Affirmative Action is Obsolete for America

American society is filled with many different ethnic and religious groups today. America has reached a new voting threshold in that not one group can control the electorate. This was illustrated by the last Presidential election. If equality has been achieved in America then should we do away with Affirmative Action? Paraphrasing the former President Johnson we cannot send blacks, women and other minorities up to the starting line of life with crutches and expect them to run an equal race with the white male. This may have been true in 1965, but affirmative action has run its course in America one would think. After all it is close to fifty years and in many cases four generations since Affirmative Action was established.

The term “Fairness” means in the Merriam dictionary: “Marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self-interest, prejudice or favoritism.” Quoting the President if “fairness” is what America is truly striving for, then let America start with equality for all. America has come a long way from the days of 1965 when Affirmative Action was developed and implemented into American society.  

In 1961 President Kennedy created Executive Order 10925 which was the beginning of the American government’s commitment to the equality for all. Executive order 10925 was then superseded in 1965 by President Johnson who enhanced on what President Kennedy had started. Later in 1967 President Johnson amended the Executive Order to include all women and minorities. These federal requirements for Affirmative Action quickly made its way to the states and like a plague Affirmative Action spread to all aspects of American society.

The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) points out that the Supreme Court allowed to stand the State of California’s ballot initiative 209 in 1997 for a new amendment to the California Constitution called the California Civil Rights Act. The California Civil Rights Act decimated Affirmative Action policy; however the case still held that equal opportunity for all was required. This was met accordingly with a strict Federal guideline that essentially makes Affirmative Action in California the easier and softer way to do business.

It seems that Universities are the leading group in court cases that make it to the Supreme Court. In 2003 there was a University of Michigan Affirmative Action case that upheld the right of the school to apply affirmative action to the admissions standards of the school. However, the 2003 case was decided by the swing vote of Sandra Day O’Conner who has left the Supreme Court. The new Supreme Court in 2012 some argue is a more conservative Supreme Court.

Bill Frezza has written a Forbes article that questions whether the Affirmative Action policy has become a new entitlement for minorities and women. Is Affirmative Action the new post-progressive vogue, a contraction in terms that argues equality and fairness for all — except if you’re a white male? Frezza argues that the 2012 Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas could put the final nail in the coffin of Affirmative Action.

There are two sides to the argument for and against Affirmative Action and that seems odd to me in 2012. The Presidential Election screams the forward leaning of minorities and women in prominent political rolls that were a result of President Obama’s election victory. In the news one can watch and listen to how well minorities and women have moved forward in the last fifty years with Affirmative Action.

All the Supreme Court needs to do is look at its own bench and how it is represented along the lines of Affirmative Action. The past Presidents have made sure that today the Supreme Court looks like the poster child for Affirmative action with women, Jew, black, and Hispanic justices that represent the make-up of the Supreme Court. The Fisher case seems to be turning into a watershed case.  It will take the Fisher side winning the argument in the Supreme Court case to dismantle the Federal, State, local government’s affirmative action policies.

If President Obama would issue an Executive order to eliminate Affirmative Action the Holy Grail and savior of women and minorities, then the United States would begin to regain its competitiveness in business, education, and politics. America once again can be the envy of the world. It is all about the results. Keep in mind the President does not have another election to worry about why not do the humane things for America and unchain the white male. The act would have great ironic virtue.

The Founding Fathers believed in equality of opportunity knowing full well that the country would have various economic segments and levels. The idea of equality of opportunity meant that a person that worked hard could become President of the United States. Social fairness the Founding Fathers left up to the morals of the people. The Founding Fathers took for granted that America the Christian nation could take care of itself through the morals taught in the bible.

Women and minorities should be offended by Affirmative Action because it implies that a lessor group needs an artificial advantage in order to have fairness in the United States. When Affirmative Action is elevated then women and minorities could feel that they truly are equal in all ways. Should government policy support the idea of minorities and women punishing white males? If no then in the year 2012 Affirmative Action should be done away with.

If Affirmative Action was elevated it will take ten years for the work place and universities to get back to normal. There will need to be an adjustment to the reality of more white males in positions of power. College students will need to adjust to the increase in numbers of white males in better quality universities where their skills would demand admission.  The last statement is rhetorical because in good conscious all Americans without physical or mental handicaps are equal and the universities and work place should not change when Affirmative Action is done away with.

 If America was still a Christian nation rather than the secular nation in this day and age there would not be a need for government involvement in social fairness. All social fairness and welfare in the eyes of the Founding Fathers would be eliminated because of the moral backbone of the American people. The Founding Fathers did not create income tax it was done by Former President Wilson who fooled the American people into thinking it would be just for the rich. There is no fairness or liberty when the majority of the people vote for candidates that are going to give them “free stuff” and amnesty.

This nation needs to get off the road to socialism before we end up like the European Union. America can do anything if we stick to the proper values and morals that made this country great. It is time to unleash the individuals tied down and hurt by Affirmative action so that this country can get back to the business of business. If the people hope to strengthen the American economy and how other nations look towards America, then dismantling Affirmative Action will create instant respect in the world and calm in financial institutions international and national. It is time to unleash the people of America responsible for its past success so that once again America can ‘Lean Forward.’                      

Latest posts by Kevin C. Caffrey (see all)

The views expressed in this article belong to the author/contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Nolan Chart or its ownership


  1. John says

    Let us be fair, if Affirmative action is unfair then lets also discuss banning legacy preferences as well.

    Legacy preferences, which provide a leg up in college admissions to
    applicants who are the offspring of alumni, are employed at almost
    three-quarters of selective research universities and virtually all
    elite liberal-arts colleges. Yet legacy preferences have received
    relatively little public attention, especially when compared with
    race-based affirmative-action programs, which have given rise to
    hundreds of books and law-review articles, numerous court decisions, and
    several state initiatives to ban the practice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *