Winter assignment

“Was Affirmative Action Succeeded?”

　We know that racial discrimination is one of the most serious problem in the U.S. and most important field of racial discrimination for victims, consistent of minority (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and so on.) and women, is that in employment. First reason is that all people, especially low-wage people have to have jobs to earn livings. Second one's that there is one reality. This is that the less wage one group of race gain, the poorer they get, the higher rate of unemployment of this group, and the more times they are discriminated because of poverty and unemployment, then… this is vicious spiral of race discrimination, poverty, and unemployment. They needed much help at once, so that in 1960s many movements against the government arose. Then, U.S. government decided to make some rule or policy to helped them and stopped movements.

　In 1965 U.S. President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, directing that all Government contacting agencies take affirmative action in order to prohibit all discrimination in employment because of applicants' race, creed, color, or national origin (in 1967 discrimination because of sex). To achieve this object, the secretary of labor was allowed to adopt such rule and regulation he viewed as necessary and appropriate.

　Affirmative action is also adopted in university and college in the U.S. because in order to remedy discrimination in employment, firstly it's necessary to give minority equal education, especially higher education. Firm usually hesitated to employ applicants who don't have good education. It's like one kind of factor to choose them. So, affirmative action in university is as much essential as that in employ. We should regard these actions as one affirmative action because they are interdependence. If the number of unemployment minority decreased not owing to the higher education but for such reason as the rise of labor demand, prosperity, or other, the aim of affirmative action would not succeed. It's because the emergence of depression or other bad firm and market conditions result in dismissal of employee who have little education or special ability, intelligence, knowledge, and so on, and finally the number return to the degree it used to be. That is to say, eternal equal rate of employee among all groups is final and real purpose that affirmative action requires.

　We can know from previous paragraphs that low rate of unemployment or university student of minority doesn't always mean success, but it can be said that high rate always means fail. In 1988, the rate of minority in university and college full-time faculties is just 10 percent (woman is just 25 percent). This statistic result means affirmative action come to nothing (at least equal higher education isn't provided for minorities and women). This result proves it's too difficult to remedy this problem and that affirmative action has some wrong and bad points so that it didn't work to such a degree that we could deem this action all right. After 20 years passed, few things had changed from previous statistics.

　Now I'll think over some wrong points and alternative better affirmative action on each topic.

　Firstly, I'll mention quota system in universities and colleges. Quota system is what put university under obligation to accept the number, decided by order, of minority applicants. It's one common sense that what is the most useful way to judge whether affirmative action is succeed or not is to compare the rate of minority in university with that in the U.S. by research its data and statistic documents. So, some people imagined that to keep or to increase the number of the students of minority in university is the best method and adopted it, but in reality it wasn't succeed. Some people, however, may reject my opinion since in statistics there're more students of minority than before. It looks reasonable, but it's not true, for what is most important on affirmative action that I wrote is not the number or rate of students of minority but its contents. Good action show good statistic but good statistics don't mean good contents.

　Now I'll consider one example. If the number of quota is very large, in order to meet quota one university will allow to enter not only minority applicants who have good ability and potential but also people who want only diplomas and have no intention to study. University must satisfy the quota and if it didn't it would be punished by some rule, so that universities have no choice but to scrape minority students, then this choice will lead student's ability to fall because of less attention to new students. And after they graduate from university and get jobs, firms will find average ability of new graduated minority labor not as much as that before and they may strengthen one stereotypes that minority labor, who are even graduated from colleges or university, have less useful than major labor, white. Finally, firms get decent reason to reduce new minority employee by saying, “we need just able labor, not white labor, so that we'll adopt capacity principle and choose able labor.” That's to say, affirmative action made to remedy racial discrimination in university accelerates racial discrimination in employment.

