What is affirmative action? According to dictionary.com, affirmative action is
the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, especially in employment. Also, "according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmative action is a policy that is orchestrated to "...overcome the discriminating effect of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity"".
This topic is very controversial. Many people have different opinions about it. Some people agree with it while others don't. This argument has also sparked many problems and many conflicts have arose from this.
I believe that affirmative action is a big step toward bringing opportunities for those who need it. For example, black, hispanics, and asians dont get as much opportunity as whites. Affirmative action increases the representation of minorities and women in education, employment, and the right to start or open a business. In the past none of these people had the right to do these things. During the 60's, black men earned only 60 percent as much as the white man did. By the 1990's a black man earned 74% as much as a white men did. Statisitis show that "The ratio of the average black workers' earnings to the average white workers' earnings increased significantly in the 1940s, increased slightly if at all in the 1950s, increased significantly between 1960 and the mid 1970s, and declined somewhat since the late 1970s." Affirmative action is the thing that can help improve this and increase the representation of minorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is State Question 759? What does it do?
State question 759 is to ban equal opportunity. It is a way to show preference to minorities such as hispanics based on ethnicity, race, background, etc. Affirmative action is seen in colleges/universities and workplaces. It targets Hispanics, Blacks, and women.
This question was proposed by senator Rob Johnson and applies to the whole state of Oklahoma. Next year, 2012, voters will have to either vote yes for affirmative action or no.
"This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new section 36 to Article II. It will not allow special treatment or discrimination based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. It gives exceptions for some situations. It sets out remedies for violations.”
Don't always believe about what you see because this promise was not applied. After states have used affirmative action, there was a decrease of minorities and women in workplaces and universities. An example would be in California. It is seen that in UC Davis, the percentage of women workers has dropped from 52% to 13%.
I believe that affirmative action has not yet improved anything. As for now, I think we should vote no on SQ 759 in 2012's ballot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics Regarding Affirmative Action
After studying the chart above, I noticed that there's a huge difference in scores for minorities compared to whites. This chart proves that there a great decrease of readiness for minorites in order to enter college. Affirmative Action should be involved in this situation and help minorities be ready for college and get a good education. Without Affirmative Action these minorities will not be able to make something of themselves. I also noticed that the Asians got a much higher score than the whites. Although they are considered minorities, they might be working harder than others in order to achieve something in life. Furthermore, Asians had the highest score overall in every section of the ACT. Blacks have the lowest percentages in every section. You can see that the order from least percentages to greatest is Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, and then Asians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who benefits the most from Affirmative Action in Oklahoma? Who suffers the most?
To start off, for every dollar a man makes, a women earns only .70 cents. 11% of people say they've been affected by affirmative action negatively while only 4% have been helped. For women, 3% of them have been helped, 9% have been hurt, and 86% have not been affected. For blacks, 14% have been helped, 5% have been hurt, and 77% have not been affected.After researching, statistics vary for everybody. Some may be helped more than others while some may be hurt and some may not be affected. Affirmative action tries to solve these issues by giving others their rights and spreading equality among others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Affirmative Action
By Dan Froomkin
Washingtonpost.com Staff
October 1998 Affirmative action is the nation's most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, rather than ease, the nation's internal divisions.
An increasingly assertive opposition movement argues that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain.
But defenders of affirmative action say that the playing field is not level yet – and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.
Washingtonpost.com Staff
October 1998 Affirmative action is the nation's most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, rather than ease, the nation's internal divisions.
An increasingly assertive opposition movement argues that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain.
But defenders of affirmative action say that the playing field is not level yet – and that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.
What Is Affirmative Action?
