Affirmative Action- The results
When the topic of affirmative action is brought up, we immediately think when whites and black were segregated and how blacks fought for equality. However affirmative action is more than allowing blacks and whites and any other minorities attend the same school. Affirmative action is about permitting not only blank men and women, but also other racial minorities that were for times excluded, to have a “fair chance” at education and employment.
Affirmative action played a great role in the civil right movements, as it was the stepping stone towards equality in the United States. While the concept is good in theory, there are many challenges that have aroused. Many of these arguments against affirmative action have been brought up by people that feel have been rejected due to their race, mainly among white people. Conservative ideologies seek to eliminate affirmative action. Bitterness among white people, specially white men, see affirmative action as a way to give preferential treatment to people of color, who are seen as undeserving or as having already benefited enough from such programs (STEIN). The famous case of Cheryl Hopewood vs University of Texas School of Law (UTLS), where a lawsuit was filed due to being denied admission, despite Hopewood was a better applicant that many accepted minority students(STEIN). She believed the reason behind her rejection was due to her race. According to her lawsuit, her LSAT scores and grades were higher than accepted students from minority groups. Hopewood felt deserving admission based on meritocracy. However, as Harvard Professor Michael Sandel pointed out on one of his lectures…”minority kids may have gone, in some cases to school where the educati...
... middle of paper ...
...ve been part of a hiring committee more than once. I recall a time where we interviewed applicants for a telephone position. A Philippine women applied for the position. She had extensive phone experiences, specially on customer service, which we were looking for at the time. When it came time for the interview, she had a slight tick accent , and while she was very polite, she did not get the job. The reason? One of the interviewers believed she would not sound good on the phone due to her accent. While this was not the official reason the interviewer provided, this was plain discrimination in my eyes. These is just an example of the reason why we still need affirmative action.
Affirmative action is not about giving an “undeserving advantage” to minorities. It is about validating they are not ignored and provided with the same rights and advantages as everyone else.
Discrimination is still a chronic global issue, and drastic inequalities still exist at the present time. Thus, the Affirmative Action Law is an important tool to many minorities most especially to women, and people of color, for the reason that this program provides an equality on educational, and professional opportunities for every qualified individual living in the United States. Without this program, a higher education would have been impossible for a “minority students” to attain. Additionally, without the Affirmative Action, a fair opportunity to have a higher-level career...
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
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue 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 should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
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.
“Anyone interested in higher education should want to contemplate, on behalf of colleges and universities, students and faculty, alumni and paying parents, the fate of affirmative action(Chace, M William 20). The Oxford Dictionary states Affirmative Action is “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.” In 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order calling for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This is now known today as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC). Affirmative action policies would later be forced upon businesses and have also been instituted at many universities where minorities are given preferred admissions over non-minorities. An Example of this would be at the University of Michigan where applicants who represented racial or ethnic minorities were given 20 points towards admission out of a 150 point system where only 100 points were needed to gain admission. Trying to put the 20 points in perspective, applicants with perfect SAT scores only received 12 points toward admission. This system was later struck down by the Supreme Court, but another similar policy was upheld at the University of Michigan Law School. With how diverse our society is currently compared to years ago, it seems to compliment that the policies have indeed worked. But now, the policies are questioned by many as whether or not they moral, constitutional, and/or...
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.
Affirmative action is without a doubt, one of the most controversial and debated political topics found throughout the entirety of the history of the United States, especially in regards to college admissions. On both sides of the argument, you have millions of Americans vitriolically defending their beliefs as to whether or not affirmative action is a positive thing that benefits the entirety of America as a whole, or rather an outdated model existing well past its expiration date. Both sides of the argument have its pro and cons, but personally, I am of the opinion that affirmative action in regards to college admissions does more harm than good for America as a whole on a social, political, and economic level, and that it at the very least needs to be modified heavily, if not abolished altogether. However, in order to first understand the arguments both supporting and decrying affirmative action, as well as the controversy behind it, we first need to delve into its history for the related context.
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.
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...
Affirmative action was created to allow minorities to have more opportunities in the workforce and in education. It still remains to be a debate whether affirmative action should be a necessary route even though we have made progress towards greater equality. The argument over Affirmative action has been going on for some time with two opposing sides. There is one side who finds Affirmative action as an opportunity to the less fortunate; those who are against have the belief that it promotes less qualified individuals rather than a person own merit.
Today there is considerable disagreement in the country over Affirmative Action with the American people. MSNBC reported a record low in support for Affirmative Action with 45% in support and 45% opposing (Muller, 2013). The affirmative action programs have afforded all genders and races, exempting white males, a sense of optimism and an avenue to get the opportunities they normally would not be eligible for. This advantage includes admission in colleges or hiring preferences with public and private jobs; although Affirmative Action has never required quotas the government has initiated a benefits program for the schools and companies that elect to be diversified. The advantages that are received by the minorities’ only take into account skin color, gender, disability, etc., are what is recognized as discriminatory factors. What is viewed as racism to the majority is that there ar...
The discrimination against Caucasian and Asian American students a long with the toleration of lower quality work produced by African American students and other minority students is an example of the problems caused by Affirmative Action. Although affirmative action intends to do good, lowering the standards by which certain racial groups are admitted to college is not the way to solve the problem of diversity in America's universities. The condition of America's public schools is directly responsible for the poor academic achievement of minority children. Instead of addressing educational discrepancies caused by poverty and discrimination, we are merely covering them up and pretending they do not exist, and allowing ourselves to avoid what it takes to make a d... ... middle of paper ... ...
Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school....
Lockheed, Marlaine. (1998) International Perspectives on Affirmative Action in the 1990s Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No. 9, 6-7.
The focus of this paper is on the history of affirmative action and its relevance to our society. Affirmative action focuses on the importance of equality and equal opportunity among all people in terms of education and employment. In coordination with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972, the affirmative action policy was submitted by federal agencies. Is it not true that ethnic minorities do not have the same opportunities in life as whites, and that women should be entitled to the same opportunities as men? This act is only a means to help the less advantaged members of our society. In this case the less advantage would be those of color and women (www.infoplease.com).