In some cases affirmative action involves giving preferential treatment to these groups.  Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that they are based on collectivism and merely another equal form of discrimination because they can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need. ) They also argue that preferential treatment should be based upon current social and economical standing, not that of one's ancestors. Some opponents say that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group they belong to rather than their qualifications.  Opponents Opponents of affirmative action call it reverse discrimination because affirmative action requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate in order to work.
Although I find the term significant only inasmuch as they are used in society, since the subject of this essay deals with the socially constructed idea of race, I too will fall into a language that I ultimately consider somewhat misleading. For this paper I will consider racial inequality the quantifiable difference between groups when groups of people are categorized by their appearance or ethnicity. Given that the United States of America has predominately Capital... ... middle of paper ... ...n supported my premises, specifically the idea that not all of the races are equivalently qualified for potentially equivalent jobs if considering college is considered a major qualification. After this I answered the possible objection that such quotas should be put in play anyways which would seem to have a limited success to say the least. Therefore, it seems that as Rachels presents them, if quotas for employee selection alone were enacted, then they would most likely fail in solving the monetary inequality between different racial groups.
Racism that involves treating some races as superior to the other in terms of their belief should not be used to gauge the identification of an individual. Identification of individuals with their cultural practices is not harmful unless the priority of identification is misused. Misusing such priorities makes some cultures be viewed as superior to the others. America is a country that has a diverse culture and this is seen in large cities such as San Francisco. Most people in US are either descendants of immigrants or immigrants and identification using one’s race is not essential because it makes individuals from other races uncomfortable.
Affirmative action is just because it gives a fair advantage to black Americans, women and other minorities who have suffered from the effects of social injustice in our country. Majorities have constantly opposed affirmative action because they view it as an injustice directed to them. In Grutter v Bollinger, one can say that affirmative action is just because it is a benign discrimination. One might say that the law school?s consideration of African Americans, Hispanics and Native American student?s (who otherwise might not be represented in the student body) is unjust. However, considering the facts of the case, the school?s policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for ?substantial weight.?
This argument is difficult to counter; it seems clear that affirmative action does amount, strictly speaking, to reverse discrimination. For some, this fact alone is enough reason to ring the policy death knell. Yet this conclusion seems to me hasty. If affirmative action hurts white males only a little, yet helps minorities and women significantly, then we might well decide to keep affirmative action around, despite its unfairness. Private universities commonly employ policies of preference which are sometimes euphemistically termed "development policies."
In fact, it reinforces the notion of negative stereotypes towards people of color who may not have the financial or social means of attending these universities. Such quotas make it possible for them to enter higher education, as well as even out the racial playing field. The myth of racial democracy in Latin America has some similarities and differences with the racialized social structure that exists in the United States. Both regions will blatantly deny the existence of racism in the creation of
All preferential hiring does is keep judgments based on skin color alive. Race and sex should not be issues in today's society, yet preferential hiring continues to make these factors issues by treating minorities as a group rather than as individuals. More importantly preferential hiring may actually fuel, rather than extinguish, feelings of racial hostility. Applying the concept of preferential hiring to another situation may help elucidate its shortcomings. A party of white men and... ... middle of paper ... ...wn (possibly by zip code), to those that are financially burdened, and to those with handicaps.
In his essay called "Affirmative Action Encourages Racism", Thaddeus Watulak argues that affirmative action is a racist policy, which relies on racial stereotypes and reinforces racist attitudes in the society. I mostly agree with him because I believe he touches some very important points, which are not taken to account in the first place. 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.
On the contrary because of past discrimination and segregation affirmative action programs are needed during the admissions process of universities and colleges. Opponents of affirmative action believe that use of affirmative action programs in the admissions process promotes reverse discrimination, and segregation, which goes against the initial intent of these special programs. They feel that these programs discriminate against non-minorities who cannot be accepted into universities, because of affirmative action. These programs go against the meaning of civil rights, which is to treat all individuals the same under the law regardless of race, religion, sex, or other such social categories (Beckwith 143). One of the main arguments made by anti-affirmative action groups is that the use of these special programs will lower academic scores in many universities.
Many questions are left to be investigated. Many believe that we should live in a society where preferential treatment could be eliminated, and admission to college is based solely on one’s merit and character, yet this view seems quite unrealistic. The United States Supreme Court handed down its first decision on this complex issue with the case of Allan Bakke. Allan Bakke was a white male who applied to ... ... middle of paper ... ...ns. The evidence supports the fact that if racial preferences are not used in admissions, the country will be withholding quality educations, both graduate and undergraduate, from large numbers of minority students.