Discrimination has been an issue that has plagued American society throughout history. Even after the Civil War it was legal to see job openings posted specifically stating that persons of a certain race, nationality, religion, or gender “need not apply”. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used the term Affirmative Action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take “Affirmative Action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (The Regents of University of California, 2002). Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;…” (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964). In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities (The Regents of University of California, 2002). In the late 60s and early 70s exceptional strides were made to even the playing field for minorities. Opportunities not available before were widely opened up. Today the workplace has become as diverse as society itself. Affirmative Action, while created to level the playing field for minorities, is now causing discrimination and harming those it was created to protect.
Affirmative Action has become the very thing it set out to destroy, discrimination. Through Affirmative Action minorities were given special pluses when being compared to other applicants who were not minorities. Affirmative Action Programs even included set-asides for minorities. Anytime race is used as a plus or a minus for employment, school entrance, or any other application, it is discrimination. There have been numerous Supreme Court cases that have found that steps taken to employ Affirmative Action were, in fact, discrimination. In 1978, in the Supreme Court case University of California Regents v. Bakke, Allan Bakke a 33 year-old Caucasian male was denied admission to University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke applied to the university in 1973 and again in 1974. Both times he was denied admission even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program (University of California Regents V. Bakke, 1978). The Supreme Court held that Title VII applied to all discrimination without exception (University of California Regents V. Bakke, 1978). In 1979, Steelworkers v. Weber the Supreme Court held that, “all employment preferences based upon race, including those preferences incidental to bona fide affirmative action plans, violated Title VII’s prohibition against racial discrimination in employment” (Steel Workers V. Weber, 1978). Race based discrimination in other areas such as voting and housing have been addressed in Supreme Court cases. In Shaw v. Reno Justice Souter said: “Racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters – a goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody, and to which the Nation continues to aspire” (Shaw v. Reno, 1993). There are Supreme Court cases covering all types of discrimination including: employment, housing, voting, schooling, and more; frequently it is being found that Affirmative Action has been ruled discrimination.
Another danger of Affirmative Action is that it is causing discrimination along with racial distrust and prejudice. When a person’s race is considered as a factor it naturally will draw attention to race. When a person is granted entrance into a college, or given a promotion because that person is of a certain race, in place of someone who has better credentials, it is hard for even the staunchest of anti-racist to not begrudge that person’s unfair advantage. After years of service as a sports writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (P-I), Bud Withers sued the P-I for discrimination. Though the P-I’s attorneys claimed there was no discrimination involved, in a sworn deposition J.D. Alexander (P-I’s Publisher) admitted that gender was a factor in the decision of whom to hire (Fefer, 1998). In a study performed by Heilman and Welle, it was shown that women and minorities who were presumed to have had preference because of Affirmative Action-were presumed to be less competent and less able to make a contribution to the group (Heilman, 2006). A study reported in the May 1996 Journal of Applied Social Psychology showed that African Americans, and Whites, who had strong ethnic identities tended to believe that promotions received by their own race were fair as compared to the opposite ethnic group (Konrad, Ross III, and Linnehan, 2006). A 1999 study of 4083 students and faculty from Harvard and UM was published in Public Interest. This study showed that a full 85% agreed that “no one should be given special preference in jobs or college admissions on the basis of their gender or race” (Rothman, Lipset, and Nevitte, 2003). In 1999 Douglas Massey, et al performed a study to “solve the puzzle of minority underachievement” (Nieli, 2004). Massey stated that an unexpected finding of this study was the considerable amount of resentment held towards recipients of racial preference policies (Nieli, 2004). Affirmative action has a double edge sword effect in causing prejudice. One group is angry because another group receives unearned advantage thereby, cheating someone else of an earned spot. The receiving group knows of this perception of undeserved advantage causing them to feel defensive and sometimes even unworthy. Affirmative Action can cause, or increase, prejudice simply because of its existence. The one receiving preferential treatment may sense (rightfully so or not) that others feel the position was not earned or deserved making the receiver defensive and under undue pressure. One more qualified and not receiving a position and believing that the position was filled by someone because of race or gender (rightfully so or not) can harbor ill will against the race or gender in general for privileges unearned. And these feelings of unfair treatment do not stop with the person directly affected; the feelings seem to spread like a cancer to others around the person directly affected.