　University may be criticized because they spoil its students. If university had so good educational ability to make all student able businessmen, scholar, scientist, lawyer, doctor, or other specialist, quota system might be good system but real system is different from ideal system. No university gets the ideal result that all its students promote their abilities and can get jobs. Explicit object is sometimes good but in this case it's bad since it likely to fail. Its contents are more important.

　I wrote number's content is important over and over again. It's what I want say. First object is quality, second is quantity. So, I would like to tell university, “Don't make quota, make able minority student, and they will benefit all U.S. society as good social constituent members.” If the rate of minority in firms increases, then not only firms lost reason to reject minority labor but also more number of minority applicants can get jobs because firms come to have less racial stereotypes. And more minority descendants become able to have higher education. It also looks ideal, but I think of it more realistic than quota system.

　To achieve quota system's object that continuous increase of minority students in university; it's better not to use quota system.

　Secondly, I'll mention reverse racial discrimination. This is that major people, white people in U.S., become victims by too much protection of victims, minority in U.S. Some people perhaps say this is just one of many white people's complaints, but I regard this problem as one of main problems because the more times, in the more places affirmative action are adopt, the more reverse discrimination arise.

　I'll give three examples. First example is in the case that there're one black person and white one both of who want to enter same university and there is no difference in any points between them, firstly black one will be allowed to enter and may get more scholarship than white one. This example shows the complexity in affirmative action. Affirmative action was made to abolish all racial discrimination, so it's obvious that reverse racial discrimination that result from affirmative action should be also remedied by another affirmative action.

　Second example is that there're differences among minority and among majority. Jew is the race in U.S. that is at the high rate of students in university. They needn't be helped but they're also one part of minority. On the other part, white people who lack money to live and education exist. It goes without saying that they need more help than Jew, but affirmative action won't help them because they are one part of majority. So, as affirmative action goes, the gap between minority and them are wider. For poor white, simple affirmative action that helps only minority looks a kind of racial discrimination.

　Third example is very concrete and extreme one. This is the practice at Pennsylvania State University of presenting $ 580 to black students who maintain a C to C⁺ grade average (this grade is too low for students to get scholarship.) and $1,160 to those who do better. On the contrary, non-black students get nothing. This example is one of those that show the implementation of preferential policy extends far beyond hiring and admissions. This also proves that too much preferential affirmative action is easier than appropriate one, because this policy satisfy the condition that black student are equal to normal white ones and this university won't be criticized and may be praised by black activists. However it is easy to imagine that poor other racial students suffer more loss, for high academic ability provides them nothing, but black skin helps black students study at that university without any problems. So I can say this example is exactly reverse discrimination.

　To sum up, these examples show it's wrong to decide what race should be the subject of affirmative action by judging from only the difference in races. There're many exceptions on this case so we can't judge what affirmative action is the best indiscriminately.

　Everyone knows it's impossible to remedy both discriminations completely, but we must specify one compromise point to moderate this problem as far as we can. I think this point should be beneficial for all of U.S. society and simple because affirmative action's plan requires one big principle. Whether minority or poverty? My opinion is that minority is more important point, because in democratic nations what are essential are liberty and equal. In this sentence, equal is not equal property (it's communism) but equal rights. Racial discrimination violates this presupposition. I guess many poor people reject my opinion and cry “Consider us!” However, we must remember that in world history, the nations that violate their own constitution or persecute their own people were more likely to decay, like France Kingdom or Russia Empire because of the revolution or other movement made by oppressed people.

　Thirdly, there're some Supreme Court cases that legally prohibit the institutions of higher education from seeking to remedy the effect of societal discrimination. And they also limit that institution to correcting for discriminations and prejudice within their own institutional structure. Now, I'll give one example that shows this.

　This example is Wards Cove decision (1989). This content is following; “Disparate impact plaintiffs cannot solely on statistics to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In addition to statistical disparities, they must identify a particular practice and link it causally to the statistics. If the employer engages in a number of practices that are alleged to be discriminatory, the plaintiff will need to demonstrate which practice or practices are causally responsible for any discriminatory impact.” These sentences mean that plaintiffs, that is, victims have to search the evidences by themselves that prove discrimination exists. It's heavy burden for discriminated people because they have little money to spend in proving its discrimination and this burden accelerate personal discrimination in working place since employer want to get out cumbersome employees.

