Affirmative Action Paradox

On the Paradox of Affirmative Action Inequality has pervaded American society throughout history, and it continues to invade the lives of young Americans in the form of affirmative action. Affirmative action, a process in which colleges favor minorities and other disadvantaged groups, fails to serve its intended purposes: to compensate for historical discrimination. Worse, it creates aptly named reverse racism, wherein the majority has a disadvantage. Affirmative action also has a goal of creating diversity, but diversity includes more than race; moreover, the importance of equality vastly dwarfs the importance of diversity, though the two are closely entangled. Despite benevolent intentions, the institution of affirmative action policies

According to Peter Thiel and David Sacks, "preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians" (Source G). Whites and Asians, traditionally majority groups in college enrollment, have a disadvantage if affirmative action policies exist. Under affirmative action, these two groups must overcome an additional obstacle they cannot control: their race. As equality applies to all groups, this added disadvantage that whites and Asians face reflects the reverse racism created by affirmative action policies, an inequality unfavorable toward whites and Asians. The inequality becomes even more apparent in cartoons portraying affirmative action as a means through which minorities cheat the admissions system, doing so by utilizing affirmative action as a shortcut to the ultimate goal of admission (Source H). These cartoons depict affirmative action as a hurdle that whites must jump over and as a pedestal upon which a minority stands to reach the top of the admissions mountain more quickly. By providing an unfair means through which minorities can more easily gain admittance into universities, affirmative action does a disservice to majority races. The added difficulty to enter university reveals the additional burden

As Thiel and Sacks argue, "preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race," if universities truly sought "diversity" (Source G). Racial diversity does not exclusively constitute diversity; other factors such as socioeconomics status must also play a part. Affirmative action only focuses on race; for full consideration of diversity, schools must take into account other unusual characteristics, including, but not limited to, economic status, social class, and talents. The diversity claimed by proponents of affirmative action does not represent true diversity; it only considers racial diversity. Affirmative action may not even be as conducive to "diversity" as its supporters