In the United States, affirmative action directs the attention of equal opportunity in the education and job opportunity field to citizens who have previously been treated with injustice due their race, social class, sex or religion. Affirmative action is more complicated than it appears because no matter what, the United States will find a way to bring students of color into universities. The term "affirmative action" was initially presented in "Executive Order No.10925," and later signed in March of 1961 by John F. Kennedy, whom was the President of the United States at the time. The 1960's consisted of the Civil Rights Movement, an influential movement that attempted to provide African Americans with equality in society, whether it was college admission or job opportunity. Before this influential movement, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court made their decision on Brown v. Board of Education. This court case concluded legal segregation in public schools, as well as initiated the movement for affirmative action policies, but even after Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, equal opportunity is still non-existent for many disadvantaged groups. Numerous court cases, such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas portray the convoluted and contradictory viewpoints on this rather touchy subject. Affirmative action possesses many faults, however, the potential of its objectives suggests that with specific reform of the policy being based off of socio-economic status rather than race or gender, it could improve American society and provide citizens with an equal opportunity to fulfill their American dream.

Affirmative action offers three schools of thought: support, oppose, and reform. One who is in support of affirmative action may argue that America has yet to conquer equal opportunity and therefor we need to keep it. They may also state that disadvantaged citizens possess a much greater unequal opportunity without affirmative action. On the other hand, one who opposes the laws of affirmative action may argue that affirmative action can be viewed as an unfair treatment, as it gives less fortunate citizens an unethical opportunity. Moreover, the last school of thought, a reform of the current affirmative action laws, serves as the most persuasive and effective solution for the unequal balance of opportunity for American citizens. In CNN's "Keep Affirmative Action But Reform It," Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. state, "Two reforms seem to us particularly important: Find a way to limit the overall size of racial preferences, and mandate a thorough transparency at any university that wants to use them" (Sander, Taylor Jr.). Sander and Taylor Jr. explain that although this would be an extreme reform, the citizens of America deserve it. This level of reform would provide affirmative action with the value and accountability that the college admission process lacks. The importance of reforming the affirmative action policy so that there is a specific limitation on the size of racial preferences allowed is that without restrictions, the college admission process will simply continue to demonstrate an unjust plan for creating diversity in classrooms. 

Rohit Joshi of the Huffington Post argues that hard work and the quality of grades is not the only factor that goes into the decision of college admission, as he states, "Studies have found that in college admissions an Asian scoring a 1550 out of 1600 on the old SAT is given the same consideration as a Caucasian student scoring 1410, a Hispanic student scoring 1230, and an African-American student scoring 1100" (Joshi). Clearly this is unfair for the students who are able to work hard and receive a high score, yet lack the racial preferences of college admission. The racial preferences of college admissions is not only hurting the students who are not of the preferred race, but also the students who are being admitted into a college or university that may be too difficult for them. 

 Republican politician, Ben Carson, explains that society has come to realize that many of the citizens who are the minority in their community are not intellectually inferior. Carson then proceeds to state that those who still firmly believe that the citizens of the minority are less intelligent than the majority are doing so out of reason and need to realize that times have changed. It is time for a change within the laws of affirmative action, a change that needs to be base of off socioeconomic status, rather than one's racial makeup or gender. With a change for socioeconomic status instead of race or gender, America would provide the disadvantaged, also known as the citizens who are unable to afford the aspects of life that guide them toward success. Carson claims, "What matters is that we as a society begin to look at somebody who perhaps comes from a broken home, where the father is an alcoholic or the mother is in prison, and still they've managed to receive a 3.7 or 3.8 grade point average" (Carson). Carson portrays an effective point because if the United States college admission process is based off of racial preferences, then there is clearly prejudice within the rules. A student's hard work that leads to an impressive grade point average should over power the specific race of a student. If this nation wants to fix the racial prejudice within society, then affirmative action needs to be altered into a class-based policy. Furthermore, Richard D. Kahlenberg, writer for the New York Times, expresses the same idea. He states, "Socioeconomic-based college admissions and support strategies not only promoted greater economic diversity on campus but in most cases continued to deliver a racially diverse student body as well" (Kahlenberg). Socioeconomic-based college admissions not only leads to diversity, but also provides all students with laws that illustrate justice and equality by eliminating factors that connect to the color of their skin, or even their gender. Clearly, racial preferences will not entirely terminate anytime soon, as colleges and universities will always find a way to keep adding diversity into the classrooms, but if affirmative action is reformed into a class-based policy then equality and fairness will exist. This will also guide students into colleges and universities that suit them well, instead of placing students in an academic environment that limits their ability to prosper. 

States such as Texas, California, and Florida have proceeded to change specific affirmative actions in order to create a more equal playing field for college students. For example, Texas passed "Texas House Bill 588" which entailed a 10% rule for high school students looking to take their academics to the next level. This law is a turning point for affirmative action in the United States because it serves as a movement for equality, as it assures the students that prosper to the top of their class a spot in any in-state public university. Texas has slowly transitioned from racial preference-based policies to socio-economic policies. The importance of the 10% law is to ensure students with a grade point average that lies in the top 10% of all the students in their class a spot in all in-state public universities. Although the United States has not made a significant movement towards the policies of socioeconomic-based laws since the most recent affirmative action policies in Texas, California, and Florida, citizens are beginning to realize that affirmative action is not the answer to equality. Ben Carson's standpoint for class-based action has significantly helped proceed the movement to a class-based policy, and therefor it is hopeful that in the coming years there will be a substantial transformation. 

