Examining pros, cons of affirmative action
By Khoa Lam
After reading the Associated Press article on the campaign
against affirmative action, ("Jackson attacks anti-affirmative
action campaign," Daily Bruin, Jan. 13) I would like to share some
ideas on the subject. It is easy to see from both the passage of
Proposition 187 and the likely placement of an anti-affirmative
initiative on the ballot that there is a lot of resentment over
these types of programs.
Some of this resentment may stem from misconceptions of
affirmative action. After all, the law prohibits institutions like
UCLA that receive federal monies from reserving specific quotas or
spaces for applicants from specific minority groups. However,
special consideration can still be given to people from minority
groups.
Still, even with these misconceptions in mind, many criticisms
of affirmative action are valid. Part of the problem with only
looking at racial or ethnic makeup when deciding who should be
given special consideration is the possibility of creating
resentment and divisiveness. More than once I have heard a white
friend or teacher complain that they did not get a fair shake when
applying for a job or school, they believed, because of affirmative
action. Certainly the resentment over these programs, while much of
it remains unexpressed, is real.
This does not mean that the ideas underlying affirmative action,
especially at the university, are not good: They just need to be
reformed. Success and opportunity for people, especially young
people, should be based on merit, demonstrated ability and
achievement. However, there are barriers to success not based on
individual merit.
Everyone realizes that a kid from an affluent family has a
better chance at success than one from a disadvantaged family.
Because higher education is a gateway to upward mobility for young
students from poor families, affirmative action programs should
consider applicants from disadvantaged socioeconomic situations,
rather than those solely from specific racial or ethnic groups.
Every kid in America, regardless of background, should be given
a fighting chance to make it in this society and achieve his or her
goals. However, the trend in the United States has been the exact
opposite. As the U.S. Census Bureau shows, there is a greater
percentage of children living in families earning below the poverty
level than ever before.
By basing affirmative action programs on socioeconomic need, we
will not only come closer to achieving the program’s aims, but we
will also reduce the resentment of those who feel they are not
included.
After all, it is much more difficult to dispute the fairness of
a program that evens the playing field for those from working class
and poor backgrounds. Also, because people of color make up a
disproportionate amount of lower income families, this type of
affirmative program would still promote ethnic diversity within the
university.
Such programs, in addition, should not only extend to the
admissions office but also to support programs (including financial
aid) to ensure students a better chance of success. Programs such
as the Academic Achievement Program are steps in the right
direction.
The choice is between a program that invites resentment,
divisiveness and attacks (i.e. in the form of the California Civil
Rights Initiative) and a program whose values people understand. In
order to promote diversity and move toward a more color-blind
society, people must not believe they are being victimized by a
program. Programs that focus not only on race but on socioeconomic
background will do just that. Especially in a diverse place such as
California, it is important that programs unite rather than divide
people.
We don’t need a program that will eventually only allow the very
rich and very poor to go to a school such as UCLA; rather, we need
a program that strives toward real diversity and equal opportunity
for young kids from all backgrounds. A bright, hardworking kid who
has a sincere desire to do better should not be penalized by
society because of the color of his skin or his family’s lack of
money.
Because of the value placed on a college degree in the labor
market, the university has a unique power to give young people
access to upward socioeconomic movement. Therefore, people in
control of these institutions have a responsibility to ensure that
those who receive this opportunity are not disproportionately from
backgrounds that already enjoy the privilege of wealth.
Just as American society is not solely comprised of Republicans
who drive luxury cars and watch Rush Limbaugh, the university
should not be the social playground of only the affluent and upper
class. The university should also be a place where a serious kid
from a modest background can learn and begin his or her ascent to a
better way of life.
After all, isn’t that what the American dream is all about?
Lam is a junior economics student.