Dark and Bright Sides of Reverse Discrimination
When it comes to the topic of the reverse racism existence, most of us would agree that it is a real phenomenon which still waves an argument tide in America society. In the 1965, a controversial policy known as affirmative action was issued by President Lyndon Johnson, to try and promote racial equality in society. Affirmative action is supposed to give minorities an equal chance in life by requiring minority employment, promotions, college acceptance, etc. At first this sounds like a perfect solution to racial discrimination, but in reality it is discrimination in reverse. Although I believe with the effect of affirmative action in America society is a revolutionary step for all Americans
…show more content…
It further promotes racism and prejudice by giving some groups of people more “rights” and protections than others, the goal of everyone being equal is lost with affirmative action because the minority groups now have special privileges. As a master of fact, the others are the unfair advantage of finding job or funding at school as well as putting grace first. On the second scene of the film that I saw, they “turned the tide”. It means that the black man was a racist and bumped by the white guy this time. The racist whimpered: “White bitch! You and your people disgust me. I hate white people. He is fucking white”, “He should be sorry about that” said a white passenger, while the white man tried to say sorry sincerely. He asked the pedestrians for help: “Can you help me? He is racial to me” but they all did not want to involve and ignore him. At last, a black man appeared and assured: “No black is racial, you are a racist”. People tend to think that the white is supposedly racial to the black and they judge the white must be the racial one at first sight without considering the circumstance. The message that the film want to share with us is clear: We need to stop racism against all, regardless the skin color which does not make somebody become a racist or a racial victim but the person herself or himself. When a racial victim discriminates the others racial majority, he or she …show more content…
But it is up to us to prepare for our children for what they have to meet, and, hopefully, we share the overcome. We have to stop racism against all, regardless the skin color.”- said Rosa Parks. I am surprised that those sides of the reverse racism or called affirmative action because it is essential factor to make a revolution in order to reach the goal of civil right which the Founding Fathers of the United State devoted all their lives for. I wonder what would happen if all human do not judge each other based on their skin colors, races or genders any more. It might be the most fulfilled world that all the chances in job, politic position, education, etc. An ideal society is hard to build but if the human tries their best together, the world will become much more
...So the question still remains, has American society really come that far in race relations and where do we go from here? Martin Espada answers the question by illustrating the intense level of racism experienced by a minority living in modern society. The civil rights movement did make positive changes for the African-American community on various different political and social levels. However, racism needs to be broken down to its smallest components, which are the individuals who support and teach racist attitudes. The family itself is the basic unity of society. Therefore, the only way racism will be completely eliminated on a social level is if it is stopped on the individual level. Treating racism as a social phenomenon will provide short-term solutions, but will not treat the virus of hatred perpetuating its continued existence in our society today.
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
Affirmative action, while a great idea in the beginning, is no longer needed to make up for the past discrimination of women and minorities. It does not get rid of discrimination, but rather creates it towards whites and men. Any form of discrimination is wrong, whether intentional or unintentional. Businesses and universities will set aside a separate pool for minorities and women so they don’t have to originally compete against the whole pool of applicants. A person’s qualifications and how they got to where they are should not be questioned because of affirmative action. The only reason some people are still questioned or considered undeserving is because affirmative action still takes place. Getting rid of affirmative action in universities and businesses will eliminate reverse discrimination and ensure that their qualifications, along with achievements, will not be questioned based on the skin color or gender of a
Discrimination in the United States came to an end 54 years ago, or did it? Most are aware of the ethnic and sexual discrimination that plagued the United States from its founding years until 1960. White males primarily were the people in charge of making all the government and business decisions impacting the country. Even though slavery ended in 1865 and females played a significant role in the home, blacks and females voices were not considered for important decision making events. In this paper I will outline Lisa Newton’s argument towards reverse discrimination, a professor of philosophy at Fairfield University; she argues that “reverse discrimination
First of all, the establishment of affirmative action after the Civil Rights Era of 1960s promoted the thinking of reverse discrimination. Defined by Dictionary, reverse discrimination is “the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities” (Dictionary.com). It is true that women and peop...