Another major problem with affirmative action, whether America gets rid of it in the future or not, is that if someone of a minority race or gender is admitted into a college or elected into office, there will still be a debate that argues whether or not they received that position due to affirmative action. This ineffective viewpoint on specific topics that intertwine with affirmative action illustrate the reverse effect of the policy. For example, arguments have been made that if the democratic front-runner presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, is elected, then it was only because of her minority gender. Steven Benen, writer for MSNBC, explains that she will be our second affirmative action president. He writes, "When Americans elect 42 white men to be president, it's because of their "intrinsic qualities." If Americans elect an African-American man and a white woman, we're evidently supposed to believe they're "affirmative-action presidents" who are "members of a victim group" (Benen). Steve Benen portrays that with the complications of racial and gender preferences, it will be too hard to get rid of affirmative action. 

NBC News writer Domenico Montanaro explains that the support for affirmative action has hit an all time low. He states, "Just 45 percent of respondents said they believe affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract the effects of discrimination against minorities, while an equal 45 percent feel the programs have gone too far and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites" (Montanaro). This article supports the idea that citizens of America are starting to realize the negative effects of affirmative action that lie beneath the surface, as well as the prejudice that is associated with it. The class-based movement that strays away from the policies of affirmative action have been occurring for over two decades now. America deserves a change for equality and the only way to provide them with that is to establish policies based on socioeconomic status. Clearly the idea of providing citizens with equal opportunity is ideal, but the opposite of that is happening beneath the surface of affirmative action. Moreover, in Jamelle Bouie's article, "Where do Americans Stand on Affirmative Action," he argues that most of the public do not believe in a reform, rather only whites believe so. He states, "The "American public" isn't opposed to affirmative action -- whites are. And while opposition is couched in terms of fairness, meritocracy, and colorblindness, there's also an element of resistance -- many whites feel that minorities are getting an unfair advantage" (Bouie). With the transformation into a class-based policy, this problem of white's angered due to their belief of being put at a disadvantage would not exist. One's skin color does not reflect on the level of difficulty their pathway to success is, which is why American's deserve a change. Affirmative action is clearly out of good intention for equality and justice, but it's producing a reversed effect. People also attempt to argue that it is only white people that are at a disadvantage with the affirmative action policies, which is entirely wrong as Bouie states, "There are almost certainly cases of white students losing admission to elite schools (and otherwise) due to racial preferences" (Bouie). 

From looking at affirmative action from a larger perspective, we need to realize that the majority of America completely oppose or support the policy, rather than believing that it needs to reformed in order to create as much equality as possible. American's have such a one-sided strong standpoint that either serves as an opposed or supported viewpoint because a true reform has never happened and therefore most Americans do not realize the beneficial affect it could have. The supporters of affirmative action are against changing the policy into class-based because they strongly believe there is no racial profiling within the policy. Tim Wise states, "Affirmative action does not seek to create a system of unearned black and brown advantage, but merely to shrink unearned white advantage" (Wise). Not only has Wise mistakenly viewed the goal of affirmative action, but he has also wrongly limits the advantages given by affirmative action to strictly whites. Supporters also believe that affirmative action balances out racial discrimination. Most importantly, society does not deserve a balance of racial discrimination between the many different races that make up the college admissions process and job fields of America. The citizens deserve a policy that can get rid of the majority of racial profiling, which is most likely possible by eliminating race from the equation of the policy. A reform leaves Americans with the best chance of moving past racism, and moving onto realizing the struggles certain citizens have to deal with due to their socioeconomic status. On the other hand, the majority of Americans oppose affirmative action and believe that just a reform of the policy will not be able to create equality. Allie Bidwell, writer for US News, states, A clear majority of Americans, 67 percent, are opposed to considering race and ethnicity in college admissions, instead saying that students should be admitted solely based on merit, according to a recent Gallup poll" (Bidwell). I believe the America citizens who strongly oppose affirmative action do not realize that a reform to a class-based policy will directly connect to the ideas of what they believe will work. A complete opposition of affirmative action is not realistic, but rather changes here and there will be able to produce equality and erase as much racial profiling as possible. 

Overall, Americans still need a policy that provides all citizens with an equal pathway to success. New York University professor, Dalton Conley, explains his "Class-Based Affirmative Action" video that affirmative action has the correct and most effective goals, which are increasing access to higher education for people who are disadvantaged, as well as increasing diversity. Conley says, "Affirmative action is generating an incredible amount of backlash among the public and politician, and even more importantly in the courts" (Conley). The opposite effect that affirmative action is causing can be fixed by only a class-based policy, where racial profiling is out of the equation. The states such as Texas, California, and Florida that have turned to a class-based affirmative action have found that there are still the same results of diversity within the classroom, yet it lacks the prejudice of racial profiling. With that being said, affirmative action possesses many faults, however, the potential of its objectives suggests that with specific reform of the policy being based off of socio-economic status rather than race or gender, it could improve American society and provide the citizens of America with an equal opportunity to fulfill their American dream. Therefore, America's Supreme Court needs to take initiative and take a stand for the citizens who are being placed at a disadvantage due to the color of their skin. Affirmative action promotes prejudice, but class-based affirmative action provides an equal chance for all citizens and gives helps to only the American's who need it, which can be easily determine by a socioeconomic-based policy. 

