The Impact Of Affirmative Action

These statistics provide a general idea on who is benefited and who is harmed by affirmative action. According to these statistics, this is the impact of affirmative action:

• Only a small fraction of the public (16%) reports having been directly affected by affirmative action programs. 
• Overall, 11% say they’ve been hurt, 4% have been helped. 
• Among blacks, 14% say they have been helped by such programs, while 5% say they’ve been hurt. 
• Among other non-whites, about equal numbers have been helped (11%) and hurt (13%).
• Most Hispanics say they’ve been unaffected , but 4% say affirmative action has helped them and 8% say it’s hurt them. 
• By a margin of 13% to 2%, whites say they’ve been hurt rather than helped ­ and more white men (17%) than women (9%) say this. 
• Overall, 27% of Americans ­ including 26% of whites and 37% of blacks ­ say that most people connect minorities’ successes in business and education to racial preferences, rather than their own skills, and hard work.

What I understand from this data, from the Pew Research Center, that it has benefited blacks more than harmed, and it harmed Hispanics and whites more that benefited. So is is okay to have affirmative action just to benefit the black and let whites be harmed? Now I understand why some people call affirmative action reverse discrimination. Instead of being racist towards minorities, could affirmative action be considered racist towards whites? This data makes me begin to doubt my initial stance on affirmative action. Does this data make you want to change your opinion too? 

Food for Thought

Here are some cartoons about affirmative action that might help you in forming your opinion on the overall issue. Have fun!!! :)

An Inside Look at the Senate's Votes on State Question 759

OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE

                    

SENATE JOINT RES 15 Constitutional Amendment:

Prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex

YEAS:   31

Aldridge       Brown         Johnson, R.       Reynolds

Allen          Coates        Jolley            Russell

Anderson       Crain         Justice           Schulz

Barrington     David         Marlatt           Shortey

Bingman        Fields        Mazzei           Stanislawski

Branan         Ford          Myers             Sykes

Brecheen       Halligan      Newberry          Treat

Brinkley       Holt          Nichols   

NAYS:   15

    

Ballenger      Ellis         Laster           Sparks

Bass           Garrison      Lerblance        Wilson

Burrage        Ivester       Paddack          Wyrick

Eason Mc       Johnson, C.   Rice

EXCUSED: 2

Adelson        Simpson

: ( SQ 759 Passed in the Senate! 

Rep. Sally Kern Against Minorities

Read this, and then tell me that you didn't gasp! 

Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.

“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.”

Wait, what!!!! This is exactly why we need affirmative action programs, to prove these kind of people wrong! Minorities can work just as hard as whites, and we know it! 

Anyways, this created a huge outburst and a lot of media coverage. Later on she apologized for her comment.

The Debate on Affirmative Action

The Pros and the Cons

Argument Against

Argument For

Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. Students admitted on this basis are often not prepared to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. It would help lead a truly color-blind society. It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Once enacted, affirmative actions are tough to remove, even after the underlying discrimination has been eliminated.

Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance. Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression.

Anti-Affirmative Action Advocates (that's a lot of a's)

Ward Connerly

The Leader of Anti-Affirmative Action 

Why would an African American, a minority, be fighting against programs that are helping him and other African Americans? Why would he be against programs that are increasing minority representation? Isn't affirmative action fighting against racism and prejudice by enforcing equal opportunity? 

Honestly, I think he needs to have a reality check and realize that he is hurting himself and other minorities. But to be fair, lets try and understand his twisted reasoning.                                         Connerly believes affirmative action is a form of racism and that people can achieve success without preferential treatment in college enrollment or in employment. He thinks that selective affirmative action discriminates against minorities such as Asian Indians and South East Asians, because some of their people have experienced discrimination in the past, but they do not receive the benefits of race-based admissions. 


On a program on PBS, Connerly said, 
"I think that in some quarters, many parts of the country, a white male is really disadvantaged… Because we have developed this notion of women and minorities being so disadvantaged and we have to help them, that we have, in many cases, twisted the thing so that it's no longer a case of equal opportunity. It's a case of putting a fist on the scale." --------> What in the world is that suppose to mean? It makes absolutely no sense! 
This an inside look of what goes on inside the brains of Ward Connerly and his fellow anti-affirmative action advocates. How does that make any sense? They believe that affirmative action harms the people by encouraging racism and prejudice and discredits minorities hard work and achievements. 

Why Oklahomans Need Affirmative Action

Now that we all understand what affirmative action is, the votes and stance of the member of the House of Representatives, and what exactly State Question 759 states, we can move on to the benefits of affirmative action.

