Affirmative action should be ended in college admissions

Affirmative action mainly discriminates against Asians Affirmative action has no effect on getting into the higher education system. The US has a tiered system of higher education so that virtually anyone who wants education after high school will not be denied it based upon academic admissions. There are 1166 two-year community colleges, and “In the United States, community colleges operate under a policy of 'open admission. ' That is, anyone with a high school diploma or GED may attend, regardless of prior academic status or college entrance exam scores. ” A student successful in a two-year community college can then transfer to a four-year institution. In addition, there are more than 20 four-year schools that take 100% of applicants directly and more than a hundred that take over 90% of applicants; the few rejections are likely for non-academic reasons. [2. . http://tinyurl.com... ] Affirmative action is about direct admission to the most competitive (i. e. , elite) public schools like the University of California (UC) at Berkeley. [3. . http://tinyurl.com... ] Under affirmative action, students of selected groups are admitted despite failure to meet the established academic criteria for admissions. The tiered system in California is typical of the US, with 10 top end University campuses designed to serve the top 12.5% of high school graduates, a larger State college system (23 campuses) designed to admit the top 30% of high school graduates, and 109 community colleges (having open admissions. [4. . http://tinyurl.com... In the US as a whole, about half the students in higher education are in open-admission community colleges. Nationwide, elite schools have disproportionately more Asian-Americans than than the general population. California has an Asian population of 14% of the total. When affirmative action was ended, the Asian admissions at UC Berkeley rose from 37% to 48%. In the entire country, Asians are 4.8% of the population; ending affirmative action is expected to increase the population at elite schools from 23% to 32%. All other racial and ethnic population percentages would be reduced as the Asian percentages increase. [5. . http://tinyurl.com...] Asians are a small minority and have suffered substantial historical disadvantage, including outright ban on immigration. . Asian immigrants faced language barriers, racial prejudices, and poverty. Japanese Americans were put in confinement camps in World War II. One might think Asians would be beneficiaries of affirmative action. Not so. They are deemed not a “disadvantaged” minority, so along with whites they are targeted for displacement by Blacks and Hispanics in elite schools. Texas, California, and Florida all once had affirmative action for public college admissions. Affirmative action was banned in Texas and California in 1996, and in Florida in 1999. In all three states, ending racial and ethnic preferences increased Asian American representation on college campuses while reducing white, black, and Hispanic populations. Nationwide, a study revealed that Asians must score 140 points higher than whites to gain admissions to elite schools. [6. . http://tinyurl.com...]. In the first half of the twentieth century there was a similar “problem” of “too many Jews” in the elite schools, and those schools imposed quotas upon admissions of Jews. Affirmative action remains a politically acceptable cloak for racial discrimination. Affirmative action is unfair It's fair to help people who have suffered substantial disadvantage. Abolishing affirmative action allows applicants to receive special treatment for reasons other than race, gender, or ethnicity. Standardized testing allows poor schools to be objectively identified. Statistics related to crime and poverty allow identification of a poor environment where the applicant has been raised. Individuals can apply based upon their individual circumstances, including poverty, discrimination, and family problems. Another way is to just ask the applicant if he or she has suffered disadvantage, and take his word for it. Accepting the opinion of the applicant alone would be preferable to the arbitrary awarding of benefits solely on account or race or ethnicity. Children of the rich and powerful, receive benefits while poor and disadvantaged people who happen to be Asian or white are at a relative disadvantage. The granting of privileges under affirmative action is violates the principle of equal treatment under the law. Granting benefits based upon race and ethnicity allows any group to demand special treatment. The political discussion then moves away from determining merit or remedying actual disadvantage to one of awarding benefits in return for votes. We should not be debating whether benefits should be given for one's heritage; we should be debating how to best assess merit. It's not possible to award privilege based upon race or ethnicity without accepting that such privilege is sometimes justified. The only way to uphold equality is to outlaw unwarranted privilege. Affirmative action diminishes society and the economy Society works best and is most competitive in the world economy when it turns out the best of each profession: scientists, physicians, teachers, engineers, and all else. The elite schools admitting academically unqualified applicants include medical schools. Affirmative action puts less qualified applicants into the limited number of educational slots available. Granting admission does not grant completion, and the result is what would be expected from admitting less qualified applicants. They drop out or perform less well than the qualified applicants. Society then gets fewer and less qualified professionals. When affirmative action is ended, graduation rates increase. The way the tiered system works, if a student is denied admission at top school like Berkeley he will always be admitted to a less competitive level of the system. Both admissions and graduation rates for Blacks and Hispanics increased after California ended affirmative action. They applied and were accepted into the state college and community college systems, where they appropriately succeed. [7. . http://tinyurl.com...] Without affirmative action in California, Blacks and Latinos admissions and graduation rates have been steadily improving. Currently the UC system has 115,000 non-Latino whites and 100,000 whites. … California's community colleges enrolled 513,000 Latinos (up from 255,000 in 1996) and 506,000 whites (down from 519,000 in 1997). … 17% of African Americans who entered UC in 1992 (under affirmative action) graduated in four years; of those who began in 2007, 45% graduated in four years; 71% graduated in six years. Of those who entered in 1994, 57% had graduated in six years. [8. . http://tinyurl.com...] The idea that Blacks and Hispanics are perpetually disadvantage is a myth. Under competitive pressure, they do quite well. When affirmative action is banned, schools turn to seeking genuine disadvantage, and that is positive. Affirmative action diminishes the people it is supposed to benefit. Thomas Sowell, an African-American scholar at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, reveals that "today many Americans will refuse to visit a black physician or dentist because of their assumption that he or she was admitted both to medical school and to the position held through 'special preferences', set-aside quotas, and relaxed standards. The same is true for many other professionals and for other beneficiaries of 'affirmative action. '" [9. . http://tinyurl.com...]It diminishes self respect: "… affirmative action indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve. It is pure illogic to think that you can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth. " [10. . http://tinyurl.com...] Affirmative action in admissions should be ended.