Affirmative Action Needs Reform The goal of affirmative action was not (or at least should not have been) to promote diversity. The goal should have been to promote and ensure equality of opportunity for people regardless of race, color, creed, gender or national origin. The system that has evolved since the civil rights legislation of the 1960's is a misapplication of its original intent. Laws have been passed, quotas have been established and seemingly, everything has been done to prevent discrimination, but these new laws and quotas are only discriminating against a new group of people--the qualified white male. The affirmative action system originally may have had a just intent, but I sincerely believe it has been counterproductive in practice. Affirmative action by design was intended to help minorities and women reach the same levels of opportunity as the so-called majority, but in the process, reverse discrimination has taken place. Graglia believes "affirmative action" has become simply a deceptive label for racial preferences (31). This discrimination transgresses the basic American ideal that all people are equal before the law and must be treated as individuals. With the mass media rarely recognizing quotas much less portraying white males sympathetically, Peter Lynch, a sociological researcher, states "white males have been silently victimized one by one" (qtd. in Brimelow and Spencer). Now , in order to be employed, qualifications do not always matter as much as the color of a person's skin or his ethnicity. Race and gender-based preferences have no place in an affirmative action program. Race preferences were originally rese... ... middle of paper ... ... Bibliography: Works Cited Brimelow, Peter and Spencer, Leslie. "When Quotas Replace Merit, Everybody Suffers." Forbes 15 Feb. 1993: 80-102. Carter, Stephen L. "Racial Justice on the Cheap." Elements of Argument Text 1997: 382-387. Glazer, Nathan. "Race, Not Class." Elements of Argument Text 1997: 389-392. Graglia, Lino A. "The Affirmative Action Fraud." Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law (Summer 1998): 31-38. Koch, Ed. "Be Fair to All the Disadvantaged." The American Enterprise (Nov/Dec 1998): 66. O'Sullivan, John. "Preferences For (Almost) All." National Review 17 Apr. 2000: 22-24. Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Piling on the Preferences." US News and World Report 28 Jun. 1999: 88.
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 should be removed because it is more harmful than beneficial in both academics and careers.
Then why is affirmative action even allowed? Why do we, as Americans, need affirmative action to be used? Because it makes sure that the minority population is not refused their right to an education or a job. Because there are racists out there, ones who might need this policy to tell them that what they have been taught to believe is indeed unfair and unlawful.
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.
McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. "Does Affirmative Action Advance Racial Equality?" Taking Sides. 18th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2013. N. pag. Print.
The black rights and women’s rights movements of the 1960’s fought against injustice and discrimination that had been suffered by minorities for years (Hudson). In response, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in 1961, creating a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandating that projects financed by federal funding would “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias (Hudson). Two more executive orders in 1965 and 1968 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and gender, giving the federal government the power to enforce this prohibition (Hudson). However, in current times, affirmative action programs have suffered setbacks. Affirmative action in education has been abolished in Texas by court order, and in California and Washington it has been terminated by public referendum (Bybee).
Affirmative action was created to assist minority groups against discrimination, but affirmative action does more harm than what it can do to help. Affirmative action was created with the intention of leveling the playing field so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to be hired or accepted in to a school, but it does the opposite of what it is meant to do. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination against white males, lesser qualified people are admitted into jobs and colleges, and not all people have an equal opportunity to advance.
I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Rodriguez that the approach of affirmative action based on race was misguided and that a race-blind approach to affirmative action would yield the desired objectives of equality among the American population. Race-based affirmative action results in biased favoritism which brings up a new form of discrimination in the name of alleviating it. It is because of this rising discrimination in university admissions that made me feel the full effect of the existing policies on affirmative action in the U.S.
The original intent of affirmative action being set in place was to ensure that people would be employed or accepted as students without concern of their race, color, gender, or national origin. According to Munguia (n/d), race was not meant
Many feel that affirmative action has gone too far and is an example of reverse
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...
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...
First and foremost, I come from a minority group. I am I minority in two ways. Not only am I Hispanic, but I am also a woman. Although, affirmative action arises from the concern for “righting the wrongs of the past” it still applies to this time and year. Affirmative action was developed to remedy past acts of discrimination. All public and private sectors that receive federal funding are to participate in the hiring of underrepresented groups through a preference system (book). Those who are not of a minority group of who’s family members have never been discriminated against would find this law to be unfair to them. For example, both a fourth generation American and a 2nd generation Hispanic apply for the same job. They apply at a public
Action sets standards for a business or office of admissions, so that a white man does not
I feel that affirmative action encourages people to look at sex, color or race as a factor during the employment or admissions process, when our goal should be to eliminate it. Affirmative action encourages "reverse racism". Reverse racism is when an employer and college admission representative discriminates against individuals from majority groups.