Affirmative Action: My Mind, or My Skin?
...icity is no more than a matter of appearance, where one’s color of skin is in no way a determinant for anything beyond the choice of clothes and makeup. Would you hire someone because he dresses in Calvin Kline or grant someone else college admission because she wears red lipstick? The affirmative action, with all its good intentions, would not be part of such a colorblind society since it favors minority groups in areas like education and employment. Therefore, the authors’ argument here clearly appears to be contradictory. Marshall and Katzenbach also claim that those who oppose the affirmative action seized the Piscataway case as the perfect opportunity to put an end to affirmative action. The authors point out that our society is yet to achieve the goal of integration, therefore, race-based affirmative action programs, though unfair to an extent, is still needed for “this country to maintain its democratic principles”. Through the affirmative action, the authors believe our society will be able to achieve Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of freedom and equality. Dr. King, in all his years of struggling against oppression, fought for a world where people of all different ethnicities will be treated equally. His dream, as stated in his speech, is “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. The race-based affirmative action programs are clearly in contradiction of this dream, for they judge by the color of one’s skin instead of one’s merit. Thus, the authors’ claim of achieving Dr. King’s dream through affirmative action is no more than a act of ignorance. On the part of affirmative action in employment, Marshall and Katzenbach argue that many employers consider hiring and promoting African Americans risky for concerns such as acceptance and cooperation. In order to achieve diversity, these concerns should be reduced by executing the affirmative action. The affirmative action, in such cases, would probably do more harm than good to the newly hired. What would be the incentive of working hard if one knows that he was hired over someone else, and might later be chosen for a promotion over someone else, solely because the color of his skin? How could his co-workers respect him and his input knowing that he might not be the most qualifying candidate for the job, but simply hired because there is a quota the company needs to meet? Affirmative action here not only creates a negative working environment, but also a negative impact on an individual’s self-esteem. In response to such criticisms of the affirmative action, Marshall and Katzenbach offered three reasons supporting the necessity of the affirmative action. The authors first claim that since the employment system is somewhat flexible, individual judgments and opinions could affect who gets hired or promoted. Therefore, the affirmative action is there to guarantee fairness in such situations. The authors go on to say that there is no precise way to “define and measure ‘merit’”, thus making the employment process “a matter of subjective judgment”. The authors’ last reply to criticism states that the “preference” for minorities in the affirmative action programs serves to promote a color blind, fair working environment; since bias still exist in today’s society, it is important to maintain such programs in order to achieve equal representation in work places. These statements, though appea...