My solution

The debate during class today seemed to circle around the whole 'better than nothing' debate and the fact that Affirmative Action is a means to an end. The better than nothing debate, I feel, is a weak argument in terms of being for or against AA because it does not necessarily mean that Affirmative Action is even effective, but that it is doing something. I could say that the only way to make equal the financial situation in our country is to take all of the money from the rich and give it to the poverty stricken majority; it's better than doing nothing right?

The argument came up that non-discrimination laws do not actually do anything, so AA is a solution to broaden the effectiveness of these by putting governmental mandates on it. I was dwelling on this, and I think that they are effective, and that an easy solution would be the have government regulation of this. The number of minorities hired for a job does not accurately reflect the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of non-discrimination laws. You might have a very sexist company or racist company, who makes up excuses not to hire people that are minorities or of a non-wanted gender. Then again, you might have a company with 100% white make-up, but this is only because these are the most qualified for the position, or because they did not have any minority applicants. It seems arbitrary to base the effectiveness of non-discrimination and equal opportunity laws on job make-up.

Alternately, a more strict government regulation of racism, hate crimes, and the like would be a better solution. If hate crimes, hate speech, and clear acts of racism or discrimination are treated seriously, as Affirmative Action seems to preach, then this would be a sure step in ending racism. (Although, I don't think we'll ever end racism and maybe not even sexism. It has been around for too long, and it is not just a societal thing, it's a universal and religious issue, that goes back many millenia) By treated seriously, I mean more severe punishments, as well as more tracking of such cases. If there is an area with high racist tendencies, put more enforcement in that area. If the south still has anti-African American notions, take away their funding until they clean up their act. If we are going to take racism as a seriously as AA would want us to think, we need to address it with serious consequences.

Another argument that was made was that Affirmative Action is a means to an end, instead of an end in itself. The thought involved in this is that we would gradually conform to this sort of system. However, I don't think that the end wanted, an equal, non-discriminatory United States, is a product of AA. It breeds discontent for the government, hatred toward those minority groups that do achieve (Such as saying, "Your race is the only reason you are here"), and in the end, it discriminates against the majority groups. It seems there is instead a hidden agenda, whether or not the Affirmative Action advocates admit to it, of making the nation completely equal, both in terms of opportunities and wealth, regardless of qualifications. In that sense, I feel that AA is not the means to the end proposed, and thus it makes it null because of its adverse effects.