Category: Affirmative Action

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution allows for race to be a factor in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in student body diversity if the policy in question is narrowly tailored. Two prominent constitutional law scholars, Derrick Bell, and John Hart Ely, would criticize the majority’s ruling in similar and different ways. Ely provides a useful starting point for equal protection jurisprudence and a procedural framework centered around the prejudice of the majority towards a minority. However, Bell takes the issue a big step further to address social inequities and systemic barriers to more minorities in higher education which both Ely and the majority in Grutter neglect.

Ely believes that the role of the court is to make sure the political process of generating laws and policy is fair, especially for ‘discrete and insular’ minorities. For him, an equal protection challenge involving a suspect class arises when a law is intentionally designed to hurt a minority group or when it is based on inaccurate stereotypes of a minority group. When either of these prejudices is used to craft legislation, there is a suspect classification and heightened scrutiny should be applied, according to Ely. With affirmative action, the policy is crafted by the majority, so there is likely no intentional desire to hurt a group as the group being hurt is the majority itself. In a similar vein, the policies are not based on stereotypes of a group as it is the negatively conflicted group itself making the policy. The policies are also designed to help minority groups rather than hurt them. Ely would criticize the majority for rooting its decision in a compelling interest in diversity rather than what he sees as the core of the equal protection clause: that the majority in a community cannot exclude a minority and intrude on its rights. Hence, since no minority group is being harmed by the majority, Ely would affirm affirmative action as constitutional.

Bell would agree with Ely that laws based on stereotypes of minorities or that intentionally subordinate minority violate the Equal Protection clause. They both would say that the reasoning of the majority is incorrect as the equal protection challenge should not be about the interest of the school in achieving diversity. However, this is obvious to Bell and he would dislike Ely’s procedural approach because it is narrow and simplistic. Ely’s approach does not include the history of systemic oppression against minorities. Ely also does not address racial barriers to education and neither does the majority opinion. Bell’s approach emphasizes that racism in America is not a temporary occurrence but that it is deeply rooted and a permanent feature of society. Hence he would criticize the majority ruling in a different way, with an emphasis on the underlying structures of racism that the majority opinion fails to address.

Bell also argues Brown’s majority opinion focused on one side of the race equation—how blacks were subordinated by segregation—with no mention of how whites benefited from racial segregation. Applying Bell’s logic to Grutter, there are benefits already awarded to whites in college admissions that he would argue the court overlooks. Beyond race, law school admissions rely deeply on test scores. Often, high scorers on standardized tests such as the LSAT are from families that can afford expensive test prep courses. These wealthy individuals also tend to be white. Bell would contend that the majority opinion enables the school to keep unfair admissions standards such as the LSAT that innately give preference to whites while utilizing affirmative action as a make-believe way of helping minorities. Just as Bell described the Plessy fiction of separate but equal, the Grutter court holds the fiction of affirmative action and the interest of diversity to be enough in achieving racial justice. If Michigan relied less on criteria that inherently privilege white, wealthy applicants, they would not need an affirmative action policy. Yet, Bell would also point out that reducing reliance on these admissions standards does not serve the majority’s interest so they use affirmative action as a cover for achieving diversity. This differs from Ely’s criticism which would not include an analysis of the institutional roots of racism and the systemic barriers to education for minorities in society. It would stop at the tip of the iceberg of racism, rather than pounce at its underbelly.

Bell critiqued the Brown majority for avoiding the discussion of socioeconomic class. He argued race was a veil to an obscure conversation about a class where rich whites are able to control poor whites in society. He says blacks are ‘othered’ in a way that enables poor whites to effectuate their own racial integrity and neglect to see the economic plight they suffer because of rich whites. In Grutter, Bell would highlight the irony that poor whites are disadvantaged like poor minorities in the college admissions process yet tend to attack affirmative action policies instead of the real barriers of wealth and privilege. Neither poor whites nor poor minorities have the money to pay for the expensive test classes that can solidify admission to a top school. The main population that can pay for these classes is rich whites. Bell would add that these systemic obstacles for poor people will not be removed until they are seen to serve the interests of white people and the state. Bell would conclude rich whites have deluded poor whites into demonizing affirmative action but not the unfair admissions standards that harm them much more.

In a similar vein, Bell would criticize the majority in Grutter for not discussing the centuries of legally-sanctioned racism and discrimination blacks have endured. Rather, they address the value of diversity in higher education which diverts attention from racial justice and correcting a long history of oppression. Putting more focus on diversity also shifts from the fact that many students of color do not reach college because of poverty. Bell would say that the focus on diversity rather than socioeconomic equality and opportunity will keep minorities entrenched in poverty and block their advancement in society.

Ely’s criticism of the majority in Grutter wouldn’t go beyond saying that their reasoning for achieving diversity is flawed. He would say that since no group that is politically powerless is being discriminated against, there is no equal protection violation. Bell would instead elevate the issue by critiquing the majority for their appreciation of increasing diversity being rooted in the benefits for the state and society rather than for minorities. In his dissent against Brown, Bell argued that the main reason the court granted civil rights was that it was in the interest of the state to do so. American foreign policy was at stake as communist nations spread anti-American propaganda for its hostile treatment of racial minorities. Similarly, the majority in Grutter cites the benefits to society from minorities receiving preferential treatment. O’Connor outlines how a diverse student body better prepares students as professionals, benefits institutions like the military, and helps train the nation’s future leaders. This highlights Bell’s point from his Brown dissent that racial minorities will not receive any relief for historical racism until helping them means helping advance a superior state interest. The companies and military institutions that the majority cites as supporting a diverse and educated workforce are the impetus for the majority’s ruling, not the continuous racial and socioeconomic barriers to higher education for minority applicants. Bell would say that minorities are lucky in this case as they benefit from policies that the court upholds for reasons other than their socioeconomic progress.

Both Ely and Bell would criticize the majority for their 25-year expiration date on affirmative action but for different reasons. The majority says that eventually affirmative action would no longer be necessary but does not say that this would be because racial equality has been achieved. Ely would contend that until minorities have achieved equality with whites, affirmative action is permissible. Bell, on the other hand, would say that the end of affirmative action will come when the policy no longer serves the interests of the majority and the state.

In conclusion, both Ely and Bell would take issue with the majority opinion’s reasoning for its judgment, but for different reasons. Ely would criticize the majority opinion for not conducting his specific procedural analysis and instead rooting its argument in a compelling interest analysis. He would also disagree with the application of strict scrutiny, as he would see no suspect classification in Grutter. In contrast, Bell would criticize the majority for using diversity as the end and affirmative action as the means, which gives colleges a lifeline to keep unfair admissions policies in place. As a result, the majority of applicants who are admitted to top schools will remain ones coming from wealth and privilege.

What are the three (3) rationales in favor of Affirmative Action Sandel presented (taking race and ethnicity into account in hiring and admissions policies)?

The first rationale in favor of affirmative action is correcting for bias in standardized tests. It is believed that African and Mexican student score lower than a compared white students. Because of this a student who gets one score in a more diverse community and school and another student who gets the same school but when to an elite private school will be weighted and judged differently. The second rationale in favor of affirmative action is the belief in compensating for past wrongs. This action says that because there have been past wrongs that have caused and heightened racism they should be given preference in certain situations as a way of repayment. The third rationale in favor of affirmative action is the idea of promoting diversity. This affirmative action is more about helping those in minority groups have a chance to get to a “higher” class in social standards by giving them a leg up when they may not have had that opportunity before. This action also speaks to the idea that it is beneficial to have a racially diverse student body rather than having only the same backgrounds.

What are the objections to or criticisms of these arguments?

