Fight Against Discrimination of Minorities: Affirmative Action Policies and Programs

Affirmative action is a policy in the U.S. put in place to help minorities that are being discriminated against based on race and ethnicity. It creates programs to combat inequalities, but it is at the risk of being eliminated by the supreme court. The supreme court is debating this because they believe there isn’t a need for race-based programs, but without programs of equality, there would be a rise in many issues of inequalities as we have seen in History.

Affirmative action was started in 1961 when President Kennedy introduced it to combat discrimination that was still prevalent. It was then solidified in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act to create equal opportunities regardless of race, color, or national origin. The policy is not meant to create preferential treatment but rather to make sure no one is discriminated against, if someone is qualified then they should have the chance to prove their worth and competency. It progressed into programs that aimed to provide opportunities that aren’t normally offered or available to minorities such as black Americans and Chicanos. This persuasive essay will discuss how this type of policy is helpful and crucial to keep active in the U.S. through the impact of activism in Chicano history, how it plays a role in legal policies and an example of a counterargument that has come up against affirmative action. Chicanos have faced many adversities such as being treated as second-class citizens but have continued to fight for equality. Chicanos have even gone as far as to protest and prove that there are injustices in society and the legal system.

Struggles of Chicanos for Equality

Though times were progressing towards “equality” people of different races were separated and not equal, it was as though they were only told they were equal but not treated that way. Chicanos didn’t even have their own race they were considered white and still are to this day with the addition of being asked if they are Hispanic or not. Chicanos have a long history that led to where they are today, from the 1940s and 1950s when they decided to not conform to the life their parents were living, they weren’t aiming for assimilation but rather their own Pachuco culture. It began with having to prove that firstly Mexicans existed as a racial group of their own, this, however, wasn’t so easy. They didn’t even want to be called Mexican or American as a way to go against conformity, thus coming up with the term Chicano. Many of the readings for this course have revolved around their identity in the US as non-white citizens and this was something, they embraced proudly though they did experience discrimination and it led them to act. Although they were “white” according to the legal system they weren’t given the same opportunities as Caucasian whites, they couldn’t serve on juries, get a proper education, or get the types of jobs they wanted to. Ian Haney López writes about this in his book Racism on Trial: The Chicano Fight for Justice, he evaluates how their embracement for their identity began and how it sparked the Chicano Movement including the legal cases that arose from it, this all leads up to what they were fighting for and why we need affirmative action.

The History of the Chicano movement

By the early 1960s major inequality issues brought them together and set the Chicano movement in motion. According to Haney López, there were three groups that historically inspired the type of organization Chicanos needed to fight for equality. he summarizes how each one was impactful to the movement and how one led to another revolutionizing what activism meant and how it led to better policies for everyone regardless of race or ethnic background.

The first movement was led by César Chávez in the fall of 1965 for the rights of the Mexican farm laborers. César Chávez was an inspiration for the Chicano movement and activism, he believed in the fight for fairness in the workplace in this case on farms where the workers were not only paid small wages if they were even paid but were expected to work under hard conditions. The workers were even threatened to be replaced if they didn’t meet expectations. The laborers and César Chávez created a union known as the United Farm Workers (UWF) and focused on making their protests against the Anglo-American farm owners non-racial and non-violent because they were not aiming to harm the owners but rather be treated better.

The second was the land grant movement in New Mexico, this was different from the non-violent Union protest that César Chávez led. Reies López Tijerina believed that violence and armed opposition would be better to get the point across, so he gathered people and called them La Alianza Federal de Mercedes or in English the Federal Land Grant Alliance. This was because of the issue of the land titles in rural New Mexico in which the US took away land from the Hispanos. López Tijerina presented they were tricked by the U.S. using the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as claims that the U.S.- Mexico war ended with the guarantee that the Mexicans would have rights to the property. By 1966 La Alianza occupied parts of the Kit Carson National Forest stating that it was an independent republic which then turned into a hostage situation to strike fear then the following year they entered the country courthouse in Tierra Amarilla and made a citizen’s arrest of an “abusive” district attorney. This courthouse incident turned into a gun battle and another hostage situation of 20 people, this movement was more of a model of Mexican Militancy which was witnessed by many East LA activists, especially Carlos Montes, an officer of the Brown Berets who traveled there to see the Alianza in action. This leads to the third and final major Chicano Movement model, the LA Walkouts.