　Not only this case but also many other Supreme Court cases exist. If I search the words “affirmative action”, then more than 10,000 of homepages about it and some of them show some Supreme Court cases that interrupted the implementation of affirmative action. That makes us know that even now, there're problems in regard to affirmative action and its environment. For example on Internet, there is one document whose subject is “SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW THE PISCATAWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN” Its contents are written in below paragraph.

　This example shows that a white teacher became a victim. For him, this affirmative action looks unequal and it may be really so. However, Supreme Court finally judge this matter is legal.

　We want to say here that Supreme Court should helps affirmative action, but if Court judges that it is illegal and need to be changed, Court has better advise some institutions that implement affirmative action. This advice also helps affirmative action. Wards Cove decision was obviously not help but obstacle for victimized plaintiffs.

　I wrote three wrong points that are the problems in affirmative action. To sum up, what I expect affirmative action is to change past hierarchy that WASP is on the top of pyramid into the society where all people have equal opportunity to make American Dream as business succeed persons. I have seen many succeed black sports players, actors, singers, in many times through mass-media, for example television, newspaper, magazine, et cetera, but I have hardly seen black professors or big company's presidents or CEO (chief executive officer). I guess this is the main reason that racial discrimination exists even now to high degree though affirmative action was made. No black president of the U.S. existed. In such a nation why can minority trust the government, big companies or university? So, I think the final, ultimate aim of affirmative action is to make the U.S. president of minority race.

　I expect the U.S. to shed light on future ideal nation. Japan is the nation that is the most exclusive developed nation but Japanese government has solved nothing about this problem. I imagine it's because Japanese people think of foreigners as enemies or criminals. Even some members of the Diet are convicted that foreigners are dangerous, so its better not to allow some applicants of them to be naturalized as Japanese citizens. I assume that these stereotypes derive from the Japanese people's impression of America's minority. “The diversity of race result in the increase of crimes, riots, and discrimination.” or “increase of foreigners in Japan will cause the rise of the rate of unemployment.” These are absurd for American, but it's sorry that it's a bit true (at least people around me). Japanese want only foreign technology and culture.

　In my mind, however, I believe the diversity of races in a nation promote itself. It's because the differences among races create more chances in limited place. Many different opinions make one excellent opinion but similar opinions are just one opinion. And each race has strong point so that the diversity must get a nation and its firm, culture, sciences, academy, and many other things more efficient and advanced. In Japan, Nissan, automobile company employed one France businessman as CEO though there're many Japanese superiors in Japan. It proved Japan need foreign people. But Japan has no courage to make admission of immigrants, permanent resident or naturalization. They want a good model and an opportunity to justify their policy. So, if the U.S. achieve the equality among races, U.S. really will be approved of as the leader of the world. At the present time much nationalism exist and they cause many internal wars. It's because in some place each race hates each other races. The U.S. has much chance to remedy these problems because it gives the nations the way to solve the racial problem.

　I conclude that there is no best affirmative action because of its complexity, for example quota system, reverse discrimination, Supreme Court cases, and so on. However, there're some better ones than this affirmative action. Not just until now but also from now on, in many times affirmative action will be changed to make better one. And our role is to observe it and judge whether that is really good or needed to be changed. Finally, at end I'd like to say, that not Court or Government but citizens should manage affirmative action by themselves. If it become possible to do it, this means that the aim of affirmative action is achieved.

　I referenced one book, “Affirmative Action and the University”, Edited by Steven M. Cahn, pressed by Temple University Press and some homepages that write article in relation to affirmative action without being admitted. So I want to told them、“Thanks”

戻る