"Affirmative action was never meant to be permanent, and now is truly the time to move on to some other approach"- Susan Estrich. Affirmative action is a policy, implemented by JFK, which ensured that the government guaranteed equal opportunity for all qualified persons regardless of race, religion, national origin, etc. In the 1960's, it was hypothesized by the everyday man that if an individual was not an upper class, white male, they were simply doomed when applying for a position that they desired. Affirmative action predominantly focused on the fields of education and the job market and effectively leveled the playing field of opportunity. Affirmative action was also applied in order to mitigate the generations of the discrimination of minorities. Through affirmative action, individuals that were held back because of race, gender or religion, were given a boost. Originally, affirmative action was seen as an effective and necessary policy in which minorities were given an equal chance to go to college and advance in their careers; however, affirmative action was envisioned to only be seen as a temporary program. After several decades, racial and gender based tensions have been severely diminished in America thus proving there is no use for affirmative action anymore. Minorities have been compensated for their generations of mistreatment via affirmative action, and are now receiving an unfair advantage when applying for college admission and for jobs. The years of inequality and segregation that the minorities once endured are long over and will never be able to be justified by the government. The purpose of affirmative action was to ensure guaranteed and equal opportunity for all Americans; however, it is now serving as a source of reverse discrimination and is giving unqualified individuals positions that they do not deserve. As the system has become inherently less racist, what was once a boost for those that were held back for being a minority, has now become an unfair advantage over those who are more qualified. Affirmative action should be abolished as it is a severely outdated method which is now discriminating better qualified individuals and is acting as a detriment to our society. 

Originally, affirmative action was an essential program as it ensured equality for all individuals in the United States. Prior to the 1960's, white individuals in the upper class dominated the college and work place population. As a whole, the United States gave very few opportunities to minorities. Schools that resided in areas populated by minorities usually had outdated books and under qualified teachers thus resulting in unmotivated students (Slater, 2013). JFK took action in the early 1960's by implementing affirmative action, a policy which intended to ensure equality disregarding race, religion and gender (The Week Staff, 2013). President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), was able to develop and pass affirmative action following the assassination of JFK. He stated, "this [affirmative action] is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom, but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity, but human ability; not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result" (Stewart, 2012). LBJ argues that at this point in time, minorities no longer seek freedom, but seek equal opportunity. On paper, all minorities are seen as free citizens; however, when applying for jobs or for college admission, they were automatically put at a disadvantage due to their color, gender, or religion. 

Additionally, affirmative action was influenced by the prior discrimination of minorities. Jim Webb argues, "affirmative action was designed to recognize their uniquely difficult journey" (2010). Webb is arguing that affirmative action is the government attempting to justify the discrimination endured by the minorities in the United States as well as subsequently fostering a diversity (Gratz, 2014). Following the Civil Rights Act in 1964, businesses, educators and administrators actively treated people with regard to race. Federal and state governments attempted to increase minority representation in education and employment by instituting special racial boosts (Gratz, 2014). Affirmative action was enforced simply in response to the mistreatment of minorities and was seen as a temporary program that was set to end once a "level playing field" was ensured for all Americans (Brunner & Rowen, 2015). 

Now that racial and gender based tensions have decreased severely, affirmative action has little to no use in the United States anymore. Affirmative action was based on the founding principle of equality and with affirmative action still present in today's society, it is now acting as a source of reverse discrimination and is giving an unfair advantage to the minorities when applying for college admission and jobs. Reverse discrimination was first seen as in issue via the landmark court case Regents of California v. Allan Bakke. In 1974, the University of California demanded that the entering class was filled with a certain number of minorities. Bakke was denied twice and then went on to sue the University of California on the grounds of racial profiling and stated that his position was given to less qualified individuals (The Week Staff, 2013). While the verdict of the case agreed the medical school's racial quotas violated the 14th amendment, the justices permitted universities to continue considering race as a factor (The Week Staff, 2013). As time progressed, the same issue of less qualified individuals winning over positions because they were minorities did not go away. In 2002, after Vijay Chokal Ingram was originally denied when applying to medical school, he then realized that if he applied as a black student rather than his usual race, Indian, that his chances of getting into the school he wanted to were much higher (New York Post, 2015). He argues that while his grades and test scores matched the averages of the schools he was applying to; he did not think he was going to be accepted due to the color of his skin. He calculated that the chances of him getting into medical school were a staggering thirty to forty percent higher when applying as an African American or Hispanic student (New York Post, 2015)., Ingram was accepted into the same medical school he was denied from originally, St Louis University, when applying as a black student. This specific example provides evidence that affirmative action accepts students based on race rather than their qualifications.  

