This increasing diversity has sparked a debate on what is fair and equal for the individual as well as America’s society in areas ranging from education to the workforce. In attempt to remedy these inequalities, affirmative action was implemented, but instead it has only created more problems. Despite its admirable goals, affirmative action is not helping the people it is targeted to help and is actually hurting the American population.

Barbara Reskin, a Ph.D. and Professor of Sociology at Harvard University, explains that affirmative action “is not a single policy but a set of processes and practices” (Reskin 1). For more than four decades, these practices have developed, all with the same goal: to “actively [prevent] discrimination” (Reskin 1).

Affirmative action was intended to create greater equality of opportunity in the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explains that “no person in the United States: on the ground of race, color, or national origin” be deprived the benefits of, be denied participation in, or in any other way be subjected to discrimination in any activity or program that receives financial assistance from the Department of Education (Title-34). Although this act is the first time affirmative action became law, it is only one of many antidiscrimination laws.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the “development, defense, and contestation” of affirmative action has “proceeded in two streams” (Fullinwider). One stream is administrative and legal, as courts, executive, and legislative departments of government have applied and enforced “laws and rules requiring affirmative action” (Fullinwider). The second stream of affirmative action is public debate, where the practice of “preferential treatment has spawned a vast literature, pro and con” (Fullinwider).

One example of public debate is that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination,” and that it is punishing white males for something they are not responsible for (Post 115).

The U.S. Commission of Civil Rights on Affirmative Action claims affirmative action plans necessary to “make equal opportunity a reality of historically excluded groups” (Robinson 262). Few Americans would disagree with the necessity of creating equal opportunity for everyone regardless of race. Affirmative action was designed to create equality for all Americans. Affirmative action was intended to help those that were being affected because of past discrimination, immigrants, and the lower class.

Affirmative action was intended to help those who could not help themselves, especially those lower class minorities who do not have the means to succeed. Ironically affirmative action gives an “unfair boost” to those individuals who have the capacity to make it on their own (Machan 191). Tibor R. Machan, a Philosophy professor from Auburn University, points out that currently affirmative action programs have “little value” for minorities throughout the country (Rubio 169).

Professor Machan explains, “The irony is that mandated affirmative action may not really help…those who can use the help.” Instead it is the middle-class, “the very people who can routinely make it on their own and have every chance to do so,” who seem to be getting the extra, “unfair boost” (Machan 191). As a refugee from Hungary in 1953, Machan is one example of someone who decided he would succeed in America despite the fact that he was an immigrant and part of a lower class. He was capable of reaching his potential without the extra boost the US government now offers.

Most often policies of affirmative action are likely to provide opportunities to the “advantaged without adequately remedying the problems of the disadvantaged” (Robinson 335). Affirmative action is intended to help the disadvantaged, yet very few are actually benefiting from its programs, and those that are seem to be the middle class that are capable of making it on their own.

Affirmative action was also designed to help immigrants. Although Professor Machan himself was not a product of affirmative action programs, he explains that affirmative action provides necessary help to some new arrivals in the United States by providing a way for them to succeed in a foreign country. Even most Americans would agree that indeed some immigrants do benefit from affirmative action, needing the extra help to do well in this competitive world. And yet, most are very capable of making it on their own. In these cases affirmative action becomes more a matter of “charity and goodwill” than anything else (Machan 186).

An example of capable men that were allowed “easy access” to something that others had worked harder to attain is that of four white men who were denied admission in 1992 to the University of Texas Law School at Austin (Robinson 330). The Fifth Court of Appeals found that this university had given “unjustifiable preference” to African American and Mexican American applicants. The Texas cutoff scores for placing “nonminority students… were higher than those used for categorizing African American and Mexican American applicants” (Robinson 331). This is another example of mandated affirmative action programs that are intended to help society by leveling the playing field.

A final group that affirmative action is intended to help are those minority groups who were discriminated against in the past. Many Americans claim that affirmative action is necessary in order to assist “qualified individuals” that happen to part of a group that has “experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination” (Robinson xlvii). Dr. Stephen Kershnar, a Professor of Philosophy at the State University and New York, also believes that affirmative action programs are often justified because of past injustices and discriminations (Kershnar 3). Many whites believe that “disparate treatment against minorities is by large a thing of the past” and that they should no longer be receiving benefits (Ayres 425).

Many of the movements that brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 developed because of African Americans, which “produced a concept of “temporary” compensation for past discrimination” (Rubio 137). Even though many minorities are benefiting from affirmative action, poll results among African Americans “consistently show a majority supporting affirmative action to help correct the effects of the past and present white supremacist practice” (Rubio 180). For example, a current controversy that continues to surface is the notion that the descendents of slaves are owed compensation for slavery.

Yet, these descendents, their parents, their grandparents, and perhaps even their great grandparents have grown up in the United States and are free citizens of the U.S. At the very least they enjoy every right that any other white citizens have. They have the potential and opportunities open to them as do most white citizens. In a somewhat surprising argument, Dr. Kershnar also explains that slavery may actually have had a “net positive effect” (Kershnar 71). These descendents have access to “advanced technology and greater wealth” that otherwise they would not have access to had their ancestors not been slaves in America, instead remaining in Africa (Kershnar 71).

