Equal Opportunity

Equal Opportunity

In a society fill with 4.3 grade point averages, hours of extra curricular activities and just minutes of sleep, it is no surprise that getting into a reputable school has been increasingly hard, but what is it that the will really make you stand out to the admissions office of a university? Although many say that good grades are enough, these days you may need more depending on your targeted school or schools. While Aderol, alcohol, and parties are a major concern on campus, affirmative action is the main controversial topic off campus that has many altered opinions. Affirmative Action when first established was very successful and necessary. It was used to help minorities get into school and not be discriminated against. After several court cases and bad vibes, in today's fast paced world of education, affirmative action is considered unethical, because it promotes prejudice and unequal admission requirements based on race, gender and other unmerited basis.

Since the signing of affirmative action in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Lyndon B. Johnson, college admission offices across the globe have been using it to diversify their campuses as well as to give minorities a chance to achieve higher education. Affirmative action, meaning to give preferential treatment to individuals in minority groups when admitting them to a university or employment in a businesses or the government, was primarily developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give the disadvantaged part of the population a chance to succeed. Educational institutions with affirmative action policies give minorities and women an advantage when choosing applicants. Since the policies were first enacted, race, gender, economic status as well as a wide majority of factors has become the deciding factor in college admissions. Although many believe the policies have created a society that has flourished over the past fifty years, affirmative action is an outdated process that is practiced in our society today.

As admissions counselors scout out potential students for the following semester, the use of affirmative action gives minorities an unequal advantage over applicants who are in the majority. According to Supreme Court justices Brennan and Powell "equal protection must mean the same thing--that is, remain one rule--whether applied to blacks or whites" (Fullinwider 6). Affirmative action does not give everyone equal protection, because it allows for universities to accept students based on something they cannot control such as the color of their skin or their ethnicity. Although supreme court justice Brennan insitits there is a way to distinguish between benign and mailignant discrimination, supreme court justice Powell, a justice of the court case Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, strongly believes that there is no principle way to diferentiate the two. In this supreme court case, Allan Bakke applied to the medical program and UC Davis two times, and was denied twice. The reasoning behind his denial was because the school had to reach a sixteen percent minority quota and in doing so, accepting a white man would not help. As a result of the court case, Bakke was later accepted into the medical proram and went on to graduate. Powell, a strict constructionist in regards to the constitioution and the law, strongly believes that affirmative action should be banned due to its "discrimination and enequality it causes students today" (Fullenwider 6). Supreme Court Justice Brennan basically states that there is discrimination, but certain types of discrimination should be allowed because it is not entended to harm. While case loads begin to pile up because admission offices are discriminating against certain individuals, admission counselors are using affirmative action policies that judge applications based upon factors that cannot be controlled by an individual and factors that have no merit. John Rawls, an established moral philosopher of the twentieth century, created the veil of ignorance which evaluated societal outcomes such as equality in society. In his experiment, he discusses how future citizens of a society do not know who or what they will be (white, black, rich, poor, English, Chinese, etc.), but whatever they do become, the future rational individuals of that society will make sure the least fortunate members will be well off (199-204). To do this they may establish funding programs that affordably allow those who are not economically wealthy a chance to be able to attend school. Or they may provide programs that fund the local K - 12 schools in hopes that children may receive a better education. While the unequal effects of affirmative action are affecting many, those who benefit from it believe that it lowers their moral.

Many affirmative action beneficiaries feel as if they have not really earned acceptance into universities over others who have stronger grades, athletic achievement, and other accomplishments. According to Dan Froomkin, a writer for the Washington Post, "a growing number of women and minorities supports affirmative action, but many say its benefits are no longer worth its side effect: the perception that