BETH: I understand what you are saying but that isn’t what Affirmative Action is meant to do. In many cases, the two individuals are not a perfect match as you seem to imply. Using your example, imagine that this African American man comes from an inner city school system. As we all know, inner city schools aren’t as well funded nor have the resources or the strong teaching base that private schools or even suburban public schools do. Now you come from a suburban schools where the resources are much more advanced and the teaching quality is much better. What affirmative action seeks to do is try to level the playing field as much as possible. Who knows what would have happened if the African American man would have been put into your situation? Maybe he would have done better. And this is the point of admissions committees.
BETH: Another thing you must understand is the history of why affirmative action came about. For one-hundred years, African American people have been left at the short end of the stick in every aspect of society. Slavery and “Separate but equal” set them back to the point where there is now this stigma about them. Even to this day there are discriminatory acts against them in the business world. Affirmative action is in place to rectify the years of past that kept African Americans, as well as other minorities, back from reaching their maximum potential. It also allows for those who do discriminate from being able to enforce their will. Personally, I feel it is a good program. I mean, if Affirmative action was not in place, who knows what could happen to our society. In terms of college, if students were chosen only on their academic record and SAT/ACT score and every thing else was disregarded, it would not be an institution that helps you to get ready for the real world, as it advertises. After all, the real world is a mix of many people, cultures and ethnic groups. By taking away race, as well as other factors, from the process of admissions, you are not only doing an injustice to those people but also to yourself. You are not getting a sense of what is really awaiting you.
ALEX: Okay, but the whole idea that race is included is wrong. Also, in response to your historical defense of Affirmative Action, I agree to some certainty that those living during that era should be given something to help compensate them for the injustice. But why should someone who was not involved, during that era, get the same benefits. Our society has come along way from slavery. Morally speaking, it is wrong for some criteria to be included in admission when not all persons have a chance at being included in that aspect. The diversity argument is a good argument, but it hardly seems adequate to override consideration of merit and efficiency. I mean if some I were to be operated on, I do not think the first thing that would enter my mind is what ethnic background my surgeon was, but rather how qualified were they. The same goes for an airplane pilot, flying twenty-five thousand feet off the ground, I care more about how capable the pilot is.
ALEX: Furthermore, Affirmative Action encourages mediocrity. If an African American has race towards his advantage in the admissions process, this person need not have as good grades in order to be admitted. This person simply needs to get by with relatively good grades and need not compete or strive for the maximum potential he/she could achieve. Thus, Affirmative Action encourages a sub-standard performance from minorities. Traditionally we have believed that the highest positions in society should be awarded to those who are best qualified. Rewarding excellence both seems just to the individuals in the competition. If there is should be any variance on when to use this merit system, it should be only when little is at stake. Perhaps there are some jobs that do not require merit as important factor, however jobs such as pilots and surgeons do.
BETH: Affirmative action does not encourage mediocrity. It simply gives those who are less well off a better chance at achieving their potential. In other words, those people who do not have the same advantages as others will be helped. It shouldn’t be looked at a negative program but rather a positive one. Furthermore, what you suggest of affirmative action policies is that they stigmatize and call into question the credentials of the qualified minorities. And furthermore, that this doubt undermines their effectiveness. This has always been the most puzzling critique of affirmative action in my mind. The credentials, qualifications, character, and even the culture of minorities have always been in question and stigmatized in this country. When racial categories were created, simply being labeled a minority carried with it quite a slanderous stigma. Even to his day Black Americans combat lingering racism and stereotypes about their intelligence, tendency toward violence, sexual prowess, etc.. The idea that affirmative action policies introduce stigmas that did not already exist into the life of minorities seems nonsensical. To those who claim that this stigma undermines the effectiveness of Blacks because their coworkers will not be cooperative, or because the minority will always doubt that he or she deserves to be there, I propose that affirmative action gives minorities the opportunities to defy the pernicious stereotypes and stigmas cast upon them by others. In fact, I claim that not using affirmative action will only accomplish the continued exclusion of Black Americans from participation within American society and thus further ingrain stereotypes and stigmas. Another reason that the stigma critique of affirmative action confuses me, is because the discussion is always limited to race and gender based affirmative action policies. Where is the discussion about athletes and legacy students who are accorded preferential treatment in university admission decisions on a yearly basis? Did anyone raise stigma issues when Henry Ford II, was appointed CEO of Ford Motor Co.? This focus on gender and race based policies only reinforces my point that the stigma minorities face has much more to do with persistent racism than the deleterious effects of affirmative action.
ALEX: Affirmative action also causes reverse discrimination. Discrimination against white males is just as bad as discrimination against minorities. Some people say that affirmative action is justified as a way of making up for past discrimination. Although discrimination still exists in the U.S., as it does in the rest of the world, most blacks entering the job market today were born after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and have suffered little or no prejudice in terms of salary. When this Civil Rights Act was passed, its spirit was not one of reverse discrimination but of getting employers to consider applicants objectively in filling jobs within their companies. The past cannot be changed and we should stop compensating people who were never hurt at the expense of people who have done them no harm.
BETH: Here is my last point, I believe that continuing with a system of neutral principles in a society already slanted significantly toward whites is, itself, unethical and immoral. Suppose that is a track officials judging two athletes running a hundred yard dash. Before the official shoots off the starting pistol, one runner kicks the other in the shin, stomps on his toes, and then runs ahead fifty yards. Now because our official is observant, he sees this dirty play and immediately halts the race. So, he walks over to the runner, who is fifty yards ahead and tells him that what he did was unfair and wrong and he is forbidden from doing it again. Then he goes back to check on the runner at the starting line. The runner is a little bruised up. The official tells him "Don't worry I saw everything that happened. I told the other runner that what he did was wrong and that he shouldn't have done it. As I speak the rules are being changed to outlaw such actions from ever happening again." Then the official strolls back to his position and fires the starting pistol to begin the race, where the runners left off. Surely there is something wrong with this scenario. Is it enough to simply chide the offending runner, change the rule book, and then begin the race with one runner halfway to the finish line? By advancing one runner ahead, would we be corrupting the idea of the100 yard dash? These questions yield one answer. No. The race has already been tainted. It is our duty to somehow reconstruct the situation so that fairness can again pervade the event. At the very least we must allow the injured runner time to heal and then advance him fifty yards to be even with his competition. We must actively deconstruct the advantages. If we do not, we violate our own rules of fairness, preserving the advantages of one runner over the other.
