My most genuine opinion about laws is that they are meant to govern for a specific timeframe. In other words, laws - and even rules & regulations - have an expiration date; when they expire, they no longer serve or fulfill the purpose for which they were created. I further believe that if laws are not revised periodically, their aim will doom to failure.
In the 1960s, during the Civil Rights movement, passing a law as "Affirmative Action" was imperative to eliminate the longstanding racist and sexist barriers. Obstacles that deprived minorities and women of rudimentary rights include entering elite colleges and universities. I like Harvard university and consider it a special illuminating symbol for my country. However, it hurt my feelings when its name came up every time racial bias and injustice were discussed. I was surprised when I noticed that Harvard's admissions team rejected applications simply because of the gender or race of the applicants back in the 60s. Hence, I acknowledge that having a law that supported minorities was necessary.
Nonetheless, we should consider that Affirmative Action was suitable for the socio-political environment of the six-decade back; That law expired long ago. From my perspective, Affirmative Action is no longer helpful. If a law doesn't get amended or revised to meet the current time's demands, it loses its effectiveness or produces outcomes that adversely affect whom it is meant to protect. We live in a fast-paced world that is constantly changing. A woman's or a black male's needs are no longer the same as in the 60s, 80s, or even 2000s.
In today's fairer world, with more racial equality in place, I find Affirmative Action an unethical practice. Suppose an Asian-American or Black or Latino is admitted to a university. Wouldn't they be offended that their admission was due to their race rather than their credentials? In today's advanced world, with - almost - firmly established racial justice and equality, it is oddly unethical that universities account for sex and race along with other qualitative factors such as grades, SAT scores, and extracurricular activities to determine one's admission.
Those in favor of affirmative action argue that it is a way to fight longstanding discrimination. This group believes that it is essential to ensure that minorities with good academic standing have access to higher education. Nine states in the U.S. do not practice Affirmative Action; California (1996), Washington (1998), Florida (1999), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), New Hampshire (2012), Oklahoma (2012), and Idaho (2020). According to New York Times research (2018) conducted on school admissions, no evidence can prove blacks and Latinos' (as the two largest groups of minorities in the country) admissions are declined in these states. Conversely, in Florida, the number of Hispanic students had risen by 9%, from 18% in 1999, when A.A. was banned, to 27% in 2011. Additionally, it has been discussed that not observing the A.A. law has brought more diverse campus benefits for everyone, like learning valuable interpersonal skills outside of the classroom and interacting with and respecting people from different backgrounds.
Furthermore, Affirmative Actions are discriminatory themselves and can create more racial tensions. More qualified candidates are rejected from universities because less qualified minority applicants are accepted due to this action. Affirmative Actions are now acting as reverse discriminatory act.
Reference
"How Minorities Have Fared in States with Affirmative Action Bans." Nytimes.com, 2018, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html.
Comments