COLUMN: Affirmative action could be of more use to poor

Published: Thursday, December 5, 2002

The Supreme Court's announcement to revaluate an ambiguous 1978 decision of affirmative action in higher education is indeed a polemic area that will galvanize flagrant outbursts on either side of the spectrum regardless of the final ruling.

Several white students recently filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan based on the rejection of their admission to the college's undergraduate law school. These students became upset when minority students whose academic credentials were lower than those of the white students were accepted into the program. According to the students filing the suit, the University of Michigan's admissions policy is designed in a counter-discriminatory and unconstitutional manner.

Racial issues are undeniably the most sensitive topic in American politics and with education being regarded as the gateway to future prospects, many opponents of affirmative action are demanding that equal treatment be given for all; because education has such a tremendous effect on determining future success, affirmative action in the educational system is seen as an injustice. Proponents believe that race does not determine competency and that affirmative action should not have as much bearing on admissions policies as individual test scores and personal accomplishment.

However, proponents of affirmative action call rectifying measures warranted; minorities are underprivileged, oppressed and prejudiced against by all members of society in positions of power and, therefore, granting certain privileges to the marginalized adjusts for social asymmetries. If a student was held to a lower standard in primary education and therefore performed in accordance with this low expectation or if a student's high school did not provide adequate educational opportunities, it is considered by advocates of affirmative action to be justified in granting this group certain benefits that compensate for the bad hand they were dealt.

The irony here is that both groups are arguing for the same thing -- equality. One group believes in a non-reversible form of equality -- everyone should be held to the same standard--and the other believes in a reversible form of equality -- minorities are generally not afforded as many options and therefore should be given a break as a compensatory reward.

But the biggest misconception is the belief that race is the main oppressive factor operating in America. Realistically, race does not determine quality of life or the education one receives nor does it inherently limit individuals' potential for success. Social class and family income determine these things, ergo; programs such as affirmative action should reconcile developmental disadvantages resulting from social class. Those whom's financial means held them down constitute the largest underprivileged minority in America.

Why then are the poor not recognized as a major minority? Because the poor are of all races, ethnicities and genders and as Americans we love to categorize.

As long as white men are considered to be the ruling force in America, the stereotype that all white males are born into upper class households will prevail. However, white men are not the ruling force in America -- the rich are! True, white men are still the majority of the rich, but this is a statistical inevitability; most of the people in the United States are white.

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of white men are not rich; not all white men are born with silver spoons in their mouths just as not all black men are poor. In fact, in 1999, 51 percent of married black families made over $50,000 per year. Dilapidated schools don't exist in minority neighborhoods; schools with outdated textbooks and condemnable facilities are situated in poor neighborhoods.

However, an admission social class related problems might be regarded as an acceptance of a socialist or (GASP!) communist notion! America's biggest problem is not racial prejudice; it's the hegemonic ruling of the upper class. Those in power only as a means to control the populace implement systems like affirmative action. Programs like affirmative action do two things: 1) they pacify ultra-liberals of all colors with bleeding hearts that never seem to coagulate by instilling in them the belief that conscious decisions are being made in an attempt to offset racial problems, and 2) as long as those in power make these decisions, and those in power are viewed as white rather than rich, all white men will be believed to be privileged.

What is called for is a system that aids the financially disadvantaged. "But," you might say, "this program already exists. It's called Financial Aid." True, financial aid programs do allot money based on finances, but one must be accepted to a college before receiving financial aid! Financial does not help people get into good schools; it helps them pay for whatever school will accept them. And as long as the poor receive wretched educations the majority of poor students who want to go to college will not go to very good colleges.

What we need is a system that squelches the stereotype that only minorities are disadvantaged and changes the focus of affirmative action from race to social class. Many may worry that by doing so minorities will be robbed of the privileges that affirmative action guarantees them. Quite the contrary. Needy minorities will still receive aid. The major difference is that needy white people will too.

Race does not determine need, need determines need. And to anyone who's willing to open their eyes objectively, it is obvious that the poor are the neediest and most underprivileged people of all.

Further support of these claims can be found at www.census.gov and in the teachings of Karl Marx.