As a result, racism still exists today , african americans vs. whites as well as vice versa. People are constantly discriminated or passed over for jobs because of race, gender or ethnicity. The society we live in today face challenges that we have never faced before. Many people have the opportunity of attending schools, when back in the face the possibilities were very slim. Ironically, people are so well educated yet, lack integrity, character, accountability and virtues.
More importantly, Mr. Watulak mentions that "affirmative action has some rather unpleasant racist assumptions hiding behind it. The clear implication that minorities could not adequately get ahead without special considerations seems just a touch bigoted." I agree with this because even though affirmative action looks like a positive policy for minorities, it may have a lot of negative consequences as well. It can be true that it has increased job opportunities for minorities but the question is whether it has done so for correct reasons. For example, when a minority gets a high position in a corporation, the other employers may think about why this person received this position.
Racism (n): the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other race (Wordnet search, 1), a controversial topic in today’s society, a subject that many people try to sweep under the rug, but yet a detrimental problem that has been present in America since the colonial era. Will this dilemma come to a halt? Can all Americans see each other as equals despite their skin color and nationality; and what role has it played in past generations versus today’s generations and how will it affect our future? Has this on going way of thinking gotten better or worse? These are questions raised when many think about the subject; especially members of American ethnic groups and backgrounds, because most have dealt with racial discrimination in their life time.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, affirmative action is “an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and women.” However, despite its well-intentioned policies, it has been the source of much controversy over the years. Barbara Scott and Mary Ann Schwartz mention that “proponents of affirmative action argue that given that racism and discrimination are systemic problems, their solutions require institutional remedies such as those offered by affirmative action legislation” (298). Also, even though racism is no longer direct, indirect forms still exist in society and affirmative action helps direct. On the other hand, opponents to affirm...
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.
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...
The United States of America has long been a country divided by race. Hate has pervaded her existence since her conception, and now today’s society is forced to deal with those issues. Minorities have suffered at the hands of the white male majority for centuries as the social activities of the old war were brought to the new colonies, only to ferment and continue to affect the lives of all who lived within her borders. There is no doubting that this continued discrimination is a problem; however, the question arises with how to deal with it. Legislation has been passed to remedy the situation, yet has been seemingly ineffective. Affirmative action has caused problems without fulfilling its purpose. The downfall of affirmative action is that it is the wrong action; the United States society has problems, including an underlying tension of hate, but they cannot be fixed by the government’s laws; they will be fixed when society changes how it views its members.
Though Affirmative Action is a current controversial issue, it is far from new; its decree has been long in the making. Perhaps it originates from amendments 13-15, the series of amendments that outlawed slavery, guaranteed equal protection under the law, and forbid racial discrimination when voting, respectively (Sykes 1). The Supreme Court’s decision in 1896, in the case of Plessy V. Ferguson, mandated separate but equal treatment for African Americans (Sykes 1). However, in 1954, the Supreme Court’s decision from Brown v. Board of Education replaced that of the Plessy v. Ferguson trial. President Lyndon Johnson was the first to use the term “Affirmative Action” in the Executive Order 11246 of 1965 (Sykes 1). This order required federal contractors to use affirmative action to make sure people were treated equally, “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (Cahn 1). Two years later, Johnson amended it to include women (Cahn 1). By 1971, President Nixon issued a Revised Order No. 4 that required contractors to adopt an “acceptable affirmative action program” (Cahn 1). Over the past three decades, many debates continue as to whether or not affirmative action still belongs in America.
Rosa Parks said, “Racism is still with us. But it is up to us to prepare our children for what they have to meet, and, hopefully, we shall overcome.” Racism has troubled people for hundreds of years and has not solved. It seems as a chameleon; people may hardly to detect it, but it not means it does not exist. As Mary Mebane states in her article, “The Back Of The Bus”, she experienced how white people segregate black people in her lifetime. As Martin Luther King JR shows in his speech, “I Have a Dream”, he awakened black people struggle to against inequality with government and society. John Blake demonstrates in his article, “The New Threat: Racism Without Racists”, black people are still being treated unfairly in reality. “In 'Born free'
Being a female and a black individual, is it naive of me or daringly optimistic to believe that one day everyone can be treated equally and help one another prosper. As Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that the world would be equal opportunity despite his politics of location, can’t I too.