I am writing in response to Mr. Sirising’s and Mr. Davis’ articles on affirmative action. I, however, am not advocating a side, as did both men. I am strictly clearing up some misunderstood points made by both Mr. Sirising and Mr. Davis.

I first would like to give the definition of affirmative action, which has clearly been misunderstood. In broad terms, affirmative action is the intentional inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce based on a finding of their previous exclusion. It is these last few words that seem to be forgotten. Affirmative action is not simply being required to hire women and minorities just because it is fair to give them equal opportunity. That is what the whole of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses. Affirmative action is hiring, promoting, etc. women and minorities because a court has found you guilty of intentionally discriminating against them in your hiring and promotion policies, and is nothing more than a reconciliation.

I will admit the lines are a little fuzzy, but in the legal world the two concepts are worlds apart. And this is what I wish to address; this fuzziness the American public has on affirmative action. Affirmative action does not prevent employers from hiring qualified white males over unqualified minorities. Affirmative action does not require that qualified majorities be removed to make room for unqualified or qualified minorities.

According to Mr. Sirising, “affirmative action was put in place to make sure that minorities aren’t treated unfairly because of the color of their skin or sex.” This is not true. Affirmative action was put in place not by Title VII, but by an Executive Order that only required government contractors to hire minorities and women. It was an act to help strengthen Title VII and get the ball rolling, so to say. In fact, this is still how it is. Affirmative action only affects about 20 percent of the workforce, and the majority of that is government contractors. Affirmative action only comes into play in the private sector if a court finds need to apply it. So, to Mr. Davis, when you said that you could contribute your parent’s opportunities to affirmative action, unless they work for the government, I think you need to revise that. They got their opportunities because of Title VII and the entire Civil Rights Act, not just affirmative action.

I have just one more issue to bring up. In reference to the case brought up by Mr. Sirising, in that case they did not rule against affirmative action. They ruled that the affirmative action plan that the University of California had enforced was unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment, because “the assignment of a fixed number of places to a minority group is not a necessary means toward [an] end” (Powell, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 1978). Simply, a university could not designate a certain number of spots for any minority group if it excluded other groups.

As for getting rid of affirmative action as a whole, I do not wish to bring up the issue. I just wish that from now on if anyone wants to bring up such issues, they do further research on it, and get their facts straight.

Jessica Bessent is a Senior Pre-Law Accounting major from Martin, Tenn.