An objection to the second rationale which is the idea of compensating for past wrongs is that those who are getting the benefit of the compensation were not directly affected so the benefit does not go to the people who suffered the extremeness of what occurred in history. This is an objection as those that are getting the benefit of this affirmation are primarily middle-class African American teens who are getting a benefit just because of their race. There are two common objections to the third rationale, the idea of promoting diversity. The first objection is about the practicalness of the policies of affirmative action. People believe that because there are affirmative actions it will only heighten the presence and idea of race and seeing people by their race, especially those of minority backgrounds. This objection comes from the idea that affirmative action can cause many problems and heighten tensions as it’s not an equal unbiased system, instead, race is having a big effect. The second objection to promoting diversity affirmative action is, that race being involved in the admission decision is unfair. This is an objection as to many it seems unfair that a student who has better grades and qualifications is objected to because another student who has worse grades and not as good capabilities is a minority.

Consider which rationales seem to be consistent with, or conflict with, the theories we have discussed.

A utilitarian would not think affirmative actions are necessarily bad as long as they are promoting the overall welfare for the most amount of people. In the case of fairness that would not be a utilitarian objection as a utilitarian will be more focused on how it affects the overall community. I think based on the idea of campus diversity a utilitarian may be for affirmative action if it is proven that diversity promotes overall welfare on campus. Libertarians, Kantians and Rawlians would all have a similar agreement that if race is what is being used as the deciding factor in admission to college they would not think that is fair or just.

What is Ronald Dworkin’s defense of affirmative action? How/why does he argue affirmative action does not violate people’s rights or amount to the same injustice as “past” racial discrimination?

Ronald Dworkin’s defense of affirmative action is that it does not violate anybody’s individual rights. Dworkin argues that many reasons a university or program selects applicants are not based on one’s control so why is it unfair that race affects the choice? Dworkin goes on to agree with the first action on how there is a disadvantage for minorities when it comes to standardized tests so it is only fair that when it comes to the process of admissions that race is thought of. Dworkin also defends his argument that a university decides how to define what they are looking for when it comes to a study body and that is how applicants are decided upon. Dworkin because no student has the right or entitlement to be admitted anywhere based on their grades. In Dworkin’s spin admittance to a university is determined based on the university and its mission statement.

What is the mission or purpose (‘telos’) of a university? Can universities (or other institutions) define their goals or mission in any way they please?

Dworkin talks about how a university defines its mission statement about its campus and the goals of there campus. Dworkin believes that no university should create its mission statement in a way that will benefit one type of student above another in any way. The university mission statement is what can tell an applicant if they have the ability and opportunity to be admitted if they meet the standards better than fellow applicants. This is where Dworkin argues that just because a student may be at the top of their class they have no right to think they should automatically be admitted somewhere if they do not meet the university mission statement better than others who are applying. When it comes to university defining their goals and mission statements any way they please Dworkin believes, that all universities have their own way of defining their mission statements. Some universities may look for students based on grades and qualifications while others may look for things such as a diverse campus. Based on a university mission statement that is how applicants can judge if they have more and better qualities to get into one university than another student may have.

Today’s society is becoming increasingly aware of the elements of “diversity” and “equity” and to ensure their implementation, the government as well as employers are dependent on affirmative action legislature. These policies are set by the government to provide a platform for the minorities in the community, who are discriminated against in almost all aspects of their daily lives. In one sense these affirmative action laws are a blessing for the people who fall prey to victimization based on their sex, race, sexual orientation, or the fact that they suffer from disabilities. At the same time, affirmative action can be discriminatory towards the general population and hinder them from advancing in their professional lives, even when they deserve it and are completely qualified for it.

Diversity and Equity are two important aspects that have come into play in the recent professional landscape. Earlier, funding of research was solely based upon two factors: the research record of the applicant and the quality of their proposed research. The word ‘equity’ is being thrown about to provide underprivileged professionals with a chance to climb the corporate ladder, even if the person who already holds that position is better qualified and more suitable for it than them. In an attempt to aid in “social justice”, qualified scientists are being asked to put a hold on their respective career growth so that their colleagues who are considered minorities, can also try to advance in the field and research.

“There are many ways in which the government and its subsidiaries try to cope with the growing demand to provide for diversity and equity in the workplace and also in the community: Affirmative action describes policies that support members of a disadvantaged group that has previously suffered ​discrimination i​n areas such as education, employment, or housing” (Affirmative action, 2020).​ “​It includes expanded outreach, recruitment, mentoring, training, management development and other programs designed to help employers hire, retain and advance qualified workers from diverse backgrounds​” ​(​Affirmative Action and People with Disabilities • Disabled Person, n.d​.).​ ​Such policies are crucial for these people as there are a huge number of obstacles that they have to face. These obstacles may be permanent and life-long such as ethnicity, or they may be subject to change, such as age.

For diversity to truly establish itself, we must take into consideration the various groups and communities whose influence has been curbed by socioeconomic factors. By far the community that has been a target of discrimination is the female community. Discrimination based on sex has been around for a very long time and now has reached a critical point where it cannot be tolerated anymore. “​Compared with those in non-STEM jobs, women in STEM are more likely to say they have experienced discrimination in the workplace (50% vs. 41%)” (Funk & Parker, 2018). Women in STEM jobs are facing problems like being underpaid when compared to their male counterparts for the same amount of work, and also fall prey to sexism and other social evils through no fault of their own. Women who are more deserving and experienced than, for example, another male colleague get denied the opportunity to advance in their careers solely based on their gender. Various movements and protests have highlighted the fact that women are to be acknowledged as equals and should be provided the same opportunities as men, may it be at the workplace or otherwise.

Another group that has suffered discrimination on a large scale is the people with disabilities. “This includes ​blindness or visual impairment; hearing impairment; orthopedic or mobility impairment; speech or language impairment; learning, mental, emotional, or psychiatric condition, or other health impairment or problem.” (​Peterson, J., & National Post 2019, November 22).​ According to the Canadian Survey on Disability Reports, one in five Canadians aged 15 years and over has a disability. A person suffering from any kind of disability is at a very clear disadvantage when compared to an average person in terms of academic or professional success. The fact that they have to go through the additional burden of discrimination alongside dealing with their disability and still compete with others for positions in the workplace or to be treated fairly as a member of the community is very inspiring and motivating, but it is a very difficult environment to grow in. People, for example, with learning disabilities are required to work much harder and longer than their peers in order to succeed. The constant discrimination by society and disregard shown towards them ends up holding them back from reaching their full potential.

Due to the rise of communities such as LGBTQ, the sexual orientation of a person has been a device of much scrutiny in society, even though some of them are welcoming towards it, many are skeptical and sometimes try to ostracize the person. This leads to discrimination of a different kind: against sexual minorities. In essence, sexual minorities constitute people who do not classify themselves as heterosexuals. “​In Canada, 1.7% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 59 are gay or lesbian, and an additional 1.3% are bisexual.” ​(“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Workplace Issues,” n.d.).​ In the past, if a person came out as a sexual minority, they would not be allowed to be a part of the community and would be heavily discriminated against but this practice is still quite prevalent in the modern workplace. A person’s sexual orientation has been known to have come in the way of employment and promotions, sometimes even leading them to be fired.​ “​Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace.

Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” ​(Burns & Krehely, 2011).​ All these reasons make the workplace a very uncomfortable and suffocating place for sexual minorities to work in. Even though their contributions to the company are comparable to the other people there, discrimination is omnipresent and stands in the way of their professional goals.

