The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal opportunity for minorities. But it has strayed from its original intent and has become largely a program to achieve not equal opportunity but equal results. It is a system of quotas forced upon American businesses and working class by the federal government. A law which forces people to look at race before looking at the individual cannot promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action continues the judgement of minorities by race; it causes reverse discrimination, and contradicts its purpose.
He seemed to have “supported segregation and the disenfranchisement of Blacks,” despite being “involved in politics” while speaking on the “prevention of disenfranchisement” (Seaton 55). Washington did what he believed was best for the helpless Americans, but in doing so, the perception he gave to them and DuBois was that “the white stereotype holds over Blacks and how they are positioned to be aware of it” (Seaton 55). In “The Souls of Black Folk,” DuBois even states about the “distinct status of civil inferiority for the Negro” under Washington’s policy (DuBois 1331). In Washington’s Atlanta speech, his motive was “to show whites that Blacks were making incremental progress and to ease the tension that was building all throughout the country” (Seaton 55). It can be said that Washington was publicly working under the ideology of white-supremacists, compensating them instead of the Black community.
I say yes, affirmative action was and is needed to help prevent unfairness caused by discrimination in America. I believe the doors of opportunity have just peaked opened for women and minorities and the United States should continue to use affirmative action as an appropriate instrument for achieving racial and gen... ... middle of paper ... ...men and minorities by providing them opportunities for advancement. In conclusion, affirmative action has been criticized as a shallow solution that does not reach deeper economic problems in the United States. However, when understanding its purpose, affirmative action was never designed to solve the economic inequalities in America. Instead, it was intended only to rectify discrimination in hiring and academic admissions.
“The government is best which governs least”. That was the motto of, Henry David Thoreau, one of America’s first advocates for civil disobedience. Along with Henry, another advocate for civil disobedience was Martin Luther King Jr. Both fought against different causes. For example, Thoreau criticized slavery and the Mexican-American war because he wanted to people to prioritize their conscious instead of simply following the law and Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for equality and the “god-given” rights that belonged to African Americans.
“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society” (King). Chavez believe that proper solutions to equal judgment on racial and ethnic identity are not found as yet. Through the voicing out of non-white Americans, the whites will be aware of the white propaganda of American dream to forget first culture and incorporate the illusion culture. Works Cited Meyer, Michael.
For example according to Elvin Lim, an associate professor at Wesleyan University, “by moving away from formal equality toward a more substantive conception of equality that incorporates the principle of historical remedy, a liberal can remain consistently pro-affirmative action, and still be anti-racial profiling.”. Through this assumption we can likely believe that specific forms of equality can be defined as both affirmative action and racial pro... ... middle of paper ... ...s done to help/hurt the different discriminative groups in society. On another view of this conflicting issue stands people who believes that based on how history is taken and how society wants to gain equality, many believe affirmative action and racial profiling are two very opposing ideas. Racial profiling allows the majority of a population, typically the white race, to stand above the rest just like they did throughout history and discriminates against minorities, typically the blacks and Hispanic races. Affirmative action on the other hand is progressively trying to push for equality among the races and help those find a way to become equal in society without being discriminated against.
This creates a feeling of hatred between US and non-US citizens, which is the last thing we need. In contrast, there is nothing wrong with giving immigrants job opportunities because this is America, the lan... ... middle of paper ... ...tive action would count if and only if they are minority citizens, which would give American citizens a better chance of finding a job because immigrants wouldn’t be accepted towards the number of minorities companies have to hire. After this subparagraph would be added, the president would then have to sign an executive order stating that although contractors may hire immigrants, only US born minorities would count toward meeting the affirmative action set goals. I think this would then take care of the non-citizen immigrants hiring problem. By reading the facts and opinions of this paper, I believe you will understand that this is a problem that needs to be faced.
Opponents charge that affirmative action places unskilled minorities in positions they are not qualified for and violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Since its inception, the definition of affirmative action has been ever-changing. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring, expanding the applicant pool to include more minorities, compensating for past grievances, and setting quotas have all been part of the definition. In theory affirmative action helps integrate minorities better into society and puts them on equal footing with whites; however, in reality affirmative action is widening the racial gap in America and therefore should be discontinued. When the Civil Rights Law passed, minorities, especially African-Americans, believed that they should receive retribution for the years of discrimination that they endured.
Steele acknowledges that blacks were wrongly persecuted, but stresses that as a result of affirmative action, "blacks now stand to lose more than they gain." Although the intent of the policy is positive, the end result is a false effort at white redemption and an ill advised effort by the black mandate to gain power by accepting undeserved positions in society. Steele points out that instead of focusing on developing ... ... middle of paper ... ...ol or technical school level by allocating more resources (financial and staffing) to those in need of extra help. Public acceptance of this preferential treatment would be greater, less emotional, and more easily justified. It does not address the intermediate needs of some minorities, but maybe there could be federal or state programs for special training.
Identification of an individual based on their race promotes racism, which entails individuals from a particular race viewing their race as better compared to the others. American society believes on the ideal that all men are equal from the day of creation (Visweswa... ... middle of paper ... ... undermines the unity since some races will be identified with some negative values and others viewed as better. Most of the Americans hold to the principle of directness in which individuals are expected to communicate since it is the best way to be heard. Directness is important because it fosters the development in the American society (Connelly, 72). Identification of individuals based on their races does not embrace the principle of directness as they want their grievances addressed based on their races.