Affirmative Action Since its inception Affirmative Action was intended to level the playing field of opportunity in American institutions. Affirmative Action’s objective was not to extend unearned benefits to minority groups at the majority’s expense, as has been alleged by politicians and pundits. I argue that Affirmative Action has and will continue to provide an equalizing effect for minorities and women, who are disadvantaged in every foundational aspect of society. I will further evaluate the examples put forth by Luke Harris and Uma Narayan in support of Affirmative Action. I will also analyze the counter-arguments provided by Louis Pojman, claiming that Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination against the white male majority and …show more content…
When he speaks about the program, he employs the use of divisive words like “preferential hiring, reverse discrimination, or quotas” (Pojman, 433). He also argues that “better-qualified whites” whose ancestor had nothing to do with slavery are paying the price, in lost job opportunities (Pojman, 434). He theorizes that there are two types of AA, weak and strong. Weak AA describes desegregation of institutions and scholarships for the poor. He views weak AA as an opportunity to achieve or a place at the starting line, not an assurance of success (Pojman, 434). He feels this version of AA may have some moral value. Strong AA is what he seems to have the most issue with. He contends that Strong AA is reverse discrimination. He states his view, “I mean preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender (or some other morally irrelevant criterion), discriminating in favor of underrepresented groups against over-represented groups, aiming at roughly equal results” (Pojman, 434). He finds this type more harmful to society and lacking any moral …show more content…
Pojman frames his argument by conjecturing we are all on equal footing and beneficiaries of AA are getting special treatment they did not earn. He argues that when he was younger he was considered for a job at a university, based on his resume, which stated he was a black studies major and a pastor at a black church in the Bronx. The committee had assumed he was black, which he is not. He contends, “I discovered that there were many candidates more qualified than myself, but since they were operating under affirmative action guidelines, I was the only candidate they had considered until the Great Awakening” (Pojman, 438). He fails to look at the widespread inequalities in our social system. Harris and Narayan point out that whether intentioned or not, these inequalities are still creating a deficit for members of our society while benefitting others. They discuss how standardized testing is catered toward white men who have had the benefits of higher-quality schools and in some cases tutors. Men generally perform better than women on these examinations, even though women have a history of performing better in high school and college (Harris and Narayan, 452). The unfortunate part is in our current system more weight is placed on standardized testing than true academic performance. These high-stakes