"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." This quote stems from Justice Scalia’s own judgment during City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co, a case reviewed in 1989. In the context of our class’s discussion, this quote, which I found online while searching to find the opinions on both sides of the debate, stood out to me as I contemplated whether or not affirmative action was a flawed system - and if so, whether or not that system should be modified, or simply removed altogether.
In context of the quote provided above, I thus felt the desire to challenge the idea that affirmative action is “no solution.” Truthfully, there are valid points on both sides of the argument - indeed, in placing special attention on the factor of race, individuals stemming from typically disadvantaged groups (and disadvantaged can be defined in a number of ways) can reach a somewhat more balanced “playing field” so to speak. In class today, we discussed the numerous reasons why the college process, though increasingly holistic in its admission process, favors those of higher socioeconomic statuses - there are the obvious (often White) family donors whose money can often nearly guarantee their child a spot in a school. There are also factors which can inhibit admissions chances for individuals of lower socioeconomic statues (which often, but not always, are connected with the disadvantages of people of color): the inability to pay for an SAT tutor, participate in after-school activities due to long commutes, or apply to far-away schools due to expensive travel fees are just a few issues that those of disadvantaged positions face during the college application process. In many ways, affirmative action has worked to acknowledge these unfair advantages and disadvantages, and has often succeeded in remedying some of the many conflicts they pose. The problem for many, however, is that affirmative action fails to provide a balanced playing field for all. Some who are against the mission state that it unfairly pits minority groups against each other, as White people are often admitted as the highest percentage of the class, while the others are forced to “fight” for their spot. This argument holds very valid and true against the reputation of affirmative action, as the mission of the program is to promote more diversity and less restrictions. However, when thinking about potential modifications to the philosophy’s current system, I believe that Scalia’s quote stands out as an attitude which we should not strive to take on. While judgement based on race has historically had dangerous consequences, to strive for a “color blind” society today - in which we no longer take into account their race or place of origin - is not a morally or historically correct way to view a person and his or her experiences. When taking steps to fix the many inequalities still present among different groups, it is important to recognize that in many cases, such inequalities are in fact due to past injustices that they may have faced due to their race. Thus, though it is clear that affirmative action is a system which requires modification, it is by no means a system which should be eradicated if we wish to level the playing field for all.
In context of the quote provided above, I thus felt the desire to challenge the idea that affirmative action is “no solution.” Truthfully, there are valid points on both sides of the argument - indeed, in placing special attention on the factor of race, individuals stemming from typically disadvantaged groups (and disadvantaged can be defined in a number of ways) can reach a somewhat more balanced “playing field” so to speak. In class today, we discussed the numerous reasons why the college process, though increasingly holistic in its admission process, favors those of higher socioeconomic statuses - there are the obvious (often White) family donors whose money can often nearly guarantee their child a spot in a school. There are also factors which can inhibit admissions chances for individuals of lower socioeconomic statues (which often, but not always, are connected with the disadvantages of people of color): the inability to pay for an SAT tutor, participate in after-school activities due to long commutes, or apply to far-away schools due to expensive travel fees are just a few issues that those of disadvantaged positions face during the college application process. In many ways, affirmative action has worked to acknowledge these unfair advantages and disadvantages, and has often succeeded in remedying some of the many conflicts they pose. The problem for many, however, is that affirmative action fails to provide a balanced playing field for all. Some who are against the mission state that it unfairly pits minority groups against each other, as White people are often admitted as the highest percentage of the class, while the others are forced to “fight” for their spot. This argument holds very valid and true against the reputation of affirmative action, as the mission of the program is to promote more diversity and less restrictions. However, when thinking about potential modifications to the philosophy’s current system, I believe that Scalia’s quote stands out as an attitude which we should not strive to take on. While judgement based on race has historically had dangerous consequences, to strive for a “color blind” society today - in which we no longer take into account their race or place of origin - is not a morally or historically correct way to view a person and his or her experiences. When taking steps to fix the many inequalities still present among different groups, it is important to recognize that in many cases, such inequalities are in fact due to past injustices that they may have faced due to their race. Thus, though it is clear that affirmative action is a system which requires modification, it is by no means a system which should be eradicated if we wish to level the playing field for all.
x