Affirmative Action: A One Sided Argument!

Today anyone who has ever applied for employment, held a job, continued their education, or even joined the military is familiar with affirmative action to one degree or another. Some may only be aware of what others have told them verbally or in print and may have had no real exposure to this everyday social phenomenon. Therefore many may tend to believe what they have been told simply because many individuals speak the same rehearsed rhetoric. What many fail to notice is what is said between the lines, and often remains unsaid. Every story has two sides as is with the case of affirmative action. Many often see one side of the coin and never flip it over to reveal the other side, so it goes unsaid and unnoticed by the masses. However, the unspoken truth is there are many victims of affirmative action who never get a fair shake and nobody defends their rights and speaks up for them. Affirmative action was originally used to level the playing field and give everyone a fair chance. Sadly, it has instead given some groups an unfair advantage, by taking away the rights of others to compete fairly for jobs and education in our society today.

The group that largely remains in the back of the line when it comes to equal treatment for everyone is the white male. In today's world we are last in line to get hired and often the first to be let go. Such things like who has the best qualifications to do a job, or the best test scores to qualify for college entry often no longer apply. First considerations and preferential treatment often go to minorities, females, and bilingual speaking persons even if their actual qualifications are inadequate for the position. Time in grade or (time on the job,) are also no longer a consideration in promotions, and white males who may justly deserve a promotion are bypassed and let go because they are not black, not female, or don't speak Spanish.

The Encarta Dictionary defines reverse discrimination as "discrimination against a member of a social group generally regarded as dominant or privileged, for example, in employment or admission to a university." (Microsoft WorksEncarta Dictionary, 2003). I know from first hand experience throughout my life that these injustices happen often, since they have happened to me many times. When I walk into a job interview I expect to be the last considered for a job, I expect the look, and can often see the words next candidate on an interviewers face as soon as I walk into the room. In many cases I know before a word is said that I have no chance and should turn around and leave, but I do my best anyway vainly hoping to change their minds. Now the stage is set and perhaps you have a better look into how affirmative action affects the rest of us, it's the other side of the coin most people never look at. So here I have selected two articles to discuss to show a different point of view and just how fair affirmative action and some opposing view points really are.

The first article I picked to discuss is Borgna Brunner's article titled "Bakke and Beyond'" in which this article discusses how affirmative action, while relevant and necessary in its time, has been plagued by problems and abuses since its inception in 1965. In the article he states "From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans" (Brunner 2). Unfortunately once the playing field was leveled affirmative action was never changed to reflect today's realities and is now waived around like a get out of jail free card which allows the holder to go to the front of the line bypassing the measures original intention. Many flaws in the system have popped up through the years as interested groups tacked more policies to the original concept distorting its original goal. One such flaw is the quota system in which a man named Allen Bakke, a white male, had discovered. The quota system's guidelines were found by him to be inflexible and he was rejected two years in a row from a medical school on the basis that a certain number of minority applications had to be accepted regardless of their qualifications. In the Supreme Court ruling of the case the quota system was outlawed and found to unfairly discriminate against a white applicant. Unfortunately, while it was found to be unfair, the practice was still allowed to continue under the guise of affirmative action.

In the article it discusses how a backlash against affirmative action began to mount. Conservatives decidedly agreed that the system opened the door for jobs, promotions, or education to minorities while slamming it shut in the faces of whites. An observation that came to light was even stated in the article: "some unqualified minorities were getting a free ride on the American system; "Preferential treatment" and "quotas" became expressions of contempt" (Brunner 2). Even worse was the stated observation "minorities enjoyed playing the role of professional victim" (Brunner 2). A question arouse from these observations that even today has not been answered and that is: "Why could some minorities who had also experienced terrible adversity and racism - Jews and Asians, in particular - manage to make the American way work for them without government handouts?" (Brunner 2).

The article pointed out that in the 60's and 70's the white man was still considered and I quote: "the undisputed rulers of the roost when it came to salaries, positions, and prestige" (Brunner 2). While this perception may have been true back then, it has not been true since the mid 80's. The white male has been left out in the cold in many job opportunities ever since. In my area, for example, it is not uncommon to walk into many job interviews and find the white male is the minority in many work places, and many times white males have even been turned away at the door being told things like we only hire black people, or sorry we only hire bilingual speaking candidates.

In the articles section (Black-and White Polemics Turn Gray) it unfairly mentions the case of (Paradise (1987))and portrays the Alabama Department of Public Safety as racist because they refused a court order to promote any black above an entry level position. However according to actual court documents (United States v. Paradise) the facts of the case are: "In response to a series of NAACP-initiated lawsuits in the 1970s, the Alabama Department of Public Safety was required to implement a promotion scheme in which half of the department's promotions to certain ranks would go to black officers if enough qualified blacks were available" (Goldman 3). In reality what this ultimately meant was that regardless of how many white employees there were employed at the time only half the promotions would go to them. No longer would decisions be made solely on the number of qualified candidates available. Instead half the promotion slots would be only for blacks. Think about it; let's say there were six promotion slots available, and twenty candidates, but only three of the candidates where black. Regardless of qualifications, time in grade, or ratios all three black candidates are sent to the front of the line and promoted. Now that is the reality of affirmative action, no longer do we consider applicants qualifications for a position, now we have to base our discussions solely on race first.

