Chinese recorded a rise in admission in public educational institutions?
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
It stirs enormous debate concerning the adequacy of affirmative action in catering for the rights of the disadvantaged in the society. Affirmative action indeed aims at advantaging the so-called disadvantaged in the society (Morris 1312-1326). Since I believe that all American are given equal chances to shape their future right from the birth, therefore, admissions in public institutions should be made on merit rather than on the basis of affirmative action.
By promoting the affirmative action, the country is indeed making discrimination more sophisticated than it really is. It turn to be the new way of discrimination against the qualified and hardworking members of the society who want to achieve their goals in life with the help of hard work. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, race is a lightning rod, and the community should reach a level where the country can do anything without the controversial issue of race coming up. Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antony Kennedy, and Antonia Scalia question why State voters cannot be given the responsibility of changing policies of affirmative action. Indeed, every citizen opts for equal and fair representation in the country. However, affirmative action and its policies are against every policy set to uphold fairness and equality. The first step of curbing discrimination is connected with opposing all forms of it in the first place (Terry 33). Giving priority to any group of people in the country is discrimination in the first place. Since the establishment of affirmative action in the country, several states in addition to Michigan have gone ahead to ban policies of affirmative action. In addition to Michigan State, California, Florida, Arizona, Washington, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Nebraska are among the states that have made the step of banning affirmative action. Due to the fact than many Americans are struggling to make ends meet despite their race, ethnical background, and sex, affirmative action seems to disadvantage them. Certain universities, such as the University of Texas, have come under scrutiny concerning racial preferences concerning its university admissions. However, as racial discrimination on admissions in public institutions comes to play, favoring certain races under the umbrella of affirmative action seems to be a getaway for some individuals to favor certain races.
If the basis of the group in the disadvantaged societies arises from race, sex, and other physical priorities, then it upholds discrimination. In my opinion, a society cannot be disadvantaged in terms of physical appearances. Physical disabilities are far different from physical appearances. One cannot say that they are disadvantaged in terms of race and sex as these are not some forms of a disease. Race and sex cannot hamper an individual from becoming productive in an equal and fair society (Sullivan 1609). Affirmative action tends to make the individuals in societies termed as less disadvantaged lazier as they are sure of joyriding to institutions, which need higher qualifications they fail to attain to get admitted.