Letter to the Editor on Affirmative Action

Dear Editor,


Oklahoma is getting ready for a fight over over affirmative action. State Question 759, which aims to ban affirmative action, will appear on 2012's ballot. Are we seriously going to let such a wonderful policy slip out of our hands? States that have banned affirmative action have seen a decrease in the population of minorities and women in colleges, universities, and jobs. For example, in California, at UC Davis, the percentage of new faculty hires dramatically dropped from 52% of women to 13%. Similarly, in Washington State, after affirmative action was restricted, the share of Seattle public works contracts awarded to women or minority owned firms dropped by 25%. In fact, the numbers of black and Latino students drop 16 to 17 percent at schools with affirmative action bans.


We need to urge our citizens to vote "NO" to this destructive legislation. Minorities and women are already discriminated against and have a low representation in jobs and schools. If we snatch this policy away from them, then surely, we will see a further decline in them, as statistics show. Personally, I believe, considering the time the whole United States is in, any loss will be destructive. As these statistics show, SQ 759 is a terrible trap that we might get caught in if we do not vote against it on 2012's ballot!


Thanks, 
Nida Safdar

My Stance on Affirmative Action

Based on all my research and findings, I can finally form an opinion on affirmative action. By all means, I support this policy. I truly believe that this is the one of the steps in the right direction. As statistics show, only a few percentage of minorities are found in colleges and workforce, and if the government bans this police, then it will only cause the percentage to further decline. Think about it. White men already had all their rights, opportunities, and freedoms from the beginning. It was blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and women who had to struggle to get what they deserved. If racism and discrimination still exist in the US, then why can't affirmative action? 

Personally, affirmative action benefits me. Since I am part of the minorities in America and also a woman, affirmative action will only increase my chances in getting into a great college or working in a field that I hope to join one day. Therefore, for people like me, policies like affirmative action are a huge advantage to us. For us, it  is a way to be accepted and appreciated within the society. For us, it guarantees equal representation. For us, it makes America the ideal nation, a "melting pot".

Media's Influence on Affirmative Action.

What exactly is media? It is the means to communication, like radios, televisions, newspapers, and magazines, that reach people widely. Media provides us with information, entertainment, and relief. As technology has become a crucial part of our every day lives, we are continuously exposed to media, such as the World Wide Web. While we all have the freedom and ability to make our own decisions, how much does the media influence our decisions? I believe a lot. This is why when people are asked about their stand on affirmative action, their decisions are not entirely their own.


The University of Houston wrote an article called Affirmative Action and the Media: A Mixed Method Analysis of News Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Cases that lists ways the media misleads the public on affirmative action. For example, it used the "politics of fear" which scared people on the negative effects of affirmative action, including increased terrorism. Media also portrays affirmative action a war between blacks and whites. Most of the time Hispanics, Native Americans, and women do not even come into the picture. The media puts out facts and statistics valuable to convincing the audience what it supports. That is why you see several different standpoints on any matter put forward to the public.


There is always a blind spot in whatever the media puts out. Therefore, before you go on making a decision on an issue, be sure to do your research. Do not just believe in what you see or hear. The media tries to trick you; your safest bet is to analyze the situation yourself.

Dedication to Affirmative Action

Numerous websites and blogs exist that present their point of views on affirmative action.

Blogs: These are some of my friends' blogs that give additional information on affirmative action along with other personal blogs.

- tmariam.blogspot.com

- seeuzmarant.blogspot.com

- rantingaboutgovernment.blogspot.com

- layansalous.blogspot.com

- sanasandhu786.blogspot.com

- maryamsalus.blogspot.com

- amina-elbaz.blogspot.com

- amptoons.com/blog/category/affirmative-action/

- affirmact.blogspot.com

- affirmativeactionnews.blogspot.com/

- ofccp.blogspot.com/

Websites: Below is a list of websites that have been created due to the current uproar on affirmative action:
- http://usa.usembassy.de/classroom/affirmativeaction.htm

- Affirmative Action News

- AAAA (American Association for Affirmative Action) (affirmativeaction.org)

- The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives (nationalcenter.org/AA.html)

- Americans United for Affirmative Action (auaa.org)
- Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (civilrights.org)
- Ethnic Majority (ethnicmajority.com/affirmative_action.htm)
- BAMN (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for 
  Equality By Any Means Necessary) (bamn.org)

Media/News Coverage on Affirmative Action

Below are some clips that show various news networks addressing affirmative action.