Diversity in schools and in the work place is very important; however, an individual's racial background should not hold priority over an individual's qualifications. When looking at the opposing argument, advocates for affirmative action argue that diversifying the population in schools and in work places promote equality. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that race can be one of the factors considered in the college admission process as "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" (Brunner & Rowen, 2015). This example shows that while diversity can be beneficial, one's diverse background should not hold precedent over one's talent or qualifications. When looking at the students admitted into the University of Virginia, the median SAT score for all UVA applicants was 1350, but when looking at the average for black students, the median is set at 1026 (Amor, 2004). This comparison shows that the University of Virginia is putting unqualified people in positions that they did not fairly earn. Diversity should be used as a tool to take people that are already qualified and separate them from other people that are already qualified as well. While America values diversity, they value fairness much more. The majority of people would rather reject an applicant based on race rather than have him be under qualified (Slater, 2013).

Another controversial issue surrounding affirmative action appears when students who are minorities get accepted to a position but are unable to complete the work when they arrive. If a less talented individual is accepted over a person more qualified on the basis of their skin color or gender, it could lead to several problems such as the inability to do the work as well as incompetence in the workplace. Supreme Court Justice Clarence said he watched the destruction of many kids pushed beyond their measures when he was a student at Yale (Weekly Staff, 2013). Clarence argues that if an individual is unable to do the work they are presented as efficiently as a more qualified applicant then they should not get the job. In another study in 2005, a UCLA law professor found that thirty-four percent of blacks admitted to top law schools wound up failing the bar compared to the twenty-one percent who attended less rigorous law schools (Weekly Staff, 2013). This study proves that affirmative action is not fair to the more qualified students who are not accepted because of their race nor is it fair to the students who are accepted due to the fact they are African American. 

Additionally, the unjust preferences of affirmative action are argued to be another form of discrimination as they ultimately undermine the American dream's foundation of hard-work and talent. The opposing argument states that the American dream is different for every one as the "land of the free" is not the same for those who arrived in the chains of slavery nor is it the same for the European immigrants who were once discriminated for their different religion and physical appearance (Brunner & Rower, 2015). Historian Robert Wilkins states, "blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else" (Brunner & Rower, 2015). Nobody is going to dispute the fact that minorities suffered from years of prejudice nor are they going try to justify why they were mistreated. That being said, just because at one point in time minorities were discriminated against does not give leeway for the government to unfairly boost their chances of success. In Thomas Sowell's book, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, he writes: 

However much history may be invoked in support of these policies (affirmative action), no policy can apply to history but can only apply to the present or the future. The past may be many things, but it is clearly irrevocable. Its sins can no more be purged than its achievements can be expunged. Those who suffered in centuries past are as much beyond our help as those who sinned are beyond our retribution (74). 

Sowell argues that affirmative action's attempt to make up for the past generations of discrimination is in fact useless and instead of focusing on what happened in the past that the government should focus on the future. He also argues that no matter how bad the past is; it cannot be changed. This proves that affirmative action has surpassed its expiration date in America and needs to be abolished.

Lastly, in modern day society, affirmative action is seen as extremely patronizing to minorities. With the aid of affirmative action, oppressed people's achievements will always be diminished. The majority of qualified people who achieve their goals would be able to achieve them without the help of affirmative action, but the program of affirmative action tarnishes their accomplishments. In a debate between Hoarce Cooper and George B. Washington, Cooper argues that affirmative action is belittling the accomplishments of the African Americans today and that instead of gaming the admission process, the attention should rather be focused on the public schooling systems prior to applying for college (Youtube, 2013). This attempt to stop racism is racist in itself as no person of any race wants their achievements to be attributed to a program in which they receive an unfair advantage. 

As a whole, affirmative action is seen to be ineffective because stopping a form of discrimination by using another form of discrimination is redundant in itself. Chief Justice John Roberts states, "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" (Rothstein, 2012). The American dream is founded on the principles of hard-work and talent and affirmative action dismantles that whole idea by using racial and discriminatory preferences to help minorities. America is no longer a slave nation and is on a pathway transitioning away from being a discriminatory nation as a whole (Rogers, 2008). By using a program that focusses on the past rather than the future, it actually becomes hurtful to the nation because it prevents it from growing. Racial tensions, while still present in our country, have severely lessened since the 1960s. An alternative to affirmative action would be to look at socioeconomic backgrounds of all applicants and base decisions on that instead. While President Obama has stated he is a product of affirmative action, it makes no sense to give an unfair boost to his wealthy and privileged daughters (Weekly Staff, 2013). Equality lies within the government's ability to qualify all students of all races, all genders, and all economic statuses. The current outdated system of affirmative action needs to be abolished as it is simply giving an unfair advantage to minorities who are severely underqualified. 

