The Morality and Politics of Justice
It's Time to Move On
When I say Affirmative Action, what comes to mind: equality or inequality? For the most part people will think of the same thing, equality. October 10, 2011, Abigail Noel Fisher alongside Rachel Michalewicz brought a case to the Supreme Court that would quickly become labeled as Fisher v. Texas. Resolved on June 24, 2013 the case would fight against the current Affirmative Action laws and the injustices that are associated with the laws in their current state. For this reason along with many others, Affirmative Action is morally wrong.
Although it is commonly considered to create equality, Affirmative Action has the opposite effect by creating “reverse racism.”
Affirmative Action does the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. It creates reverse racism as I’ve said. Since this has been enacted as a law, there have been numerous cases pleading reverse racism put forth to the Supreme Court, the most recent being Fisher v. University of Texas. In this case two women, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas and were denied admission. Both women, who were white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them based on their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment (Richey).
In Texas there is a law, which makes Texas colleges accept the top 10% of each Texas high schools graduating class automatically, regardless of their race. In 2008, 81% of the freshman class was admitted under this plan. Abigail was in the top 12% of her class, so she missed this mark, but barely. During this case, concerns were expressed by proponents of Affirmative Action that if the Court overruled Grutter (2003), another case challenging Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, it would likely end Affirmative Action at public universities in the United States (Liptak). Rachel left the case in 2011 (Haurwitz), leaving Abigail on her own. The Supreme Court decided in a 7-1 ruling to uphold the current law. More specifically ruled that the burden of evidence primarily lies with the university “to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.” (Carrigan) It was also ruled that the University of Texas couldn’t accept the top 10% of every graduating class and have race based Affirmative Action.
This is just one of various cases, including Grutter v. Bollinger, which has been brought to the United States Supreme Court and has upheld Affirmative Action. So why is the Supreme Court in favor of Affirmative Action? Why are we doing everything to ignore the issues that are continually arising with it? What are the benefits?
To start with, race-based Affirmative Action gives people who may be less fortunate jobs or a chance at a good education. This is true because people born in less fortunate areas that may not have the same education that, say, someone from Animas High School might have. Location has a large effect in education which then affects the type of job that you may be able to get. With race-based Affirmative Action it gives minorities in those areas equal opportunity, whereas without it they may have had little to no opportunity.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong. Although it helps less fortunate people have the same opportunities, it also takes those opportunities away from people who may be extremely qualified just because they are white but legally the University needs to accept a minority to be in line with the law. Does that seem fair to the extremely qualified man trying to get accepted to get a better job to feed his four children? Meanwhile the opening is taken by another man who is didn’t do as well in high school and is considered a minority who has two pediatric surgeons for parents and clearly isn’t having monetary issues. Is that fair? This example shows the flaws surrounding this law. Despite trying to make up for social inequalities, the law inadvertently perpetuates them. This may be an extreme example, but it shows the flaws within the law.
In terms of is this law just or not, that depends on which approach you take to it. If you were to look at it like a utilitarian, it would be just because it helps more people while affecting very few. On the other hand, there is John Rawls theory of equality. By that moral philosophy it would be immoral because it gives one group of people privileges that another may not have. It creates a line that otherwise wouldn’t be there or it would be negligible to non-existent. This line creates inequality which, according to John Rawls, isn’t morally correct.
The law doesn’t look at the person’s background or who they are; it simply looks at that person on the outside and makes a company’s difficult decision easier. Basing decisions for important positions based off of race and not qualifications creates an issue that we should have moved past before it even started; racism. It’s not the typical type of racism that you picture, that’s a given, but it is still a form of racism; hence “reverse racism.” The law wasn’t originally proposed to create these issues, but for the opposite reasons, to get rid of them. So why don’t we do what needs to be done?
Although it is commonly considered to create equality, Affirmative Action has the opposite effect by creating “reverse racism.”