                                                                                        The Five on Fox News:This segment of the show addresses the policies of affirmative action and "social injustice", and how the modern education system uses these ideas to instruct American students. It also talks about about a book, "The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change" by F C Jones - a book based on the concept of "white privilege".

                                                                               Scholarships for whites only on CNN: This segment starts out by discussing a new non-profit organization, the Former Majority Association for Equality, initiated in Texas that grants scholarships to only white males who maintain an average of a 3.0 grade point average (GPA).  Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor, and April D. Ryan, White House correspondent for the America Urban Radio Network, go head in head to debate over affirmative action.

                                                                             

Immigration, Affirmative Action on New High Court Docket; Health Reform Awaited on: PBS: This news bulletin talks about various controversial issues in America today. Immigration and affirmative action are two of its topics, so this video can also be used for my information on the Great Immigration War. Listen to what people have to say on these two topics. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now next are some articles on affirmative action: supporting it and opposing it. 
This first article is by Ward Connerly, founder and President of the American Civil Rights Institute and an advocate against affirmative action. His quote, "Race has no place in American life or law," expresses his belief that affirmative action is a form of racism, and preferential treatment should not be used against whites or be in favor for women and minorities. Read ahead as Connerly expresses his views.

What Happened to Post-Racial America?

Few government policies have had the reach, immortality and consequences of affirmative action. A policy that could be justified at its start, affirmative action has now become yesterday's solution to yesterday's problem. Yet it endures as if nothing has happened in the past 50 years.

There is an interracial man—although self-identified "African-American"—occupying the White House, blacks are on our courts, including the highest court in the land, blacks are mayors of major cities and heads of American corporations.

Notwithstanding all this, President Barack Obama, who was elected largely because Americans thought he would lead the nation to a Promised Land of post-racialism, recently signed Executive Order 13583 "to promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce." The irony is that few institutions in America are more "diverse" and "inclusive" than the federal government, where the workforce is 17% black while blacks are roughly 13% of the U.S. population.

In addition to the president's executive order, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law included Section 342, promoted by Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), which should be called the "White Male Exclusion Act." It establishes in all federal financial regulatory agencies an "Office of Minority and Women Inclusion" with responsibility for "diversity in management, employment and business activities."

It is doubtful that anyone can name a government agency that does not include an affirmative-action office or "diversity" department in its structure. The infrastructure of the diversity network is vast.

More than anything else, the pursuit of diversity overshadows and subordinates excellence and competence and often makes us content with mediocrity. The late economist Milton Friedman once told me that "Freedom to compete fairly for university admissions, jobs and contracts is central to all that America professes to be."

In a recent column on these pages, Stanford's Shelby Steele observed that "the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. . . . Talk of 'merit' or 'a competition of excellence' in the admissions office of any Ivy League university today and then stand by for the howls of academic laughter." As a former regent of the University of California, I can confirm that these howls, and worse, are not confined to the Ivy League.

When former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ruled in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision that the use of race preferences was constitutional while in the pursuit of diversity, she offered the hope that such preferences would no longer be necessary by 2028. Eight years later, the federal government is moving further away from Justice O'Connor's goal, not closer.

The longer we allow preferences to endure in the guise of diversity, the more damage will be done to the nation. If the president is serious about America rededicating itself to our ideals—which are liberty, economic opportunity for all, individual merit and the principle of equality—then he should begin with rescinding his executive order on affirmative action, calling on Congress to repeal Section 342 of Dodd-Frank, and paring back the burdensome and redundant diversity network that exists within the federal government.

Finally, he should urge Americans to embrace the color-blind vision of John F. Kennedy, who said that "race has no place in American life or law, and of Martin Luther King Jr., who dreamed of the day when the color of his children's skin would be subordinate to the content of their character.
This next article was written in response to Ward Connerly's by different interest groups. 

