Arguments Against Affirmative Action

The intention of affirmative action, although controversial, is to assist those in minority groups from being discriminated against in order to achieve certain positions. However, it can be argued to be in fact just reverse discrimination. Some places in which affirmative action exists is in the workforce, the government, as well as the educational system. A problem with the idea is that although a person might be more qualified, they might fail to get land the spot because they aren’t in the minority. Assisting minorities to get certain jobs or into certain colleges isn’t the problem, but turning down those who are more qualified for the position is. Affirmative action as an idea that was brought about in the 1960’s in order to help minorities.

In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order banning race discrimination. This regulation assisted in the opening of many skilled trade positions to blacks. Women also began to join the workforce in unexpected numbers. These numbers rose due to the war, but once the war ended, they fell again. Affirmative action instead of just banning discrimination enforces laws which put in place equal opportunity for those who have been discriminated against in the past. The 1960s saw more anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Pay Act made it so employers had to pay both men and women who were doing the same work the same wage. Age discrimination was also a problem, so the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was put in place to protect those over 40 years old. Then in the 1970’s it became illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities. “Opponents of affirmative action consider preferences for minorities a form of reverse discrimination and a violation of the basic American values of equal treatment and success through merit and hard work.” (Barrett 1). This quote outlines the problem with affirmative action is that it goes against one of the most basic American values; hard work. In America you can work as hard as you possibly can no matter who you are in order to achieve your goals. The program itself implements systemic mediocrity. If a person of one ethnicity gets a higher score

“Candidate gender quotas include three categories of measures: reserved seats, party quotas, and legislative quotas. Reserved seats are policies that literally set aside places for women in political assemblies. They are usually enacted through constitutional reforms that establish separate electoral rolls for women, designate separate districts for female candidates, or distribute women's seats to political parties based on their proportion of the popular vote.” (Krook 1). Again as stated in the form of quotas for education and the workforce, it is even being implemented into the government as well. There is nothing wrong with whether someone who gets a job is male or female. That is besides the point, but to set aside certain seats for those who are female is rather absurd. It should be restricted by saying that there are spots set aside for them. Both male and female should have access to all the seats. The purpose of affirmative action was to help those who normally weren’t in certain roles in the past, but it’s almost a problem of just putting them in this position just for the sake alone of putting them there. The country of The United States of America isn’t about male or female or race, it's just about who is willing to work for their spot. Anti-discriminatory laws that make sure people people of all kinds are accepted is fine, but when it goes too far and establishes quotas where a