Affirmative Action does the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. It creates reverse racism as I’ve said. Since this has been enacted as a law, there have been numerous cases pleading reverse racism put forth to the Supreme Court, the most recent being Fisher v. University of Texas. In this case two women, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas and were denied admission. Both women, who were white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them based on their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment (Richey).
In Texas there is a law, which makes Texas colleges accept the top 10% of each Texas high schools graduating class automatically, regardless of their race. In 2008, 81% of the freshman class was admitted under this plan. Abigail was in the top 12% of her class, so she missed this mark, but barely. During this case, concerns were expressed by proponents of Affirmative Action that if the Court overruled Grutter (2003), another case challenging Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan, it would likely end Affirmative Action at public universities in the United States (Liptak). Rachel left the case in 2011 (Haurwitz), leaving Abigail on her own. The Supreme Court decided in a 7-1 ruling to uphold the current law. More specifically ruled that the burden of evidence primarily lies with the university “to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.” (Carrigan) It was also ruled that the University of Texas couldn’t accept the top 10% of every graduating class and have race based Affirmative Action.
This is just one of various cases, including Grutter v. Bollinger, which has been brought to the United States Supreme Court and has upheld Affirmative Action. So why is the Supreme Court in favor of Affirmative Action? Why are we doing everything to ignore the issues that are continually arising with it? What are the benefits?
To start with, race-based Affirmative Action gives people who may be less fortunate jobs or a chance at a good education. This is true because people born in less fortunate areas that may not have the same education that, say, someone from Animas High School might have. Location has a large effect in education which then affects the type of job that you may be able to get. With race-based Affirmative Action it gives minorities in those areas equal opportunity, whereas without it they may have had little to no opportunity.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong. Although it helps less fortunate people have the same opportunities, it also takes those opportunities away from people who may be extremely qualified just because they are white but legally the University needs to accept a minority to be in line with the law. Does that seem fair to the extremely qualified man trying to get accepted to get a better job to feed his four children? Meanwhile the opening is taken by another man who is didn’t do as well in high school and is considered a minority who has two pediatric surgeons for parents and clearly isn’t having monetary issues. Is that fair? This example shows the flaws surrounding this law. Despite trying to make up for social inequalities, the law inadvertently perpetuates them. This may be an extreme example, but it shows the flaws within the law.
In terms of is this law just or not, that depends on which approach you take to it. If you were to look at it like a utilitarian, it would be just because it helps more people while affecting very few. On the other hand, there is John Rawls theory of equality. By that moral philosophy it would be immoral because it gives one group of people privileges that another may not have. It creates a line that otherwise wouldn’t be there or it would be negligible to non-existent. This line creates inequality which, according to John Rawls, isn’t morally correct.
The law doesn’t look at the person’s background or who they are; it simply looks at that person on the outside and makes a company’s difficult decision easier. Basing decisions for important positions based off of race and not qualifications creates an issue that we should have moved past before it even started; racism. It’s not the typical type of racism that you picture, that’s a given, but it is still a form of racism; hence “reverse racism.” The law wasn’t originally proposed to create these issues, but for the opposite reasons, to get rid of them. So why don’t we do what needs to be done?
Citations
"11 Facts About Affirmative Action | Do Something." Do Something | Largest organization for teens and social cause. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-affirmative-action#>.
Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court sends Texas Affirmative Action plan back for further review - Washington Post."Featured Articles From The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-24/politics/40157367_1_admissions-policies-grutter-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg>.
Carrigan, John. "Supreme Court Approves Affirmative Action in College Admissions, but Remands for Additional Analysis of Admissions Process | Ogletree Deakins." Ogletree Deakins | Labor and Employment Law Firm. N.p., 28 June 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/2013-06-28/supreme-court-approves-affirmative-action-college-admissions-remands-additio>.
Haurwitz, Ralph. "UT's race-conscious admission policy facing Supreme Court test | www.statesman.com." Austin News, Sports, Weather, Longhorns, Business | www.statesman.com. N.p., 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/uts-race-conscious-admission-policy-facing-supreme/nRkgH/>.
