Affirmative Action is 40 Years Old…Now What?

Since being introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson forty years ago, Affirmative Action has been the subject of debate by many people seeking to understand racial disparities in areas such as education and jobs. Was Johnson right when he said this institution was the next step in securing Civil Rights for all Americans? Probably, but as America would come to realize, there would be several limitations to this claim.

But it does not go without saying that the idea was not necessary, however. For example, as racial minorities and specifically black Americans endured slavery, the Jim Crow era and for generations did not have access to schools, opportunities and jobs that were only available to their white counterparts, anything to address this unequal dichotomy was a step in the right direction.

Yet the policy Johnson created was deeply rooted in misunderstanding and hasty actions that still permeate today's notion of what Affirmative Action is and should be, thus giving people an askew view of race relations in regards to the fair treatment of people in society.

The institution is misunderstood because its premise, as touted by Johnson and early supporters suggested that by establishing quotas, quick fixes to America's education and economics problems would be the result. Although later the Supreme Court would rule against the notion of having quotas in aspects of society, people were free to shape the institution in a way that best fit their goals or organization.

As a result, today there are many major companies and schools that claim they are diverse organizations because they have one or two "token" people of color among the ranks. Maybe this system fits the standards of some places in America, but by using this type of methodology, people indirectly, whether conscious or not, uphold the idea of a quota system.

And because of this, there exists a society that promotes placing faces of color in schools and employment, leaving people left to wonder if they got somewhere by "Affirmative Action standards" or individual merit. That is not to say, that those people of color who are in jobs and schools are not meritorious in their own right, but in some cases, they were not evaluated in that way, instead they were only looked to as a diversification factor.

So with this in mind, Affirmative Action in the sense that it has come to be known is controversial. Three years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case about the admission procedures at the University of Michigan and basically upheld what we know to be Affirmative Action by arguing that race can be used as one of the admission criteria because it could be a factor in making sure talented students come from all backgrounds.

This policy, okay for now perhaps, is still not the solution. Companies and schools should start to take in other factors to address the color issue. Demographics, for example, should be an effort to drive diversity in the economy. The U.S. Census predicts that by 2020 Hispanic and Asian American populations will rise at least by 4 percent than what they are now, and the African American population will increase by 2 percent. Additionally, by 2020, women will make up 50 percent of the U.S. workforce. These trends, and with the understanding that diversity and creativity can produce a profitable economy is key.

Also, America needs to invest in educating the children of the future. All children should be afforded the same type of education in K-12. This does not take in account the rate and how children learn, but what it does do, however, is reinforce what Affirmative Action could have been all along: true equality for all Americans.

So if the playing field is leveled when children first begin school, at least by the time they are ready to compete for college admissions and jobs, they can be evaluated on how well they performed against all people no matter their race because everyone had the same primary educational circumstances. This, in turn, will make companies and schools more competitive with foreign markets that are competing to gain American consumers.

But with these realizations comes America's recognizing its poor communities and understanding how they got that way as a means of correcting the problem. If not, we will continue to see the stark inequalities that have existed for so long between the haves and have-nots, repeating the cycle of misunderstanding.