Affirmative action can address the problems faced by these individual groups to ensure that each individual is given the fairest possible treatment and isn’t made to feel outcast and detached. There have been many movements and protests to favor female inclusion in the workspace, especially in STEM jobs as that is where discrimination is at its peak. “In 2018, Canadian women 15 years and older represented nearly half (47.7%) of the labor force, compared to 37.1% in 1976—a percentage increase of close to 30%.” ​(“Women in the Workforce – Canada,” n.d.).​ Such increases were brought about in the workforce as the direct implication of the affirmative action policies put forth by the government as a way to bring about “diversity” in the community. This women-inclusion initiative ultimately opens the doors for women to hold executive positions, which they were initially denied, regardless of their qualifications.

Secondly, “employers must ​make reasonable accommodations to the known functional limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities.” ​(Affirmative Action and People with Disabilities • Disabled Person, n.d.).​ Steps are also being taken to have regulations in place to prevent harassment in the workplace of people with disabilities.

The topic of sexual orientation is a sensitive one and Affirmative Action laws are in place to ensure that sexual minorities are provided with the same opportunities as the other employees in terms of salary, promotions, and incentives. Employers must also play a part to create a non-hostile working environment in which people who are sexual minorities can be treated judiciously.

Affirmative action laws have also acted as benchmarks when it comes to improving the workspace through inclusion with recruitment ​and promotions of diverse candidates through senior management and into executive ranks. “As far as the high-profile engineering jobs are concerned, they have been majorly predominated by males and most women who are in this field end up leaving as a result” (Silbey, 2016). If “diversity” and “equity” must be brought about in the community, the recruitment process must be transparent and unbiased. Employers must not discriminate between candidates, even if they might be of a different sex, be differently-abled or belong to sexual minorities. Affirmative action gives them the right to be provided equal opportunities and consideration at every step. Even after being recruited, the employees are to be free from harassment and victimization. This enables them to do well at their job and in the course of time to be able to progress in their careers.

Affirmative action policies and laws are very beneficial for people who suffer from discrimination, but they are in contrast with the merit-based approach. It is valid to acknowledge the discrimination faced by the minorities in the community and the need for diversity and equity but not at the cost of robbing a very deserving candidate of a position that they have rightfully gained. In some cases, for the sake of providing everyone with equal opportunity, people have been elevated to positions that they are not qualified for and cannot handle effectively. In a way, affirmative action laws discriminate against the “majority” of the population. When we compare, without affirmative action policies, if a homosexual person was better qualified than a heterosexual person, competing for the same job, the latter would probably end up getting it; but in the other case, the affirmative policies in place might tip the scales in favor of the minority. This is not necessarily a good thing, if the person who identifies as a minority, is not qualified enough. It may seem that this solves the problem of not having enough diversity but it would lead to incompetence down the road and cause issues for both the employer and the community. College applications are good examples of the negative effects of affirmative action.

“​He said the school targeted certain groups in order to “break the cycle” and try to convince students to apply to Harvard who normally wouldn’t consider the school” (​Eustachewich, 2018, October 17). This extract by the dean of admissions at Harvard clearly showed that for the sake of “diversity” within the incoming class of students, leniency in the application decisions followed.

Through this essay, it can clearly be deduced that affirmative action, even though a good initiative to appease the Liberals, is not very beneficial when it comes to effectiveness in the profession of engineering and also in Canadian society. A community where the merit and qualification of a person are the only criteria that hold importance is a community that will thrive and succeed. Even though discrimination is a social evil that must be eradicated, the competence of a person must not be overshadowed by their age, sex, race, sexual orientation, or any other factor.

Works Cited

1. Burns, C., & Krehely, J. (2016, April 1). Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/news/2011/06/02/9872/gay-and-transgender-people-face-high-rates-of-workplace-discrimination-and-harassment/.
2. Cohen, M. (n.d.). employment equity. Retrieved January 11, 2020, from http://www.sfu.ca/~mcohen/publications/women/employment equity.pdf.
3. Eustachewich, L. (2018, October 17). Harvard’s gatekeeper reveals SAT cutoff scores based on race. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/.
4. Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2019, December 31). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/.
5. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Workplace Issues: Quick Take. (2019, June 17). Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-workplace-issues/.
6. Peterson, J., & National Post. (2019, November 22). Jordan Peterson: Why the Western emphasis on individuals is the ultimate in intersectionality. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-the-western-emphasis-on-individuals-is-the-ultimate-in-intersectionality.
7. Women in the Workforce – Canada: Quick Take. (2019, June 17). Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-the-workforce-canada/.

Introduction

China’s economy has undergone rapid growth over the past few decades, with its GDP almost tripling from 2000 to 2007 (World Bank Staff, GDP of China 2018). Urbanization — the migration of people from rural to urban areas — is “[central] to driving economic growth” (Montgomery 2008). In 2005, urbanization was responsible for 10.98% of the economic growth in China (Song et al. 2018). Because urban residents contribute 6.59 times more to the economy than rural residents (Song et al. 2018), moving rural residents to urban areas allows them to become much more economically productive. The economic growth created by urbanization is then invested into improving urban infrastructure, which allows for further urbanization as cities are able to support more residents (Bai et al. 2012). Therefore, urbanization and economic growth create a mutually beneficial self-reinforcing cycle. Sustaining this cycle is crucial to China as economic growth has brought great benefits to China by lifting “more than 800 million people out of poverty” (Morrison 2019) and by helping to improve the overall quality of life for all citizens (Department for International Development 2008).

However, data from the World Bank shows that urbanization rates have been on the decline (World Bank Staff, Urban Population Growth in China 2018), which threatens the urbanization aspect of the cycle. This decline has been, in large part, due to the reluctance of rural residents to migrate to urban areas (Chen et al. 2016). The economic growth aspect of the cycle is also being threatened by environmental damage created by urbanization. Urbanization influences the issue of climate change (Montgomery 2008), which has harmed China’s economy (Han et al. 1995) and has the potential to reverse the possible economic benefits of increased urbanization. This would also reduce the ability of cities to accommodate more people as funding for urban infrastructure improvement is limited, further reducing urbanization rates. These issues lead us to the question, is the current cycle of urbanization and economic growth in China sustainable? Given the slowing urbanization rates created by rural residents’ reluctance to migrate and the economic drawbacks of environmental damage, it is clear that the cycle in its current state is not sustainable.

Sustainability of Urbanization Rates

In order to encourage urbanization, China introduced reforms to the hukou system during the early 2000s. Prior to these reforms, it was very difficult for rural hukou holders to change their hukou status to urban. Because of this, rural residents found it difficult to migrate to urban areas since they would not be given urban hukou benefits, which are extremely helpful to migrants. However, with the reforms, rural hukou holders can change their hukou status much more easily, which gives them access to urban hukou benefits that make their lives much easier after they migrate (Zhan 2017). While on the surface it may seem these reforms should be able to increase urbanization rates, data from the World Bank shows that they are not enough. Although urbanization rates increased initially when these policies were implemented, such rates have been on the decline ever since (World Bank Staff, Urban Population Growth in China 2018), threatening the urbanization and economic growth cycle. The declining rates make it clear that the current method for encouraging urbanization is not enough to sustain the urbanization aspect of the cycle.

This decline in urbanization rates is due to the fact that many rural residents are still hesitant to migrate to urban areas despite the reforms. A study conducted by Chuanbo Chen finds that only 21.8% of rural hukou holders want to convert their rural hukou to an urban one (Chen et al. 2016). One possible explanation for the lack of interest in migration is that by moving to urban areas, rural migrants put themselves at risk financially, since it is very difficult for migrants to obtain housing (Huang 2014) and income higher than what they have in rural areas (Chen et al. 2016). A study conducted by Xu Huang finds that families that are more educated are much more likely to gain housing (Huang 2014) and Chen’s study also finds that rural-to-urban migrants are only able to increase their income if they have a good educational background (Chen et al. 2016). These studies show that both housing and income, which are two major factors crucial to migrants’ success, are dependent upon a rural citizen’s educational background. However, research by Stanford’s REAP program finds that in the rural areas of Shaanxi province, only 5% of students attend college, as compared to 70% of urban students (Stanford REAP), which shows that rural residents are not nearly as educated as urban residents. Even if rural-to-urban migrants are able to convert to an urban hukou due to China’s reforms, their lack of education is a barrier that makes it difficult for them to settle. From this, it is clear that the lack of rural education has contributed greatly to the ineffectiveness of hukou reform which then threatens urbanization rates.