Lemieux, Scott. "Yes, Justice Thomas, Affirmative Action Is Constitutional." The American Prospect. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://prospect.org/article/yes-justice-thomas-affirmative-action-constitutional>.
Liptak, Adam. "College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 15 Oct. 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/college-diversity-nears-its-last-stand.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>.
Richey, Warren. "Affirmative action in college admissions goes back before Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. N.p., 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0221/Affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-goes-back-before-Supreme-Court>.
Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court sends Texas Affirmative Action plan back for further review - Washington Post."Featured Articles From The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-24/politics/40157367_1_admissions-policies-grutter-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg>.
Carrigan, John. "Supreme Court Approves Affirmative Action in College Admissions, but Remands for Additional Analysis of Admissions Process | Ogletree Deakins." Ogletree Deakins | Labor and Employment Law Firm. N.p., 28 June 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/2013-06-28/supreme-court-approves-affirmative-action-college-admissions-remands-additio>.
Haurwitz, Ralph. "UT's race-conscious admission policy facing Supreme Court test | www.statesman.com." Austin News, Sports, Weather, Longhorns, Business | www.statesman.com. N.p., 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/uts-race-conscious-admission-policy-facing-supreme/nRkgH/>.
Lemieux, Scott. "Yes, Justice Thomas, Affirmative Action Is Constitutional." The American Prospect. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://prospect.org/article/yes-justice-thomas-affirmative-action-constitutional>.
Liptak, Adam. "College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 15 Oct. 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/college-diversity-nears-its-last-stand.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all>.
Richey, Warren. "Affirmative action in college admissions goes back before Supreme Court - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. N.p., 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0221/Affirmative-action-in-college-admissions-goes-back-before-Supreme-Court>.
Visual Piece
Image Citations
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1211719/thumbs/o-AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION-facebook.jpg
http://borderzine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Court-protesters2_0.jpg
http://www.metro.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/reuters-us-usa-court-affirmative-action.jpg
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/517ae629eab8ea7467000007/affirmative-action-in-america-is-a-total-failure.jpg
http://borderzine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Court-protesters2_0.jpg
http://www.metro.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/reuters-us-usa-court-affirmative-action.jpg
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/517ae629eab8ea7467000007/affirmative-action-in-america-is-a-total-failure.jpg
Artist Statement
My poster represents my perspective on Affirmative Action, which is that it needs to either be changed to end the segregation that it causes or it needs to be ended altogether. In my poster I have the words “end this now” filled with images of protests of court rulings on affirmative action along with images that closely represent Affirmative Action. It’s hard to get a good image that represents an idea so the images in the background aren’t very strong in my opinion, but they are the closest thing I could find to represent affirmative action. Within my poster I use ethos in the quote and logos with the images and the words that the images make up. I say the quote uses logos because it is by a past President, and the President of the United States is credible.
I decided fairly early on that it was going to be a longer quote that I used. When I looked through the different famous quotes that people have said about Affirmative Action I realized that using a shorter quote wouldn’t get my perspective across. A complex issue such as Affirmative Action is difficult to represent and get a perspective across in a small amount of words or just a single image, so I used a quote that used a full half of the image. I think this is a good design decision because it shows the complexity within this issue when you see that half of my art piece is a quote. My plan was originally to fold it in half during exhibition because I think that could look nice, but at this point in time I’m not sure if that’s possible.
I didn’t refine my poster as much as I went through many different ideas. I made well over 6 different ideas before I made this one, which is the one that I think best shows my perspective on Affirmative Action. I think it best represents my idea and perspective out of every other idea that I made because it is well organized and has separate parts of the poster separated, whereas the other posters had everything mashed together and it didn’t look organized. I’m proud of this poster in particular because everything is cohesive and makes sense being together.
I decided fairly early on that it was going to be a longer quote that I used. When I looked through the different famous quotes that people have said about Affirmative Action I realized that using a shorter quote wouldn’t get my perspective across. A complex issue such as Affirmative Action is difficult to represent and get a perspective across in a small amount of words or just a single image, so I used a quote that used a full half of the image. I think this is a good design decision because it shows the complexity within this issue when you see that half of my art piece is a quote. My plan was originally to fold it in half during exhibition because I think that could look nice, but at this point in time I’m not sure if that’s possible.
