Research Blog #9: Argument & Counter Argument

My Research Question: How does racism affect black America's experience in higher education?

My Thesis: Racism and discrimination take various forms, negatively affecting the education of minorities--especially African Americans--and must be addressed through social action and affirmative action.

In my opinion, it's a little difficult to argue that racism no longer exists, or that "reverse racism" is a struggle. My research has shown that racism does indeed exist and that it, in fact, has real world consequences. Still, there are points to be addressed.

• The Destruction of Meritocracy: Many have argued that focusing on the disadvantaged for the sake that they are disadvantaged is actually destructive. People claim that affirmative action ignores merit and focuses on arbitrary qualifications and quotas. This is true in some smaller cases, and quotas were once the standard, but by and large this simply isn't rue. Most candidates for affirmative action are more than qualified or otherwise come into their own after entering college. Not everyone is going to be perfect, of course, but the automatic assumption that affirmative action not only defies meritocracy but that the candidates are undeserving is harmful and problematic. Louis Pojman, an american philosopher says "The second pillar for meritocracy is utilitarian. In the end, we will be better off by honoring excellence". In a similar vein, Stanford Magazine writers David Sacks and Peter Thiel concur in that "The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?". These thoughts, at best, don't understand the point of affirmative action. In regard to Pojman, it is hard for many to strive or achieve "excellence" based on class and race. This is especially true for minorities as the disadvantages and discrimination they face often means they are barred from their true potential. Sacks and Thiel take this a step further, pitting minority against minority (a troubling thing for various reasons, both historic and contemporary). And again, both of these standpoints, as well as the main argument itself, assume that candidates are underqualified or unworthy of being accepted on basis of affirmative action, which is not the case in the bigger picture of things. This argument of 'equal opportunity versus equal outcomes' also extends into the idea that affirmative action encourages mediocrity and incompetence (Pojam), however, that has yet to prove true over the past thirty to forty years since affirmative action was first instituted.
• Reverse Racism: There is an idea surrounding affirmative action--much akin to the idea of the destruction of meritocracy--that it harms white people and their own life chances. This is also generally false. This applies to some individual cases perhaps, but it's not true on the large scale. Socially, white people are the most privileged overall. The US has always been inherently oriented towards white people (rich, land owning men specifically) since before it was even a proper nation; economically, legally, etc. The numerous amendments guaranteeing rights for those other than white men is sign enough of this. White people also still hold much of this power in various ways that have changed over time or have flatout remained the same. Thus, institutional racism requires that the party or parties discriminated against have a lesser position of power than the party doing the discriminating, it is next to impossible to perform racism against white people on a structural and societal level. However, there is one strong merit to this argument in that that class is also a major barrier. While still on a higher plane of privilege compared to people of color, poor whites struggle greatly as well in this country. They are not as included in affirmative action as a whole, but their financial situations still quality and get them into affirmative action programs. As such, it's still a mixed point to stand with.
• Redirected Discrimination: Where the idea of reverse racism fails, some claim that affirmative action instead harms other minorities. Pojam, Sacks, and Thiel all made this point as well. For Sacks and Thiel, this is shown in their previous quote about the child of a doctor versus the child of a refugee, whereas Pojam addresses this more specifically that it "...discriminates against new minorities, mostly innocent young white males...", going back to the grounds of merit or lack thereof. For one, white males are a numerical minority (so is most every other demographic in the US with exception to the white population as a whole), not a social or power minority. White people, especially men, already have various inherent benefits; affluence, increased social mobility, societal preference, etc. Pojam even uses a personal story regarding an academic friend who was denied a position because he was a white male. The two problems with this though is that it is A) anecdotal and B) unverified. Pojam also goes on to talk about other minorities (not in as great detail, keeping focus on white males such as himself, shocking), but that doesn't stand well either. Other minorities are included. At least one of my sources states that Hispanics/Latin students have benefited from affirmative action, and for several reasons, affirmative action has stretched out to include other disadvantages beyond one race or another, especially in regards to finances and living conditions. 
• No True Diversity: Another odd idea is that affirmative action is in actuality anti-diversity. This one really left me scratching my head. "... if 'diversity' were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way." (Sacks & Thiel). It is unspecified by Sacks and Thiel mean by "unusual characteristics", which creates a problem in forming a point. Affirmative action's focus on diversity is based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic demographics, for these are the basis of discrimination in this issue for the most part. 
• It's Simply Not Working: There is also the claim that affirmative action isn't enough, or flat out does not work or no longer does. This, in my mind, has some (potential) credibility to it. The underlying fact of discrimination and inequality is presumably a given rather than denied in many other arguments. However, there is no real substance to it. The claim that it is ineffective was not backed by any solid evidence. My research on the other hand has shown that in most cases affirmative action only helped minorities and as previously stated, Hispanic/Latin students felt the benefits of affirmative action alongside Black Americans. In states which had affirmative action only to ban it, they saw a period of general improval for Black and Hispanic Americans followed by a decline. Those that reinstated affirmative action saw this improvement return.

There are other arguments, more than I could cover in a blog post with more nuance than can be done justice in the same length, however, I believe this to be a solid overview of the counterarguments against affirmative action, and I shall expand upon it into greater detail within my main paper.

Works Cited

Pojman, Louis P. “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy , vol. 12, 1998, pp. 97–115. https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/business_computer_ethics/the%20case%20against%20affirmative%20action.htm. Accessed 15 April 2021.

Sacks, David, and Peter Thiel. “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine, Stanford University, 1996, stanfordmag.org/contents/the-case-against-affirmative-action. Accessed 15 April 2021.