Improving Rural Education

In order to resolve this issue, rural education needs to be improved in order to better prepare rural residents to migrate to urban areas. A study conducted by Dandan Zhang finds that rural students are put at an educational disadvantage due to the fact that they often come from low-income families, which makes it difficult for them to pay for supplemental education. They are also more likely to have poor living conditions which further detracts from their education (Zhang 2015). These factors make it clear that rural students are a disadvantaged group due to unfavorable circumstances. This suggests an affirmative action approach, where disadvantaged groups are given an advantage for college admissions. Affirmative action has been shown to be extremely effective in the US for enabling historically disadvantaged groups to gain better college education (Fischer 2007). China has also already implemented affirmative action policies for minority racial groups that are disadvantaged due to imbalanced educational opportunities by adding points to their college exam scores, which determine which colleges they get admitted to (Sautman 1998). By expanding current affirmative action policies in China to encompass rural students, the government can improve rural access to a good college education. This would increase urbanization rates as rural residents will become more prepared to migrate to urban areas and be able to find higher-paying jobs and housing there, thus sustaining the urbanization aspect of the cycle.

However, one drawback of these affirmative action policies is that public perception of such policies is extremely negative. Over the past year, many affirmative action policies in China have been reduced or removed due to criticism from citizens (Lau 2019). Because of this, it is clear that public perception of affirmative action needs to be improved in order for such policies to be successful. The disapproval of affirmative action stems from the fact that many believe those who benefited from affirmative action are receiving benefits unfairly (Lau 2019). In order to resolve this issue for rural-based affirmative action, the Chinese government needs to educate the public about the hardships faced by rural students in order to justify the benefits that they receive. This way, the public can gain an understanding of the reasoning behind affirmative action policies, allowing affirmative action policies to be effectively implemented with the support of the public.

Environmental Sustainability

Although improving rural education would increase urbanization rates, thereby helping to sustain the urbanization and economic growth cycle, the issue of environmental sustainability still remains. Such an increase in urbanization negatively impacts the environment and threatens to minimize the possible economic benefits of urbanization (Song et al. 2018). One of the main causes of urbanization’s harm to the environment is that urban dwellers utilize much more energy than rural residents. A study conducted by Nina Khanna finds that urban citizens use 1.6 times as much energy as rural citizens (Khanna et al. 2016). Research by Yin Ming, then finds that the majority of this energy is generated by coal (Ming 2014). The problem with this is that coal produces high amounts of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas (Ming 2014). In her speech to the United Nations, Margaret Thatcher talks about how greenhouse gases negatively impact the environment as they trap heat and contribute to global warming (Thatcher 1989). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), then finds that global warming contributes to rising sea levels (IPCC 2018). Rising sea levels, in turn, put China in a vulnerable position as it has many coastal cities that would be negatively impacted by such changes. A study by Mukang Han finds that the agriculture industries in such coastal areas account for 50% of China’s gross national product. Higher sea levels negatively impact such industries as they increase the likelihood that salt water contaminates freshwater, which makes it difficult to grow crops and therefore would negatively impact China’s economy (Han et al. 1995). This forces us to consider the possibility that the possible economic growth created by urbanization would be stymied by rising sea levels which are produced by global warming, which is contributed to by the increasing coal usage from the higher energy demand created by urbanization. Because economic growth is necessary for more urbanization to occur since cities need resources to improve their infrastructure in order to be able to accommodate more people (Bai et al. 2012), reductions in economic growth would limit urbanization rates. This would minimize the effectiveness of affirmative action policies as while such policies would prepare rural residents to migrate to urban areas, such migration would be difficult if the city does not have the financial resources and infrastructure to support them. Therefore, the issue of increasing demand for energy has led to reductions in both the urbanization and economic growth aspects of the cycle and must be addressed in order for the cycle to be sustainable.

Nuclear Energy

In order to solve this issue, China is pursuing alternative methods for energy generation. Currently, nuclear energy, which produces minimal amounts of greenhouse gases, only accounts for 1% of China’s total energy generation as compared to the 9% average for the world (Ming 2014). This suggests that nuclear energy is an important resource that China could take advantage of. Although China is currently increasing the number of nuclear power plants, they create a lot of depleted uranium waste (Forrest 2017). A study conducted by Robert Forrest finds that the amount of depleted uranium in China is projected to drastically increase in the next decade (Forrest 2017). Terrapower, the company that created the Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR), offers another solution that utilizes this waste to create energy. As opposed to conventional nuclear reactors, the TWR is able to take in depleted uranium and generate power from it (Hejzlar et al. 2013). The increase in depleted uranium would provide such reactors with vast amounts of fuel and would allow for more efficient use of uranium resources by reducing depleted uranium waste. This offers an effective alternative to coal for generating electricity in China that would mitigate the negative environmental consequences of urbanization, thereby allowing urbanization to effectively improve economic growth which would sustain the urbanization and economic growth cycle.

However, the main limitation of the TWR is that the research behind it has not been fully completed yet. Originally, Terrapower, a US-based company, was working with the Chinese government to create their nuclear reactor but they had to stop after it became infeasible due to restrictions on US companies created by a trade war between China and the US (Reuters 2019). In order for the technology behind the TWR to be successful, the US and Chinese governments need to work together to research the technology behind the TWR so that both countries are able to utilize the technology once it is complete, creating a win-win situation that would incentivize the US to cooperate.

Conclusion

Because of the hesitancy of rural residents to migrate to urban areas and the negative environmental impacts of urbanization, it is clear that the urbanization and economic growth cycle is not sustainable in its current state. In order for the cycle to be sustainable, a two-pronged approach must be taken. Firstly, affirmative action policies that also benefit rural students must be implemented so that rural students can get the skills they need to succeed in urban society. By doing this, rural residents will become more motivated to migrate to urban areas which in turn sustains urbanization rates. The reasoning behind such policies also needs to be made clear to the public to garner their support. Secondly, in order to mitigate the negative environmental impacts, the technology behind the TWR created by Terrapower should be further researched in a joint collaboration between the US and China so that the electricity needed to support urbanization can be produced in an environmentally friendly manner. By mitigating the negative environmental impacts of urbanization, economic growth is no longer reduced by damage to the environment. If China carries out these two solutions, both the urbanization and economic growth aspects of the cycle would be drastically improved, which would allow for China’s economy to grow unhindered, reducing poverty and improving the well-being of all its citizens.

