The Reality of the Affirmative Action Cases

Since Richard Nixon’s presidency, every Republican administration has taken steps to try and kill Affirmative Action. They and their conservative allies have miscast its purpose and its targeted audience. The current actions in front of the most conservative Supreme Court in recent memory continue to weaken the intent of the program, and simultaneously allow attorneys to use racial identities against students of color to deny them from obtaining access that symbolizes the American Dream. Each case brought before the court tries to stress that white students are victimized in an attempt to improve the nation. In this instance to highlight white victimization, white organizations are supporting Asian American groups thereby pitting Asian Americans against African Americans in the Harvard case, and supporting a white coalition to challenge the enrollment of African Americans and Latinos at UNC. 
The arguments against Affirmative Action always focus on "alleged losers". However, this is nothing more than a highlighting of the injustices against white protestant male students. Why? Because it is a strange denial of well-established fact. For to honestly engage in the current Affirmative Action critiques means that you must be aware of the long history of racial, ethnic, religious and gender discrimination in higher education. You must be aware of the use of quotas against Jews, Catholics, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and women. The logic before the court states that: if there have always been barriers against groups, and a set of white males have always been the benefactors, there is no reason why that practice should not continue. In contrast, the other side says that white males should relinquish some of their privilege to make room for the previously disenfranchised/marginalized groups. In the minds of many, Affirmative Action is nothing more than reversing the quotas. And to those who are now feeling the sting, they are crying foul!
There are several factors that must be considered. Foremost, Harvard is a private institution and does not need public, state or federal funding. UNC is public and relies on public dollars. North Carolina has a large African American population and a rapidly increasing Latino population. Racism clouds the history of both institutions and each one is working to guard against past injustices. 
Diversity actions, of some type, must be provided to achieve equity. If the Asian American group wins the Harvard case, white students will lose along with Native Americans, African Americans and Latinos. White students will have to rely on legacies and gifts to maintain their numbers. It will lead to a court case against privileged admissions. 
Some policy, whether or not you call it Affirmative Action, is needed to protect the rights of all Americans to gain access to the best institutions. There must be an inclusive plan that fosters academic settings that are culturally, sexually, racially, socially and economically diverse Unfortunately, I know that maintaining some form of Affirmative Action will reduce the percentage of white students at our elite colleges and universities. However, it will not stop anyone from attending college. Yes, there have been some severe problems in the past as we have tried to create “perfect” educational settings. Yet, we must admit that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s estimates of taking 40 years to achieve a fair and just society which will not need Affirmative Action are premature. It is time to rethink and conceptualize Affirmative Action. However, the goal should not be to end it. Ending it means acknowledging defeat and going backwards. We have seen what happened when it was curtailed in the flagship institutions in Washington, California, Florida and Texas. Those plans did not work and suddenly Latinos and African Americans found themselves unable to gain access to the best universities, and there were protests to decrease the increased numbers of Asian American students at Berkeley, UCLA, Santa Barbara and San Diego.
I think these two lawsuits are designed to do harm rather than good. America is better than this and we can do better. An honest remedy, not the gutting of Affirmative Action, should be proposed by the Supreme Court.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can We Talk About The Statues?

Another Historical Conversation Can We Really Talk About The Statues? The creation of the Confederate States of America is one of the unique chapters in the history of the United States. Formed in 1861 and concluded in 1865, this entity operated as a separate nation with its own governmental structure during the entirety of the Civil War. What is so important about the CSA is that it was a reflection of what Southerners believed failed in the United States. In essence it was the creation of a “more perfect” union that endorsed slavery and racial inequality.             Once the war efforts started to decline and it was apparent that the CSA was not going to succeed, divisions of the Confederate Army surrendered and Union troops hunted down and captured members of the CSA government including its president and vice president.   By December 1865, all vestiges of the CSA were defeated.      ...
Read more

A Really Big Lie

   Last weekend thousands of Russians were in the streets protesting. They did so in spite of extreme cold and a strong police presence. The protests took place in numerous cities and the protesters realized that their lives were in danger for challenging the authority of President Putin's government. Contrast that scene with recent protests in the United States. Americans are never afraid for their safety for their right to protest is protected by the Constitution. While the Russians knew they were protesting in support of opposition leader Aleksei Navalny and for democracy, often American protesters cannot fully articulate the issues for their anger or frustration. The January Washington protests are a case in point. Thousands of people came to Washington, D.C. for a rally and then afterwards were encouraged by the president to march to the Capitol. After gathering there, protesters decided to storm the building. However, why did they do this? What did they expect to achieve...
Read more

Why Not A Latina Justice?

The “E” Word Commenting on the announcement of Justice Souter’s retirement from the US Supreme Court, President Obama stated the one of the qualities he wanted in a nominee for the Supreme Court was empathy. This statement has caused much concern and shock among the news media and the Washington political and policy establishment. These entities collectively are struggling with concept that a President would use empathy as criteria for a Supreme Court Justice. Various commentators criticized the President for this criterion. Why empathy is such an important criteria? How did the President come up with such a crazy idea? The people who are struggling with this concept are looking and listening in the wrong places. They are forgetting or ignoring a key fact. The President and his wife are African-American lawyers. In the African-American and minority legal and political circles, subject of judicial empathy has been discussed continuously for at least nineteen years. African-Ame...
Read more