I didn’t refine my poster as much as I went through many different ideas. I made well over 6 different ideas before I made this one, which is the one that I think best shows my perspective on Affirmative Action. I think it best represents my idea and perspective out of every other idea that I made because it is well organized and has separate parts of the poster separated, whereas the other posters had everything mashed together and it didn’t look organized. I’m proud of this poster in particular because everything is cohesive and makes sense being together.
Reflection
This project was focused around our personal beliefs on a specific political issue and we needed to apply a moral philosophy to it. Leading up this project we learned moral philosophies and how they apply to different situations, both politically and our own personal beliefs. In the beginning we were given a piece of paper that had different political issues on it. When I first looked over this paper I didn't know where to even begin. I had no idea what I was going to focus on during this project, which, ended up being a good thing. I was having issues choosing between two topics, gun control and abortion I think it was. After thinking about it for a while I decided if i looked too closely at these I was going to end up making it much more difficult than it really needed to be. As a result, I forgot about these two topics completely and chose another one that I didn't know much about, Affirmative Action, or more specifically, race based Affirmative Action within college admissions. On top of not knowing much about it, I also saw it applying to me in the near future when I start to apply for colleges. Because of these reasons, I chose this and I learned a lot from my research on the project. After the writing was complete the next step was to create a visual piece that represented our stance on the issue, which is difficult in itself, but I found myself constantly asking myself how I was going to make a poster that could accurately support my stance but still make sense. "How do you make a poster that represents an idea and not an action that makes sense?" I constantly asked myself. My idea started as a power point that would have quotes on it along with facts and pictures, all of which would represent my essay in an effective manner. This wasn't really a possibility because I had no idea where I would start it so I gave up on that idea. I ended up making a poster that I think is an accurate representation of my view.
This was one of the most difficult projects that I have done at Animas because everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. The first of the issues that arose from this project was a lack of interest on my part. Halfway through the project I couldn't stand Affirmative Action. I had issues researching because I was so disinterested and I talked to Ashley. She told me about a court case that I had briefly gone over beforehand but I didn't look too in depth at it. This one court case, Fisher v. Texas, got my interest and I was then engaged in the project again. I had a similar issue with the poster. As I said before, I had originally planned to make a Power Point presentation about it, but that idea was quickly shot down. I then had an a few different ideas for a poster that I could use and I ended up making. They all looked good, but I didn't see any of them being very good at representing my ideas and perspective on Affirmative Action. I created 5 posters and, of course, only liked the last one that I made. I felt like I wasted a lot of my time, which is difficult for me because I hate to waste time on anything, let alone something that I was then going to erase and make it seem like I had never done. I learned in this project to persist through complications. I knew that already, but I didn't ever let it sink in or come into play when I had difficulties. I usually just changed what I was doing completely but that wasn't really an option for this project so I had to be persistent and work through everything that I had issues with.
I think that I did best on using evidence on my Op-Ed article. It think it was the best part of it because with my Affirmative Action there is a lot of controversy and I tried to get both sides the input that they deserved. I researched for a longer time than I have on any other project and I got a good basis of knowledge for Affirmative Action and I think that including the sources and specific quotes from reputable sources helps it quite a bit in my opinion. I know that for me whenever I read a biased essay I like to hear the other side of the argument and hear why the author thinks that that is wrong. That, to me, creates a stronger essay that is better for the reader so that they get the whole story. In terms of the poster, I think I did best on including rhetoric in it. I think I did a good job of this because the pictures in the background of the words are of protests against and of protests for Affirmative Action. Again, I like to show the whole story and both sides of the argument. In this case, I did this to show that no matter which side you support, you're the same as everyone else when it comes to your battle. Everyone has the same method of protesting and in my opinion protest doesn't get anywhere except for annoy the people who actually decide to enact or revise a law. I think on my essay I did worst on including a moral philosophy. I had issues relating a moral philosophy to this because it's such a difficult topic to relate anything to for the most part. I chose to use Rawl's Theory of Equality, but I think I didn't do it in the most comprehensive way that I could have. I think on my poster I did bad on representing my opinion to the best extent that I could. It was difficult to find a way to make a poster related to it so I did the best that I could, but I don't think that it's the best that could be done if I had more time.