Institutions with affirmative action policies generally set goals and timetables for increased diversity – and use recruitment, set-asides and preference as ways of achieving those goals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do advocacy groups say about Affirmative Action
There are many advocacy/interest groups that talk and share their viewpoint on Affirmative Action. During research I found a few groups who have to say something about Affirmative Action. They are shown below:
ACLU--"In the United States, access to the American Dream is often framed as a race in which the swiftest runners win. Critics of affirmative action say that such policies give some runners an unfair head start in an otherwise fair race. At the same time, many supporters of affirmative action say we need these policies to assist “disabled” runners. In their focus on the runners rather than the track, both of these perspectives miss the point. Affirmative action isn’t about advancing “disabled” runners, but about repairing damaged lanes and removing the barriers that block the pathways to opportunity that only some runners face. Policies that promote inclusion, such as affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of an otherwise unfair race and give everyone a fair chance to compete."
LULAC--"LULAC strongly supports equal opportunity for employment, promotion and contracting, as well as equal access to quality educational opportunities that will empower our youth for success," states Belen Robles, LULAC National President. "LULAC firmly believes that affirmative action is essential to guarantee people of color, minorities and women equality in employment and education."
NAACP--"The necessity of Affirmative Action has been a hot topic in American society for a number of years. Affirmative Action was established in 1965 by President Johnson in order to redress the discrimination that was evident in employment, education and business despite the civil rights laws which made such discrimination illegal. The purpose of Affirmative Action is to provide opportunities for minorities and women; it is not meant to create quotas."
After reading these opinions on affirmative action, it seems that they all support affirmative action and they believe its necessary for people to gain their rights. For example, NAACP believes "that the purpose of affirmative action is to provide opportunites for minorities and women; it is not meant create quotas". This shows that its not only the minorities who believe that affirmative action is needed but also the whites and others who already have the rights wanted by others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal (citizen) websites/groups that are created to discuss affirmative action.
- Website:Facebook, Group Name: National Discussion and Debate Series
- Website:csus.edu, Group/Person Name: Louis P. Pojman
- Website:http://www.ethnicmajority.com/affirmative_action.htm
- http://nidasafdar.blogspot.com/
- http://rantingaboutgovernment.blogspot.com/
- http://www.sanasandhu786.blogspot.com/
- http://www.tmariam.blogspot.com/
Cartoons On Affirmative Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do State Representatives and Senators stand on this issue(for or against)?
OKLAHOMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fifty-Third Legislature
First Regular Session
SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment:
Prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex in public
YEAS: 59
Armes Grau McNiel Sanders
Billy Hardin Moore Schwartz
Blackwell Hickman Mulready Sears
Brumbaugh Holland Murphey Shannon
Casey Jackson Nelson Shoemake
Cockroft Johnson Newell Sullivan
Condit Jordan Nollan Terrill
Coody Joyner Ortega Thomsen
Cooksey Kern Peterson Tibbs
Dank Kirby Proctor Trebilcock
Derby Lockhart Quinn Vaughan
DeWitt Martin,Sc. Richardson Wesselhoft
Dorman Martin,Sc. Roberts,D. Wright
Farley McCullough Roberts,S. Mr.Speaker
Faught McDaniel,R. Russ
NAYS: 14
Cannaday Hoskin Pruett Virgin
Denney McDaniel,J. Rousselot Williams
Fourkiller Morrissette Scott
Hamilton Pittman Sherrer
EXCUSED: 28
Banz Hall McPeak Ritze
Bennett Hilliard Morgan Roan
Brown Inman Osborn Shelton
Christian Key Ownbey Shumate
Cox Kouplen Peters Stiles
Enns Liebmann Renegar Walker
Glenn McAffrey Reynolds Watson
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE: 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do democrats and republicans say about AA?
Democrats tend to support affirmative action. Republicans tend to go against it. While democrats want a melting-pot society, equality, and to find solutions to problems, republicans believe that everything depends on your wealth and class. Whatever money you earn is yours and government should not use it in ways to help other programs that need it. Although democrats tend to support affirmative action, they might oppose some things such as a certain percentage of positions to be given to minorities. Also, republicans may oppose affirmative action, but tend to support some parts of it such as benefiting the society or increase diversity. The following quotes show why a democrat or republican support or oppose affirmative action.Democrat: "Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, who received his law degree from the University of Michigan, praised the court's decision in the law school case, but said he was disappointed with the ruling on the undergraduate program.
