Letter: Affirmative action not sufficient to cure social ills

I am writing in response to Peter Klopper's letter to The Chronicle supporting affirmative action on moral grounds. He makes some excellent points about past injustices and current socioeconomic inequities that should lead one to support affirmative action. However, it would be useful to distinguish between affirmative action in theory and affirmative action as it is currently practiced.

Affirmative action in theory was originally used to break down formal and informal discrimination by setting up quotas for similarly qualified minorities in the awarding of contracts and jobs and in admissions decisions. Yet, affirmative action as it is practiced today has taken on a new meaning. Today, affirmative action means that all other things being equal, a minority candidate is more likely to get a certain job, contract or admissions offer than a similarly qualified non-minority candidate. Discrimination still exists today. Thus, affirmative action that considers equally qualified candidates may still be required in some areas where discrimination is prevalent. However, discrimination is not as prevalent today as it was 50 years ago and today's blind application of affirmative action seeks to eliminate the symptoms of past injustices and current educational inequities without getting to the root of the problem.

Lower minority test scores are not corrected by simply admitting more minorities at lower test scores. Since such actions only perpetuate social and economic injustices by drawing attention away from the root cause of lower competitiveness, they are not only unfair to the more qualified candidates that are rejected but, in the long run, also unfair for the minorities who the policy is trying to help. In the case of college admission, if minority candidates routinely have lower test scores than other candidates, the solution is not to accept lower test scores from minority candidates than from the general population of candidates, the solution is to raise the test scores of the minority candidates through better schooling. This is easier said than done, since inequalities in education are prevalent in America. However, it is a more honest assessment of the problem, not just a simple solution.

It may also be helpful to point out that the better qualified candidates that are rejected because of affirmative action may not only include rich, privileged, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose ancestors were slave owners but also poor white students that nevertheless meet the proper standards but are rejected because of their race, or shall I say, lack of "ethnicity."

Thus, the modern notion of affirmative action is an easy, ineffective solution to a big problem that creates present injustice in an attempt to mitigate past injustice. My message to those proud affirmative action advocates is, yes, some of us may benefit from affirmative action, but why settle for it?