As I said, if I had more time to work on this project I would have refined the poster to better represent my ideas. When I made my poster my ideas weren't completely formed. I realized what I really though should be done a day before the exhibition and by that time my poster was complete and printed so throughout exhibition i had to talk about how the poster isn't completely accurate to what I believe, which I think turned out fine, but I also think that it would have been more professional if I had a poster that represented my ideas as well as it possibly could. I would have also refined my essay to include a moral philosophy more accurately. I think I didn't do that as well as I could have so having time to refine that would have been nice. I still think overall it's not that bad, I just think it could be substantially better.
This was one of the most difficult projects that I have done at Animas because everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. The first of the issues that arose from this project was a lack of interest on my part. Halfway through the project I couldn't stand Affirmative Action. I had issues researching because I was so disinterested and I talked to Ashley. She told me about a court case that I had briefly gone over beforehand but I didn't look too in depth at it. This one court case, Fisher v. Texas, got my interest and I was then engaged in the project again. I had a similar issue with the poster. As I said before, I had originally planned to make a Power Point presentation about it, but that idea was quickly shot down. I then had an a few different ideas for a poster that I could use and I ended up making. They all looked good, but I didn't see any of them being very good at representing my ideas and perspective on Affirmative Action. I created 5 posters and, of course, only liked the last one that I made. I felt like I wasted a lot of my time, which is difficult for me because I hate to waste time on anything, let alone something that I was then going to erase and make it seem like I had never done. I learned in this project to persist through complications. I knew that already, but I didn't ever let it sink in or come into play when I had difficulties. I usually just changed what I was doing completely but that wasn't really an option for this project so I had to be persistent and work through everything that I had issues with.
I think that I did best on using evidence on my Op-Ed article. It think it was the best part of it because with my Affirmative Action there is a lot of controversy and I tried to get both sides the input that they deserved. I researched for a longer time than I have on any other project and I got a good basis of knowledge for Affirmative Action and I think that including the sources and specific quotes from reputable sources helps it quite a bit in my opinion. I know that for me whenever I read a biased essay I like to hear the other side of the argument and hear why the author thinks that that is wrong. That, to me, creates a stronger essay that is better for the reader so that they get the whole story. In terms of the poster, I think I did best on including rhetoric in it. I think I did a good job of this because the pictures in the background of the words are of protests against and of protests for Affirmative Action. Again, I like to show the whole story and both sides of the argument. In this case, I did this to show that no matter which side you support, you're the same as everyone else when it comes to your battle. Everyone has the same method of protesting and in my opinion protest doesn't get anywhere except for annoy the people who actually decide to enact or revise a law. I think on my essay I did worst on including a moral philosophy. I had issues relating a moral philosophy to this because it's such a difficult topic to relate anything to for the most part. I chose to use Rawl's Theory of Equality, but I think I didn't do it in the most comprehensive way that I could have. I think on my poster I did bad on representing my opinion to the best extent that I could. It was difficult to find a way to make a poster related to it so I did the best that I could, but I don't think that it's the best that could be done if I had more time.
As I said, if I had more time to work on this project I would have refined the poster to better represent my ideas. When I made my poster my ideas weren't completely formed. I realized what I really though should be done a day before the exhibition and by that time my poster was complete and printed so throughout exhibition i had to talk about how the poster isn't completely accurate to what I believe, which I think turned out fine, but I also think that it would have been more professional if I had a poster that represented my ideas as well as it possibly could. I would have also refined my essay to include a moral philosophy more accurately. I think I didn't do that as well as I could have so having time to refine that would have been nice. I still think overall it's not that bad, I just think it could be substantially better.