"Any effort to deny our nation's compelling interest in ensuring diversity is short-sighted and wrong," Gephardt said in a statement."
Democrat: "Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich also made a pledge to put affirmative action into federal law as president.
"If this president doesn't want to let us be one nation, then it's time to elect a president who will let us be one nation," Kucinich said."
Republican: Sally Kern: “We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is media involved in Affirmative Action
This video talks about the college students in California who hosted a very controversial cupcake stand. These students were aiming to show the people how Affirmative Action went from ending discrimination to something different. "Useful or not, affirmative action it is a form of racism, and the bake sale helps make that clear. "-A college student says.
In this video, there is a debate on how Affirmative Action should either stay or put to an end. A few teams share their thoughts on Affirmative Action.
Media's Influence on AA
Media can be anything that people can see, hear, or talk about. Media can be TV, radio, talk shows, magazines, newspapers,etc. Media gives us information on anything and everything. It could have a positive or negative impact. Some people may hate the media at some points because it may have targeted them in a way such as discrimination. Can media influence our decisions on some issues? I believe it can change people's minds and opinions. That's how people get their info on Affirmative Action. People's opinions on affirmative action have changed from one person to another. Some may have wanted affirmative action before they've heard about it from the media but after all the negative things people say on radios and television, their opinions are obviously going to change. Others on the other hand may have not wanted affirmative action but after the positive things people have said about AA, their opinions have changed.
 |
Affirmative action is a side issueJune 10, 2003
By Abigail Thernstrom
Perhaps you're tired of the topic of affirmative action. If so, you have lots of company, me included. It's the hot constitutional issue of the moment. Before the Supreme Court goes into recess for the summer, it will decide two cases involving racially preferential admissions to the University of Michigan. And yet, as I sat in the audience on April 1, listening to the attorneys argue the cases before the nine justices, I felt battle weary. Too many decades hearing (and making) the same arguments with neither side budging an inch.
Don't get me wrong. I still have strong views. I don't believe universities should be judging prospective students by the color of their skin. I don't think it's smart to adopt policies that heighten race consciousness in our already too race-obsessed society. I abhor the trafficking in racial stereotypes that occurs when institutions seem to believe all blacks think alike, and that a black student thus brings a "black" voice to a classroom. And I think it's demeaning and patronizing to assume that a Hispanic can't keep up with her Asian classmate and shouldn't be held to the same academic standards.
I have held those beliefs for 30 years. They aren't the convictions, however, of a single president of a major college or university. In their view, the need for racial and ethnic diversity on campus outweighs any and all opposing arguments to the 20 extra points, for instance, that U-M has been giving all black applicants to the college - just for being black. And the college and the law school (the two defendants in the cases) both know how few African-American and Latino students can meet the criteria for admissions set for whites and Asians. Thus they see the use of racial double standards as inescapable. The alternative: more whites and Asians admitted, significantly fewer blacks and Hispanics.
They are right about the problem, but wrong about the solution. It's true that the number of academically highly qualified non-Asian minority students - students eligible for U-M admissions - is appalling and unacceptably small. Racial preferences in admission to colleges and professional schools are being driven by that simple fact. But they're a feel-good distraction. They make university administrators feel OK about a dismal situation. They can say to themselves, we've fixed the problem of inadequate skills and knowledge acquired in the K-12 years and beyond. Yes by ignoring it and pretending it will go away.
In fact, the problem does not disappear. The typical black or Latino student is graduating from high school too far behind to catch up. On average, by 12th grade black students are four years behind the typical white or Asian. On average, that means - of course - half the group is even more than four years behind. Hispanics don't do much better, although how they do in school depends in part on how long their families have been in this country.
An employer hiring the typical black high school graduate, or the college that admits the average black student, is choosing a youngster who has only an eighth-grade education. In most subjects, the majority of black students by 12th grade do not have even a "partial mastery" of the skills and knowledge that the authoritative National Assessment of Educational Progress (called NAEP) says are "fundamental for proficient work" at their grade. They fall into the category called Below Basic.
