Opponents charge that affirmative action places unskilled minorities in positions they are not qualified for and violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Since its inception, the definition of affirmative action has been ever-changing. Prohibiting discrimination in hiring, expanding the applicant pool to include more minorities, compensating for past grievances, and setting quotas have all been part of the definition. In theory affirmative action helps integrate minorities better into society and puts them on equal footing with whites; however, in reality affirmative action is widening the racial gap in America and therefore should be discontinued. When the Civil Rights Law passed, minorities, especially African-Americans, believed that they should receive retribution for the years of discrimination that they endured.
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). The policies were created after the Civil War when slavery was finally abolished. The term was first mentioned by President Kenne... ... middle of paper ... ...prejudice when it’s truly all in their head and the only ones stopping them are themselves. Racial prejudice is not what’s stopping blacks from thriving, it’s a multitude of things that African Americans bring on themselves. According to Charles Canady, crime, substandard academic performance, and out-of-wedlock births stand in the way of progress.
Although much of the reasoning behind Affirmative Action is good, it goes wrong in a few major ways. Affirmative action is meant to bring an end to discrimination. In trying to do so, though, it elevates the so-called disadvantaged minorities above other groups. In addition, the members of the particular minority groups are stereotyped according to the group they are in rather than being looked at as an individual. Affirmative action also makes the assumption that minority groups are, in fact, disadvantaged.
Second, racial preferences are meant to help the disadvantaged. Affirmative action insinuates that people of color are inferior, and therefore cannot compete fairly with the white. Lastly, affirmative action tends to be an insult to ethnic minorities on account that they are selected not for their ability but for their color. In this manner, people of color are not given the impetus to improve themselves, or to show what they can do. 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: Equality for All? Affirmative action in the United States has become a misused and misguided practice in modern times. In the current form of affirmative action, it is impossible to create a truly equal society. It was originally used as an equal opportunity measure to allow qualified minorities into positions they were denied because of race. 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.
The purpose of affirmative action is to ensure equal opportunity for minorities. But it has strayed from its original intent and has become largely a program to achieve not equal opportunity but equal results. It is a system of quotas forced upon American businesses and working class by the federal government. A law which forces people to look at race before looking at the individual cannot promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action continues the judgement of minorities by race; it causes reverse discrimination, and contradicts its purpose.
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." Although the intent of the policy is positive, the end result is a false effort at white redemption and an ill advised effort by the black mandate to gain power by accepting undeserved positions in society. Steele points out that instead of focusing on developing ... ... middle of paper ... ...ol or technical school level by allocating more resources (financial and staffing) to those in need of extra help. Public acceptance of this preferential treatment would be greater, less emotional, and more easily justified. It does not address the intermediate needs of some minorities, but maybe there could be federal or state programs for special training.
The author also presents the argument of 'cultural pluralism', which states that positive benefits come form having varieties in cultural experiences. An arguement presented against Affirmative action is that often times people of a certain race or sex aren't as qualified as white males for the same positions. An additional arguement to cultural pluralism is that it excludes white males. It seems that in order for one group to benefit another must be disadvantaged. This disadvantage the author calls a reverse discrimination.
Such an idea is absurd because even if a student or potential employee takes the institution to court, it is unlikely that he or she could win without policies like affirmative action. This can be attributed to the fact that institutional racism is hard to quantify without specific evidence. In contrast, affirmative actions allows for an, “Implemented plan for taking concrete measures to eliminate the barriers and to establish true equality... ... middle of paper ... ...ss. My thoughts are aided in a study, minorities were seen to have scored drastically lower on standardized test when applying to college, but still graduated from the same universities with slightly lower GPAs (Crosby, 101) After carefully thinking about the subject, my theory on the concept of affirmative action as a necessary evil. Though it directly uses race and discrimination in order to preference or discard a certain kind of individual, it prevails in giving opportunity to minorities to better themselves.
If critics of affirmative action can point to "discrimination" in favor of minorities at hiring time, we can point to "discrimination" in favor of minorities in legislation and public funding. And penalizing someone who discriminates (in the legitimate sense of the word) against minorities by denying them jobs is no different from penalizing someone who discriminates against minorities by denying them the vote. The loss of undue privilege is not the same thing as the loss of rights. Unfortunately, many critics of affirmative action attempt to frame the debate that way. Endnotes: 1.