Response to Critical Conversation #2: Should we eliminate affirmative action?

    Media often posits that affirmative action, which many glorify as being the only policy that "levels the playing field" (if you will), actually does its beneficiaries a disservice. The argument, in its simplest form, is as follows: affirmative action enrolls students who, due to geographic, socio-economic, or racial factors, attended schools that haven't properly equipped them for a collegiate education. Thus, according to this argument, affirmative action sets these accepted students up to struggle and compete with those who might be better prepared.

      While I understand the controversy surrounding affirmative action and deem the aforementioned opinion totally valid, I view affirmative action as serving a greater purpose: it presents a chance. It ensures that certain students receive added consideration, and views them holistically. Affirmative action, like many policies, is in place because grander injustices persist. Affirmative action points to broader societal issues, and exists mainly as a way to compensate for the larger social and racial and educational issues beckoning the nation's attention.

      Both this critical conversation and the previous critical conversation on school integration have forced me to pinpoint the rationale/purpose for policies like affirmative action. While each critical conversation functions as a debate, and thus sides and individuals may be discordant on certain issues/practices, almost every GO Getter, despite their difference of opinion, can, and often does agree (at least in my PD group) that policies like affirmative action and controversies surrounding integration and diversity wouldn't exist if those systemic and extremely divisive issues weren't so prevalent.

      Thus, I think that affirmative action is a compensator. It presents minority students with a chance, serving often as a guiding force for students who attend underserved and under-resourced schools. If the playing field were leveled, however, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary. Some argue that while affirmative action benefits some students, it puts others (namely majority students) at a disadvantage; it gives preference to minority applicants at the expense of majority applicants. One can choose to view it that way, if one feels that affirmative action discounts or undermines them in any way, shape, or form. I however, choose to look at the policy as exemplary of the action we, as a society and nation at large, should be taking to equalize educational access for all students. Whether or not affirmative action sets individuals up for failure is irrelevant; it gives them a chance to succeed.