Affirmative Action Is Still Needed for Racial Equality

Regarding Ward Connerly's "What Happened to Post-Racial America?" (op-ed, Oct. 4): Having a black man as the president of the U.S. or the head of a corporation doesn't prove there's a level playing field in American society. If there were, the unemployment rate for blacks and Hispanics wouldn't be significantly higher than for whites, and women wouldn't be paid significantly less than their male counterparts.

To Mr. Connerly, the federal government's equal opportunity programs apparently work a little too well. Otherwise, how could blacks be overrepresented in the federal work force—by a modest 4% above their share of the population? That's nothing, however, compared to the number of industries where women and minorities are severely underrepresented, like on Wall Street. Studies by the Government Accountability Office show that a lack of sustained commitment on the part of Wall Street has resulted in limited diversity in senior management positions, which is why Rep. Maxine Waters's legislation aimed at ensuring everyone has access to opportunities while improving diversity is so necessary.

Finally, Mr. Connerly also offers no proof for his assertion that equal opportunity initiatives and a focus on diversity lead inexorably to a mediocrity that is damaging the nation. He continues to misconstrue the Grutter v. Bollinger decision regarding diversity in education. To quote the Supreme Court, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

Wade Henderson

President and CEO

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Washington

Ward Connerly conveniently ignores evidence that discrimination and inequality continue to block access to even the most basic opportunities that every American should be able to expect. Considering race by itself is not the cure-all for the inequalities that persist in America today. But the fact remains that programs considering race have been successful in improving prospects for people of color, women and others who have been denied opportunity historically and even today.

The true state of bias and inequality in America is told in the numerous studies and statistics showing that African-Americans and Latinos are almost a third more likely to get a high-priced loan than white borrowers with the same credit scores, or that African-Americans with no criminal record are less likely to be called back for a job interview than similarly qualified whites with a felony conviction. The current median wealth of white households is now 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanics—the most lopsided it has been since the government began publishing data a quarter-century ago. Black and Hispanic unemployment is twice that of whites, and blacks are 70% more likely to lose their homes to foreclosures.

All of these are stark reminders that even if the disease of discrimination and inequality is in some ways less virulent than it has been in the past, it is premature to pronounce it cured. Eliminating affirmative action would be a tragedy which would only move us further from the goals of fairness and excellence that Mr. Connerly claims to support.

Dennis Parker

American Civil Liberties Union

New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Stand do Interest Groups Take on Affirmative Action?

There are numerous interest groups and organizations in America. However, I found a few, in my opinion, that could easily be called the main groups on affirmative action. All of these groups work to promote affirmative action in the United States. Each one of them have called on the Congress to reject anti-affirmative action bills. They are listed as the following: 

• ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

"Affirmative action programs – including targeted outreach and recruitment efforts, the use of non-traditional criteria for hiring and admissions, after-school and mentorship programs, and training and apprenticeship opportunities – are tailored to fit specific instances where race and gender must be taken into account in order to provide fair and equal access to minorities and women. These programs recognize and strive to correct the barriers that continue to block the paths of many individual Americans, including women, Native Americans, Arab Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans. Affirmative action helps ensure equal access to opportunities and brings our nation closer to the ideal of giving everyone a fair chance. We support affirmative action and other race- and gender-conscious policies as vital tools in the struggle to provide all Americans with equal opportunity, to promote diversity in academic and professional settings, and to give each and every one of us a fair chance to compete." ( "Striving for Equal Opportunity: Why the ACLU Supports Affirmative Action," March 2008) 

• CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
• NOW (National Organization for Women)

"Despite the enormous gains made by the civil rights and women's rights movements, women and people of color still face unfair obstacles in business and education. An astonishing 70% of schools are not in compliance with Title IX, the federal equal education opportunity law...
Affirmative Action programs merely acknowledge that hundreds of years of discrimination cannot be erased in a few decades and still hold women and people of color back. Affirmative Action is the bridge between changing the laws and changing the culture.
The radical right wing would have us believe that women and people of color earn less because we don't work as hard or we're not as smart. That simply isn't the case. Laws have changed, but discrimination persists. Affirmative Action only opens doors, women and people of color have to walk through those doors by themselves." ("Talking About Affirmative Action," November 2009)

• LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens)
• NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

These next interest groups are only based on working for civil rights and affirmative action.

