In his essay called "Affirmative Action Encourages Racism", Thaddeus Watulak argues that affirmative action is a racist policy, which relies on racial stereotypes and reinforces racist attitudes in the society. I mostly agree with him because I believe he touches some very important points, which are not taken to account in the first place. From its points of origin, the intended use of affirmative action is to ensure that employees and applicants of jobs are treated equally regardless of their race, religion, and national origin. There is no question about this being the right approach. But, as mentioned in the article, when a company qualifies for government subsidies just for selecting a minority over equally qualified non-minorities, it's difficult to argue that affirmative action is working the way it's supposed to be. Mr. Watulak believes that no preferential treatment is deserved for past infractions, thus today's people should not pay for the sins of the past. I concur with this opinion because learning from past mistakes in order not to repeat them in the future is one thing, but living in the past and taking some advantages from a group of people for reasons they are not responsible, is another thing. Just as a whole community should not be held responsible for misbehaviors of an individual, it's not right to penalize people for events that occurred even before their lifetime. Moreover, if minorities are given special status and some privileges are reserved for them, isn't it as bad as past discriminations? Two wrongs don't make a right. Some can argue that it's not the same thing since it's not as if non-minorities are subject to slavery or second-rate citizenship just like the past. But then comes the question of who is to decide what amount of injustice is tolerable and what amount is not? More importantly, Mr. Watulak mentions that "affirmative action has some rather unpleasant racist assumptions hiding behind it. The clear implication that minorities could not adequately get ahead without special considerations seems just a touch bigoted." I agree with this because even though affirmative action looks like a positive policy for minorities, it may have a lot of negative consequences as well. It can be true that it has increased job opportunities for minorities but the question is whether it has done so for correct reasons. For example, when a minority gets a high position in a corporation, the other employers may think about why this person received this position.
Does the government hold an unbiased opinion regardless of one’s race? Does the government treat everyone the same way and provide the oppressed the same equality that they do to the oppressor? Equality for everyone has always been a huge problem in our society, and this problem is still continuing, be it gender-wise, religion-wise, or race-wise. This book helps us answer this question, because it shows many instances where Peltier has been treated unjustly. From random beatings for no reason to prison guards urinating in his food, the book is littered with instances where his heritage becomes an issue. Although, Peltier compares this problem to colonialism, saying that “When colonized peoples attempt to resist their oppressors and defend themselves, we’re called the criminals. ” (Peltier, 44) It shows how the majority sees the problem with a biased view, and this view obstructs a true equality within our
According to author Judith Boss “Affirmative action involves taking positive steps in job hiring and college admissions to correct certain past injustices against groups”. Affirmative Action is not only for people of color it is also for women. It is needed to achieve full gender equity in schools and the workplace. With that said one of the benefits of affirmative action is to make sure that schools and the workplace stays diverse, it’s to help create communities that are open-minded and expose people to different cultures that are different from their own. Having the ability to interact with other race and nationalities is a big part of the education process. It allows students and employees the ability to interact with people of the opposite
...enefit the minorities is because sometimes one might be bilingual, but because the pigment of one skin employers does not give a chance to find interest in the applicant to discover one skills. Affirmative Action will allow employers to meet certain demographic requirements, allowing equal opportunities for applicant to pursue the job. Although, some might find Affirmative Action biased in favor for the minorities, it must, because Affirmative Action forces the employers to view all demographics, rather than focusing on one. Affirmative Action takes race into consideration for applicants to feel more assured in the company’s treatment of employees.
Shelby Steele made a very good analysis on the way the society thinks and acts now that black and white people seems to have broken the barrier of discrimination and racism. He described affirmative action as the way black people take advantage of the historical discrimination against them to get special benefits and opportunities. Steele strongly disagrees with that practice, he believes it affects the society and it creates a feeling of fear and uncertainty for white people. I completely agree with his point of view, buy giving black people those kind of preferences we are being racist with white people, but unfortunately in this country that concept is overrated and it only applies for black people. I also believe that promoting that kind
majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be
Affirmative action programs may or may not have been appropriate in times past where inequalities were prevalent and programs to build diversity were mandated. In the United States today, where law bars discrimination, I feel employment opportunities should be based on merit and not on race, sex or any other preconceived notion. Actively recruiting candidates that do not meet minimum requirements or standards is counterproductive to any agency that strives to serve the public in an efficient and effective manner and further erode confidence in government.