In reporting the scores of American students, NAEP (often called the nation's educational report card) uses four different "achievement levels," the top two of which are proficient and advanced. In math, only 0.2 percent of blacks score at the advanced level; the figure for whites is 11 times higher, and for Asians 37 times higher. Again, Hispanic scores are not significantly different. Blacks have made tremendous gains since the days when most sat in classrooms in legally segregated schools. But they have made no further progress in the past 15 years and have fallen back in some subjects.
Now, there's a picture worth spending sleepless nights contemplating. Who goes to the University of Michigan and other elite colleges and universities, anyway? A handful of mostly privileged youngsters. There are 8 million black schoolchildren in America, three-quarters of whom go on to college - a figure no different than that for whites. The doors to college are open, in other words, even to those with extremely weak academic records. But while three out of four African-Americans enter college, a high percentage end up taking remedial classes, and only one in six actually finishes - compared to about one in three whites. No surprise, when so many black students leave high school with eighth- or ninth-grade skills.
In a society committed to equal opportunity, we still have a racially identifiable group of educational have-nots - young African-Americans and Latinos whose opportunities in life will almost inevitably be limited by their inadequate education.
Racial preferences - affirmative action policies - are really a side issue. With respect to college admissions, they affect perhaps 5 percent of all black applicants. Conservatives and liberals, both, are too obsessed with them.
The typically low academic performance of black and Hispanic youngsters is the most important source of ongoing racial inequality in this country. The racial attitudes of Americans have dramatically changed in recent decades. The commitment of most Americans to racial equality is deep and irrevocable. But there is only one way to realize that equality: Close the racial gap in skills and knowledge starting in the early grades.
When students leave high school barely knowing how to read, their future - and that of the nation - is in jeopardy. Our sense of danger and moral outrage should be particularly great when those students are non-Asian minorities. A decent society does not turn a blind eye to such racial and ethnic inequality.
Abigail Thernstrom is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, New York, and the co-author of "America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible."
Don't get me wrong. I still have strong views. I don't believe universities should be judging prospective students by the color of their skin. I don't think it's smart to adopt policies that heighten race consciousness in our already too race-obsessed society. I abhor the trafficking in racial stereotypes that occurs when institutions seem to believe all blacks think alike, and that a black student thus brings a "black" voice to a classroom. And I think it's demeaning and patronizing to assume that a Hispanic can't keep up with her Asian classmate and shouldn't be held to the same academic standards.
I have held those beliefs for 30 years. They aren't the convictions, however, of a single president of a major college or university. In their view, the need for racial and ethnic diversity on campus outweighs any and all opposing arguments to the 20 extra points, for instance, that U-M has been giving all black applicants to the college - just for being black. And the college and the law school (the two defendants in the cases) both know how few African-American and Latino students can meet the criteria for admissions set for whites and Asians. Thus they see the use of racial double standards as inescapable. The alternative: more whites and Asians admitted, significantly fewer blacks and Hispanics.
They are right about the problem, but wrong about the solution. It's true that the number of academically highly qualified non-Asian minority students - students eligible for U-M admissions - is appalling and unacceptably small. Racial preferences in admission to colleges and professional schools are being driven by that simple fact. But they're a feel-good distraction. They make university administrators feel OK about a dismal situation. They can say to themselves, we've fixed the problem of inadequate skills and knowledge acquired in the K-12 years and beyond. Yes by ignoring it and pretending it will go away.
In fact, the problem does not disappear. The typical black or Latino student is graduating from high school too far behind to catch up. On average, by 12th grade black students are four years behind the typical white or Asian. On average, that means - of course - half the group is even more than four years behind. Hispanics don't do much better, although how they do in school depends in part on how long their families have been in this country.
