The Differing Arguments on the Results of Race-Based Affirmative Action in the United States of America

Affirmative action is a government-run strategy of addressing racial inequalities in the workplace of University admissions by using quotas; for instance, a University may be required to accept a certain percentage of ethnic minority students. Such programmes were conceived in the 1960s after segregation in the USA was outlawed. However, de facto segregation remained and therefore some Presidents initiated and supported affirmative action. There are conflicting viewpoints on this statement as supporters would say affirmative action has increased equality in the US, whilst opponents might claim that these initiatives have done the opposite of its intentions by sharpening racial divisions.

One argument to suggest that affirmative action has failed would be to say that certain programmes designed to increase equality of opportunity has entrenched the racial divide that surrounds American politics. Opponents of affirmative action have claimed that it has led to ‘reverse discrimination’, whereby white people have been discriminated against due to the use of quotas. This was clearly demonstrated in the Supreme Court Case University of California v. Bakke (1978). The Supreme Court ruled that Bakke had been discriminated against as a number of positions in medical school had been reserved for ethnic minorities, even though he was a highly qualified candidate. The University had violated the 14th Amendment and thus, it is evident that this case highlighted the hamartia of affirmative action. While its intentions may be to minimise racial inequalities, opponents argue that it has actually deepened racial divisions and can therefore can be concluded as a failure.

Moreover, affirmative action inevitably overlooks the concept of meritocracy – the idea that a position should be given to the most qualified candidate. This can have two implications, the first of which is that it incites reverse discrimination. However, what us more troubling is that affirmative action sets up less academically prepared candidates to fail.

As ethnic minorities are more likely to be trapped in the poverty cycle. They may have received a worse education than a white candidate and thus. Would struggle at a top University. This is called ‘mismatch theory’ and is therefore damaging to the reputation of affirmative action. Additionally, affirmative action promotes the neglection of socio- economic factors. A white candidate entrenched in the poverty cycle. Would not have the opportunity to go to a prestigious University because they are not of an ethnic minority background. This is clearly reflected by Espensuede and Radford’s research. Who found that to have the same chances of gaining admission to a University. As a black student with a SAT score of 1100, white students would need scores of 1410. Hence, affirmative action has failed because meritocracy is completely disregarded. Amplifying the effects of reverse discrimination and promoting the mismatch effect.

Thirdly, it is arguable that affirmative action has failed simply because Americans don’t want it anymore. Whilst it may have been relevant and useful 50 years ago. Citizens now feel that times have changed and that ethnic minorities no longer need a ‘helping hand’. In solid Democratic states, with highly diverse populations, affirmative action has been banned through the use of referendums. For example, in 1996, California held a referendum on Proposition 209 – the result was that 55% of Californians (including a large number of ethnic minorities) voted in favour of ending race-based programmes. Moreover, Republican states such as Texas have also banned affirmative action through Governor Bush’s Executive Order. This shows that across the political spectrum, citizens are in consensus that affirmative action is no longer relevant to the current political climate in the US.

Conversely, there are many counter-arguments to suggest that affirmative. Action has actually succeed in achieving its goals. Firstly, it is undeniable that affirmative action has increased the equality of opportunity for ethnic minorities; the US workforce today is remarkably different to that of the 1960s due to the effects of affirmative action. In the 1960s, President Johnson’s Executive Order and Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan increased the number of minorities in the workforce. Once again, the consensus across the spectrum reflected the support for such programmes. For instance, in 1968, a black male was 20% as likely as a white male to be employed in a managerial position. However, by 1998, this had risen to 50%. This significant increase implies that affirmative action programmes have improved the lives of ethnic minorities, helping them to escape the poverty cycle.

Furthermore, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is a myth that citizens favour the abolishment of affirmative action, and thus it hasn’t failed if Americans still want to see it. Opinion polls show that Americans resent quotas and reverse discrimination, but in general they favour race-based programmes. For example, a CNN poll found 58% favour affirmative action, showing it is still popular with the majority of citizens. Moreover, 47% of that figure favour such initiatives without the use of quotas. Therefore, if the federal government abolished these quotas, then Americans would welcome affirmative action and the issue of reverse discrimination would be minimised. Thus, the mythical illusion that Americans feel affirmative action is irrelevant is evidently false, so it has not failed in the eyes of the public.

Finally, affirmative action programmes have achieved their goals in ‘levelling the playing field’. These programmes were never supposed to be a permanent, ‘cure-all’ solution to address inequality. Justice O’Connor stated that in 25 years, affirmative action would no longer be needed – this reflects how affirmative action has been so successful that absolute equality of opportunity will be achieved. Even if it is true that states don’t want affirmative action, this must surely be a positive motion as those citizens may feel affirmative action has already achieved its aims in that area. In that sense, affirmative action must have been a success as these temporary programmes have marginalised racial tensions and de facto segregation across the US.

In conclusion, there are convincing arguments for and against the success of affirmative action. While proponents claim it has achieved its goals by increasing equality of opportunity for ethnic minorities, opponents argue it has done the opposite of its intentions by furthering racial inequality. The relevance of affirmative action in today’s politics is controversial. However, the arguments in for the success of affirmative action are more convincing than the critiquing statements, as it is undeniable that affirmative action has transformed US society from a segregated nation in the 1960s, to a much more equal country, where think minorities are considered level by the majority of the US population.

Cite this page