Affirmative Action Costs More Than You Think

As a professor at University of California, Berkeley, John McWhorter expresses his opinions on the newly instated “Hardships” admissions policy in the article “It Shouldn’t Be Good To Have It Bad”. Although the policy is supposed to be race neutral he feels that it is clearly a loophole around 1996’s Proposition 209, which bans racial preferences in college admissions, and was designed solely to boost numbers of brown minorities admitted into the UC system. He also feels that this policy enhances “the culture of victimization” among applicants, creating a generation of excuse-makers (McWhorter 70).

In the beginning of the article, McWhorter discusses the effect of Proposition 209 on students and faculty. He emphasizes that although many brown minority students were lost at “flagship” schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley, they rose in numbers at other UCs (McWhorter 70). McWhorter feels that the students were simply “reshuffled” in the UC system. As for the faculty, many joined in “re-segregation” protests alongside students, but in privacy many would agree with McWhorter that “the demise of racial preferences” had been “long overdue”(70). This led McWhorter to decide that the fuss over Proposition 209 was as equally on moral grounds as it was UC Berkeley’s reputation.

Next, McWhorter questions if the new hardship policy is really about giving a break to those in need, or if it is simply a loophole around Proposition 209. The author challenges, “How seriously can we take this sudden concern for the coal miner’s daughter when we heard not a peep of such class-based indignation during three decades of racial preferences?” (McWhorter 70). He then argues that hardships have always been factored into the decision of whether or not to admit an applicant, and queries the possible effect of making this policy official (McWhorter 71). The author had previously been on a scholarship committee and insists that policies that were once given out for “diversity” are now being repackaged for “hardships” (McWhorter 71). McWhorter feels that this policy may be a slight advantage over the previous one, where diverse scholarships were often given to well-off minority students who were “culturally white” with whose life experiences McWhorter didn’t feel were very demanding.

Then, McWhorter stipulates about how much of an impact a “hardship” really should have on a student’s application. He feels that overcoming obstacles “is a matter of ordinary human resilience” and that doing so is not “limited to the academically gifted” (McWhorter 71). He explains that a person who has not endured a hardship is a rare find, and those few lucky enough to have not experienced some strife go above and beyond to make themselves more well- rounded. McWhorter also mentions, “Most of us would worry that the child who has known no suffering is at risk later in life” (71). The author uses an example taken from The Wall Street Journal of two students applying to UCLA. One student, with an SAT score of 1410 didn’t feel it important to mention her hardship of growing up with a struggling father working as a pastor who had emigrated from Korea. She was not accepted, but another Latina female student with a SAT score of 1120, who was open about her mother’s battle with breast cancer, was admitted. (McWhorter 71). McWhorter comments, “For decades now, students entering college have imbibed a “victimologist” perspective; now UC’s “hardship” policy serves as a kind of college prep course on the subject” (71).

Next, McWhorter offers up his ideal admissions policy, one based on socio-economic class, and explains why it will never be put to use. The author expresses that there is a positive correlation between class, grades/test scores, and academic ability. He then explains a point system based on student’s high school quality, parental occupation, income, and education, that could be used to differentiate those who have endured “handicaps” from those reaping benefits of a “handicap” they never even knew they had (McWhorter 72). McWhorter explains that a class-based system would give everyone an equal chance, and not be based on race; so statistically working-class whites would fill many of these spots (72). He explains the problem with this by paraphrasing Shelby Steele, “Racial preference policies have always been less about giving a race the skills to succeed than assuaging white guilt”, and adds “if the true goal of the policy were to address societal injustice, then those so troubled by “hardship” would have no problem with an influx of working-class whites. After all, it surprises no one that there are more whites than blacks or Asians in California” (McWhorter 72).

Finally, McWhorter drives his point home by explaining that admissions does look at class, but doesn’t really consider it useful unless there is a “hardship” tacked on. He uses another example of a student denied from UCLA the same year with a 1500 SAT score whose mother also struggled with breast cancer. This student “just so happens” to be Korean (McWhorter 72). McWhorter ends his article with, “I will continue to insist that the person we pity is a person we do not respect- “hardships” or not” (72).

In response to McWhorter’s article, race should not be a factor in college admissions anywhere; and affirmative action should end now. It is up to each and every individual to create his or her own future and it is unfair for anyone to have an advantage based on an immeasurable trait, like the color of one’s skin.  Affirmative action creates reverse discrimination; and many states, especially California, cannot afford to withhold educational opportunities from qualified applicants in order to fill a race quota.