An employer hiring the typical black high school graduate, or the college that admits the average black student, is choosing a youngster who has only an eighth-grade education. In most subjects, the majority of black students by 12th grade do not have even a "partial mastery" of the skills and knowledge that the authoritative National Assessment of Educational Progress (called NAEP) says are "fundamental for proficient work" at their grade. They fall into the category called Below Basic.
In reporting the scores of American students, NAEP (often called the nation's educational report card) uses four different "achievement levels," the top two of which are proficient and advanced. In math, only 0.2 percent of blacks score at the advanced level; the figure for whites is 11 times higher, and for Asians 37 times higher. Again, Hispanic scores are not significantly different. Blacks have made tremendous gains since the days when most sat in classrooms in legally segregated schools. But they have made no further progress in the past 15 years and have fallen back in some subjects.
Now, there's a picture worth spending sleepless nights contemplating. Who goes to the University of Michigan and other elite colleges and universities, anyway? A handful of mostly privileged youngsters. There are 8 million black schoolchildren in America, three-quarters of whom go on to college - a figure no different than that for whites. The doors to college are open, in other words, even to those with extremely weak academic records. But while three out of four African-Americans enter college, a high percentage end up taking remedial classes, and only one in six actually finishes - compared to about one in three whites. No surprise, when so many black students leave high school with eighth- or ninth-grade skills.
In a society committed to equal opportunity, we still have a racially identifiable group of educational have-nots - young African-Americans and Latinos whose opportunities in life will almost inevitably be limited by their inadequate education.
Racial preferences - affirmative action policies - are really a side issue. With respect to college admissions, they affect perhaps 5 percent of all black applicants. Conservatives and liberals, both, are too obsessed with them.
The typically low academic performance of black and Hispanic youngsters is the most important source of ongoing racial inequality in this country. The racial attitudes of Americans have dramatically changed in recent decades. The commitment of most Americans to racial equality is deep and irrevocable. But there is only one way to realize that equality: Close the racial gap in skills and knowledge starting in the early grades.
When students leave high school barely knowing how to read, their future - and that of the nation - is in jeopardy. Our sense of danger and moral outrage should be particularly great when those students are non-Asian minorities. A decent society does not turn a blind eye to such racial and ethnic inequality.
Abigail Thernstrom is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, New York, and the co-author of "America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible."
Obama, Race and Affirmative Action
By Cathy YoungIn the first week after Barack Obama's inauguration, his administration is already dealing with issues and controversies that have nothing to do with race. Still, the cultural significance of a black man becoming President of the United States cannot be overstated, given the pain and the shame of this country's racial history. Even conservative Republicans such as National Review's Jonah Goldberg warn that conservatives who fail to appreciate the greatness of this event risk being hopelessly marginalized. Of course, one oft-overlooked irony is that on racial issues, the Obama presidency may boost a position commonly labeled conservative.
In recent years, affirmative action in the form of institutionalized race-, gender-, and ethnicity-based preferences in college admissions and employment has been the subject of intense debate. Defenders of such programs maintain that they are needed to counteract the effects of discrimination and other subtle barriers. Critics, including African-American conservatives such as writer Shelby Steele and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, argue that preferences have the pernicious effect of deepening racial divisions and stigmatizing the very people they are intended to help.
The movement against race preferences has led to successful voter initiatives banning such practices in the public sector in California, Washington, Michigan, and most recently Nebraska. The backlash from the traditional civil rights establishment and from many liberals has been ferocious. In a 1999 speech, Vice President Al Gore blasted advocates of "colorblind" policies who "use their 'color-blind' the way duck hunters use their duck blind - they hide behind it and hope the ducks won't figure out what they're up to." Last November, a ballot measure prohibiting differential treatment by race or ethnicity in government institutions lost narrowly in Colorado after a campaign that relied heavily on smear tactics, such as trumpeting the Ku Klux Klan's endorsement of the initiative.
