Affirmative Action as Discrimination Based on Race Affirmative action is geared towards providing solution to the long standing issu... ... middle of paper ... ...d not by their competence but by their race. Affirmative action is not ethical because it is against the law on equal opportunities. When it is supposed to help the disadvantaged, it instead suggests that people of color are inferior and therefore need special privileges in order to succeed. Affirmative action also offends the ethnic minorities on account that they are not allowed to compete head to head with the advantaged group. On the other hand, not all that is about affirmative action hurt the white.
The proponents of affirmative action argue that because of past injustices, minorities deserve special privileges. The critics of affirmative action emphasize that minorities should earn their status and not receive special entitlements. In my opinion, affirmative action is a policy that unjustifiably discriminates against the majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be eliminated or in the alternative, experience a massive restructuring. "Affirmative Action: The Price of Preference", maintains that affirmative action has not achieved its goals, and that in some areas, it has even backfired. 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."
This disadvantage the author calls a reverse discrimination. The arguement presented for justifying the occurrance of such is the principle of reparations and compensation. Compensation states that since white men benefited from the exclusion of blacks and women they should now bear the burden. The reparations arguement states that racial minorities (blacks) and women are entitled to preferential treatment because their rights have been violated. These arguements are difficult to put into practice because it bring certain difficult issues into light.
Affirmative Action Few social policy issues have served as a better gauge of racial and ethnic divisions among the American people than affirmative action. Affirmative action is a term referring to laws and social policies intended to alleviate discrimination that limits opportunities for a variety of groups in various social institutions. Supporters and opponents of affirmative action are passionate about their beliefs, and attack the opposing viewpoints relentlessly. Advocates believe it overcomes discrimination, gives qualified minorities a chance to compete on equal footing with whites, and provides them with the same opportunities. Opponents charge that affirmative action places unskilled minorities in positions they are not qualified for and violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moreover, if minorities are given special status and some privileges are reserved for them, isn't it as bad as past discriminations? Two wrongs don't make a right. Some can argue that it's not the same thing since it's not as if non-minorities are subject to slavery or second-rate citizenship just like the past. But then comes the question of who is to decide what amount of injustice is tolerable and what amount is not? More importantly, Mr. Watulak mentions that "affirmative action has some rather unpleasant racist assumptions hiding behind it.
However, affirmative action has become a system of racial quotas that lowers standards for minority applicants in order to give them a chance to succeed in universities, jobs, and leadership positions. At first, it may not seem like such a bad idea to have racial quotas because it increases diversity. But with racial quotas qualified applicants to universities, jobs, etc aren’t allowed to receive the position they are qualified for because of the quotas based on race. Affirmative action contradicts itself, by saying that racial discrimination is wrong and we should all have equal opportunities in a color-blind society but then gives opportunities solely based on race. Affirmative action is unethical and this idea is supported by moral philosophy subjects such as Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract, and Virtue Theory.
Identification of individuals based on their races does not embrace the principle of directness as they want their grievances addressed based on their races. Racism plays a role of identification of individuals depending on their skin color but, this is not a gold standard mechanism of identification because the skin color of an individual does not depict their races. Identification of an individual depending on their race is not necessary for the development of American society because all of us are equal.
After all, segregation was the alternative to integration, and whites didn’t want integration. In Rabinowitz’s essay, entitled From Exclusion to Segregation: Southern Race Relations, 1865-1890, many examples are shown in regards to how the exclusion of blacks was transformed into the segregation of blacks from whites. Some examples of this were seen in bars, athletic events, parks, trains, etc. An idea was presented by certain Republicans that said that separate provisions for blacks was not a violation of civil rights as long as the facilities and accommodations were equal to those of whites. Rabinowitz states: “They [blacks] accepted segregation because it was seen as an improvement over exclusion and because they believed, or at least hoped, that separate facilities could be equal.” (p. 156) The segregation of blacks was also seen by Rabinowitz as the chance to form a gro... ... middle of paper ... ...also think that in today’s society although things are not as they were in the 1800’s there is still a significant amount of racism and segregation implemented by whites and blacks.
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, discrimination means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of." Affirmative Action directly creates discrimination. People of minority groups are stereotyped, often incorrectly, as being disadvantaged, simply because they are a member of that group. Not only is it stereotyping of minorities, but also of whites. It creates the assumption that whites are better off than minorities.
Minority groups don’t deserve the advantages they get and majority groups have done nothing to be stuck with the disadvantages that they have to work around. All of this leads to the same point: affirmative action should be phased out. Although affirmative action was originally instituted for very important reasons – to ensure diversity in universities and workplaces as a remediation for historically disadvantaged groups – the benefits of affirmative action are outweighed by the injustice it causes and its ineffectiveness to accommodate today’s needs for all ethnic groups. According to Reshetnivov, affirmative action is the means of considering underrepresented characteristics, such as race, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, to determine admission into a university (Reshetnivov). Affirmative action policies were instituted not only to ensure diversity, but to right the wrong of decades of discrimination and to help minorities by giving them extra opportunities (Messerli).