Affirmative Action Has Outlived Its Usefulness

Affirmative Action Has Outlived Its Usefulness

The goal of affirmative action is to compensate for past injuries which minorities endured. Affirmative action gives special privileges to minorities based solely on the color of their skin, not on their abilities or their financial situation. The goal of affirmative action is to remedy the injuries caused by discrimination. Yet after analyzing affirmative action one could determine that it seeks to cure discrimination with more discrimination.

According to a study conducted by an economics professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz from 1997 to 2000 the number of African American business owners has increased by 31 percent. This number increased by an even more astounding 50 percent for African American women. Also women of minority decent make up 14.5 percent of America?s private sector workforce, a substantial increase from only a decade earlier. The women in this study were African American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American. Members from each group also gained employment as officials and managers. A Census conducted in 2000 showed that African American couples who stay together earned just about as much as white couples. The number of firms owned by minority women has increased 31.5% between 1997 and 2002 that?s more than twice as fast as all women-owned firms, and more than four times the national average. Further, based on recent growth rates, in 2002 there will be 14,116 minority women-owned firms with revenues of $1 million or more, and 111 with 100 or more employees.

Given these statistics it seems obvious that affirmative action is not needed for minorities to succeed in the work place. All that is needed for success is dedication and motivation.

Advocates of Affirmative action claim to support equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other standard that would deprive a person of opportunities to live and work. One website stated that SAT is a test used as a tool to promote racial segregation and should not be considered when screening potential college applicants. The University Of Michigan?s admission policy is based on a point system. A student can receive a maximum of 150 points. Receiving 100 points usually results in admittance to the school. Students who were African American were automatically awarded 20 points based on race alone. Another factor on this admission policy was the score a student received on their SAT test. A perfect score on one?s SAT test was worth 12 points.

After reviewing these facts it seems that Affirmative Action is promoting discrimination rather than trying to destroy it. A student?s race at The University Of Michigan was worth more than if he or she had achieved a perfect score on their SAT test. Yet supporters of affirmative action were fully supportive of this practice.

That situation in itself is discriminatory. It?s giving special preference to a specific group based on skin color alone and not on one?s own capabilities and talents. By giving special treatment such as this to minority students affirmative action advocates are supporting the very thing they say they are against.

The officials who conducted these screenings at the University Of Michigan make sure that 10-17 percent of its accepted students belong to a particular minority group. This is an example of a racial quota. This system establishes a preconceived idea of who it will and will not admit before even taking into consideration the merits of its applicants. According to John McWhorter, author of "Authentically Black, Essays for the Black Silent Majority," a law school applicant is 234 times more likely to get accepted if he is black than if he is white. This unjust system is still upheld by the US Supreme Court.

TV?s Judge Mathis while attending a demonstration against racial quotas in Ann Arbor said that he considered himself a beneficiary of racial quotas, he went on to say that it would be terrible if universities chose people based solely on their merit ( what a person deserves based on their abilities). "We'd have a bunch of eggheads running around. We don't want that!" says Mathis. This man has basically said that we shouldn?t judge people on ability and it would be tragic if the most intellectually capable and qualified were rewarded for their abilities. This is an absurd statement. Logically it would seem obvious that the most qualified and able person for the job should be awarded it rather than someone hired merely on the grounds of a quota.

Some supporters of Affirmative Action claim that it?s a system set up to help those who are less fortunate and disadvantaged. Although the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed that preferences primarily benefit minority