Affirmative Action.

However, my opinion on the matter has drastically changed. Affirmative action is not meant to place unqualified students of color into positions where they might not be able to perform. The purpose is to give students who are discriminated against, not intentionally but just because of the tradition of higher education, because of their race an equal opportunity to receive the same privileges that have been denied them by us for years.  A college professor from Rutgers University stated that he has “been a part-time instructor at Rutgers in two eras.” Donald M. Scarry was interviewed for an article about his findings while teaching in the 1970 compared to teaching now. He stated that in the 1970’s he had an occasional black student but teaching now his classes “are more diverse that the United Nations.” He continues on to say that there is no difference in the performance of the two different groups of students. So affirmative actions is not placing unqualified minorities into positions that could or would have been filled by white students.  Instead, it  gives minorities the prospect of participating in higher education.

        The question I found myself asking a lot when the issue of affirmative action came up was why do colleges need diversity?  I could not see the benefits of a diverse campus because I was blinded by my frustration with what I thought was the purpose of affirmative action.  Mark R. Killenbeck who writes for the California law review talks about the benefits of a diverse class or campus. He states that “diversity is not simply a positive education value, but is, rather, viewed as an essential attribute of any educational institution.”  In this article he reviews the arguments for and against affirmative action. I drew the conclusion that in essence the arguments for affirmative action tend to be “equal opportunity” while the arguments opposed to it were for “equal treatment”. Unfortunately Killenbeck and I saw that these two arguments rarely address each other. Killenbeck described the predicament as “the terms used to frame the dialogue pose a false choice.” The false choice is the assumption that the admissions process is simply an exercise of numbers. In other words the flaws with affirmative action are that it tries to quantify its objective.  The years of discrimination cannot be solved by transforming race or other minority attributes into numbers. These numbers do not change the issue into an easily pursued subject.  You can not quantify a person.  The assumptions made for and against affirmative action are made on numbers not people. So when looking at the benefits of affirmative action you can not look at the numbers of admission scores but at the benefits of diversity in institutions of higher learning.

        A study done at the University of Michigan by Professor Patricia Gurin conducted what she characterized as a “broad and extensive series of empirical analyses,”  with a special emphasis on the “outcomes.” Basically she attempted to establish an empirically significant correlation between the nature of the academic community which student are involved in and the actual changes in their knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives that could reasonably be associated with that environment. In the opinion of the University she found “conclusive proof that a racially and ethnically diverse student body has far-ranging and significant benefits for all students, non-minorities and minorities alike.” Diverse situations in higher educational stations are seen to heighten cultural awareness and satisfaction and are inherently relevant to the goals of general education.

        Fundamentalist both on the side against affirmative action and for it say that they are right and that the law of the United States is on their side. Unfortunately as Mark Killenbeck put it “the law of affirmative action is an infinitely malleable beast.” Both sides are correct in that we ideally want equal treatment for all but that level of idealism cannot be reached because of the current and past of sets of our American society. Affirmative action must be inserted to give those who have been denied the opportunity of a quality education or privileged upbringing.  Maybe in one hundred years we can stop affirmative action and treat each person with equality despite the difference in race or creed. But for the time being, institutions of higher education must sacrifice certain terms of equality to reach a truly diverse body. The willingness to do so should be viewed as the morally essential and a defining characteristic of universities that are truly dedicated to the idea that “a diverse student body is the hallmark of excellence.”6 Affirmative action is the only way to achieve a truly equal society which all deserve. But whether we are doing it correctly and effectively is still to be seen. I believe that certain things could change to help better the effectiveness and understanding of the imperative idea of affirmative action.  We know that diversity equals excellence and to achieve this we must right what wrongs have been committed both today and the in the past. YEAH affirmative action!