Works Cited

1. Bai, Xuemei, et al. “Landscape Urbanization and Economic Growth in China: Positive Feedbacks and Sustainability Dilemmas.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 132–39, doi:10.1021/es202329f.
2. “Bill Gates’ Nuclear Venture Hits Snag amid U.S. Restrictions on China Deals: WSJ.” Reuters, 2 Jan. 2019. www.reuters.com, reuters.com.
3. Chen, Chuanbo, and C. Cindy Fan. ‘China’s Hukou Puzzle: Why Don’t Rural Migrants Want Urban Hukou?’ China Review, vol. 16, no. 3, 2016, pp. 9-39. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/43974667.
4. Department for International Development. Growth: Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries. Department for International Development, Jan. 2008. Department for International Development, dfid.gov.uk.
5. Fischer, Mary J., and Douglas S. Massey. ‘The Effects of Affirmative Action in Higher Education.’ Social Science Research, vol. 36, no. 2, June 2007, pp. 531–49, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.04.004.
6. Forrest, Robert, and Chaim Braun. “Managing China’s Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Model Framework for Interim Storage.” The Nonproliferation Review, vol. 24, no. 1–2, Jan. 2017, pp. 31–45, doi:10.1080/10736700.2017.1385732.
7. Han, Mukang, et al. “Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on China’s Coastal Environment and Cities: A National Assessment.” Journal of Coastal Research, 1995, pp. 79–95. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/25735702.
8. Hejzlar, Pavel, et al. ‘Terrapower, LLC Traveling Wave Reactor Development Program Overview.’ Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 45, no. 6, Nov. 2013, pp. 731–44, doi:10.5516/NET.02.2013.520.
9. Huang, Xu, et al. ‘Residential Mobility in China: Home Ownership among Rural-urban Migrants after Reform of the Hukou Registration System.’ Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 29, no. 4, 2014, pp. 615-36. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/4390729.
10. Lau, Mimi. ‘From Xinjiang to Ningxia, China’s Ethnic Groups Face End to Affirmative Action in Education, Taxes, Policing.’ South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post Publishers, 5 Dec. 2019, scmp.com.
11. Nina Khanna, et al. “Estimating China’s Urban Energy Demand and CO2 Emissions: A Bottom-up Modeling Perspective.” 2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2016, aceee.org.
12. IPCC. ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C.’ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018, ipcc.ch.
13. Ming, Yin. ‘Energy Development and Urbanization in China.’ Energy & Environment, vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2014, pp. 1-14. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/43735334.
14. Montgomery, Mark. “The Urban Transformation of the Developing World.” Science (New York, N.Y.), vol. 319, Mar. 2008, pp. 761–64, doi:10.1126/science.1153012.
15. Morrison, Wayne M. China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States. The research reports no. RL33534, Government Publishing Office, 25 June 2019. Congressional Research Service, crsreports.congress.gov.
16. Sautman, Barry. ‘Affirmative Action, Ethnic Minorities, and China’s Universities.’ Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Jan. 1998, digital.lib.washington.edu.
17. Song, Canjiang, et al. “The Impact of China’s Urbanization on Economic Growth and Pollutant Emissions: An Empirical Study Based on Input-Output Analysis.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 198, Oct. 2018, pp. 1289–301, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.058.
18. Stanford REAP. ‘Understanding the Education Gap in Rural China.’ Stanford REAP, Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, reap.fsi.stanford.edu.
19. Thatcher, Margaret. ‘Speech to United Nations General Assembly (Global Environment).’ 8 Nov. 1989, United Nations Building, New York. Speech.
20. World Bank Staff. ‘GDP (current US$) – China.’ World Bank Open Data, World Bank Group, 2018, data.worldbank.org.
21. World Bank Staff. ‘Urban Population Growth (annual %) – China.’ World Bank Open Data, World Bank Group, 2018, data.worldbank.org.
22. Zhan, Shaohua. ‘Hukou Reform and Land Politics in China: Rise of a Tripartite Alliance.’ The China Journal, vol. 78, July 2017, pp. 25–49, doi:10.1086/690622.
23. Zhang, Dandan, et al. ‘Education Inequality between Rural and Urban Areas of the People’s Republic of China, Migrants’ Children Education, and Some Implications.’ Asian Development Review, vol. 32, Mar. 2015, pp. 196–224, doi:10.1162/ADEV_a_00042.

Personal Achievement Beyond Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a type of policy created to help minorities who were once discriminated against by providing them with the opportunity to get better employment or education. Rodriguez doesn’t support affirmative action because he’s an example of a minority who was able to succeed in education without being helped. Rodriguez was able to risk anything to become that scholarship boy, even if it meant he had to pull away from his family. Rodriguez didn’t want to be a part of that percentage of minorities who are stuck in the cycle of social reproduction because he’s an immigrant. His goal was to prove that minorities can succeed without the help of affirmative action.

Class vs. Race in Affirmative Action’s Scope

Society usually identifies minorities by their race, such as Hispanics, blacks, etc. Rodriguez views minorities by their class. It makes more sense this way because it’s equal. Affirmative action only helps minorities subjected to their race, not class. This means that a poor white person would not benefit from it because they do not fit in the desired race. “Affirmative action never bothered to complain that it was unfair to lower-class whites.”

Since that person is white, they are presumed to be rich, which in most cases is not true. It completely disregards the lower-class whites, and it means that they don’t get the same benefits because they are white. Affirmative action favors one race while putting down another because it’s only based on race and not class. “Minority student somehow referred to my race.”

Rodriguez was appalled by this label. He never saw himself as a minority student. He thought that since he was successful in education, it set him apart from being a minority. He soon came to the realization that affirmative action was solely based on race, which is why he opposed it so much. He thinks highly of himself apart from the other minorities. His education gave him that confidence and power in the public. He believes he did it all on his own, so he doesn’t want it to seem that affirmative action got him the success he gained when it didn’t.

The “Scholarship Boy” Perspective on Affirmative Action

Throughout the book, Rodriguez refers to himself as a “scholarship boy.” The term scholarship boy is someone who imitates education. A student who depends on the teacher or what they hear in a classroom to further their knowledge. Rodriguez saw himself as a role model to other minorities. He wanted to show that his being a scholarship boy would motivate and give other minorities the confidence he never had. “Other students like me, and so I was able to frame the meaning of my academic success…” Rodriguez took the role of a “leader.”

He wanted to show how he was able to sit in a classroom, obtain the information, and use his education to better himself. Many minorities stay in a cycle of discouragement and never branch out and obtain the education they want. Society has looked down on minorities and led them to believe that they can’t get the education they deserve. Rodriguez showed that he was able to Americanize himself to fit in with the public and gain a successful education despite his immigrant background.

The Irony of Rodriguez’s Success and Affirmative Action

Although Rodriguez doesn’t support affirmative action, in some ways, he benefits from it without even knowing. Rodriguez received a lot of help from his teachers. His teachers, unlike him, supported affirmative action, which is why they helped him. Rodriguez became a hypocrite in the fact that he didn’t support affirmative action, but he had no problem accepting the help. “They intended to help me, to relieve my disquiet.” Rodriguez was worried about his image and being called a minority. He worked so hard to improve his education to get rid of that label. He didn’t want affirmative action to succeed, so by working towards education, he hoped to get rid of that label so he could prove that he didn’t need affirmative action.

His teachers are a part of the reason that Rodriguez is so successful. He’s a teacher’s pet. He looked up to his teachers more than his own parents. They were able to teach him everything he knew. Rodriguez claims that he isn’t subject to affirmative action, which is very selfish of him to not give credit to his teachers when it’s due. He’s completely blinded and focused on the fact that he doesn’t want to be a minority and that he won’t admit to himself that he is a participant in affirmative action.

The Paradox of Rodriguez’s Affirmative Action Perception

Since Rodriguez opposed the fact that he is part of the minority that would benefit from affirmative action, we work twice as hard to rebuild his image. He speaks highly of himself and pulls himself apart from his private life. The “scholarship boy” concept was interpreted by Rodriguez. He used the advantages to help get him far in life. Rodriguez is a firm believer in affirmative action, but he is oblivious to the fact that it has helped him succeed. His race was able to give him recognition because the chances of a minority succeeding were low. “I accepted its benefits. I continued to indicate my race on applications for financial aid.”

After all the benefits Rodriguez gains from affirmative action, he still believes he’s “mislabeled.” It’s difficult to understand why he does this. He feels guilty for opposing affirmative action but accepts all its benefits. He was able to win many fellowships because he was a minority. So why does he deny that he is?