• LCCR (Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights)
• AAAA (American Association on Affirmative Action)
• BAMN (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary) 

Who Does the Affirmative Action Benefit and Harm?

Affirmative Action is a benefit to not only minorities and women but to the whole society. It supports equality, equal opportunity, and racial diversity. Did you know women and minorities do not have the same rights as white men?


- For every 1 dollar a man makes, a woman earns 0.70 cents.
-56 companies out of 100 had no women or Black, Latino, Asian, or American Indian representation in the highest-paid executive positions.
-The America's Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan Program provides loans of up to $35,000 to help small businesses make it through the recession. Of the nearly 4,500 loans handed out this year, 3 percent went to Hispanic-owned businesses, 3 percent went to Asian-owned businesses, and only 1.5 percent went to Black-owned businesses. More than 91 percent of these loans went to White-owned businesses. (The Leadership Conference 2010)


This shows that although affirmative action exists in majority of states, it still needs to go a long way to achieve its goal. If we ban this policy, then many dreams of minorities and  women will be shattered.  Studies show that companies have seen an increase in minority representation including Microsoft Corporation, whose minority workforce has increased from 16.8% to 25.6% in February 2003.  (Brief for Amici Curiae, 65 Leading American Businesses in Support of Respondents, Americans for a Fair Chance, 2003)


While researching, you will find statistics on both sides of the debate. There are many websites that will say affirmative action hurts white men. This can be true. I am not denying it. However, the positives outweigh the negatives. For example, in University of California, San Diego (UCSD), whites students that made up the college dropped from 40 % in 1998 to 29% in 2009. This shows that banning affirmative action does not help white students. Therefore, all in all, affirmative action is a win-win situation.

Democrats and Republicans on Affirmative Action

What do the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have to say about affirmative action? Well, in general, majority of the Democrats support affirmative action, while Republicans tend to oppose it. The Democratic Party is in favor of reaching racial diversity and promoting equal opportunities for women and minorities. The Republican Party, on the other hand, believes that everyone should work for their success and that affirmative action goes against meritocracy, progress based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth. However, they support economic-based affirmative action. Then again, there are always some shades of gray. One will find a Democrat following Republican ideals and vice versa.



On April 19, 2011, this is what Ron Paul had to say about affirmative action,

"Governments have notoriously written laws that segregated people whether by race, gender or sexual orientation. This practice was common from the time of slavery until the policy was replaced with affirmative action and forced association in private affairs, thus substituting one set of violations of individual rights with another. Voluntary associations are better. Quotas and affirmative action programs are based on certain groups qualifying for special privileges. Reversing the discrimination hasn't brought people together. Resentment remains in many areas but not where character and talent are the tests of one's ability. Even more appalling is the presumption that wherever blacks and whites and others associate freely, it is due solely to government laws that have forced the issue. The idea here is that if people are left to their own devices, they will always and everywhere choose homogeneity in their social associations. I can't imagine a stranger view of the human condition."

In 2009, Barack Obama supported affirmative action by saying, 

"I support affirmative action. When there is strong evidence of prolonged and systemic discrimination by organizations, affirmative action may be the only meaningful remedy available. Given the dearth of black and Latino Ph.D. candidates in mathematics and the sciences, for example, a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields won't keep white students out of such programs, but can broaden the pool of talent that we need to prosper in the new economy. We shouldn't ignore that race continues to matter: To suggest that our racial attitudes play no part in the socio-economic disparities that we often observe turns a blind eye to both our history and our experience - and relieves us of the responsibility to make things right."

Statistics show, according to Pew Research Center, Among self-described Democrats and independents who "lean" Democratic, majorities of African Americans (60%) and Hispanics (57%) say every effort should be made to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment. By contrast, just 31% of white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor blacks and other minorities getting preferential treatment, while 66% are opposed.

The opinions of white Democrats on this issue are closer to those of white Republicans than they are to those of non-white Democrats. Just 12% of white Republicans favor giving minorities preferential treatment to improve their condition.

Sally Kern's words on blacks and women created a great stir in Oklahoma. In less than 24 hours, she made a formal apology to the public. The Republican Party refused to reprimand Kern. Republican Paul Wesselhoft was harshly critical of the reprimand. He said that it " flies in the face of every Sunday school lesson I've ever had. Kern issued a sincere apology. My faith teaches me that I'm to forgive." 