Shortly before the inauguration, Ward Connerly, the African-American businessman who has led the drive to ban preferences, spoke at a Washington, D.C. conference of the right-leaning National Association of Scholars. Connerly, a Republican who has found himself labeled an Uncle Tom and worse, began by saying, "We are here in the nation's capital a few days before an event that will demonstrate something most of us in this room have always believed: that America is a fair country and that the colorblind vision works." He noted that he did not vote for Obama, but believed that he deserved to win - and that his election was a step forward toward "not just getting beyond racial preferences but getting beyond race."
This hopeful outlook was echoed at the conference by another outspoken critic of preferences: author, scholar, and U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Abigail Thernstrom, who called Obama's election "a racial conversation-changer." That the leader of the free world is now an African-American man, Thernstrom said, must make it easier and more attractive to move past race consciousness - and harder to justify preferences with arguments about the intractability of racism. "The younger generation is coming of age in a racially altered world," Thernstrom said; eventually, campus politics will have to catch up.
Are Connerly and Thernstrom too optimistic? A friend of mine who is in a Ph.D. program at a large state university believes it will take at least a generation for the academy to get over its racism fetish. In her view, many academics are far too invested in the idea of deeply entrenched American racism to be swayed by Obama's election; they may even dismiss it as irrelevant because Obama has a white mother and did not grow up in a ghetto. And activists and politicians are no less likely than academics to cling to their dogmas.
Indeed, a small controversy erupted last week when the benediction given at Obama's inauguration by the noted civil rights leader, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, seemed to stress enduring racism: "Lord ... we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."
Some conservatives took offense at the implication that blacks were still "asked to get back" and whites were still refusing to do right by minorities. Yes, it is disappointing that the benediction at the inauguration of our first African-American president sounded a note that would have been forward-looking fifty years ago. But, to put things in perspective, the Rev. Lowery is an 87-year-old veteran of the civil rights struggle. Says Thernstrom, "The Jim Crow South is still the world he lives in."
It remains to be seen what kind of leadership Obama himself will provide on potentially divisive racial issues. During his campaign, he came out against the ballot measures to outlaw preferences - but also suggested that affirmative action should focus on economic disadvantage rather than race.
Undoubtedly, quite a few people - most of whom do not have the excuse of the Rev. Lowery's age and experience - will insist that invidious racism remains ever-present and race-based preference is the only way to combat it. But perhaps such claims will find increasingly less receptive audiences in an age when the daughter of a white factory worker seeking admission to a top college may find herself competing against the daughter of a black President of the United States.
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. She can be reached atmailto:%20cyoung@realclearpolitics.com\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on Affirmative Action
My opinion on affirmative action is still neutral. When researching, I found that affirmative action means the encouragement of minorities and women's representation in public, especially in employment. I still can't decide whether its better than bad or worst than good. There are many statistics that show affirmative action as both beneficial and has a negative impact on certain people. There are two terms that I found constantly while researching: Positive Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination.
- Positive Discrimination: To find special opportunities for minorites, disadvantaged, and women. "Its also to choose someone on the grounds of race, sex, or color rather than merit."
- Reverse Discrimination: Is to discriminate against a majority group such as blacks, women, and Latinos.
What impact could affirmative action have on your college applications for admission?
From reading all the research and articles concerning affirmative action applying to college would be very hard for white people. If their is a white person who has a 3.5-4.0 gpa and has a lot of extracurriculars and hours of community service, you would think it would be very easy for him to apply and enter college. Well, considering affirmative action, there must be a certain percentage of whites and a certain percentage of minorities. If the college the white student applies to has the amount of whites it needs, its going to have to reject the qualified white student. The issue is if there was a latino or black student who wants to apply for college with a 2.0-2.5 gpa and has barely any credits or extracurriculars, people would think that he would never be able to get in. With affirmative action in the way, that latino has a high chance of getting into college than the white qualified student. This may seem unfair. For me, I can't exactly give my opinion on this issue because in most cases, im considered a minority. So I would be biased to stay that it is fair. I would consider myself neutral because it is better to represent minorities and women more because it will increase diversity in the U.S. However, I believe that affirmative action should work on being more fair to both sides. It should consider the whites equally to the minorities and it will eventually benefit the society and everybody around it.