The major issue of the educational system in 1968 at the East LA schools was that the Mexican students were punished for speaking Spanish, pushed to the side by white teachers, humiliated by their peers, and even told they wouldn’t need schooling because they would either dropout and even end up working for white citizens someday. Even when there were Mexican teachers they were still outnumbered by white teachers and lacked a voice in how the school system worked. The PBS documentary Chicano! Taking Back the Schools presents some of these types of stereotyping and discrimination from those who had experienced it firsthand, they were made to feel so insecure and underestimated that many of them did drop out to work as laborers to support their families while others didn’t accept that they couldn’t amount to anything, they knew they had to do something. With such a feeling of being neglected in school and told they would never amount to much, they were motivated to organize themselves with groups like the Brown Berets and La Raza to plan the LA Walkouts. The organizer of this protest was activist Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzalez. At first, he was in politics but soon began to favor activism instead by 1965. He was able to make such a difference because he related his movement to the youth and focused on the empowerment of their Mexican identity, creating the Crusade for Justice. The students and some teachers of Garfield High School staged one of the walkouts on March 1968, with the Brown Berets there for strength and physical support, shouting and holding signs saying “Chicano Power” to show those in power that had ignored them for so long that they had a voice and they had pride for who they are and for what they believe in. in the next point I will be discussing how the activist movements the Chicanos created contributed to the legal system.

The Law and Chicanos

After the Walkouts happened the police went out to arrest thirteen people that were part of the movement, three from the offices of La Raza newspaper, some from the Brown Berets, Lincoln High School teacher Sal Castro and other key players in the movement charging them with conspiracy to commit crimes. Lawyers like Oscar Acosta fought all the charges and presented 3 defenses; violation of their First Amendment right of freedom of speech, insufficient evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the absence of other Mexicans on the grand jury. The lawyers were able to present strong evidence for Equal Protection by showing years’ worth of discrimination and the lack of Mexicans on the jury stand by fault of the Supreme Court judges since they are the ones that choose the grand jurors. Their defense was strengthened by the direct questioning of the Judges themselves, the indictments were then struck down by appeals. The Walkouts and the East LA thirteen were pivotal points in the history of the Chicano Movement, but there are still cases to handle in today's society.

More recent cases of how the law is biased and discriminatory were the immigration laws that have been established throughout the years and the ban of ethnic studies classes in schools as part of the curriculum. One discriminatory law involving immigration was the Arizona law in 2010 as talked about in an article from the New York Times in which officers could stop anyone they believe is an immigrant and ask them for legal documentation that they are U.S. citizens or that they can be in the country. This is a controversial law because those that are stopped were mostly brown-skinned people that look Mexican, causing discomfort and fear that anyone one whether undocumented or not can be stopped and harassed by law enforcement at any moment. Every person has the right to walk out of their home, go to the store, or apply for a job without fear of harassment from racists. The other controversial law passed was the ban on Ethnic studies in the schools because it allegedly promotes a version of history that causes segregation of minorities and Caucasians as well as rebellion against the U.S. government, thus oppressing the chance to learn about different sides what made America what it is today. These courses, however, are not racially exclusive, nor does it promote going against the government it is just historical information of how for instance Hispanic culture and immigrants contributed to history and law, it helps those who take the courses understand every aspect of history, it’s for everyone and everyone. I think it is mainly because they believe that since white people are painted as these perfect people that made America great but that there was a long timeline of struggles for all ethnicities by others. fortunately, this was fought against and ruled as unconstitutional. Oppression has surrounded all ethnicities but mostly minorities like Mexicans, African Americans, Asians, etc. but affirmative action has been a way to combat this and prevent it, but it seems that people, such as Caucasians miss the point of why these policies are so crucial to minorities.

