Those who oppose affirmative action are not just limited to the ‘angry white men’ but a growing number of women and minorities are no longer supporting affirmative action policies because the benefits are no longer worth the side effects. The main side effect that many of the women and minorities face is the perception that their success and achievements are unearned and not deserved (Froomkin). The most valid and unbiased argument though against affirmative action seems to be that the progress made is not substantial, simply put the people who need the largest amount of help are getting the smallest amount which leads to the critical analogy of affirmative action.

Personally I do not think that affirmative action really works or serves any significant purpose except for to divide the racial boundaries even further even though studies have shown that minorities are not the one’s benefiting most from affirmative action but rather middle-class Caucasian women. In 1962 women only had a 39% participation rate in the labor force. The 39% jumped to a staggering 58.8% thirty-two years later in 1994 (Seeman). The percentage of women who have some type of administrative job was 42% in 1993 but that of blacks was only 5.2% (Seeman). If affirmative action is supposed to be the ‘equalizer’ for the fairy tale ‘level playing field’ then why is the unemployment rate for college-educated blacks 2.24 time the amount of whites (Seeman) and why then are African-Americans still to this day rejected for job interviews even when that black man/woman holds the same credentials as the white applicant.

Many wonder how such a phenomena can occur. How can affirmative action which is designed to help minorities (particularly blacks since that is what the media and the ‘angry white men’ tend to focus on) and women enter the economic mainstream only be accomplishing one of the goals? The answer is simple only 13% (36 million) of America’s population is African-American while blacks account for an astounding 23% of the population that is in poverty (United States Census 2000). The majority of blacks are poor and uneducated (only 34.8% black men and 33.3% of black females are high school graduates (United States Census 2000)) and are not applying for the administrative jobs or the Ivy league schools (most of them wouldn’t even know how to fill out the application). Affirmative action has no meaning to the 51.5% of blacks who live in the inner city or the 58.1% of black females who live off of less than $25,000 a year (United States Census 2000).

Everyone wants to paint this affirmative action picture that shows little ‘Johnny’ growing up in an inner city ghetto but he still graduates from high school and then one day is visited by the affirmative action fairy who transports him to a prestigious university where he graduates at the top of his class and then gets an executive job all thanks to affirmative action. Realistically though I think this picture is completely fictitious and ‘Johnny’ will grow up in the inner city ghetto, not graduate from high school join a gang, get a couple of women pregnant and not marry any of them since only 39.8% of black men are married (United States Census 2000), grow bitter towards society and life in general, end up selling illicit drugs to make a living and wind up dead at an early age since the life expectancy of black males is only 55.2 years which is the lowest of any ethnic group (Seeman). The odds of little ‘Johnny’ going to Harvard are about as likely as me being whisked away from The University of Wyoming in a tornado and meeting up with Dorothy and the Wizard in the wonderful land of Oz.

Some may see my view points as cynical but the statistics and members of my own family show that affirmative action only works for those who are educated and whom are not living in poverty. Some people have been to at least one ghetto and those that have can attest to the fact that the “poor black ghetto isn’t what one would expect it to be. One visitor to a Chicago ghetto said that “the dangers…lay in getting a bad education; not in walking into gunfights…The problems are more poor school systems starved for money than shooting and drug dealing on every street corner” (Raghunathan). People in the ghetto don’t have a chance in the economic mainstream whether affirmative action exists or not because under the law anyone “benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications” (Sykes).

So if affirmative action is not the answer to making a ‘level playing field’ in the United States than what is? One idea is that of affirmative action based on class which Richard D. Kahlenberg made known in his book Class, Race and Affirmative Action.

The book basically argues that an affirmative action based on class would solve many problems by being a way to meet the “goals of racial preferences while avoiding the problems racial preferences create” (Gee). A class-based system would benefit the poor who need the opportunities the most whether that person is white or black, male or female as long as that person is poor than he/she qualifies. For example in higher education decisions low-income applicants may receive more attention and consideration than middle or upper-class applicants.

Some may think Kahlenburg’s idea would work but I think that his class-based affirmative action will cause the same problem as race/gender-based affirmative action. Instead though of the ‘angry white man’ being infuriated at the black man he will turn his anger to the ‘poor white man’ and the ‘poor black man’ so now he’ll just be angry at even more people. I think that Kahlenburg’s idea is step in the right direction but if a person is in poverty one can assume that that same person went to a poor school and is therefore poorly educated and would be completely unqualified to even attend a university and since the majority of the people in poverty are minorities how is his take on affirmative action any different than the one implemented in today’s society?

Civil Rights & Affirmative Action continued...