Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Affirmative action policy and its effects on education
Effects of affirmative action on education
Negative consequences of affirmative action
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
LOS ANGELES, JUNE 1 – California Gov. Pete Wilson (R), vowing to lead a growing conservative movement to end three decades of racial and gender preferences as an antidote to discrimination, today signed an executive order abolishing a wide range of affirmative action programs affecting hiring and contracting in state agencies.
Wilson, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, eliminated or sharply cut back scores of affirmative action policies or programs that are not mandated by state or federal laws or that exceed those laws. He also abolished 118 boards and commissions created to advise state agencies on ethnic and gender diversity issues.
Although he has no direct authority to order policy changes for public schools, colleges and universities, Wilson told his appointees on state educational governing boards that he wants them to dismantle race and gender preference programs that are not required by law.
As mayor of San Diego in the 1970s, Wilson championed affirmative action, adopting a plan to increase the hiring of minority workers and requiring major city contractors to adopt similar programs. But opposition to affirmative action has become a common theme of the Republican presidential candidates and many Republicans in Congress.
Flanked today by a group of Forestry Department firefighters from various minorities, who the governor's aides said symbolize Californians who resent a public perception that they were hired on the basis of preferential treatment, Wilson said affirmative action is "not only unfair, it stigmatizes the achievements of those it was intended to help." His order repeals affirmative action orders signed by three previous governors, including Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian.
In a statement released earlier, Wilson said "great societal guilt" had stimulated the creation of affirmative action programs in the 1960s and would undermine the "very foundation of the American dream" if hiring and contract programs based on race and gender preference were not rolled back.
Wilson blamed the "misfired good intentions" of leaders dating back to John F. Kennedy for programs he said unfairly discriminated against certain ethnic groups to compensate others for past injustices.
The Republican governor said he would aggressively pursue further cutbac...
... middle of paper ...
...by Wilson, who said they had "encouraged the gradual development of racial and gender-based preferences and set asides." Among the agencies affected by Wilson's order is the state transportation department, Caltrans, which is required by agreement with the federal government to allocate 20 percent of its contracting funds to minority-owned firms. Wilson ordered Caltrans to negotiate a new agreement lowering that goal to 10 percent. He also ordered Caltrans to abolish an informal policy of awarding small purchase contracts of $500 or less to women or minority-owned firms and to make such decisions based on non-preferential competitive pricing.
The governor ordered the Department of Forestry, which has a 50 percent goal for the hiring of women and minorities as seasonal firefighters, to eliminate that program and hire on the basis of merit.
He eliminated a requirement that the racial and gender ratio on job interview panels for civil service and career executive positions mirror that of the population as a whole, and directed the Department of Water Resources to end its practice of setting aside two-thirds of all student intern openings for minority candidates.
3.The term Affirmative action has played a huge role in the past one hundred years of American politics. It is simply defined as an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer. Civil Rights of American citizens have drastically changed because of Affirmative action. With almost anything in politics, there is a debate for and against Affirmative action. Supporters of this say that this helps encourage e...
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
Salant, Jonathan D. “NCAA president opposes changes to Title IX anti-discrimination law.” Washington Dateline 4 Mar. 2003: Sports 1.
...luded his attitude towards blacks. He appointed whites to offices reserved for blacks, segregated the navy, and threw African American leaders out of his office. Of course, textbooks omit these facts about Wilson because his behavior was disgraceful and offensive. If these facts were known, Loewen feels “No black person could ever consider Woodrow Wilson a hero” (Loewen 20). I personally have not studied Wilson in-depth, but did realize he fell into the category of a racist. I also believe that “Americans need to learn from the Wilson era, that there is a connection between racist presidential leadership and like-minded public response” (Loewen 21). I think this an important factor when considering who to vote for at the polls.
As a result, this paper reasons 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 itself should be permitted to be used in case the state once again unfairly discriminates social groups.
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.
...an choose to pick certain students just because of their ethnicity. In the constitution it clearly states that everyone is equal and if they can have the same rights as us. Then it should be agreed that colleges and universities should be able to pick the students who are best fitted for their school. Now it is perfectly clear that schools do in fact have a greater ability to affect the first amendment rights of public school students than the government does.
The first welfare forms in the United States came from churches and private donors (Proquest Staff). Many churches suffered donation losses during the Great Depression due to poor economical standings. The government then set out to create a better system that social welfare could go to. These systems have
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.
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.
Gallup found that more Americans (40%) say they want labor unions to have less influence than they have today (with 29% wanting more & 27% say influence should stay the same). In the previous year, Americans wanted labor unions to have more versus less influence. In addition, a Poll discovered 71% of Americans said they would vote for a right-to-work law if given the chance and 82% agreed that no worker should ever be required to join an organization against his or her will (Jones 2014). The right-to-work law gives individual workers the freedom to choose whether they should financially support a union as a job condition and adopted by 25 states in America, with Wisconsin becoming the 25th as of March 2014. A right-to-work law does not prohibit unions and unions are active and powerful in these states. In a non-right-to-work state, if employees do not want to pay union dues or have a union represent them, they have no choice. If they refuse, they lose their job (Moore 2015). There was a time when American workers needed to organize because working conditions were horrible and no one could do anything about it. Currently, union leaders seem to be going the way of the typical Bureaucrat, and as Marx believed the working class seem to be rising against the employing class (Conley
This paper looks at the different theories of criminal behavior that explain why people commit crimes. It goes deeper to analyze the specific theories in a bid to determine why a person may commit a certain crime and another person under the same circumstances may not. The paper focuses on key factors that motivate unruly behavior among people and why such factors are present in some people and not in others. In doing so, the paper leans more on children in order to determine how delinquency behavior is progressively imparted on them as they undergo developmental trajectory.
The structure of this essay is based on animals and humans mate choice strategies and gender differences and similarities. These factors are intertwined with males and females reproduction success for choosing the right mate and bearing the parental cost involved in the offspring upbringing. (Trivers, 1972, 1985).Animal males from the evolutionary perspectives seek fertile, strong, females as a security for their offspring reproduction. These males’ strategize for their mate choice by advertising their masculinity as men ready for a mate. (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987).The female animals chooses mate base on their sense of security so they prefer males capable to protect and bear the cost of parenting with them.(Trivers,1972).In humans, females prefer wealthy men with high status as mate (Bjorklund & shackleford, 1999; Buss, 1992) whereas males prefer to date young attractive females who considers as fertile with the ability for genes reproduction.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009) Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (Fifth ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
In review of theory integration, it is consider important for the future of criminology because it merges the insights from two or more theories into a single framework to introduction reasoning or cause for crimes that are being committed. Integrated theory involves more than one perspective, It tends to explain the reason for criminal behavior or the causes of crime by varies models within the