Throughout history, minorities have always been disadvantaged and discriminated against. It has always been a struggle for them to achieve equality with the white majority; therefore, a plan was created to aid them. This plan is called affirmative action. Although affirmative action was created to benefit and help minorities, it has become outdated and now illustrates reverse discrimination. 

When representing the support for affirmative action, advocates turn to Lyndon B. Johnson's quote from 1965. "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair." This quote is one of the only arguments that advocates for affirmative action posses. They believe that it is still unfair that minorities are competing against the white majority for higher paying jobs, even after fifty-plus years. 

To counter the supporters claim that it is unfair, I bring about an example that is present in the University of Texas. Because of affirmative action, the university has to reach a quota that illustrates an even number of minorities mixed within the white male majority in classrooms. Although this may sound reasonable and completely fair to begin with, it leads to reverse discrimination. The university cannot accept everyone who applies for a certain class; therefore, they should select who is the most qualified and deserving, right? Not always. Because they have to reach that specific quota, there are more qualified people being turned away. A white male who has greater qualifications and a better chance to succeed in the class is turned away because there is not enough minorities enrolled in the class. How is that fair? 

When faced side by side, both claims include solid points; however, there is a drastic difference. When looking at an advocates claim, one may agree that it is fair to help the minority and present he/she with an equal opportunity to succeed. Contrary to this, critics' claims can be viewed as a claim just as reasonable. The main difference between the two claims is that an advocate's claim originates from fifty-plus years ago. A critic's claim derives from the present era. It's common sense as to which one should be supported. 

If a main goal of our country is to end racial and sexual discrimination, then why are we still using a policy that focuses strictly on race and gender? We need to stop dwelling in the past. Everyone is offered free education; therefore, presented with an equal opportunity to excel. If you want something, it should be earned because you were the best choice. It would not be given to you because a company or school has to reach a quota.