Affirmative Action Debate

Now that Obama is president, should there still be a need for affirmative action? Why or why not? My interpretation of affirmative action is that it gives all races the oppurtunity to go to college. Although equality in races, gender, etc. have seemed like the best policy in many cases. Affirmative action is still flawed. I have not decided what my stand is on this argument, and rather than forcing myself to pick a side and argue for it, I have decided to look at both positive and negative aspects of each stand.

I believe that some form of affirmative action should take place. My reasons are:

• It is true that in most cases, certain races, for instance, black Americans or latinos, living in poor communities, are not given the oppurtunity to extend their education to its fullest. Poor communities tend to have more crime, which would take away from education. Crimes done in school, such as graffiti or any sort of vandalism, would take money away from education to replace items that are damaged and are a necessity, such as school books, desks, and other learning utilities. Because the money must be used for anything other than education in itself, there is not enough to pay enough teachers or provide those students that want to learn with the tools they need to succeed.
• Secondly, those that do live in poorer communities carry out other responsibilities in order to survive, such as helping babysit while their parents work, getting a job of their own, etc. Their living conditions require this and it does take away from their education, whether it takes away from time to study, time for extracurricular activities, focus on school work, etc. Those that do have a good sum of money are able to do these things because they are well off and do not need to get an extra job or take care of the home for their families.
• Overall, the idea of equality through races is something that only the past few decades would consider a step forward for humanity. This is because only a few decades ago, segregation did take place and racism was at large. The idea itself make a learning community more diverse. And because different races do come from different areas and living conditions, the diversity in races contributes to the diversity of knowledge. For instance, a hard-working lower class citizen that is less fortunate understands hardships and the struggling side of America while an upper class, extremely wealthy person is able to understand the life styles and attitudes that the wealthy do live. And when these two types of people are able to learn each other, knowledge does expand. A famous person who I really can't remember the name of once something along the lines of, "I am limited by the languages I speak." With that being said, language refers to culture. When we stick to the status quo and do not expand our knowledge from what we are familiar with, it is somewhat ignorant in the sense that we are limited to our own views. The main point being made is equal oppurtunity for certain minorities to go to college to expand their knowledge. When all races are given this oppurtunity, the learning environment does benefit because of the diversity in a classroom and the different perspectives it would bring.

However, equality in races could take away from other types of equality.

• When colleges allow equal oppurtunity for different minorities to get a good education, they limit the amount of certain people of a race. For instance, in order to have equal amount of people of each race, a college is only allowed to accept 50 students from every type of race you can think of. Well in that case, without offending anyone of any race, gender, etc., say a college were to allow only 50 blue people into their school and 50 green people. Of course, equality in the color of the people is fair. Well what if the 50 blue people that applied for the school and got in had a grade point average of 2.9 while 100 green people that applied for the school and only 50 got it had grade point averages ranging from 3.5 to 4.6? Where is the equality in that, that because of someone's race they WERE able to get into college, regardless of their ability to get high GPAs, while someone who worked extremely hard was unable to go to college? This is similar to segregation, but vice versa. While whites had more rights than blacks to go to college just decades ago, now blacks are given the chance, even if they have a lower GPA than someone who had a higher grade point average, but there were too many of their minority. The argument could be made, once again, that a certain minority had better living conditions, therefore, of course they would have high grade point averages, however, the issue remains that equality over race does take away from equal opportunities in other ways.
• I think the point being made is a strong point in itself. And there isn't always the absolute correct solution. As Mr. Posito says, "Stuck between a rock and a hard place"... or was that Homer Simpson?

Both explanations would introduce more questions such as what kind of equality is fair? Or is it fair to allow one type of equality to over rule another? And of course, the argument can also be made that not everyone is suited to go to college. If all we given the oppurtunity, we would not have a lower working class. The basis of country would be gone. And don't take it personally, but the people that do the dirty work would be gone if everyone went to college. Of course, there is no right answer to this issue. That is why we are debating upon it, silly goose.

Who was that one guy who said it in that one show or that one movie that it's stupid to go into a debate when you have already chosen a side? I think it was Chris Rock. Haha, who knows? Whatever the case, I do believe that it is fair to listen to both arguments and to not take matters personally, otherwise it is rather ignorant.