When first instituted, it did not matter that affirmative action could not distinguish between upper, middle or lower class minorities since upper-class minorities largely did not exist. Now, after many years of attempted rectification, we have both middle and upper-class minorities. Still, the unfocused or unspecified objective of affirmative action should not exist solely to represent the oppressed, but to bring the oppressed out of the cycle of poverty that prejudice has put them in. Instead, affirmative action gives incentives to schools not to pick the poor and oppressed, but rather those minorities who have already made it and can pay more of the cost of tuition. And what's the purpose of watering the same plant twice while others are dying of dehydration?
A better alternative to affirmative action would be socioeconomic action. Through this policy, an institution would strive to attain an accurate socioeconomic representation of the nation, and thus reflect the socioeconomic diversity. Socioeconomic action, done properly, would accurately represent those whose opportunity for higher education has been unjustly taken from them, as well as give an accurate representation of the nation's diversity to colleges. It would represent the X percent of whites that are poor, the X percent of Hispanics are poor and the X percent of African-Americans who are poor. Further, socioeconomic action would not attack the very principles it was founded on, as affirmative action does. Instead of giving aid solely on the basis of color, we would aid everyone on the basis of need, letting poverty account for the poor who are victims of prejudice.
Let us imagine "Ashley." She, like many, is a young black student who has come from a poor urban ghetto and goes to an under-funded, under-staffed and over-populated urban school where a field trip is a luxury. Despite the obstacles she faces, she does well in her classes, commits to extracurricular activities and decides to apply to colleges. On the other side of the world, we have "Hilary," a young black student who lives in the plush surroundings of Beverly Hills, where property taxes are high and schools routinely send students on trips to Paris to enjoy the Louvre's extensive art collection. She and Ashley are both excellent students; their transcripts are almost identical. They both apply to Amherst College. The school wishes to have a "diverse" range of students, but with the rising costs of facilities and tuition, it's harder and harder to accept students who cannot pay. The admissions staff must decide between Hilary and Ashley. Both students, under affirmative action's objective to "make race a factor," represent the racial minority. So, with race not a distinguishing factor here, the decision is simple: Hilary. Affirmative action says nothing about socioeconomic standing. Why choose Ashley? Why would a college voluntarily choose to have fewer funds, just to be altruistic? Affirmative action favors the wealthy, established minorities, not those in need. It gives a distorted representation of the nation to student bodies. This distortion not only misrepresents but also defeats the institution's well meaning attempts to prepare its students to interact with a diverse spectrum of people.
Some might attack this plan, saying, "But affirmative action is a form of reparations for injustices committed!" Affirmative action has no way of distinguishing between those to whom opportunity has been given and those to whom it has not. Others might say, "Yes, that might be so, but it doesn't take into account the racism that makes people poor. It's easier to escape poverty if you are white than if you are black." Other detractors say, "Why could some minorities who had also experienced terrible adversity and racism-Jews and Asians, in particular-manage to make the American way work for them without government handouts?" These views make good points. The answer is that the majority of those latter minority groups-Jews and Asians-are not in the cycle of poverty, while other minority groups, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are. This is why socioeconomic action allows cyclical poverty to serve as a barometer of the actualized prejudices of society. Some point to those "top 10 percent programs" like that of the University of Texas as examples of successful solutions. These programs take the top tenth of every school, but even these plans fail to realize that those "un-biased numbers" are still most likely to represent those not affected by the cycle of poverty.
No, socioeconomic action will not rid the United States of racism, but neither will affirmative action, and in any case, it was never meant to. The goal of any policy targeted at racism is to stop these prejudices from impeding people's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A policy like socioeconomic action, though, can hold up the principle of the egalitarian society we live in: equality of opportunity. In this light, we ensure that those who have less do not have to compete with those who have more, but rather to compete amongst those who have faced the same difficulties. Thus, economically, we allow the most capable to rise for the betterment of society, regardless of where they were born. Most of all, socioeconomic action would help all who are stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty and not just those who have already benefited. This is not to say that the upper class of society should be denied opportunities, but rather that those not as well-off should not be denied those opportunities.
Will this eliminate the gross inequalities in education from kindergarten through high school? No, but the hope is that as time goes on, and more of the less privileged are seen in highly educated fields, the very visible socioeconomic division that so easily propagates the myth that poverty is due to a lack of character and industriousness will fade away. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the recent ruling concerning affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003) that, "in order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." But we must also take into account socioeconomic standing and in this, affirmative action is limited. If we wish to fight for the ideal of equality, we must take into account both race and class. When we forget that they go hand-in-hand, we, as a nation, are complacently allowing ourselves to believe we are fighting inequalities when we are in fact only adding to them.