Racial preferences — i.e., discrimination — are usually viewed as a way to help minorities. Often overlooked, however, is the harm they cause these same individuals. Since the late 1960s, discussions regarding racial preferences arose out of fairness questions. Supporters saw preferences as a necessary method of ensuring that racial minorities receive equal opportunity in the real world and not just paper promises of fair treatment. Opponents viewed preferences as reverse discrimination continuing racist habits under a disguise.
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."
Affirmative action is unethical and this idea is supported by moral philosophy subjects such as Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract, and Virtue Theory. Arguments against affirmative action are that it: creates reverse discrimination, lowers standards for minorities, and demeans true minority achievement. Arguments supporting affirmative action are that it is needed to: compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression, assist students starting at a disadvantage, and increase diversity. One argument against affirmative action is that it leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is a preferential system set up for the benefit of minorities, if two equally qualified candidate... ... middle of paper ... ..., and Democracy: The Ethics of Affirmative Action" Public Productivity & Management Review Vol.
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.
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 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.?
And, racial exclusions were shown through the lack of the ability to vote be the intentional discrimination that these races were victims of. While others may say that these exclusions of groups can be seen through other actions, voting inequalities straightforwardly shows this. This is because when only specific groups can vote, it can be seen that the other groups are unfairly treated to their franchise.
These articles examine the discrimination that minority groups face in our society and offers an explanation (social factors) to how this millennial obtained misinformed views. The statement “having a black president demonstrates that minorities have the same opportunities as white people” is an inaccurate view (McIntyre, 2015). This is an incorrect view because it is a reductionist fallacy. To elaborate, the millennial has concluded that because we have a black president, all minorities have the same opportunities as white people. This fallacy does not take into account the basis that black people or minorities are still discriminated against and have fewer opportunities than white people despite having a black president.
Implicating affirmative action to solve the problem of diversity on today's campuses has lead to the creation of problems. 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 ... ...llege to catch up, then perhaps they are out of their league.
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.).