It is a person’s own responsibility to create the drive and effort to succeed. McWhorter mentions “Making do despite obstacles… is a matter of ordinary human resilience” (71). Therefore, race should not give anyone a “leg-up” in the competition that is life. McWhorter mentions Shelby Steele, author of White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. One of Steele’s premises in his book is that racial preferencing takes away individuality and responsibility from blacks, and encourages them to stay “victims” (qtd. in Wikipedia par. 3). Who wouldn’t want to continue to play the victim when receiving preferential treatment for it? Affirmative Action makes it easy for minorities to not work as hard because they already have an advantage. In the article “Affirmative Action Violated White Firefighter’s Rights- U.S. Supreme Court Rules” twenty firefighters worked hard to pass a test that would lead to a promotion, only to have the scores thrown out due to the fail rate of black participants. Luckily, the result of the lawsuit was in favor of those firefighters who passed the test (73), but it arouses the questions: Where else has Affirmative Action ruined an individual’s hard work and chance for success? How long will minorities use Affirmative Action as a mask for laziness? Every single individual has an opportunity for success, and with Barack Obama’s presidency, it’s clear that race is not a factor in achieving that success.

Affirmative Action also creates reverse discrimination. In Mara Joseph’s article, “On Being White”, she discusses the difficulty Affirmative Action has created for her and her white friends in regards to college courses. While taking classes that one would think would further one’s knowledge of minorities, students were asked to write of their experience being a minority, and white students couldn’t complete these assignments (Joseph 84). There should be no racial preferences in college admittance, and definitely no racial descrimination in classes. Joseph argues, “Even if my relatives were among early British colonizers in this country and owners of slaves, I would hope to not be held responsible for their ignorance and injustice. To punish someone for actions they didn’t commit is as unjust as punishing someone for the color of their skin” (84). Americans have spent many years fighting for equality for minorities, partly on moral grounds, and partly out of white guilt. Now that minorities have an advantage, it would make sense that getting rid of Affirmative Action would achieve the original goal of equality; and this should be done before reverse discrimination slides down the slippery slope it is teetering on and creates even more issues in our school systems.

Lastly, Affirmative Action should be eliminated because America cannot afford it. Lesli Maxwell’s article “Cuts Crush College Promise” outlines the budget crisis the California School District is in. Maxwell states, “CSU [California State University] has made a formal decision to turn away qualified students this spring - a move expected to keep out as many as 30,000 students across the 23-campus system, the nation’s largest”(par. 10). With $700 million in cuts (par. 8) and a “record” number of high school graduates (par. 14), we cannot afford to have a minority head count in our colleges. When everyone cannot be accepted, only the most qualified should be. It’s shocking to learn that this goes on, not only at the undergraduate level, but at the graduate level too; which is summarized in Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) Chairman Linda Chavez’s article “Is Racial Preference Unfair?” Chavez reports, “So far, we’ve [CEO] analyzed six medical schools, representing every geographic region of the country, and the pattern for medical schools is the same as it was for undergraduate institutions. Black and Hispanic students are being admitted to medical school with substantially lower college grades and test scores than whites or Asians” (par. 4). Not only are we accepting lesser-qualified students to become our future doctors, as taxpayers, we fund their education! (Chavez par. 7). Many of these students are not passing their licensing tests (par. 6), and America wonders why there is a shortage of doctors.

In conclusion, Affirmative Action should be abolished. It creates laziness, reverse discrimination, and takes educational opportunities away from those most qualified. What kind of price is America really willing to pay for the continuation of Affirmative Action?

Works Cited

Chavez, Linda. “Is Racial Preference Unfair?” Affirmative Action and Diversity Page. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/lchavez.html>.

LaGuardia, Dolores. On Being White by Mara Joseph. American Voices. Mountain View, Cal. [u.a.: Mayfield Publ., 2000. Print.

Maxwell, Lesli A. “Cuts Crush College Promise.” CORE Hand Outs. 8-14. Print.

McWhorter, John. It Shouldn’t Be Good To Have It Bad. CORE Handouts. 70-72. Print.

“Shelby Steele.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele>.

Vicini, James. “Affirmative Action Violated White Firefighter’s Rights - U.S. Supreme Court Rules.” The San Francisco Publishing Company, 29 June 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.