“Knowledge of historical fact simply cannot justify current racial classifications” (Robinson 331). Yes, there were many wrongs committed during slavery, but “slavery itself probably has not resulted in a compensable injury to the descendants of slaves (Kershnar 76). In no way is this justifying the wrongs of slavery, but generally the descendents of slaves are no longer directly affected by past injustices.

Affirmative action gives those who are already racist a new rationalization for racism. “They can now hate the government for imposing plainly unfair, even racist’s policies” (Machan 191). The biggest irony of affirmative action today “lies in its institutionalized attempt at federalizing national and local antidiscrimination” (Rubio 113). Policies, such as affirmative action, “actively encourage prejudices to linger even while driving it underground” (Machan 191).

White people will develop feelings and attitudes of segregation and inequality similar to that of many minorities when affirmative action mandates that discrimination against them. Once again affirmative action does not succeed in creating equal opportunities, but backfires and discrimination continues as racists feelings linger in American society.

Mandatory affirmative action ends up being an insult to the very people it is intended to help. The Supreme Court rulings claim that qualifications are to be the primary basis for selecting employees in the work field and students in public institutions, which means “beneficiaries of affirmative action should be selected primarily on the basis of merit” (Reskin 56). The most qualified applicant will, regardless of race “maximally satisfy the employer’s preferences” (Kershnar 34).

While “practicing affirmative action” a white journalist decided to hire a black man as a reporter. Apparently the boss decided to give this man a chance simply because he was black, and wanted to see what he could do (Machan 188). This man was Carl Rowan from C-Span, and was more than just an African-American reporter, but an international ambassador as well. Rowan was talented and capable of attaining success without the help of a benevolent white man. Perhaps the man that decided to hire Rowan knew he was a good journalist and would be successful, but maybe he was just doing a disadvantaged minority a favor.

The fact that minorities are so often treated as groups is another problem that is not resolved with affirmative action. Every citizen in the United States is different, and each has unique circumstances. The inequality in America’s Society is only increasing by treating minorities as a group instead of individuals. Professor Machan explains that human beings do not act as groups, and they are not being treated independently, but rather as “choosing organisms. The acting agent is the human individual,” regardless of race (Machan 188).

Very rarely does the public hear about one Latinos problems, but the entire nation is involved when one white citizen is unjustly denied admission to any public institution. In a documentary history of affirmative action edited by Jo Ann Ooiman Robinson, a Professor of History, Robinson has listed the major cases and public debates of affirmative action. Very few, if any, present a lone minority. The white supremacist is found in every case and always against two or more minorities.

While it has been affirmed that civil rights and affirmative action legislation has not been “particularly effective,” affirmative action has made unmistakable gains in employment, education, and voting rights (Rubio 169). It is true that improvements have been made in those areas but very often the result of affirmative action programs directly violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment declares that no state shall enforce a law “which shall abridge the privileges…of citizens of the United States.” Also no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or deny any person “equal protection of the law” (Amendments of the Constitution). Although a university must have “wide discretion in making the sensitive judgments as to who should be admitted, constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded” (Robinson 206).

,/P>

The controversy regarding the vote on Proposition 209 is an example of a violation of the Constitution. “A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy” (Robinson 341).

Proposition 209 basically explained that, the state of California would not discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of color, sex, ethnicity, race or national origin. The biggest argument for Proposition 209 was that the Constitution “permits the rare race-based or gender-based preference” (Robinson 341). Also to further support Proposition 209 many in California pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment “does not require what it barely permits” (Robinson 341).

One of the most affected areas related to affirmative action as it pertains to the idea of reverse discrimination is that of education. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) was established to administer the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOA “prohibits specific discriminatory conduct,” including segregating students on the basis of color, race, or national origin (U.S. Department of Justice). This act could prove to be beneficial to society but often in order to avoid discrimination against minority groups another discrimination is created against someone else.

The case at the University of Michigan is a clear example of a public institution that took affirmative action too far. Minority students received twenty points out of a maximum of 150. Not for any academic achievement, but solely because they are minorities in this country (Bush). To put this into perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only twelve points in this same system. Students who accumulate a hundred points are generally admitted, so those twenty points are often the deciding factor (Bush).

When speaking about this controversy President Bush said, “This means that students are being selected or rejected based primarily on the color of their skin. The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination and that discrimination is wrong” (Bush par 7). Many times it is no longer the minority that is being discriminated against but now the white population is being denied privileges and rights in order to fill quotas, show diversity, or provide help to otherwise incapable people.

Affirmative action has been beneficial, especially for some immigrants. However, as a whole American society is not benefiting from affirmative action’s attempt to remedy society’s inequalities. By allowing less qualified people to fill positions or accepting them into public institutions, society is essentially lowering the standards for all Americans as affirmative action programs are inforced. Regardless of qualifications, a job position or educational admission based on ethnicity is not creating equality. Neither is equality established when someone is denied admission or placement based on race.

To many Americans, affirmative action is simply leveling the playing field by providing equal opportunities, but there are too many problems created. Reverse discrimination, treating minorities as a group, insulting the very people that are supposed to be helped, and societies acceptance of racist feelings are among the few problems that arise. Affirmative action was designed to create equality for minorities in America.

However, the benefits that only a few derive do not outweigh the problems and controversies that have been created because of affirmative action. Although the intentions are just and are an effort to “actively [prevent] discrimination,” affirmative action does not help those people that need it most and is actually hurtful to both minorities as well as the rest of American society (Reskin 1).