Literature Review:
The reason affirmative action is necessary in some parts of in American society is because of the historical significance of racism that embodies American history. As a result, minorities as well as women in the employment industry, and educational system have suffered for not meeting such “requirements”. Often times institutional racism is subtle, unconscious, and rationalize on the basis of nonracial criteria, and does not take the form of overt discrimination like individual racism (McClain, 8 & Crosby, 95). Thus, universities and places of employment may be operating in a manner that is unfair to minorities and women, and may not necessarily be aware of it. In a random sample study of 244 managers, it was found that they characterized female managers more negatively than they did the males, and they assumed that women are unsuited to the rough and tumble world of high-status jobs (Crosby, 101).
As a result of such prejudices, Crosby et. al, as well as McClain show that equal opportunity is not always the answer to allow for integration and advancement of minority groups. It is described as a “passive policy” (Crosby, 95) by assuming all discrimination is intentional, and it assumes that victims of said discrimination will take steps toward fighting these indiscretions. 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. McClain said it well by citing that even though schools or work places may be desegregated, it is not surely synonymous with equal educational opportunity (McClain 191). Due to the fact that some individuals—especially minorities and women—face social stigmatic stereotypes as well as limitations in access to life-bettering opportunities due to coming up in 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.
The issue of Affirmative Action, preferences towards persons of racial minorities to compensate for prior discrimination, in college admissions is a quite complicated one. Many sides must be explored to gain a better understanding of the theories and views on this issue. It is not easily answered with a yes or no. Since its inception, Affirmative Action’s use has been a major debate in American society. Many questions are left to be investigated. Many believe that we should live in a society where preferential treatment could be eliminated, and admission to college is based solely on one’s merit and character, yet this view seems quite unrealistic.
To sum everything up, we as a human race are not perfect, nor will we ever make solutions that will satisfy both side of arguments. One lesson we can learn from this research paper, however, is that everyone should have the ability to fully enjoy their Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments. Nonetheless, the development of reverse discrimination, the creation of stigma against women and minorities, the buildup of racial tension, and the fact of attempting to solve a racial problem that no longer exist all contributed to the danger of affirmative action. It may be created with good intentions, but certainly not applicable to our society now if all of us wish to be treated equal.
Affirmative action, an idea which began in the 1930s but truly kicked off in the 1960s, consists of a wide variety of programs meant to help level the playing field in both universities and the workplace by making race and gender a consideration in the selection process. While supporters believe affirmative action must stay an active policy so that the United States can continue to strive for proportional equality in higher level jobs and education, opponents argue positions should be awarded on an individual basis based on merit alone. Although affirmative action policies have done impressive work creating these opportunities, it is now time to question if, after 40 years, this method is working and should be continued, if the current policies are no longer effective and the negative costs now outweigh the possible benefits and a new approach should be put into place.
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 purpose ofAffirmative Action is a simple one, it exists to level the playing field, so to speak, in the areas of hiring and college admissions based on characteristics that usually include race, sex, and/or ethnicity. A certain minority group or gender may be underrepresented in an arena, often employment or academia, in theory due to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. In such a circumstance, one school of thought maintains that unless this group is concretely helped to achieve a more substantial representation, it will have difficulty gaining the critical mass and acceptance in that role, even if overt discrimination against the group is eradicated. For this reason, more effort must be made to recruit persons from that background, train them, and lower the entrance requirements for them. (Goldman, 1976, p. 179) Proponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action is the best way to corre...
Minority groups are given different criteria to meet when applying to college. This is an attempt to compensate for the hardships many minority groups had to face in history. As examined by Hoover Institution’s Thomas Sowell this advantage benefits minority applicants from middle and upper class backgrounds. As a result of admissions using a zero sum game, which is where one person’s gain is another person’s loss, these preferences hurt some applicants who meet admission standards in unequal numbers (Sacks and Thiel). If this predilection were genuinely meant to redress disadvantages, it would not be given on the basis of ethnicity. Supporters of affirmative action claim that affirmative action advocates diversity. But if diversity were the goal, then
McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. "Does Affirmative Action Advance Racial Equality?" Taking Sides. 18th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). What Does Affirmative Action Do?. Cornell University. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2696075?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=affirmative&searchText=action&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Daffirmative%2Baction%26amp%3Bprq%3Daffirmative%2Baction%26amp%3Bhp%3D25%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bracc%3Doff
Racial diversity is a desired concept that intends to secure the right of equal opportunity that is promised to all citizens of the United States. Such an idealistic vision has been attempted through a process called affirmative action. As a program created from the 14th Amendment, affirmative action aims to impose “equal protection of the laws” by requiring schools to adopt a quota for the enrollment of minorities. This program is intended to compensate for the centuries of discrimination that minorities have faced, but affirmative action has became problematic as it has failed to do this. Affirmative action is not the solution to ensure equal opportunity for minorities to access higher education. Although affirmative action has increased diversity in selective schools, it defeats its purpose because the resulting diversity is not equal representation of the nation’s communities , the process has led to reverse discrimination, and the education standard has been lowered in the selective schools.
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...
Pursuing this further, in the beginning, from the sociological perspective, affirmative action was approved in order to reprimand the African Americans who have suffered from discrimination through the years. Now this policy has spread to all minorities and are now seen as quotas where one minority has an advantage over another. That is why there are many people who do not agree with affirmative action. Certain groups can create an opportunity for themselves and only gain advantages that the p...
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....
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...
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.