On the other hand, the Democratic Party was not too willing to let Kern of the hook easily. The party took the opportunity to condemn the Republican Party by saying, "Rep. Sally Kern's comments on the House Floor this evening in regards to SJR 15 shows that discrimination is far from dead and affirmative action is still necessary in our great state."

The Manual for the Affirmative Action Program in Oklahoma

While researching about affirmative action, I found this wonderful site which explains the manual of the Affirmative Action Program here in Oklahoma. The manual was designed to help agencies in the development of the system of affirmative action and provide guidelines on what actually affirmative action should accomplish. It includes methods, procedures, and directions for the Affirmative Action Program to supervise, assess, and implement the work of this policy. This manual is the legit instruction on how to execute the affirmative action policy.

*Manual for Affirmative Action Plans in Oklahoma State Government*

Then, this next link also includes signatures of the director, Howard H. Hendrick, of DHS, Department of Human Services, on the policy statement on affirmative action. 

*Affirmative Action Plan: OKDHS*

Sally Kern Undermines Women and Black People.

Why is it that our society does not live harmoniously? Let me tell you. It is because people of each race and gender are ignorant of one another and believe that they are superior to them. If you want proof, then let me provide you with one. Read it and Weep!


Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don't work as hard and lack ambition.


"We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I've taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn't study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”


Kern then said that women earned less than men because "they tend to spend more time at home with their families."


Kern's comment proved why it is necessary for not just Oklahoma, but the entire United States to have affirmative action. Naturally, if someone was targeted, he or she would feel the need to protect him/herself. Then, why is it the people wonder whether affirmative action is for the betterment of the society? Unfortunately, there are numerous people who support Kern's distorted ideology: the association of minorities with poverty and the lack of education. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. It is not right to take away an important part of the minority's society when they already have so little. 

A Closer Look At SQ 759!

Banning affirmative action in Oklahoma is an indirect way of saying, "Watch out minorities and women! You will be targeted!" Over the summer, the Oklahoma State Legislature passed the State Question 759, which if the majority approves in 2012, will prohibit the implementation of affirmative action. Here is how SQ 759 will appear on next year's ballot:


"This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new section 36 to Article II. It will not allow special treatment or discrimination based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. It gives exceptions for some situations. It sets out remedies for violations.” 


Do not be fooled by what it promises because this will only result in Oklahoma's loss. States that have banned affirmative action have seen a decrease in the population of minorities and women in colleges, universities, and jobs. For example, in California, at UC Davis, the percentage of new faculty hires dramatically dropped from 52% of women to 13%. Similarly, in Washington State, after affirmative action was restricted, the share of Seattle public works contracts awarded to women or minority owned firms dropped by 25%. In fact, the numbers of black and Latino students drop 16 to 17 percent at schools with affirmative action bans.


Personally, I believe, considering the time the whole United States is in, any loss will be destructive. As these statistics show, SQ 759 is a terrible trap that we might get caught in if we do not vote against it on 2012's ballot!

SQ 759 WILL APPEAR ON 2012'S BALLOT: The House of Representative Has Passed It!

OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fifty-Third Legislature

First Regular Session

SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment:

Prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex in public

YEAS:   59

    Armes              Grau               McNiel             Sanders           

    Billy              Hardin             Moore              Schwartz           

    Blackwell          Hickman            Mulready           Sears             

    Brumbaugh          Holland            Murphey            Shannon           

    Casey              Jackson            Nelson             Shoemake          

    Cockroft           Johnson            Newell             Sullivan          

    Condit             Jordan             Nollan             Terrill           

    Coody              Joyner             Ortega             Thomsen           

    Cooksey            Kern               Peterson           Tibbs             

    Dank               Kirby              Proctor            Trebilcock        

    Derby              Lockhart           Quinn              Vaughan           

    DeWitt             Martin,Sc.         Richardson         Wesselhoft        

    Dorman             Martin,Sc.         Roberts,D.         Wright            

    Farley             McCullough         Roberts,S.         Mr.Speaker        

    Faught             McDaniel,R.        Russ              

    

