1. Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era Wasserstrom and Newton disagree with affirmative action because to Wasserstrom sees affirmative action as a way to help the ones who have being abused or that have being oppressed and with the affirmative action he things this people can have a better life. On the other hand, Newton thinks that if affirmative action is use to help someone out because of the circumstances of their life then at the moment when that person is help other is affected in because of that. Newton believes that everyone should have the same opportunities in life, but if some because of the circumstances of their lives get a priory or some kind of special treatment then at the moment is a violation of the one who didn’t get that chance. She uses equality before the law and moral idea of equality, with this to two terms she illustrate how when equity under the law is violated to achieve moral equity, then the one doing it undermine the goal of moral equity. Finally, affirmative action can be a good way in some citations, as …show more content…
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
The Affirmative Action Law was formed as a solution to the long history of animosity towards minorities, and to eradicate the segregation between minorities and majorities. The program certainly aided many of disadvantage people living in the United States. The Affirmative Action encouraged many individuals, particularly, women, and group of people that belongs to different ethnic groups to have hopes and dreams due to the fair chance that were being given by the program. However, even though the Affirmative Action Law’s aim is to provide equal human rights for all the citizens of the United States, there will always be a group of people who will oppose, because each individuals’ have different notion and needs.
The institution of public education has been one of the most controversial establishments in the United States since its inception. More specifically, equality in the conditions and the opportunities it provides has been sought as one of its major goals. There is little doubt that minority ethnic groups have struggled to achieve educational equality, just as they have struggled for equality in other aspects of life. One way that minorities have tried to achieve equality in education is through lobbying for help in college admissions for their respective groups. This social practice has been debated on many grounds, including necessity and ethical permissibility.
The policy of affirmative action was created to promote equal opportunity in the workfield, however the policy has its own issues as it has produced lots of controversies since its inception. In particular, opponents of Affirmative action argues against the real effects of affirmative action and skeptical whether societal disparities in employment opportunities and incomes were simply the outcome of socioeconomic labelling, hence the effectiveness of affirmative action to address the disparities was also brought into questioning. Moreover the policy is also controversial in that it does, to a certain extent, exert discriminatory racial tension because it discriminates against non-minority groups. Therefore this essay will discuss some of the issues related to the controversial policy as well as explore some of the underlying causes of the policy and assessment of some of its measured benefits.
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.
Affirmative action in the U.S. started to come about in the early nineteen sixties. It was enacted along with many other anti-segregation laws, as part of the "Civil Rights act of 1964 and an executive order in 1965 (Affirmative, Encyclopedia Britannica par. 2)." Today affirmative action is still going strong. It has many positive aspects, but it also has several negative affects, one of which is "reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action creates reverse discrimination upon the opposite races. Ever since the civil war of the 1860s and the civil rights movement of the 1960s in which minorities in The United States of America, who majority are composed of African Americans and Women who were refused the opportunity’s to use public services such as public schools and certain Employment opportunities like promotions. The government of the United States has tried to restore equality and balance the society of this country by passing certain policies that would make those who were denied certain opportunities in the past bad times so they would not be left behind in struggle and failure. Affirmative Action was one of these policies. It was first used by President John F. Kennedy In his effort to restore equality of the country...
As the United States entered the 60s discrimination was still taking place, even after the passage of the civil rights act. Affirmative action was proposed as a way to bring equality to schools and the workforce. Polices were placed to ensure that African Americans and minorities had the same opportunities for school admissions, financial aid, and even advancements for careers and salary. One of the main goals for the affirmative action program was to ensure that minorities as well as women receive equal opportunities free of any type ...
Affirmative action is an attempt by the United States to amend a long history of racial discrimination and injustice. Our school textbook defines affirmative action as “a program established that attempts to improve the chances of minority applicants for educational or employment purposes, although they may have the same qualifications, by giving them leverage so that they can attain a level that is equal to caucasian applicants” (Berman 522). There are people that support and oppose this issue. Opponents of affirmative action have many reasons for opposing this issue, one of them being that the battle for equal rights is over, and that this advantage made for people of color discriminates against people that are not of color. The people that defend affirmative action argue this advantage is needed because of how badly discriminated the people of color once were. Because of the discrimination that once was these people claim that they are at a disadvantage, and always have been, therefore equality of opportunity is needed. It is also said that affirmative action is used to encourage diversity and integration. This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, how it is implemented in society today, and evaluate the arguments that it presents.
Tim was working as a college professor for many years at an ivy-league school. Tim was a very well liked by the students and by the administration. Tim's qualifications were hard to beat, with a book and many other writings to his credit. One day he went to work and found out that he had been replaced by a woman that had less experience and fewer credentials (McElroy).
Despite there is a widespread support for affirmative action in education, the paper argues that affirmative action is merely a means of reverse discrimination against white and Asian students alike, creates a mismatch in colleges, and restricts students from reaching their potentials. In order to help the readers to thoroughly understand the issue, the paper first gives a brief history about affirmative action while defines the term itself and reverse discrimination. Using statistics, the argument then focuses on pointing out why affirmative action is a reverse discrimination. Yet, not only creating a racial preference against white and Asian students, the paper continues the controversy topic with the mismatch theory and how it affects students illustrating by examples. After addressing the mismatch is a product of affirmative action, the discussion that affirmative action restricts student from reaching their full potential takes place, putting an end to the paper.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
Civil Rights activities are believed to have led to the Affirmative Action being pioneered in the United States. The sixties era was full of Civil Rights movements and the search for minority equality. In 1961 President John Kennedy issued an executive order for the government to employ more minorities. This was the Committee on Equal Opportunity’ task to administer. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Trying to create equality President Johnson then unintentionally created reverse discrimination. In 1969 President Nixon passed the Philadelphia Order. This order was to ensure equal opportunity hiring in the federal projects that required construction workers. In 1978 the Supreme Court placed boundaries on affirmative action to ensure while providing opportunity for minorities it was not at the expense of the majority in the landmark case of Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke. In 1980 the Supreme Court again ruled that 15 percent of government contracts be held for minority contracts and that this was perfectly constitutional.
In Chapter 2, Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone else's expression of opinion. Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only one person held a particular opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions.
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.