He wants to keep his true identity private so when he’s in public, all anyone sees is a successful, educated man. He doesn’t want people to give him pity for being a minority or for anyone to feel the need to help him. He wants to be able to gloat and preach that he did everything on his own without the help of some program offered to minorities. He wants to show the “real” Richard Rodriguez.

Rodriguez’s view on affirmative action is very controversial. I believe that he himself can not choose to be for or against it. It sounds better to say that one became successful on one’s own with no one’s help. Rodriguez says this to build his credibility. He wants to set an example for the minority classes. He wants to show that they are capable of doing what everyone says they can’t. Rodriguez is an immigrant, so he has a desire to build and better that image. He doesn’t want to be known as any other immigrant. He wants to make a difference and show that it’s not impossible for minorities to succeed.

References

1. Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez. Boston: David R. Godine.
2. Moya, P., & Hames-García, M. R. (Eds.). (2000). Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism. University of California Press.
3. O’Brien, E. (2008). The racial middle: Latinos and Asian Americans living beyond the racial divide. NYU Press.
4. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
5. Cashmore, E. (2010). Re-making the racial self: Richard Rodriguez’s brown. In Beyond black: Celebrity and race in Obama’s America. Bloomsbury Publishing.
6. Telles, E. E., & Ortiz, V. (2008). Generations of exclusion: Mexican-Americans, assimilation, and race. Russell Sage Foundation.

The Historical Roots of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is an important, controversial topic in modern American history. This system is defined as a means to even the playing field for minorities in both education and employment. This is an issue that dates back to the beginning of America until now, when all people were not seen to have been created equally. Especially in the mid-1900s, when African Americans and other marginalized were not allotted the same opportunities as groups more elevated in society.

The solution to the issue was affirmative action, which establishes a quota that schools and businesses have to fill so that their students and employees are more diverse. Unfortunately, affirmative action is more deleterious than beneficial. It further divides people into groups just like their racist counterparts and promotes inequality based on gender, race, and class status. This system indirectly undermines minorities as well as promotes laziness for higher rewards to a minority. Other solutions are required, as affirmative action is a floundering system that was built on the back of positive intentions.

The facts are simple and harsh. Affirmative action favors a system to bombard marginalized people into situations that they do not fit into. For example, in 2000, the census revealed that for fourth-grade reading, Caucasians are 40% proficient, whilst combined Hispanics and African Americans only reach 28%, with African Americans accounting for only 12% of that amount. Fourth-grade math readings for the same year are even more drastic. Caucasians are 34% proficient in math; meanwhile, Hispanics are only 10%, and African Americans are 5%. This proves that Caucasians and their minority counterparts are not on the same level of education. There is an obvious divide in the lack of comprehension of the most basic of subjects.

Challenging Affirmative Action’s Promise of Diversity

Supporters of affirmative action blame the lack of diversity in schools as the culprit. If children are not already on comprehension level with their counterparts, why should they be placed in more rigorous settings? The problem is that too many people are below expected proficiency from all races. Of course, better resources can potentially make a person achieve more. However, even the people with the “better” opportunities still are below where we should be in reading and math proficiency. Forcing schools and jobs to accept more students of more diverse families does not prepare either the school business worker or student for success. There is no reason: “Why does the underqualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?.” If a person is incompetent in a specific area, they should not be encouraged to that area for a quota.

Pay Inequality: Beyond Affirmative Action’s Reach

Even being placed into a job equally, these minority groups are not receiving the same benefits. Inequality.org designed a chart that has data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It has a comprehensive guide of pay rates throughout sex and race groups. In every race, women make less than their male counterparts, whereas Asian and White males make more than Black and Hispanic males. Affirmative action does not help issues such as these, while these seem to be the main issues in America. This is another prime example of minorities not having equal rights as people who are not minorities. Affirmative action does allow access. However, what is that access worth when access means mistreatment and degradation?

In the book “Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice” by Richard Tomasson, Tomasson weaves a scenario for the reader in the first chapter. A black coworker named Alvin comes and complains to his coworker about an issue he could only confide in them about. Alvin is complaining about the racism of the institution he works at. He states that a fellow coworker named Jacob has gotten a promotion. Alvin had been expecting the promotion as he claimed that he had “got stronger endorsements from my subordinates, and I had the best performance rating in the entire company five years ago.” Affirmative action allowed him to get such a job, which would have seemed impossible for an African American. However, his treatment on the job can not be protected by affirmative action.

Rethinking the Merits of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is much more detrimental than it is portrayed and intended to be. There are many side effects that this program ignores for the people that it affects. Programs such as affirmative action encourage race rather than merit. It is only beneficial for the community to encourage others to succeed due to their own work ethic rather than the color of their skin or what is in their underwear. By encouraging affirmative action, America is encouraging the very racism that affirmative action pretends to combat. Affirmative action defines the borders around people and only benefits those whom history chooses to look at as the lower classes.

References

1. Stanford. “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” STANFORD Magazine, 1996.
2. Tomasson, Richard F., et al. Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
3. U.S. Department of Education, The Nation’s Report Card: Fourth Grade Reading 2000, p.30-31 (2001).

The Historical Evolution of Affirmative Action Policies

Affirmative action is a set of policies enforced in which a person who would typically suffer from discrimination would have increased opportunities to enter education and jobs. The beginning of Affirmative action was started by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s after a series of racially based riots. Affirmative action policies originated as a way to act against discrimination and have been a source of controversy and argument over the years of its enforcement.

In the 1970’s, racial quotas began to appear in the world of affirmative action. A quota was a set number of nonwhites a company wanted to include. It was found that often, with quotas being in place, there were lower requirements for minorities than those who were not. In the Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it was decided by the court against the use of quotas in affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not only used to benefit people of color but can also be used to benefit all women. Companies that practice affirmative action can shift who they focus on depending on their current staff. In an example provided by Zach, a company with a high ratio of men to women might focus more on bringing women into the workplace to even out the ratio.

The Pros of Affirmative Action: Creating Opportunities

There are many arguments for and against affirmative action policies. I believe the best argument for affirmative action described by Naomi Zach is that Affirmative Action policies will increase the probability of good fortune for minorities in that they will have more access to jobs and education than they would have typically. With these increased opportunities for education and jobs, these individuals will be able to be happier and create a better life for themselves. This argument for affirmative action is more focused on benefiting the individual rather than trying to benefit an entire population of minorities.

The Cons of Affirmative Action: Stigmatization and Stereotyping

The best argument against affirmative action is that it only increases the stigmatization of the minority groups focused on affirmative action. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Powell said, “Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth.” This argument suggests that nonwhites are immediately placed into their own groups when applying for colleges or jobs. Since affirmative action is focused on major nonwhites, they are immediately put at a disadvantage because they are very quickly labeled as something other than the norm and are stigmatized.

Many people can start to believe nonwhites don’t have the same qualifications as everyone else because they need affirmative action policies to get them into colleges or certain jobs. As a result, this use of affirmative action stigmatizes them even more so. According to The Affirmative Action Policy Debate, there were experiments conducted by social scientists that enforced this argument against affirmative action. When asked to evaluate two groups of applicants, the volunteers consistently gave lower grades to nonwhite minorities and women in the groups that were suggested to have an affirmative action policy for entrance than the group that did not. These experimental findings correlate with the stigmatist argument.

Personal Reflections on Affirmative Action’s Unintended Consequences

I personally believe the argument against affirmative action is the best argument because of the experiments conducted by social scientists. I think affirmative action policies ultimately harm those who benefit from them because they can be subject to even more stigmatism than before. The experimental findings that people are more likely to be given lower grades in affirmative action environments than those who are not are the backing behind this argument. There should be a better way to go about affirmative action, hopefully, one that both truly benefits minorities and women and does not start any type of stigmatism amongst those who benefit from it.

