In her article, “Affirmative Action and Higher Education”, Nancy Cantor presents an argument in support of affirmative action in college admissions. Cantor primarily uses anecdotal evidence in combination with pathos in order to make her argument that affirmative action is to be implemented in schools. Very few facts are presented in the article, with majority of the driving force of the writing being moral guilt trips and claims that diversity is important without providing anecdotal evidence to suggest that her claim is true. Cantor does cite a few court cases in the article and even states her own experience with the University of Michigan, where she is employed, and affirmative action as well. In the article, Cantor urges readers of the …show more content…
Even though I personally support affirmative action’s sentiments, this article was written somewhat poorly. The author makes many claims and questions in the reader’s morality without providing proper evidence to make said claims. The article comes off as “affirmative action is so great and not having it is morally wrong. Therefore, if you, the reader, disagree, that means that you’re also morally wrong.” The author writes from a place of credibility, however. Being the chancellor of a university, she would be able to see affirmative action in effect up close and personal with each year’s admissions and the aftermath of those admissions. She would also have the authority to comment on the University of Michigan court case that was happening at the time, in support of affirmative action. While I would support affirmative action, I feel that this article has way more fluff than substance and would be more persuasive if more evidence was provided to back up …show more content…
Bush makes a far more compelling argument due to actually providing some form of evidence and explanation compared to Nancy Cantor, who relied primarily on an appeal to emotion and what is morally “correct”. With the explanation of the University of Michigan’s quota system, it is easily laid out in a way that’s understandable as to why President Bush would take on this position on affirmative action. For example, some minorities get “bonus points” just for being a minority while a perfect SAT score would earn them less points, which can be construed as unfair. How Bush suggests a solution is also well done. He presents information that multiple state’s universities have used different means to sift through their admissions in order to achieve diversity and then claims that there are different ways to satisfy the need for diversity without banking on race to sometimes be the determining factor. In comparison, Nancy Cantor’s argument is weak. The tone of the article comes off more as emotional and moral-attacking rather than actually argumentative. There’s many claims based on nonexistent points of data to draw the inference from. It can be beneficial to use anecdotal information, but if that is what the opinion piece is solely based on, the article loses substance due to not having at least a solid foundation of some truth. The author name drops court cases and comes from a place of authority, but makes no further use of the argument with information.
Purpose: Michaels has published his claim as he wishes to reveal how he sees the purpose of affirmative action in higher education as a front of racial diversity to hide the lack of any class based affirmative action leaving little opportunity for the very low income. Michaels express great satisfaction in how he see affirmative action used basically allowing the rich to triumph while looking like everything is fine and diverse.
Another article titled “The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action” (Source B) by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. takes a similar stance, but walks the reader through an alternative route in reaching a conclusion by discussing the negative aspects of AA on minority students. A third article by the name of “Actually, we still need affirmative action for African Americans in college admissions. Here’s why” (Source C) by Valerie Strauss provides input from the other side of the spectrum by arguing that AA is still needed. While source A provides an extremely biased perspective on affirmative action and does little to persuade the audience with its weak language, source B presents a slightly stronger argument against affirmative through its descriptive language and academic tone, which appeals to the reader but fails to address the opposite side of the dispute. However, source C offers the most compelling argument through its thorough analysis of affirmative action that considers both sides of the spectrum with strong diction and formal tone to effectively convey its ideas to the
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.
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.
To sum everything up, we as a human race are not perfect, nor will we ever make solutions that will satisfy both side of arguments. One lesson we can learn from this research paper, however, is that everyone should have the ability to fully enjoy their Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments. Nonetheless, the development of reverse discrimination, the creation of stigma against women and minorities, the buildup of racial tension, and the fact of attempting to solve a racial problem that no longer exist all contributed to the danger of affirmative action. It may be created with good intentions, but certainly not applicable to our society now if all of us wish to be treated equal.
Affirmative action, an idea which began in the 1930s but truly kicked off in the 1960s, consists of a wide variety of programs meant to help level the playing field in both universities and the workplace by making race and gender a consideration in the selection process. While supporters believe affirmative action must stay an active policy so that the United States can continue to strive for proportional equality in higher level jobs and education, opponents argue positions should be awarded on an individual basis based on merit alone. Although affirmative action policies have done impressive work creating these opportunities, it is now time to question if, after 40 years, this method is working and should be continued, if the current policies are no longer effective and the negative costs now outweigh the possible benefits and a new approach should be put into place.
“Anyone interested in higher education should want to contemplate, on behalf of colleges and universities, students and faculty, alumni and paying parents, the fate of affirmative action(Chace, M William 20). The Oxford Dictionary states Affirmative Action is “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.” In 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order calling for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This is now known today as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC). Affirmative action policies would later be forced upon businesses and have also been instituted at many universities where minorities are given preferred admissions over non-minorities. An Example of this would be at the University of Michigan where applicants who represented racial or ethnic minorities were given 20 points towards admission out of a 150 point system where only 100 points were needed to gain admission. Trying to put the 20 points in perspective, applicants with perfect SAT scores only received 12 points toward admission. This system was later struck down by the Supreme Court, but another similar policy was upheld at the University of Michigan Law School. With how diverse our society is currently compared to years ago, it seems to compliment that the policies have indeed worked. But now, the policies are questioned by many as whether or not they moral, constitutional, and/or...
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.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
The government thinks that implementing affirmative action will repair inequality, but it cannot. In the midst of tying to promote equality, they are promoting discrimination. Discrimination is the violation of one’s human rights based on gender, sex, race, ethnicity and/or relation. President Johnson felt that blacks being free and able to go to the same school as Caucasians were not just enough for the past discrimination and turmoil the African Americans went through. Affirmative action was used as a cure to remedy lost times. Sandal made some valid points; he noted that th...
Affirmative action was created to allow minorities to have more opportunities in the workforce and in education. It still remains to be a debate whether affirmative action should be a necessary route even though we have made progress towards greater equality. The argument over Affirmative action has been going on for some time with two opposing sides. There is one side who finds Affirmative action as an opportunity to the less fortunate; those who are against have the belief that it promotes less qualified individuals rather than a person own merit.
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...
Tanabe, C. (2009). From the courtroom to the voting booth: Defending affirmative action in higher education. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 291–300.
Imagine waking up tomorrow and reading in the local paper that the government was giving tax breaks to minorities in order to prevent discrimination. Congress insists that the deductions will “help level the playing field” in American society, claiming that diversity is necessary in creating an ideal nation, but is this attempt to prevent disparities and racism not an act of inequality in itself? By putting this policy into place, the government is giving advantages to minorities without showing the same generosity to Caucasians of the same economic backgrounds. Protests would be taking place around the country as citizens argue that the plan violates their Constitutional right to equality. Yet this is exactly the type of scenario seen in universities across the country. Colleges use race as a large factor in admissions in order to create “optimal diversity” among the students. However, this attempt at variety often comes at the expense of white and Asian students. For these reasons, affirmative action policies in college admissions should be eliminated in the United States.
Loeb, Jane W, Marianne A. Ferber & Helen M. Lowry. (1978) The Effectiveness of Affirmative Action for Women The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 49, No. 3, 218-230.