Arguments Against Affirmative Action

¶ … Against Affirmative Action Contrary to the common perception, not all opponents of "Affirmative Action" are white males. Many African-Americans are also opposed to its continued application. For example, Ward Connerly, University of California Regent is black and a leading opponent of Affirmative Action.

He believes that: Affirmative action is an undesirable "crutch" for the black people on which they have started to depend believing that it is not possible to achieve anything without this "crutch." The original intent of Affirmative Action was to eliminate discrimination rather than having different standards for blacks and whites for university admissions and hiring in government jobs. Connerly views such "preferences" as discriminatory.

Affirmative Action poisons the relationships between different groups and builds resentment because of the wide-spread perception among the white males that it works to the advantage of the minorities at their cost. Connerly believes that preferences in jobs and admissions unnecessarily marginalize blacks, Latinos, and females who lose their sense of accomplishment by the "stigma" of having been given something instead of competing for it fairly in a level-playing field. (Montgomery, "Poison Divides Us.") Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, writing in the Cato Journal (Vol.

17, No. 1-Spring/Summer 1997) points out that: It is ironic that initially, civil rights organizations fought against the use of race in hiring, access to public schools, and university admissions while today, they fight for the use of race in the very same areas. He terms Affirmative Action a "zero-sum-game" and quotes the example of the UC, Berkeley's affirmative action program for blacks whereby blacks are admitted with average SAT scores of 952 compared to the average white score of 1232 and Asian student average of 1254.

He points out that the admissions gains by blacks are exactly matched by admissions losses by white and Asian students, which virtually defines a "zero sum game." Williams believes that a majority of the people (including blacks) oppose "preferential treatment." He quotes a 1992 Study by S.M. Lipset in support of his arguments in which more than 70% of the respondents are shown to oppose preferential treatment while only 24% support it. Among blacks, 66% oppose while 32% support preferential treatment.

John O'Sullivan, a National Review Editor opines: Diversity preference" is a cheap substitute for policies that could genuinely help the minorities -- including a cutback in immigration and low-wage competition; a strong law and order policy, and an appropriate education policy that assists the removal of children from dead end schools. (O'Sullivan, "Preferences...") He argues that support for Affirmative Action preferences comes from various interest groups who stand to gain directly from such programs.

These groups include lawyers and bureaucrats who profit in terms of income and power from administering such programs. He believes that preferences are supported by both the major political parties and its leadership due to their vested interests, i.e., the Democrats -- because their political base is rooted in the minority communities and the Republicans -- because they want to make inroads in that base.

O'Sullivan thinks that such support for "diversity" and "preferences" would only be reversed if voter initiatives "frighten" the political parties into changing their current support for Affirmative Action. 4. Popular support for the current affirmative action programs has shown a downward trend in recent years. For example, a CNN/USA Today poll of July 1995 gave respondents three options on affirmative action. Sixty-one % voted for the "need to reform"; 22% opined that affirmative action "needs to be eliminated" and only 8% favored the "status quo." (Galston) 5.

Legal support for Affirmative Action has also diminished in recent years. a. In the 1970s, Allan Bakke, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applicants due to a separate admissions policy for minorities. In its 1978 ruling, the Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs. (Brunner) b. The Adarand v. Pena (1995) ruling by the U.S.

Supreme Court held that an affirmative action program would have to pass a "strict" and "detailed" judicial inquiry of all race based actions and such programs must serve a "compelling" interest and must be "narrowly tailored." The ruling over-ruled previous decisions of the Supreme Court that had recommended "intermediate scrutiny" as the standard of review for "benign" federal racial classifications. ("The U.S.

Department of Justice -- Memorandum to General Counsels") According to most legal experts, the ruling means that objectives such as "diversity" and "inclusion" or addressing "societal discrimination" do not constitute a "compelling" reason. It also means that even when a "compelling" reason is found, race-based methods can only be used only after race-neutral methods have been considered and found inadequate and such race-based methods are applied only to the extent needed to remedy a specific discrimination.

(Galston; Eastland) The Supreme Court has thus recognized that Affirmative Action programs must only be used sparingly and only where specific evidence of previous discrimination exists. Perhaps the most important argument against Affirmative Action "preference" programs is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states: "no person shall on the ground of race, color, or national origin be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." (Quoted by Eastland) Works.