Affirmative Action at Its Most Objective Definition,

Affirmative Action

At its most objective definition, affirmative action entails "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded." Affirmative action acknowledges the presence of institutionalized and systematic forms of discrimination: which may not be apparent to members of the dominant or privileged culture. For example, white males will not even notice that no Blacks serve on the boards of directors in companies he works for. Affirmative action is a policy that seeks to correct institutionalized and systematic discrimination by seeing to it that diversity is both a means and an end. To deny the validity of affirmative action would be to deny that racism or sexism still exist. Given that human beings exhibit poor judgement based on their background, upbringing, and psychological biases, and given the presence of institutionalized discrimination, affirmative action remains an important and meaningful policy.

Affirmative action achieves several goals that are Constitutionally-supported as well as being ideologically sound in a democratic nation. First, affirmative action places non-white minorities and women into visible and practical positions of power so that they serve as role models for youth. Second, affirmative action places non-white minorities and women into positions of power so that they can make decisions based on their core values rather than continue to submit to the dominant culture or the core values shared only by the existing white male hegemony. Third, affirmative action reduces the impact of institutionalized and systematic discrimination, which tracks non-white students into vocational rather than erudite scholarly paths or tracks females into the path of domestic servitude.

Affirmative action corrects the imbalances in the existing power structure by ensuring access to positions of power by those typically excluded such as non-whites and females. Sykes (2010) defines affirmative action as "the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Therefore, affirmative action should not be too narrowly defined to refer only to race. If the United States Constitution guarantees equal access and equal opportunity then affirmative action remains a necessary public policy. Equal access and equal opportunity are not yet guaranteed without affirmative action because of subconscious discrimination or bias and because of institutionalized or systematic discrimination.

The major strength of an argument in favor of affirmative action is that the policies help the United States truly live up to its ideal of freedom, liberty, and equality. Whereas the Constitution guarantees freedom, liberty, and equality, the document does not outline exactly how those goals may be achieved. Affirmative action is one method by which the United States can achieve that goal. Left to the discretion of private institutions and employers, discrimination continues to prevent non-whites and women from achieving social, economic, and political parity. A glass ceiling is still preventing the manifestation of American ideals.

The major weaknesses of the affirmative action argument are as follows. First, quota systems of affirmative action reduce the importance of merit on admissions or selections procedures. Quota systems have been a small part of affirmative action programs. Second, as the playing field does become more level, affirmative action will need to be phased out gradually. It will be difficult to know when and how to draw that line. Third, Barack Obama did not become President of the United States because of affirmative action and therefore the policy might not be as efficacious or necessary as presumed. Fourth, affirmative action can be misconstrued as "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism."

The values that are embraced by affirmative action include all those that underwrite the American value system. Equality of opportunity is the most important value that affirmative action policies uphold. Affirmative action is by definition a set of policies that ensures equality of opportunity.

Affirmative action does potentially and ironically undermine the value of equality. In fact, some affirmative action policies may take place of a pure meritocracy by offering preferential treatment. If non-whites and females are given preferential treatment, then they are not being allowed to be judged on their own merits. Therefore, affirmative action is detracting from the very values it seeks to promote. Theoretically, true equality actually suffers when affirmative action policies are in place because not all applicants are being treated equally.

The best rebuttal against affirmative action is that it helps no one, including non-whites and women. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, because preferential treatment is given to women and non-whites. Affirmative action enables those who are less qualified to receive admissions or promotions than those who are truly deserving of the positions. Affirmative action creates resentment, and affirmative action prevents non-whites and women from the satisfaction of overcoming adversity.

Many who might benefit from affirmative action, such as non-whites and women, oppose affirmative action policies and therefore support the rebuttal. Froomkin (1998) points out, "while many minorities and women support affirmative action, a growing number say its benefits are no longer worth its side effect: the perception that their success is unearned." Another reason why the rebuttal is a strong one was epitomized by the Bakke case of 1978, in which "Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs, which in this case had unfairly discriminated against a white applicant," (Brunner 2007).

The weaknesses of the rebuttal are more powerful than its strengths. After all, the Supreme Court continually bolsters Affirmative Action policies after reviewing key cases. A relatively recent case settled in 2003 showed that the Supreme Court determined a 'compelling state interest' in diversity at all levels of society," (cited by Brunner 2007). The United States Department of Labor also upholds the value of affirmative action. Moreover, affirmative action is still absolutely necessary for practical reasons: "Judging simply by the results, the playing field would appear to still be tilted very much in favor of white men. Overall, minorities and women are in vastly lower paying jobs and still face active discrimination in some sectors," (Froomkin 1998). Those who cry reverse discrimination simply do not understand what it means to be on the other end of the stick: the short end. The most important weakness of the rebuttal is that it reveals a complete ignorance of what institutionalized and systematic discrimination are. Young girls are still given messages via the media and even their own role models that they will find fulfillment only in child-rearing, and young African-Americans still do not have access to community organizations and a culture of prosperity. When non-whites and females are allowed to make the rules, rather than simply be expected to follow them, then affirmative action will have achieved its goals. Until then, the dominant culture is still created and sustained by males, whites, and the wealthy.