Overall Brunner makes good argument based more on the results and causes of affirmative action and thusly bases his opinion on the fact that affirmative action is a useful tool in the cause to create equality for all that is broken and outdated, and that it no longer serves the same purpose it was originally intended for. Often its benefits are outweighed by the overzealous abuses the system enjoys at the white males expense. I found the method he used to gain the readers interest was straightforward and in most cases pointed out the obvious flaws in the system by showing us the ill effects of affirmative action, rather than spouting outdated lines that no longer apply in the real world today that others enjoy repeating erroneously. I found his explanations and examples true to the real world problems many white males face and many often ignore in today's society. I know from experience that many of the examples he discussed in his article are not only true, but commonplace in today's workplace since they have also happened to me. In my eyes the author's use of court cases and real world examples lays a solid foundation of creditability that is hard to ignore or dispute.

My second article is authored by Ward Connerly and is called "Taking It to Michigan." This article is the text of a speech he delivered at the University of Michigan announcing the start of a Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, and it supports an initiative in the state to end racial preferences in that state. Keep in mind the author is a black man who sees the injustices of affirmative action and whom agrees the system needs to be changed. The article starts off setting the stage by describing the ideals we value in the patriotic imagery of the American way of life with picnic's, The Declaration of Independence, and our desires to be free and equal individuals regardless of race, sexual preferences, status, or gender.

He provides some historical data to set the stage which guides our thoughts up to points in our history with statements such as "the avenue of freedom and equality began on July 4, 1776 with the proclamation that "all men are created equal." it continued on July 9, 1868 when we enshrined as a constitutional principle the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:" ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." (Connerly 1), and it then ends with Congress enacting the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Which states: "Therein, we breathed life into that declaration of our ideals and the constitutional principle of equal treatment" (Connerly 1).

Now I included all those profound statements to show a pattern, and that is that in all these historical events they all talk about fair and equal treatment for all. You will notice that nowhere does it mention phrases like "preferential treatment," or please step to the front of the line. They clearly state that everyone should be treated equal and have the right to equal opportunities under the law. So how did we go from equal treatment to having unbalanced playing fields were fairness and equality has gone straight out the window? Simple, many parties felt that just being treated as an equal was not enough, and wanted more. So many rules, regulations, and policies have been added on to tilt the odds in one groups favor at the expense of other's rights. One such tilt is allowing Universities to discriminate on the basis of race which has the result of restricting who can get into an educational institution at any given time, without regards to such things as test scores, school records, and other qualifying factors that in the past determined who got into a school, factors by the way that still can apply in many places to us white folks and not to minorities.

In the article it contains a statement made by Justice O'Conner which says: "To deny Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter access to UM in the name of "Diversity" is a distinction without difference in denying James Meredith access to "Ole Miss" because of his race. The presumed nobleness of the cause does not wash away the fact that discrimination has occurred and an injustice has been perpetrated" (Connerly 1). Of course like in other cases of its kind while courts admit many practices done in the name of affirmative action are wrong, they sidestepped doing anything to correct or prevent future injustices and decided not to make any discussions on the issue for another twenty five years.

Connerly uses specific phrases to target his reader' attentions and channel them toward an inescapable conclusion that the system, while initially intending good, has gone astray from the path and broke down, and is in desperate need of change. His tone throughout the article is one well educated, focused, and based squarely on the shoulders of historic events of the quest for equality in our society. His discussion is mainly well mannered and does not employ slang or misinformation to distract the reader from his prime objective, to make a well understood point of view. Therefore his creditability on the subject is fairly high since everything he stated is easily verifiable or common knowledge among conservatives and liberals alike.

In comparing both authors' styles I find that both Borgna Brunner and Ward Connerly used similar styles based on the point that each based their articles on past historical documented facts without much deviation from the truth. Both in their perspective writing fashion used credible facts to back up what they said. Both used a professional tone that belied the facts at hand in a straight forward manner. The contrast in found between the two would be in how they wrote their pieces while Ward Connerly's language was from a scholarly and well mannered point of view, yet it had the undertones of a man on a mission for change that included personal views and observations throughout the piece. Borgna Brunner's view point was more that of a historian since he mainly only discussed historic facts and not personal views or observations. In creditability however I would have to say that I found Borgna Brunner's article and viewpoints to be far more credible because he stuck to documented facts and did not fluff his piece up by waiving the flag, apple pie, and mom around like he was plying for a political office.

In closing, my experiences and beliefs are laced in throughout the piece so while I feel everything is based on facts and actual events; you must keep in mind as you read this piece you are on a journey. As with any interactive journey to get the full experience and flavor of it you have to see through someone else's eyes to really experience the trip. So in order to understand my points of view as they relate to the articles you must be able to see the journey through my eyes and in so doing, relive my life's disappointments, frustrations, fears, and setbacks if not just a little bit. In so doing I hope you walk away with a better understanding of how the other half feels about affirmative action and understand that while it did for a while serve a good purpose, it no longer serves such a noble cause, and should be stopped. The sooner we all stop seeing things in terms of color, sex, or race and focus on our individual talents and the rights of everyone equally, the sooner we can grow as a human race and move up along the evolutionary scale of progression we were meant to.

Works Cited

Connerly, Ward. "Taking It To Michigan: Announcing the 'Michigan Civil Rights Act'". Online article. The National Review. 8 July 2003. www.nationalreview.com. 18 September 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-connerly070803.asp.

Brunner, Borgna. "Bakke and Beyond'". Online article. Infoplease. 5 July 2006. www.infoplease.com/. 25 April 2007. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html.

Goldman, Jerry "United States V. Paradise 480 U.S. 149 (1987)'". Online article. OYEZ. 2006. www.oyez.org/. 25 April 2007. http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/411/