Angel Perez
English
2 March 2013
Time to Take Affirmative Action Behind the Shed
	Affirmative action is a policy that was enacted to give minorities an equal chance of opportunity in employment and education. This policy opened countless doors to minorities in America, allowing them to break through the barriers in Universities and industries that were otherwise closed off to them. The reason for its creation was simple in that black and Latinos were held down for too long and there needed to be drastic measures to even the playing field for them. Simply passing the Civil Rights Acts was not enough; the average white Americans were not going to change their racist ways, and there were simply too many of them in position of power that could undermine the plan for racial equality. Here is President Johnsons reasoning for its establishment: “This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”(Johnson). Indeed it has helped countless people, but its time to make a change to truly achieve the color blind society Martin Luther King Jr dreamed of. The best course of action is a class-based system to achieve a true colorblind society while helping minorities achieve equal opportunities.
	The usual stance for college and the workplace is that affirmative action creates diversity and affirmative action is needed for that. This is a nobel stance, but why exactly do you need a law to force you to achieve that goal if its beneficial? This is not a small group of corporations and universities who believe this. In October 2012 Bloomberg News reported that, “To succeed, corporations “must be able to hire highly trained employees of all races, religions, cultures and economic backgrounds,” asserts a “friend of the court” or amicus brief (PDF) filed on behalf of 57 of the best-known names in industries ranging from manufacturing to insurance, high-tech to retail” (Barrett). This is a sizeable sample of corporations who support affirmative action as if they could not hire colorblind themselves. It is pretty unfair that just because a person is black or brown you are getting special treatment over more qualified individuals. Focusing on education and looking at it from a different angle; why should a poor smart white kid be displaced by the son of a rich black businessman? Schools insist that race only gives minorities a small bump that Thiel and Sacks in "The Case Against Affirmative Action" disagree with, “Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.”. 171 points is a wide margin and we can assume that a white or asian applicant who were even 100 points under the 171 margin did not get their applications reviewed. How does this create any diversity beneficial to the school? If anything this would decrease the prestige of the school by having less qualified individuals represent them after their stay. Another interesting point is the backlash that it creates towards the minorities if their merit is not up to par. Sacks and Thiel again comment on this and it needs to be quoted fully, “Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised. It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst -- that preferences have skewed the entire class -- they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.”. Their conclusion brings up a valid point that soon their own classmates will begin to be prejudice towards them for being included in an environment they do not belong or achieved by their own merits like they did. Sacks and Thiel point out that this actually causes more racism than solving it. Taking this as an example, the policy has actually done more to further racism in society than regress it. This policy can still be saved with a few tweaks onto it.
	A simple solution would be economic affirmative action. In this system race is not a factor and it eliminates the, “you are just here because you are black” crowd. Every race has a chance to qualify and sure its not entirely on merit, but the goal is to eliminate racism and still give the minorities a chance. According to a 2004 study by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, “using economic affirmative action, defined by parents’ income, education, and occupation, and high school quality, produced a black and Latino representation of 10 percent. Research suggests using wealth (assets) as an admissions factor could boost the racial dividend further”(Kahlenberg). This is not as high as regular race based qualifications, which produced 12%, but it is just as close. So this not only produces two great outcomes: 1. It curtails prejudice because of disdain for an unachieved status given to minority students and 2. produces upwards social mobility for the lower economic class. Its no secret that economic mobility is almost non-existent these days with the poor staying poor and the rich getting richer (Deparle). Everyone can safely say that most minorities are poor so creating an environment where the poor can rise up will inadvertently help minorities rise up. This is what President Johnson said in his speech to Howard University, “Jobs are part of the answer. They bring the income which permits a man to provide for his family. Decent homes in decent surroundings and a chance to learn--an equal chance to learn--are part of the answer. Welfare and social programs better designed to hold families together are part of the answer. Care for the sick is part of the answer. An understanding heart by all Americans is another big part of the answer.”. This is what the President was talking about, social mobility is the answer to stop racism, that was his intention all along. To give equal opportunity to rise up to the poor, even if it was disproportionately in favor of African-Americans. This is what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who helped President Johnson draft the speech was quoted as saying: “I once asked the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who along with Richard Goodwin drafted Johnson’s speech, whether these words were intended to be a manifesto for affirmative action. “Ab. So. Lute. Ly. Not,” Moynihan replied, in his staccato style. “We were not talking about affirmative action. We were talking about jobs. Safe streets. Good schools. The safety net. Healthcare. Strong families.”. This is how you give them a proper chance to attend Universities and proper employment.
	This proposal shows that a class based system would be far better to improve the racial inequalities of America and lead to a real colorblind society. Class based might still be somewhat discriminatory, but atleast its a lot more fairer than just the color of your skin. It still creates the necessary diversity needed in society while still diminishes the biased practices of University admission. Race based selection and privilege creates animosity that was not intended and gives advantage to those who otherwise might not even deserve the advantage. The class based system works in a similar fashion to Medicaid and welfare. The recipients are disproportionately minorities; but the system is there to help everyone and a segment of the population cannot be denied the advantage.



Works Cited
Barrett, Paul. "The Corporate Case for Affirmative Action." Businessweek. Bloomberg, 05 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Deparle, Jason. "Harder for Americans to Rise From Economy's Lower Rungs." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. "The Next Step in Affirmative Action." Www.washingtonmonthly.com. Washington Monthly, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Lind, Michael. "The Liberal Case against Race-based Affirmative Action." Saloncom RSS. Salon Media Group, Inc., 24 Aug. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Sacks, David, and Peter Thiel. "The Case Against Affirmative Action." Stanford Magazine. Stanford University, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Johnson, Lyndon B. "Commencement Address at Howard University: "To Fulfill These Rights"" Speech. Commencement Address at Howard University: "To Fulfill These Rights" Howard University, Washington D.C. 4 June 1965. University of Texas. University of Texas. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.