I agree with Sarah in her statement that affirmative action is akin to putting a small bandage over a gaping wound. However, I do not share her sentiments that it is the only thing we can do about an issue that affects all of us in one way or another. To me, maintaining diversity by artificially forcing a percentage of students to look one way or be part of any specific race is analogous to sweeping the real issue under the rug by making sure that everything at least looks decent on the surface. While diversifying through programs like affirmative action may take away a fraction of the sting of a hurtful predicament, I would argue that it gets us, as a society, no closer to solving said issue, and often leads to animosity between applicants and students as well. While many Americans feel that granting Richard Nixon a presidential pardon from the Watergate repercussions was a good decision, many others see it as an act that dodged the real issue. While this pardon may have eased the pain of a drawn out investigation, who can make the argument that we are any closer to solving the issue of subversion and secrecy in politics that still plagues us today?
It is the same case with the issue of diversity as it currently presents itself to us. As a society, we put the real issue aside to make sure that everything appears satisfactory. It would seem to me that creating diversity merely for the sake of appearing diverse is merely a cover-up, while as a society we should be working towards a future where there would be no need for programs such as affirmative action. This may be a lofty goal, and not one that can be solved in any easy way, but by making sure that the proportions of the different races in our schools are "right", are we even approaching it at all?
In response to Sarah:
I agree with Sarah in her statement that affirmative action is akin to putting a small bandage over a gaping wound. However, I do not share her sentiments that it is the only thing we can do about an issue that affects all of us in one way or another. To me, maintaining diversity by artificially forcing a percentage of students to look one way or be part of any specific race is analogous to sweeping the real issue under the rug by making sure that everything at least looks decent on the surface. While diversifying through programs like affirmative action may take away a fraction of the sting of a hurtful predicament, I would argue that it gets us, as a society, no closer to solving said issue, and often leads to animosity between applicants and students as well. While many Americans feel that granting Richard Nixon a presidential pardon from the Watergate repercussions was a good decision, many others see it as an act that dodged the real issue. While this pardon may have eased the pain of a drawn out investigation, who can make the argument that we are any closer to solving the issue of subversion and secrecy in politics that still plagues us today?
It is the same case with the issue of diversity as it currently presents itself to us. As a society, we put the real issue aside to make sure that everything appears satisfactory. It would seem to me that creating diversity merely for the sake of appearing diverse is merely a cover-up, while as a society we should be working towards a future where there would be no need for programs such as affirmative action. This may be a lofty goal, and not one that can be solved in any easy way, but by making sure that the proportions of the different races in our schools are "right", are we even approaching it at all?