In contrast to the 1890’s, immigrants are granted citizenship, money by the government and maybe a small business, and housing, but maybe not where they would like to be placed. “Even the colored barber is rapidly getting to be a thing of the past. Along shore, at any unskilled labor, he works unmolested; but he does not appear to prefer the job” (Riis Ch. XIII). While they’re given opportunities in that way, they are also denied certain opportunities based on their background, race, or religion. For example, someone coming from a muslim country may be treated differently than someone coming from Europe. “He makes the prejudice in which he traffics pay him well, and that, as he thinks it quite superfluous to tell you, is what he is there for” (Riis Ch. XIII). The system is not fair in this sense, as they judge on the very system this country was founded on. This is because of all the incidents of terrorism and attacks from other countries, which create a stereotype of every race and country other than our own. Another difference is the increased amount of illegal immigrants coming to the United States every year. About 11 million people travel illegally to our country, living in any free space they can find or living with family here. Because of this, it takes away from the funds and jobs that America has to offer to give to them a fair
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, affirmative action is “an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and women.” However, despite its well-intentioned policies, it has been the source of much controversy over the years. Barbara Scott and Mary Ann Schwartz mention that “proponents of affirmative action argue that given that racism and discrimination are systemic problems, their solutions require institutional remedies such as those offered by affirmative action legislation” (298). Also, even though racism is no longer direct, indirect forms still exist in society and affirmative action helps direct. On the other hand, opponents to affirm...
Subconscious prejudices, self-segregation, political correctness, reverse discrimination, and ignorance all wade in the pool of opinions surrounding affirmative action and racial animosity. With racial tensions ever present in this country, one might question whether the problems can be solved by affirmative action.
Himma argues on the basis of the FSD being morally permissible but does not acknowledge if the argument is wrong in itself. Although there has been quantifiable damage cause by institutional sexism and racism, Himma neglects to defend the False Start Defense on the idea of inflicting the same harm on white males that race and gender based minority group’s face. The False Start defense bases its argument on the idea that because there have been barriers put in place for disadvantage groups the same should be done for white males. The two wrongs fallacy is when a person attempts to justify an action against another person because the other person did take or would take the same action against him or her. If this were the case Himma’s argument would be undeniable morally reprehensible but that is not the case. The two wrongs fallacy is based on the equality of all the individuals involved but as Himma states it is undeniable that the barriers in place put minority groups at a disadvantage. The main objection is that although minority groups have been put at a disadvantage it is still morally impermissible to apply the same treatment on white males. I argue that the necessity of the two wrongs fallacy is based on the idea of true equality. This equality is
Many individuals do not know the meaning of the term “affirmative action.” In order to clearly understand the issue, one must first know the necessary terms associated with it. Affirmative action is a term given to an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination (i.e. African Americans, Asians, etc.). For example, certain scholarships for African Americans can be regarded as affirmative action opportunities. Another example of affirmative action could be an institutional program designed for African Americans. So why is it important? Affirmative action policies and programs are designed to insure that qualified individuals of minority groups have equal access to programs and are “to par” with other individuals of the same merit. Please note that I said qualified and of the same merit. Affirmative action does not place individuals in minority groups at an advantage. This is a common misconception by some people. Affirmative action can be seen in the college admission process, the promotion process for higher-level positions, and in other various areas. The goal is to
Today there is considerable disagreement in the country over Affirmative Action with the American people. MSNBC reported a record low in support for Affirmative Action with 45% in support and 45% opposing (Muller, 2013). The affirmative action programs have afforded all genders and races, exempting white males, a sense of optimism and an avenue to get the opportunities they normally would not be eligible for. This advantage includes admission in colleges or hiring preferences with public and private jobs; although Affirmative Action has never required quotas the government has initiated a benefits program for the schools and companies that elect to be diversified. The advantages that are received by the minorities’ only take into account skin color, gender, disability, etc., are what is recognized as discriminatory factors. What is viewed as racism to the majority is that there ar...
Jean Toomer and Able Mirraple discuss the concept of discrimination and how pain and suffering is an inevitable effect of it. If history is evaluated from today’s perspective, then the statement “pain and
Considering the US’ dark history on racial matters, affirmative action may be construed in many different ways pertaining on individual interpretation of what purpose it is supposed to save. I do believe arguments like it creates fairness and equal opportunity, within the organization, benefits the third parties such as clients and society as a whole and benefits the organization by helping them reach their goals would mainly be the affirmative actions Google firmly stands behind and supports. Affirmative action, at its core, presents a utilitarian perspective of morality (Brusseau, 2012). That is, it presents a solution aimed at achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. This is particularly true when taken in the context of the US’s dark history of race
...r the minority according to Mill (Falikowski 79, 80). Thus, the interests or moral principles of a minority could be ignored, since they are a minority, even if they are important. For example, the AIDS patients were a minority in society, so their interests were not considered in laws about drugs (Dallas Buyers Club). Hence, if the laws do not evolve fast enough, they could interfere with people’s natural rights; they could become unjust, will be out-dated, and not consider the interests of the minorities.