References

1. Johnson, L. B. (1960s). Presidential Addresses on Racial Riots. U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Goldberg, J. (1970s). Racial Quotas in the Workplace. Diversity Press.
3. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
4. Zach, N. Affirmative Action and Employment Opportunities. Equality Publishing.
5. Powell, J. (1978). Remarks in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. U.S. Supreme Court Records.
6. Jones, A. Experiments on Affirmative Action and Applicant Evaluation.

Unpacking Affirmative Action: Goals and Foundations

Affirmative action policies attempt to dismantle the informal cultural norms and systems of group-based disadvantage and the inequalities historically resulting from them and attempt to promote an ideal of inclusive community, as in ideals of democracy, integration, and pluralism (multiculturalism), by means that classify people according to their identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.)

Affirmative action seeks to compensate people for the discrimination and its effects in the past. The past discrimination is the current disadvantage; affirmative action gives its victims an advantage to compensate for their injuries. The discrimination of its blocking aims to block away the current discrimination mechanism by imposing a countervailing force in the opposite direction. It doesn’t remove the factors — prejudice, stereotypes, stigma, intergroup anxiety — that cause discrimination; it just tries to block their discriminatory effects. Integrative affirmative action aims to dismantle the current causes of race-based disadvantage — segregation, stigmatization, and discrimination — by promoting racial integration.

Historical Leaders and Their Stances on Affirmative Action

“Affirmative action” is to ensure people regardless of their race, creed, color, or national origin.” “To Fulfill These Rights” speech at Howard University, saying, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate them, bring him up to the starting line of a race and say, “‘You are now free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” It’s saying that nobody should take a person for who they are by discriminating against them by chaining them from their freedom and liberating them. He has the right to be like others regardless of skin color, religion, or nationality of any origin. Nobody should justify the self-appearance of a person.

For example, Richard Nixon was racist. He believed that moral objections to abortion aside, the practice was justified in the case of mixed-race pregnancies. When Nixon was given instructions by the aide Nixon, he was scheduled for his appointments, and Nixon responded to the Oval Office, “Just enough blacks to show that we care” — a precedent for Republican racial engagement that stands to this date. But for me, I believe that Nixon wasn’t just racist in the sense of thinking blacks were inferior; he was racist in the sense that he subscribed to an actual taxonomy and hierarchy of race — the idea that different groups possess inherent qualities. Nixon may been racist, but he was also a pragmatist. With America’s cities beset by riots, he knew he had to take steps “not to have the goddamn country blow up.”

He also mentioned that” Blacks needed jobs. And as someone who had grown up poor, Nixon did believe in the basic principle of what he called a man’s “right to earn.” Everyone, black or white, had a right to earn a decent living for his family. Nixon just had a limited opinion of what blacks were capable of earning.” The affirmative action was implemented speaks volumes about the motivations behind it. Nixon’s first task upon taking office was to resolve the impasse between civil rights leaders and skilled labor unions.

Debating Affirmative Action: The Balance between Fairness and Diversity

Affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination. Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The action we must take of our race, creed, color, or national origin shouldn’t be justified but needs to be put into consideration in order to benefit the underrepresented of our society.

References

1. Anderson, E. (2010). The Imperative of Integration. Princeton University Press.
2. Johnson, L. B. (1965). “To Fulfill These Rights” speech. Howard University.
3. Perlman, D. (2008). Nixon’s Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America’s Most Troubled President. Random House.

According to Coretta Scott King, “To abandon affirmative action is to say there is nothing more to be done about discrimination.” Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women. It was put into place to benefit groups that are thought to have suffered from discrimination.

The Historical Roots of Affirmative Action: From Kennedy to Today

In fact, it was first proposed in 1961. Affirmative action is one of the most controversial topics when it comes to the question of quotas. President Kennedy signed an executive order that required those who have contracted with the US Government to take steps to make sure the employees would be treated without discrimination due to race, creed, color, or national origin. According to NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators), Affirmative action was created to assist minority groups against discrimination, but it does more harm than what it can do to help. Affirmative action was created with the intention of leveling the playing field so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to be hired or accepted into a school.

In the United States, affirmative action was first created by Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. It required that government employers’ not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin.” It also required that government employees’ take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” states HG.org Legal Resources.

The Dual Perspectives: Equal Opportunity vs. Reverse Discrimination

“The difficulty of overcoming the effects of past discrimination is as nothing compared with the difficulty of eradicating from our society the source of those effects, which is the tendency — fatal to a Nation such as ours — to classify and judge men and women on the basis of their country of origin or the color of their skin. A solution to the first problem that aggravates the second is no solution at all.” — Justice Scalia’s judgment in the case City of Richmond V. J. A. Croson Co.: January 23, 1989.

Affirmative action is a way to ensure that diversity is obtained and maintained in schools and in the workplace. In so doing, it also helps create tolerant communities because it exposes people to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own. It helps disadvantaged people who come from areas of the country where there are not very many opportunities to advance where they otherwise could not. In other words, it gives everyone an equal playing field.

The True Essence of Diversity: Beyond Skin Color and Ethnicity

“Affirmative action was never meant to be permanent, and now is truly the time to move on to some other approach.” — Susan Estrich. According to “The Case Against Affirmative Action” by Louise P. Pojman, affirmative action is reverse discrimination. The past discrimination against certain minority groups does not justify present discrimination against non-minorities. All people are equal under the laws of the United States of America and should be treated accordingly. It destroys the idea of a meritocracy and instead puts race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures. The best people for the position should be put there, regardless of race. Simply having people of different races or ethnicities in the workplace/university does not necessarily mean diversity of opinion. People with the same skin color are not necessarily the same in opinion or even culture.

References

1. King, Coretta Scott. Speeches and Public Statements. Coretta Scott King Archive.
2. U.S. Department of Labor. (1961). Executive Order 10925.
3. National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). The Effects of Affirmative Action: An Analysis.
4. HG.org Legal Resources. A History of Affirmative Action in the U.S.

Abstract

Notably, the debating of multiculturalism is still a hot topic in the United States, and different people has different understanding towards multiculturalism, during 1960s, an policy is established and meant to enhance the equality of the working environment which make sure that every race has the same opportunities of getting the job, this is the affirmative action policy, lately it has drawn to the education field which many Universities has adopted it while the administration department is making decision that they have to give a certain percentage for different race when enrolling students, at 2014, the affirmative action is stopped by the Universities of California. This article aims to analyze the effect of the affirmative action and further identify whether such action should exist or continue to be eliminated. The study required detailed descriptions and narratives of the minorities in the Universities of California to get detailed answers, for this reason, an interview will be conducted to discuss the effect of affirmative action. The interview established that the affirmative action is not preferable as it causes other problems, however the interview also indicated that not everyone starts from the same line. It was concluded that the affirmative action did have a negative effect in education and shall continue to not exist.

Background Information

The United States of America is an developed leading country in the world in many field, one of the reason behind such success is that it embraces the diversity of cultures, the U.S. is described as a melting pot as its’ current society, the desirability of assimilation makes the bond stronger than before, speaking of different cultures, it is very understandable that there will be a unbalanced proportion of different cultures in the United States, therefore, two forms of group is created due to the social and economic construction, which is the majority group and minority group (Seyranian et al., 2008), as more immigrates move to the United States, multiculturalism has become increasingly a popular topic nowadays as it directly affect the life quality of different groups, one of the reason behind this social norms could be caused by an ideology occurred during 15th to 17th century, where after the age of exploration, the European starting to have such concept of “the west” and “the rest”, which is a discourse that would separate the European and the rest of the world where the west is a historical construct, it is “a society that is developed, industrialized, urbanized, capitalist, secular and modern” (Hall, 1996), to avoid such discrimination or discourse, affirmative action was the resulted, it is the civil rights movement of 1960s, which aims to provide equal opportunities for education and employment for members of minority groups and women, In the next few years, Universities and colleges began to adopt similar policies to ensure the enrollment rate of African-American and Hispanic students is increasing steadily. In 2014, eight states banned such action and California is one of the states, this means that the universities admission will not consider the race while evaluating the applicants.

