Affirmative, Yes. Comprehensive, Hardly. (Fixing Affirmative Action)

The Light in August is as profound an exposé on the inner workings of racial perception as any psychological treatise. While Faulkner seems to have debunked the great 'mystery of race', I struggle in class to understand how I can apply his revelations to my everyday life. I've decided to examine a current racial issue and attempt to apply Faulkner's genius...


America boasts freedom. Equally present -- but not so fun to shout about from your rooftop -- is the degree of inequality that results. Today, the United States' government takes steps to make up for these injustices.

By examining Affirmative Action in the college admission process -- one attempt at righting past wrongs -- I will address two questions: How are we currently seeking to remedy injustice, and how can we better this process?

Affirmative action has been in place in the United States since the 1960’s, when it was first introduced to enforce compliance with civil rights laws. The policy was intended to help minorities who have been discriminated against, especially in employment and educational settings.

Colleges throughout the nation favor those minorities who in the past, have suffered injustices at the hands of the United States' government. In this way, the government seeks to level the playing field by giving those who have been denied opportunities the chance to recoup their status.

We will overlook the arguments against Affirmative Action's practical fallacies (For example, favoring minorities presupposes their inferiority; opportunities are being taken away from qualifies members of the majority; these favored kids are unprepared for the rigor at the universities to which they are admitted) and focus on the big picture.


The basis of this system is far from perfect, and Faulkner sheds a light onto its problem. 

Here is the crux of my argument:

Faulkner pins race as the single most dividing quality in American history, because it's the most visual, clear-cut option by which people can be alienated. But he deliberately makes a point to emphasize that this is but one of many factors, including gender, religion, school of thought, and social status/wealth, based on which people differentiate themselves and discriminate.

Each one of these factors has been the basis for injustice in American history. 

So, in my opinion, the United States needs to either take all these factors into account (in proportion to their documented effect on need for favor in the college admission process) when evaluating need for favor in the college admission process, or take none. To only consider race is to deny the existence of divisions in society based on factors other than race.

On a more reprehensive note,

By failing to recognize the link between prejudice and those human differentiations other than race, the United States government jeopardizes the authenticity of the apologetic sentiment at the core of Affirmative Action. 

Affirmative Action has been enacted as a reactionary measure to appease 1960's civil rights activism.
If a government is unwilling to right wrongs other than those for which it has been vilified, is it truly seeking justice, or is it simply defending its reputation?





*I am aware that this 'all-factor' plan is quite idealistic.
As a step towards the 'all-factor' plan, an amendment that has a greater chance of being enacted is Affirmative-Economic-Need Action (ENA). While not as comprehensive as the all-factor plan, its measure of wealth in addition to race for the determination of need for favor in the college admissions process more adeptly evaluates need for favor than Affirmative Action because the biggest dividers in America today are race and class.