NAYS:   14

    Cannaday           Hoskin             Pruett             Virgin            

    Denney             McDaniel,J.        Rousselot          Williams          

    Fourkiller         Morrissette        Scott             

    Hamilton           Pittman            Sherrer           

    

EXCUSED:   28

    Banz               Hall               McPeak             Ritze             

    Bennett            Hilliard           Morgan             Roan               

    Brown              Inman              Osborn             Shelton           

    Christian          Key                Ownbey             Shumate           

    Cox                Kouplen            Peters             Stiles             

    Enns               Liebmann           Renegar            Walker            

    Glenn              McAffrey           Reynolds           Watson

 

CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE:  0

 

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SJR15_VOTES.HTM#RCS0837

 

 

SQ 759 Passed in the Senate

OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE

                     53rd LEGISLATURE

        1st Regular Session

SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment:

Prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex

YEAS:   31

Aldridge       Brown         Johnson, R.       Reynolds

Allen          Coates        Jolley            Russell

Anderson       Crain         Justice           Schulz

Barrington     David         Marlatt           Shortey

Bingman        Fields        Mazzei            Stanislawski

Branan         Ford          Myers             Sykes

Brecheen       Halligan      Newberry          Treat

Brinkley       Holt          Nichols   

NAYS:   15

    

Ballenger      Ellis         Laster           Sparks

Bass           Garrison      Lerblance        Wilson

Burrage        Ivester       Paddack          Wyrick

Eason Mc       Johnson, C.   Rice

EXCUSED: 2

Adelson        Simpson

NOT VOTING: 0

THE DEBATE OVER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself- ACLU

The United States has had a long history of recorded battles, struggles, and hardships. Although it was founded on the basis of life, liberty, and justice for all, the laws implemented refused giving the citizens rights that they were owners of. Sexism, discrimination, and slavery were some of the issues that plagued the society at different points in the past. Eventually, the government sought to reform these problems. It established additional laws to counter them. To reduce prejudice and discrimination, the Executive Order 10925 was passed. Over the years, it was altered to best fit the people. Today, this law is known as affirmative action, a policy that increases representation of women and minorities in race. Basically it ensures the right of equal opportunity for all races and genders in education, employment, and government.

A few states, Michigan, California, Washington, and Texas, have banned affirmative action. In Oklahoma, the debate has begun once again on whether affirmative action should be implemented. State Question 759, prohibiting equal opportunities for women and minorities, will appear on 2012’s ballot. Why is it that an increasing number of the population has become against affirmative action? This is because there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Following are some of the arguments against affirmative action.


1. It is unfair for a person to be judged on their race. Who a person is cannot be controlled. Colleges and the government should look at an applicant’s scores, integrity, and competency instead of his or her gender or race. It is inappropriate for a certain race to have advantages that the other does not.


2. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. White males are not being given their right of equal opportunity. For example, a white, hard-working student and a black, lethargic student both apply for college. The college will most likely choose the black student in order to follow the policy and to promote diversity in the college. How is this fair for the white student?


3. Minorities and women are only chosen to complete the policy of affirmative action, not based on their merits. Affirmative action angers a large number of people because it makes them feel that they were accepted to college or in government just because of who they were. They do not want to seem undermined or inferior to the whites.  

Although the number of people against affirmative action continues to grow, the larger population continues to support it. These are their reasons:


1. Diversity is needed to counter discrimination. If students learn in a multi-cultural society, then it will reduce discrimination. Opinions about minorities are often stereotypical. Affirmative action will help students learn about other races and understand that all the races are like each other.


2. Students that are at a disadvantage are given a boost.  Minority students often come from a low class society and usually are not given opportunities that other students have. Affirmative action ensures the right of equal opportunity. It guarantees that no child is left behind.


3. Affirmative action brings people to areas of study that they might never have and increases representation in government. In the past, women did not have the right to work as doctors, engineers, scientists, and more. Now a growing number of fields are becoming filled with women. In fact, in 2009, a Hispanic woman, Sonia Sotomayor, became the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic Justice.


These were the arguments on the debate over affirmative action. Both sides have valid points to contribute. It just depends on which side has a stronger effect on the people.