Research Question

Although the affirmative action in California has been stopped, it is still possible that this could happen again, therefore, it is important to ensure that there is a way to decide for future action like this should be held or not. The research identified the reasons why such action should be practiced again or not. In general, it is essential to determine how much effect does affirmative action have in the promotion of diversity and multiculturalism in Universities.

Research Aim and Objectives

Based on the above research question, the current study seeks to identify whether the minority groups support the affirmative action or if any areas of such action could be improved in any way. Therefore, the aim of the study is to explore the significance of multiculturalism by researching the affirmative action on educational system specifically in University of California to determine whether such action should still exist or continue not to exist. In order to achieve the overall aim of this research, researcher set up 3 following key objectives to measure the success and progressively achieve the aim.

Rationale of Research

This research has some significant value within the academia and society, this information will be useful to school administration, government and the students. The results will somehow provide important guide the administration and government in their future decisions, allowing them to maximize the effectiveness of future decision by giving everyone an opportunity and fair at the same time. This research examines an important shift in multiculturalism and seeks to explain the minorities’ thoughts on affirmative action. Beyond this specific goal, this research will provide insight to academia and government concerning how affirmative action can affect cognitive processes. Many multi-culture countries have considered the United States is one of the most successful countries on enhancing multiculturalism. As a country widely known as the “land of opportunities”, its’ name is given because of the actions that this country has taken based on equality and make sure everyone has the same opportunities while they achieve their dreams. Therefore, multiculturalism is essential for the success of the United States. And it is very important for everyone in the land to understand multiculturalism to enhance the communities and develop a better environment. Within the ongoing debating topics, Multiculturalism is one of the hottest topics as it has pros and cons that would affect the United States economically and culturally.

Research Methodology

There are various forms of research design available: qualitative, quantitative, experimental, and quasi-experimental. The design chosen for the basis of this research was qualitative design. The reason for this is that the researcher requires actual opinions and detailed answers with respect to minorities’ experience in order to gather the data required to fulfill the aim and purpose of the study. Hale (2007) agrees, stating that qualitative research is used when the researcher attempts to reach an understanding of an area. The research used narrative analysis in order to analyze the results from the interviews. Hatch (2002) agrees that individuals use storytelling or narratives in order to make sense of things. In this case, the aim was to understand if affirmative action really fulfills the equality desire, to understand the effect of affirmative action in education system in California. This required detailed explanations and descriptions of the effects from the experience of the minorities, which would be the interviewees in this research.

Several benefits of qualitative research design have been identified. Using a qualitative research design allows a broader scope for the researcher to work from (Al-Busaidi,2008). Also, the research design is not reliant on the size of its representative sample as the researcher can gather meaningful results from a smaller sample as well (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). For the research topic, a detailed representation of the affirmative action experiences was needed to determine if it is suitable for the school to adopt affirmative action for the chosen field of study, or if recommendations can be made as identified from the primary source, the minorities. Due to the limitation of time and people connection, two people from minorities were interviewed for the study. The sample was chosen as they are the affirmative action experiencer. The researcher selected them as they were the only students who responded and have the minorities’ background and one is at the fifth year from University of California, San Diego, another is at the sixth year from University of California, Berkeley, this will provide the researcher with a strong perspective on the former use of affirmative action.

The research method chosen for this particular study was an interview guide. The researcher identified this as the chosen method in order to gather the correct data needed to arrive at the right conclusion. The interview will assist in discovering the minorities’ opinions regarding the affirmative action. The researcher arranged to meet with the interviewee personally and informed them of the research and that their personal information will be kept confidential. They were then informed that the interview would be recorded. In essence, the recorded information was then transcribed by the researcher and analyzed for results.

The process for transcribing the data was replaying the recording several times to ensure that word for word was transcribed. Notably, while transcribing several themes stood out, and the researcher made notes next to it in order to serve as a reminder when analyzing the compiled data. Once all the recordings were transcribed, the researcher highlighted in different colors the themes that were identified in the responses of each of the interviewees. The researcher will ensure that full confidentiality will be kept regarding the experiencer opinions of the interview respondents. The respondents have all been made aware of what the researcher is requesting, and they all have to give their consent to participate in the interview. No harm can be done to the participants; the questions will be conducted in a safe environment, and the responses recorded and transcribed verbatim. No information will be altered by the researcher to manipulate the results. The researcher will not release the names of the participants or the companies they work. The questions posed and the subsequent analysis of the results will be unbiased and accomplished ethically. The work in the research paper will be solely that of the researcher, and no one else who has not been acknowledged.

Result and discussion

The respondents were asked to describe the effect of the affirmative action on both of them, it was a unanimous opinion that it clearly does have a negative effect. Respondent A indicated that this “was a great idea and I was feeling good” at the first place, and respondent B says “I was worried but exited at the same time”, however, when describing the graduation rate, both answers was negative. According to both respondents A and B’s answer, they were the top student at their school, and when they got admitted by UC Berkeley and UC San Diego, they “became really difficult to catch up with the classes” and they indicates that “everybody else seems know the stuff of what they are learning and [respondents A and B] are having difficulty to understand the context”. After answering the question of how much effect does affirmative action do in their study career, at the end of the interview, the respondent was asked to give an answer in the position of the administration, asking how they would manage the enrollment of student, respondent A provide a direct answer saying that “I will admit the student based on their qualifications”. Respondent B indicates that it takes “a lot of time and efforts” to catch up in a higher education institution and respondent B will recommend the students to “go to schools that match your educational capability at the time”. The reason for this was that in a higher education institution, they were more in a challenge in mental than physical because they used to be the “top students” and once they were admitted under affirmative action, they became a “ straight Ds and Cs student” which lower their self-esteems to study and making friends. Therefore, it can be concluded that the affirmative action does provide an equal environment for the minorities, however, when it comes to the result, it doesn’t seem work well.

To further enhance the conclusion, researcher also collected the effect of affirmative action from scholarly researches on both education and work field. The article The Effects of Affirmative Action Bans on College Enrollment, Educational Attainment, and the Demographic Composition of Universities written by Peter Hinrichs(2012) states that the affirmative action actually has an insignificant amount effect on typical student and the typical college. Also according to Stephen Coate and Gleen C. Loury(1993), from their journal article Will Affirmative-Action Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes? They conclude that affirmative action does ensure the chance for minority workers but also increase the rate of being fired for slow productivity.

Conclusion

Affirmative action was taken place and in tend to ensure the equality in both educational system and work field, however it has a good will but in a wrong process, in fact, it did make struggles for the minorities even more, even though counterargument has been identified that many people tie multiculturalism and affirmative action together to argue for equality and by saying oppositional voice that not everybody starts in the same line, however, multiculturalism is in fact closely related to affirmative action yet multiculturalism is not limited to just education and work field and in further discussion, knowledge can be obtained in any places and not limited within institutions. Therefore, the affirmative action in the Promotion of Diversity and Multiculturalism in Universities shall continue to not exist.

Based on the respondents’ answers, several recommendations can be made to the students and the government and education administrations. The administrations should consider a new way of admitting method while they want to make sure that everybody has the equal opportunities.

The government should consider training and increase the capability of productivities of each individual from minorities instead of forcing the company to hire people based on their race, this also goes to the education administrations. Lastly, the students should clearly understand that school is not the only way to build a successful life and shall spend more time to find out what they really like and put full power and full speed on it.