ual educational opportunities, and a realistic policy needsto go to the root of the problem. In this case, it has been inferior education. As Steelestates, “Racial representation is not the same as racial development…Representation canbe manufactured, development is always hard-earned.” I completely agree with MartinLuther King. People should be judged by the “content of their character” andopportunities should be given to those who earn them. Unless it’s life threatening,handouts and special unearned status is not good for the person who receives it or forsociety as a whole. Affirmative is itself a discriminating policy, and the issue is whether thediscrimination is justified. In my opinion, reverse discrimination is not an acceptableresult. Is it fair to a highly qualified white applicant to law school is denied admissionbecause a lesser qualified minority student was admitted under a quota system? Again Ithink of Dr. King and the simple truth of judging based on content and not color. Insteadof placing minorities in positions where they may be unqualified, a more logical solutionis to develop them through better education. There is another aspect of affirmative action that relates to power because thepolicy encouraged minorities to exploit their past victimization. This is wrong, and caninstead lead to worse punishments and oppression. Steele cited an example at Stanfordwhere students receiving as much as $15,000 in financial aid, took over the president’soffice and demanded more. He called this new group the “super-victims” who wereattempting to milk the system for everything it was worth. Did this demonstrate a senseof redemption? Instead of being grateful for what they had attained, the studentsattempted to exploit the University claiming even further discrimination. Steele’s finalpoint brought up the idea of a glass ceiling limiting minorities’ adv...
