In the United States, affirmative action directs the attention of equal opportunity in education and employment 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. Without classroom diversification, the U.S. government would be viewed as racist, even if college acceptance were strictly based off of only test scores and grade point average. The term "affirmative action" was initially presented in "Executive Order No.10925," and later signed in March of 1961 by John F. Kennedy, the President of the United States at the time. The 1960's consisted of the Civil Rights Movement, which attempted to provide African Americans with equality in society, whether through 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 eliminated legal segregation in public schools, as well as initiated the movement for affirmative action policies. Although Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, equal opportunity remains 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 sensitive subject. Each specific court case has illustrated to the public as to why America deserves a change in the rules and guidelines of this touchy policy. Affirmative action possesses many faults such as injustice and reverse racism, however, with a transformation from race-based to class-based, Americans can be rewarded with a just and equal opportunity to attend the college or university of their choice. 

The debate surrounding affirmative action provides the public with 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 therefore affirmative action remains necessary. They may also state that disadvantaged citizens possess a much greater unequal opportunity without affirmative action. On the other hand, one who opposes affirmative action laws may argue that affirmative action can be viewed as unfair treatment, as it gives less fortunate citizens an unethical opportunity they did not directly earn. Reverse discrimination is also a popular belief from the citizens who oppose affirmative action. Jennifer Gratz, writer for Heritage, states, "Today, public officials and educators justify using special treatment based on race to make up for past discrimination and to foster diversity" (Gratz). Gratz explains that the injustice of affirmative action comes from a public idea that America must make up for their previous actions of racism. 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 American citizens deserve it. This level of reform would provide affirmative action with the value and accountability that the college admission process lacks. Reforming the affirmative action policy so that there is a specific limitation on the permitted size of racial preferences is important because without restrictions, the college admission process will 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 are not the only factors considered in college admission decisions, when 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, reverse racism is being portrayed in Joshi's argument if different scores are able to end up being equal just because the color of an American citizens skin color. 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 that lies on the surface 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. For example, say a Caucasian student is admitted into a school with the help of their racial preference. This student will most likely face severe academic struggles if he or she is competing in a classroom with other students who were accepted strictly due to their test scores and grade point average. 

 Republican politician Ben Carson explains that society is beginning to realize 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 no 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 socio-economic status, rather than one's racial makeup or gender. Affirmative action was not presented by the Supreme Court because of minorities being academically inferior, but because minorities with equally high SAT scores and grade point average may not have the opportunity that the students of majority race have, such as time or money for extra-curricular activities, SAT prep courses, or even time to study due to work obligations. 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 offers an interesting argument because if the United States college admission process is based off 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 social class policy. Richard D. Kahlenberg, writer for the New York Times, expresses a similar idea when he writes, "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 lead to diversity, but also provide all students with laws that illustrate justice and equality. Clearly, racial preference will not terminate, 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 adjustment 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 action policies 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. Richard D. Kahlenberg also explains that Texas has slowly transitioned from racial preference-based policies to socio-economic policies. In his article, "Race-Based Admissions: The Right Goal, but the Wrong Policy," he explains the 10% rule of Texas as he states, "In 2004, that plan produced as much African American and Latino representation as the use of racial preferences previously had, precisely because racial segregation among Texas high schools remains a pervasive problem" (Kahlenberg). The importance of the 10% law is to ensure students with a grade point average in the top 10% of their class will earn admission to all in-state public universities, yet issues are still occurring due to the racism prior to college applications. Although the United States has not made a significant movement as a whole towards 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 to continue the movement towards a class-based policy. Therefore it is hopeful that in the coming years there will be a substantial transformation in affirmative action policies. 

Another major problem with affirmative action is that if someone of a minority race or gender is admitted into a college or elected into office, it can be argued that he or she only received that position due to affirmative action. 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 presents the idea there is a negative stigma that arises as a result of affirmative action policies, as well as the policy devalues the actual talent and success of deserving minorities. With the transformation from a race-based policy to a class-based one, racism as a whole will be able to slowly deteriorate because the focus for Americans will be the socioeconomic status of citizens. 

NBC News writer Domenico Montanaro explains that 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). Montanaro's article, "Support for Affirmative Action Hits Record Low," supports the idea that American citizens are starting to realize affirmative actions negative effects and the prejudice that intertwines with it. This movement that strays away from the policies of affirmative action has been occurring for over two decades now. This public statistic that the affirmative action policy has gone to far explains that Americans of the majority race are being attacked by reverse racism, as well as the Americans of the minority race are being given help when many of these citizens do not need help. Americans deserve equality in education and employment opportunities and the only way to provide them with it is to establish affirmative actions policies based on socioeconomic status. Clearly the idea of providing citizens with equal opportunity is ideal, but the opposite is happening beneath the surface of affirmative action. Moreover, in Jamelle Bouie's article, "Where do Americans Stand on Affirmative Action," he argues that white Americans believe that are being given an unfair disadvantage and therefor there needs to be a reform. 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 perspective of white Americans being put at a disadvantage would not exist. One's skin color does not reflect the level of difficulty they face on pathway to success is, which is why American's deserve a change. Affirmative action clearly possesses the positive intentions equality and justice, but it is producing opposite effects. Many argue only white people are at a disadvantage from 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). 

By analyzing affirmative action on a larger scale, the majority of Americans completely oppose or support the policy, rather than believing that it needs to reformed in order to create as much equality as possible. According to Jamelle Bouie, "Overall, 76 percent of Americans opposed race conscious admissions, while only 22 percent gave their support" (Bouie). 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. In support to those beliefs 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, 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 an abolition of racial profiling, which is only possible by eliminating race from the equation of the policy. In order to so, America needs to transition into a class-based policy that provides help to the students who financially disadvantaged. A reform leaves Americans with the best chances 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, many 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). American citizens who strongly oppose affirmative action do not realize that a reform to a class-based policy will directly connect to the end result they desire with merit-based policies. A complete elimination affirmative action is not realistic to the support the policy has from many Americans, but 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 in his "Class-Based Affirmative Action" video that affirmative action based on class instead of race 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 only by transitioning into a class-based policy, where racial profiling is out of the equation. A class-based policy, such as one that categorizes the citizens of America by their financial status and based on the category that they lie in, each citizen is either given help in their college admissions process or is not helped at all. 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 causes injustice and reverse racism; however, the positive effects of the policy suggests that with a specific reform of the policy that is based off socioeconomic status rather than race, could improve the idea of equal opportunity in American society. Therefore, America's Supreme Court needs to take initiative and take a stand for the citizens who are being placed at a socio-economic 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 provides assistance solely to the Americans who need it.