Counter argument

As the supreme court is in the process of deciding whether to eliminate affirmative action they have come up with arguments as to why this type of policy is no longer needed. The Supreme courts believe that there are even legal cases in which someone thinks that because of affirmative action they were denied the opportunity to have something they wanted or felt they were entitled to. They use the excuse of preferential treatment

An example of the type of opposition that is presented is by those who were denied from the Universities of their choice and believe it is due to affirmative action. Universities in the U.S. have enforced this policy because it adds diversity to their campus, they do not only accept applicants based on race but are aware that having students from every background creates a diverse environment. However, there have been some cases that some white young adults were rejected and claimed that a minority took their spot from them. Abigail Fisher is one of the rejected applicants that ended up taking legal action. Fisher went on to bring a case against the University of Texas-Austin because she felt it was unfair and illegal to base admissions on race. As ABC news covers This was because she was white and said that this affected her chances to enroll in UT because they wanted to fulfill their minority quotas for diversity, but this is untrue because race quotas are considered illegal and unconstitutional. This argument was seen more as a white privilege complaint than it was an injustice, someone who feels that because they were white and had decent grades, not even immaculate grades, they deserved to be accepted over a minority. Fisher believed that she was standing up for justice for her everyone mostly her fellow white peers that were rejected for not fitting the “diversity quota”. She seems to miss the mark and fails to understand that it is not a policy to target whites and that minorities have faced actual discrimination for many years, even in today’s time. Minorities were denied so many opportunities to succeed based on their race and ethnic backgrounds, they were even denied education sometimes even today depending on where they reside because the system favored white people. So, for a young white female to say that it is wrong that a minority received preferential treatment over her is a clear example of white privilege. In the BBC news article about Fisher v. University of Texas the vice president for the diversity of the university, Greg Vincent stated that there were thousands of minorities with higher grades than her that were rejected as opposed to the many whites that had lower grades that were accepted, evidence that race was not the target of the University. If she were to be truly concerned about fairness, she could have fought against those with low grades being admitted and stood up for those with higher grades no matter the race. Universities are not required to accept everyone just because they had okay grades and are white, many people apply for school and its acceptance process is a system that is in a way is random, in who they accept while assuring they do keep diversity in mind, just to be clear they do evaluate applicants but not everyone can get in.

Those that are against this policy feel that their benefits are being taken away and being given to others based on only race and ethnicity not for any hard work. However, these oppositions are based on perception and how they are personally affected not because they objectively see it as an injustice to everyone. If it is a benefit being taken from someone in their same ethnic background they just sit by and not act but when it is someone that isn’t from their ethnic background, they feel like there is an injustice towards them as a race and community. As I have mentioned this is part of white privilege and the belief that because they are used to being favored over minority groups that when there is a time, they don’t get their way something is wrong, and they need to do something to restore the order in society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think it is important to evaluate the evidence that shows how important it is to keep affirmative action policies and programs, and how it helps provide more opportunities for minorities to gain an education, business, and employment based on the history of discrimination. Without programs that help create a leveled field for minorities and white those in power that favor white Americans will push to the side minorities and society would revert to treating minorities as second-class citizens. Chicanos have fought for many years for equality through the unfair educational system, the limited job opportunities, etc. that they were faced with, but they showed to prevail in the end. All their hard work has led them to get those in power to listen to them and gain more equality for all. I hope this essay has provided enough information and support for why the supreme court should not eliminate affirmative action because programs to make the employment and education field equal are still needed, it is not to just to hand minorities opportunities over white Americans but to make sure there is no room for discrimination. Activism played a major role in how politics viewed the Chicano community and shaped many of the policies of today however we still see how there is still a long way to go to be a better country.