With the November 2006 passage of a ballot proposal in Michigan banning the use of preferential treatment as a means to \ndiversification, affirmative action is once again in the \nnational spotlight. IDS columnists debate the effectiveness \nof affirmative action programs in the United States.
Programs recognize past restrictions\nBy Jonathan P. Rossing\nWhat effect do affirmative action programs have in higher education? Looking at the results of banning such programs is instructive.\nIn 1996, California Proposition 209 outlawed race-based admission programs at California schools. In the following years, enrollment of black, Latino, and American-Indian students dropped steadily. At UCLA alone, admission offers to underrepresented racial minorities dropped from 26.7 percent to 15.7 percent over eight years, but not for lack of "qualified" candidates. The number of black and Latino high school graduates eligible for admission almost doubled in the same period.\nLikewise, the 1996 Hopwood decision outlawed affirmative action programs in Texas and racial minority enrollment immediately dropped. Race-based programs are again legal in Texas, yet Texas A&M University concluded in 2005 not to employ affirmative action. As a result, the number of black and Latino students enrolled at that university hovered near 13 percent compared to almost 19 percent in 1995, despite a steadily increasing number of black and Latino high school graduates in Texas.\nBut numbers and percentages are only a small part of the story. The key success of affirmative action is in coming to terms with our history and atoning for past injustice. For several centuries, certain groups (notably women and people of color) were systematically excluded and denied opportunities for success, advancement and achievement. As a result, the privileged and favored groups amassed wealth, education and access to opportunities that in turn benefited their successive generations.\nAffirmative action programs recognize these historic exclusions and their contemporary effects. Traditionally marginalized groups should have opportunities targeted to them in order to allow for development of their full potential, which until recently was severely restricted. Race-based programs rest on the notion that differences in opportunity still exist because skin color carries more than 350 years of significant, historical meaning in terms of who was allowed to achieve and advance. Therefore, affirmative action in higher education succeeds in offering increased opportunities for students of color who would otherwise be locked out due only to inherited disadvantages from racism.
Good intentions do not address issues\nBy Ayesha Awan\nNo one can deny that women and members of minority groups have suffered unduly for centuries under American society.\nThe affirmative action of today took root when the U.S. Secretary of Labor implemented a revised Executive Order No. 4 -- effectively requiring a system of diversity-related goals and timetables from hospitals, banks and other institutions that did business with the government, including universities. \nAffirmative action is well-intentioned, that is true. However, it is nothing more than a well-intentioned Band-Aid to the continuous problem of the social injustice faced by many minority groups and women. \nSimply ensuring that a woman or minority is enrolled in an institution or hired at a job does not remedy the issue of on-going discrimination. For example, researchers have shown that when a black male has an equal degree and an equal level job in the same industry as a white male, he is still paid only 79 percent of the white male's income. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, women who worked in sales positions earned only about 62 percent of what men in equal positions earned in 2004. \nThere is no legitimate excuse for these discrepancies. The U.S. must seek out and address the bigoted attitudes that result in these wage gaps for the betterment of not just those directly affected, but all citizens. If women earned what they were supposed to be earning in comparison to men, their average family incomes would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be halved according to an infoplease.com article. \nThere is an indefinite amount of statistics like the ones I just pointed out. Effectively, this means that there are deeper issues that need to be addressed besides simply ensuring that those who are underprivileged receive entry into an institution. \nAffirmative action doesn't address the issues of the millions of minorities who live in poverty or in gang-infested urban areas. \nThe goal should be the uplifting of underprivileged groups as a whole, not selective admissions for a few -- otherwise it's not addressing the issue of helping the disadvantaged, but rather making sure that those who are advantaged come in all colors.
