In the past few months, new debates have sprung up over affirmative action due to the recent controversy over University of Michigan’s admissions policy. Discrimination is often thought of as the denying of jobs or opportunities based on race, gender, color of skin, etc. So is affirmative action, which gives opportunities based on those same variables simply reverse discrimination? This myth is a common belief amongst those against affirmative action. However, the true principle of Affirmative Action is justification through the means of compensation, not reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is not meant to help those because of the color of their skin or their racial background, but because they deserve compensation for past and continuing injustices. Opponents may criticize the wisdom of how this compensation is met out, but they cannot question the principle of compensatory damages, which has long been a part of our society.
To many opponents of affirmative action, a color-blind society should not discriminate at any time on basis of color, sex, etc. Using African Americans for example, their logic would make the hiring of an African American over a Caucasian just as wrong as the preferential hiring of Caucasian. Expanding on this idea and example, opponents claim that because African Americans were mistreated for a past irrelevant characteristic (having black skin color), then to give them preferential treatment for the same irrelevant characteristic is equally unfair (www.snc.edu). This view is the basis of the case against University of Michigan’s admissions policy. The school scores applicants out of a 150 point scale and gives minorities 20 points to start with, which gives those applicants a better shot in the competing for admission (www.lib.umich.e ...