Lastly, as if increasing discrimination and prejudice were not enough, perhaps the worst effect of Affirmative Action is that it is causing harm. The harm Affirmative Action is causing is happening mostly to those it was created to aid. Maybe the worst harm is in the victim mentality caused and supported by Affirmative Action. This victim mentality provides minorities with excuses not to succeed instead of creating a desire to be the best. Affirmative Action attacks the dignity of the recipient and casts doubt upon their competence and worth. Being placed in a job where lack of qualifications is overlooked because one is of a certain race can cause one to feel like a failure. Being placed in a university where one is much below the median can create added stress and shame at not being up to par. Not being able to speak or write the common language on a job or in school can make one fail even the simplest courses or tasks. One need only look to some of the nation’s most respected minority authors, scholars, teachers and even preachers to understand the harm being done. In an article for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Reverend Tommy Davis stated, “As a black American, I believe that continued affirmative action has caused black people to depend on government intervention to succeed” (Davis, 2007). One can find plenty of writings on how too much help can cause harm. In an article Martin Gross reports that because of failing a simple English test in a New York Bi-lingual college most students did not graduate (Gross, 1999). Daniel Colimon operates the largest black-owned litigation firm in California. Colimon states that minority contracts and government set-asides anger him (Connerly, Colimon, and Cain, 1995). After doing some litigation for a state agency he was told if the firm became a certified minority enterprise they could become the state’s primary vendor (Connerly, Colimon, and Cain, 1995). What angered him about this is there was no discussion of the quality of work, as if quality was not a matter of importance (Connerly, Colimon, and Cain, 1995). Steele (1990) says implied inferiority is what earns preferential treatment under Affirmative Action (Steele, 1990). In 2004, UCLA Law professor Richard Sander published a study showing more than half of the black students at top law schools received first-year grades establishing them at the bottom 10% of their class. This same report showed that these same students were six times more likely never to pass the bar exam (Chavez, 2007). John McWhorter who is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley is the author of “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America”. McWhorter has written some very enlightening information on the affects of Affirmative Action on his race. One of McWhorter’s comments on Affirmative Action is: “In general, one could think of few better ways to depress a race’s propensity for pushing itself to do its best in school than a policy ensuring that less-than-best efforts will have a disproportionately high yield. We can call it affirmative action. Let’s call it what it is. Lowered standards. And lowered standards means lowered achievement” (McWhorter, 2001, ¶ 104). Shelby Steele author of “Content of Our Character” explores the subject of Affirmative Action from a deep and personal level in this book. One of the most profound statements Steele makes is, “The price they pay for this form of politics [Affirmative Action] is to keep blacks focused on an illusion of deliverance by others, and no illusion weakens us more” (Steele, 1990, p. 174). Is it in the best interest of the minority involved, or the nation in general, to install an unqualified person into an educational program in which that person is not likely to succeed; in what way is anyone to benefit by such a program?In conclusion, there was a time when America needed a wake-up call and Affirmative Action was a useful jump-start to even the playing field for minorities. Affirmative Action should have been a short-term tool. The problem now is that Affirmative Action is simply using discrimination to fight discrimination. Affirmative Action is causing more divisions among races today by making race an issue even when one chooses not to. How can one enjoy the wonderful diversity in this country when being forced to use race and gender as a tool for benefits and advantages? Affirmative Action preferences were supposed to help the disadvantaged. In reality, “preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race” (Sacks). No race can claim a monopoly on being disadvantaged, there are black and Hispanic millionaires; there are impoverished whites; and so on through each nationality. We need to stop this bigotry and enjoy our diversity, there is so much to share and learn from each other. As long as this country’s government sanctions prejudice, and forces it, this cannot and will not be possible. One cannot help wondering what happened to the color-blind nation America set out to be.
ReferencesChavez, L. (2007, September 7). Help that harms. New York Post. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.nypost.com, W., Colimon, D., & Cain, H. (1995, Spring). Pride and prejudice: Black leaders ask, is it time to set quotas aside? Policy Review, Vol. 72. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3567227.htmlDavis, R. T. (2007, August 21). End affirmative action: Give all an equal shot. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://www.democratandchronicle.com
