Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Affirmative action arguments for and against
1. Is “affirmative action” an ethically justifiable policy in college admissions
1. Is “affirmative action” an ethically justifiable policy in college admissions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Affirmative action arguments for and against
In “The Justification of Reverse Discrimination in Hiring,” Tom Beauchamp displays statistics of underrepresented races and genders in institutions. The inequality is due to the underlying persistent racism originating decades ago. It has been pervasively executed despite federal laws for equality. The expectation for a level-playing field is not a reality, as statistically show with underrepresented African Americans (1. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0228). Beauchamp points out that at first sight, reverse discrimination appears immoral, because it crafts a prejudice for one race over another. However, he asserts that this inference is not applicable in the real world where ubiquitous prejudice still exists as indicated by statistics. Because we currently do not have an equal playing field, humans are morally obligated to do whatever it takes to achieve it if they aspire for an ideal equal society (2. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0226). In order to be liberated from discriminatory practices, society must practice reverse discrimination, as it is morally justified for the greater good in the end. Once the equal playing field is reached with the addition of minorities through preferential treatment, reverse discrimination becomes unnecessary.
James Rachels bases his moral reasoning for reverse discrimination on what people deserve. Although he is conscious that reverse discrimination appears unfair to those directly affected, he proposes that fairness is dependent on desert. What an individual deserves lies on the effort and willpower for achievement (3. Rachels, CC2011, p 0201). Therefore, it is morally acceptable to execute preferential treatment towards a deserving individual if he or she put in more effort. Rachels’ moral reasoning for sup...
... middle of paper ...
...nforce the negative stereotype that minorities who got in, had an unfair racial advantage. Therefore reverse discrimination has even worse consequences that rise from the glorified end result Rachels suggests with role models.
Additionally, I would contend that effort is too subjective to quantify when both parties have distinct unearned disadvantages. Caucasians face different kinds of hurdles such as psychological pressure to succeed and increased competition at better schools, making it more difficult to get good grades. Rachels’ argument is not universal to all situations. This makes reverse discrimination morally wrong when it generalizes Caucasians from disadvantaged backgrounds, to intrinsically possess advantages. Justice is still not met if the policy cannot extend to all circumstances, making even the moderate form of reverse discrimination unfair.
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Recently the merits of a race based admission policy to colleges and universities have come under scrutiny by the American public. Take into account the position of black conservatives, who feel that affirmative action merely perpetuates a system of preference in reverse and does nothing to fix the problems African Americans face in lower educational programs. When looking at the arguments of the Black conservatives and comparing them to the view points of the opposition, a certain conclusion may be reached.
First of all, the establishment of affirmative action after the Civil Rights Era of 1960s promoted the thinking of reverse discrimination. Defined by Dictionary, reverse discrimination is “the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities” (Dictionary.com). It is true that women and peop...
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a SAT score of 2300 to be considered for admission at a top school such as Yale and a white applicant might need a score of 2100, while an African American or Hispanic only needs a score of 1700. While affirmative action provides equality in the workplace, it has no place in the college admissions process and should, therefore, be abolished and replaced. This type of policy can be repealed completely, replaced with a college admissions process that favors first generation college applicants, or replaced with a policy based on an applicant’s socioeconomic status.
Racial discrimination is a pertinent issue in the United States. Although race relations may seem to have improved over the decades in actuality, it has evolved into a subtler form and now lurks in institutions. Sixty years ago racial discrimination was more overt, but now it has adapted to be more covert. Some argue that these events are isolated and that racism is a thing of the past (Mullainathan). Racial discrimination is negatively affecting the United States by creating a permanent underclass of citizens through institutional racism in business and politics, and creating a cancerous society by rewriting the racist history of America. Funding research into racial discrimination will help society clearly see the negative effects that racism
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
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.
For many years, people have presumed that Affirmative Action has played and continues to play a vital and important role in the lives of most minorities . However, some people have raised questions about the effectiveness of Affirmative Action. Since it's conception, it has been believed that in some instances, Affirmative Action has been more harmful then helpful. One may ask the question, is Affirmative Action really worth fighting for? Some may argue, that if it had not been for Affirmative Action, the minority unemployment rate would be much higher.
When the Civil Rights Bill was being debated on the floor of the Senate, Barry Goldwater predicted that this particular bill might be abused. Herbert Humphrey, however, stated that he would eat every page of the bill if ever it were used to justify discrimination against anybody on account of race or sex. The bill eventually passed and became the Civil Rights Act. From college admissions to government contracts, the Civil Rights Act has been grossly abused by giving race and gender primary consideration in admissions and hiring, resulting in blatant reverse discrimination.
Racism and discrimination are common factors that current society faces, but these are not only contemporary problems. For instance, research has shown that since the nineteen century, “when cultural anthropology became an established academic discipline, one of the underlying objectives of the scholars in the field was to probe that blacks and other nonwhite ethnic groups were genetically and cognitive inferior than whites.” (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 24) Through history constant studies and techniques have developed in order to test theories that justify discrimination, and as the quote states, one common goal was to establish white superiority among all races. This racist pattern has been repeated in America since the times
Is it possible to fill out a job application, apply for college, or even fill out a simple survey without being asked to provide one’s ethnicity? I often wonder how many people actually look at the information I provide instead of the fact that I happen to be Hispanic. Does that make me any different? It is extremely frustrating to realize that despite the civil rights victories of the twenty-first century, our society is still obsessed with race. Advocates of affirmative action will love to tell the American people that minorities are truly benefited by these policies, and that they are thankful for the compensation of the discrimination of their ancestors. Here is one minority who will tell you very differently. Affirmative action is a process of reverse discrimination, giving me unfair advantages based on my race, disregarding my academic abilities and personal motivation. It is degrading that colleges do not think that I can succeed without my ethnicity being a factor in the admissions process. Affirmative action is in no way beneficial to the minorities today, and history will show how it is slowly turning into a process of reverse discrimination.
In the United States, racial discrimination has a lengthy history, dating back to the biblical period. Racial discrimination is a term used to characterize disruptive or discriminatory behaviors afflicted on a person because of his or her ethnic background. In other words, every t...
It is difficult to recognize race discrimination because society masks it with the notion that everyone is equal, even when that is not the case. Mary Cornish proposes substantive equality as opposed to formal equality. The “substantive equality approach questions whether the same treatment in practice produces equal or unequal results. Substantive equality requires taking into account the underlying differences between individuals in society and accommodating those differences in order to ensure equality of impact and outcome.” Iris Marion Young suggests that there is a need to change the status quo and proposes that we need social welfare programs that address the problem of discrimination.
Discrimination has always been there between blacks and whites. Since the 1800s where racial issues and differences started flourishing till today, we can still find people of different colors treated unequally. “[R]acial differences are more in the mind than in the genes. Thus we conclude superiority and inferiority associated with racial differences are often socially constructed to satisfy the socio-political agenda of the dominant group”(Heewon Chang,Timothy Dodd;2001;1).
Abstract- Racial discrimination happens all the time and most of us are unaware of it. The most common place for this to happen is in the workplace. Now people can be discriminated against because of their race, religion, or any other numerous things. Also, discrimination can occur during the job interview or even after you got the job. This paper will shoe the effects of racial discrimination and how it can be prevented. In addition there are some very important laws that deal specifically with discrimination, like the NAACP or Affirmative Action. These both will be discussed.