Affirmative action programs are enacted in so many different parts of our lives. Without them, the minority representation in those parts could very likely begin to decrease, like we've seen in California and Washington State. These programs make a difference in employment in many fields. For example, in Oklahoma, there are affirmative action programs in all the following:
Oklahoma. Dept. of Public Safety, Office of Personal Management, Oklahoma. Office of the State Auditor and Inspector, Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, Oklahoma Real Estate Commission, Oklahoma. Dept. of Transportation, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, Oklahoma. Dept. of Human Services, Oklahoma. Dept. of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board. So imagine what would happen to the number of minorities in these fields if affirmative action programs were banned? 
To answer this question, lets look at statistics on the number of minorities in Oklahoma. Minority children are now the majority among children in 11 Oklahoma counties, including Oklahoma County, the state’s largest county. That’s a big change from a decade ago, when just four Oklahoma counties had “majority-minority” child populations. Hispanic children and children of two or more races accounted for most of the state’s under-18 population growth in the last decade, according to an analysis of census data by The Oklahoman. Overall, 44 percent of Oklahoma’s children were minorities in 2010. That compared to 27 percent of adults who identified themselves as minorities. Since 2000, the number of Hispanic children (of any race) grew by more than 62,000, or 89 percent. At the same time, the number of children of two or more races grew by almost 27,000, or 49 percent, and the number of Asian children increased by 4,400, or 41 percent. The number of American Indian children grew by more than 6,300, or 7 percent. To contrast that, the state’s population of white children fell by nearly 57,000, or 10 percent, during the last decade. The number of black children fell by more than 6,700, or 8 percent. From this we can see that the percentage of minorities in steadily increases by the year. That is why affirmative action programs are more important than ever now because of the growth in minority population across the state. Without such programs, will the minorities be equally represented? Probably not. 

A Quick Look at Oklahoma State Question 759

This past summer, state Sen. Rob Johnson, R-Kingfisher, and Rep. Leslie Osborn, R-Tuttle were busy trying to ban affirmative action programs throughout the state. Because of their hard work and the majority vote seen in the previous post, Oklahomans will vote on the 2012 ballot on whether or not to prohibit special treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. Here is how it is expected to look like in the 2012 ballot: 

“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.”

The attempt to ban equal opportunity is not new to Oklahoma. In 2008, Oklahoma faced this same problem backed up by the same groups. Ward Connerly, a conservative, rich, African-American, has made it his mission to ban such important programs throughout the state. He has been successful in California and Washington State. Both California and Washington State witnessed devastating changes in women and minority representation after a similar ban was enacted there.

Specifically, California saw a dramatic decline in the enrollment rates of minority students in the University of California. At UC-Davis, before the enactment, women comprised 52% of new faculty hiring. The year after the law was enacted, that percentage dropped to 13%. Washington State saw a decrease of over 25% in the share of Seattle public words contracts awarded to women or minority-owned firms.

Now you can see what a difference this ban could do to the minority representation in the state of Oklahoma. So look for State Question 759 in the 2012 ballot and vote against the ban of affirmative action!

An Inside Look at Who Voted For and Against Banning Affirmative Action

Oklahoma House of Representatives

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 

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20SUPPORT%20DOCUMENTS/votes/House/SJR15_VOTES.HTM

Affirmative Action: Positive or Reverse Discrimination?

My understanding of affirmative action led to the following definition: special treatment to minorities regarding employment and education. Two total opposite nicknames for affirmative action are positive discrimination and reverse discrimination. What do they mean?
Positive Discrimination: Positive discrimination is to choose someone on the grounds of race, sex or colour rather than merit. 
Reverse Discrimination: Reverse discrimination is discrimination against a dominant or majority group. 
So what does affirmative action fall under? Positive or reverse? 
Well, I think it is a little of both. 
In support of positive discrimination, affirmative action programs are providing many opportunities to minorities, opportunities that most minorities might not even have thought possible to be given to them. Following are some stats to that show the difference of opportunities provided to minorities compared to majorities: 

• According to 1998 U.S. Department of Labor statistics, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be unemployed. Affirmative action programs can help increase the number of black employmentThe unemployment rate is higher for Latinos than for whites. Blacks and Latinos generally earn far less than whites. In 2000, the average weekly earning for blacks was $459 and for Latinos, it was $395. During this time, average income for whites was $590.  Stats like these show that whites generally are provided with more opportunities than minorities. 
• In 2000, black women earned a median weekly income of $458 compared to $523 for white women and $717 for white men. Latina women’s median weekly income was even lower, at $373.
• In 1998, women earned only 73% of the wages earned by men, according to the Census Bureau. This pay gap exists even within the same occupation.
• In 1993, black and Latino men were half as likely as whites to be employed as managers or professionals and much more likely to be employed as machine operators and laborers.
• The National Urban Institute conducted a study in which they sent equally qualified pairs of job applicants on a series of interviews for entry-level jobs. The young men were coached to display similar levels of enthusiasm and articulateness. The young white men received 45% more job offers than their African American co-testers; whites were offered the job 52% more often than Latino “applicants.”

Regarding reverse discrimination, why should qualified white people be rejected when applying for a job or to a university just because the quota of minorities needs to be completed? Lets say that you are a white student who just graduated high school with a high GPA, a high ACT/SAT score, and a couple of extracurriculars and community service hours up your sleeve. You apply to an university along with thousands of other students who are also white, and along with thousands of other students who are Latino, Black, Asian, Native American, etc. You get rejected even though many would consider you a valuable and potential candidate, and a Latino  student with a significantly lower GPA, a non-impressive ACT/SAT score, and no extracurriculars what so ever gets accepted. The Latino student gets accepted just because he is a minority, and he should be given an equal opportunity but you shouldn't. How is that fair? 

One real life example of this is when a couple years back, the University of Michigan was sued by a white student who did not get accepted into their law school, but minorities with lower admission scores did. The University of Michigan had a point system for admissions. Just for being Black, Hispanic, or Native American gave you 20 points, which basically gave you the upper hand as a candidate. 

It's definitely a lot to take in and consider, and people have their own opinions and arguments for both sides. But personally, I think in the end, no matter what people say, do, or think, everyone will not always be given equal opportunities and that the final decision should be one that benefits more than harms, and one that does not create more problems in society.