In the 1960s, a qualified candidate for a job could very easily be denied the position based solely on his or her ethnic identity. Intervention was needed to combat this flagrant discrimination.

Affirmative action made sense.

However, in today’s society, this policy has no clear purpose. While racism will likely never be eradicated, anti-discrimination laws have rendered affirmative action largely obsolete. This case will prove that the current institution of affirmative action is unfair and, indeed, unjust.

I offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

Affirmative action- an active effort to improve opportunities for  minority groups and women.

Just- conformity with what is morally upright or good; being what is merited.

      The first contention in this debate is that affirmative action fails to aid those whom it is meant to aid. We can look at this through two more focused perspectives.

Affirmative action does not fairly aid all racial and ethnic minorities. The factions that fall under affirmative action policies are women and minorities that include primarily blacks and Hispanics, as well as other smaller ethnicities. Let us consider another of these groups: the Asian minorities. They constitute  4.4% of the total United States population (while blacks and Hispanics make up 12.4 and 15.4 percent respectively). Again, a key part of the definition of affirmative action is that it is used to help “members of minority groups.” So why is it that these policies do not help a minority that is smaller than both blacks and Hispanics? Affirmative action is failing in that it is not helping this division that needs help.

The basis upon which affirmative action is founded upon is unjust in whom it aids. The current basis for affirmative action is race and gender. If a person already has a good lifestyle, because they fall into a certain minority they are still given an advantage at the get-go due to affirmative action. This is not fair as this person has already achieved solid socioeconomic status. In a way, affirmative action is assuming that these minorities and women cannot obtain these positions on their own, and are “assuming” that they need aid to do so. But in the end, doesn’t a lower class person who has no means of paying for a certain school need help? We can look to policies enacted in certain states including Florida, where similar systems to affirmative action are based upon socioeconomic status rather than rather irrelevant ethnic identities. 

      The second contention is that affirmative action attempts to use further discrimination to alleviate the damages caused by past discrimination. Affirmative action is a misguided attempt to make up for the harms committed against certain minorities in the past such as slavery, the lack of civil rights, and the treatment of women  in society and industry. The problem is that in attempts to resolve said problems, discrimination, whether it be conscious or unconscious, is enacted against the group that doesn’t fall under affirmative action.

Discrimination is defined as the treatment or consideration of a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. The first part of this definition is that discrimination is in favor of a certain group, class, or category. This is exactly what affirmative action is doing: favoring the minorities and giving them greater opportunities while doing the opposite for others. The government simply cannot fight discrimination with further discrimination.

Furthermore, affirmative action sends the wrong message. In another contradiction, it attempts to progress society by planting it firmly in the past. We cannot hope to resolve race and gender issues until we are ready to move forward as a nation, and the nature of affirmative action unfortunately inhibits our ability to do so. 

The third contention is that affirmative action is counterproductive to the existence of merit-based promotion in society. According to a study by the University of Virginia, “the acceptance rates for black students at the top 13 universities in the nation are significantly higher than that of the general acceptance rate.” The average acceptance rate for black students was 59% of those that applied, while the acceptance rate of other applicants was 28%. Even though these students may not have been the best in their class or have had the highest test scores, they are accepted mainly due to the universities trying to promote the policies of affirmative action.

On many college applications, a person’s race makes up a large fraction in the point system. As in the case of the University of Michigan, in which race counted 20 points out of the 150 point system. This counted more than the SAT scores that applicants have. As stated in the definition of just, it is something that is “merited.” Affirmative action is unjust in that it does not base positions granted to people on merit and what efforts they have made, but instead positions are given based off of arguably arbitrary and uncontrollable factors such as race and gender. This is simply unfair.

      Affirmative action inherently works against the promotion of equal opportunity. The system is flawed: It does not evenly help all minorities or attempt to promote equal opportunity for the truly disadvantaged; it furthers a new form of discrimination; and it works against the American value of progress based upon merit. Due to its intrinsic opposition to true equal opportunity, affirmative action is not fair.