Reverse Discrimination as Unjustified – Lisa Newton
By Shawn M. Glinski
General Ethics
Discrimination in the United States came to an end 54 years ago, or did it? Most are aware of the ethnic and sexual discrimination that plagued the United States from its founding years until 1960. White males primarily were the people in charge of making all the government and business decisions impacting the country. Even though slavery ended in 1865 and females played a significant role in the home, blacks and females voices were not considered for important decision making events. In this paper I will outline Lisa Newton’s argument towards reverse discrimination, a professor of philosophy at Fairfield University; she argues that “reverse discrimination
…show more content…
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
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.
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.
There has been a long history of racial prejudice in the United States. However the concept of affirmative action is first introduced back during the Roosevelt administration, in its appearance of the Wagner Act, during the midst of the Great Depression (Tomasson et al 126). Historically affirmative action focused on helping black citizens overcome the effects of prior discrimination and segregation (Ciocchetti and Holcomb 2010). Early plans attacked racial barriers obstructing employment opportunities and contract rights. However the implementation of affirmative action programs does not really gain momentum until the subsequent Richard Nixon’s administration period (Fauntroy 2009). It is explained that the affirmative action programs are implemented in response to the presidential speech made by Richard Nixon (Fauntroy 2009). Spe...
In the judgment of a good many Americans, equality qua equality, even when conscientiously enforced with an even hand, would neither suffice to enable those previously deprived on racial grounds to realize the promises of equality of opportunity, nor would it atone, and provide redress, for the ravages wrought by two centuries of past discrimination. Consequently… programs were established… to go well beyond "mere" equality of opportunity and provide not only remedial but preferential compensatory action, especially in the worlds of EDUCATION and employment (Affirmative, Encyclopedia American 34).
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...
Question at Issue Affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally become truly equal. The tension of the 1960's civil rights movement had made it very clear, that the nation's minority and female population were not receiving equal social and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America's first honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chose to ignore. However, there are many people that don't see affirmative action as a positive solution to this major societal problem of racial inequality. These people feel that Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination in the workplace. The Enthymeme Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because Affirmative action makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best employee. A= Affirmative action v1= uses B= reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination Because A= Affirmative action v2= makes C= employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose the best available employee. Assumption: Anything that makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having to simply choosing the best available employee uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Assumption and Audience The assumption for this paper will appeal to employees who do not qualify for Affirmative action, as well as employers and minorities. Employees not qualifying for...
In “The Justification of Reverse Discrimination in Hiring,” Tom Beauchamp displays statistics of underrepresented races and genders in institutions. The inequality is due to the underlying persistent racism originating decades ago. It has been pervasively executed despite federal laws for equality. The expectation for a level-playing field is not a reality, as statistically show with underrepresented African Americans (1. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0228). Beauchamp points out that at first sight, reverse discrimination appears immoral, because it crafts a prejudice for one race over another. However, he asserts that this inference is not applicable in the real world where ubiquitous prejudice still exists as indicated by statistics. Because we currently do not have an equal playing field, humans are morally obligated to do whatever it takes to achieve it if they aspire for an ideal equal society (2. Beauchamp, CC2011, p 0226). In order to be liberated from discriminatory practices, society must practice reverse discrimination, as it is morally justified for the greater good in the end. Once the equal playing field is reached with the addition of minorities through preferential treatment, reverse discrimination becomes unnecessary.
The transformation of affirmative action over the years is generally considered a negative and socially unfair one. Although the original intention of such programs with regard to minority management was one of an undeniably just nature, my research has clearly indicated that over the years, various legal trends have drastically altered the socio-political implications of affirmative action often creating unfair situations for white males who are not part o...
Affirmative action is an attempt by the United States to amend a long history of racial discrimination and injustice. Our school textbook defines affirmative action as “a program established that attempts to improve the chances of minority applicants for educational or employment purposes, although they may have the same qualifications, by giving them leverage so that they can attain a level that is equal to caucasian applicants” (Berman 522). There are people that support and oppose this issue. Opponents of affirmative action have many reasons for opposing this issue, one of them being that the battle for equal rights is over, and that this advantage made for people of color discriminates against people that are not of color. The people that defend affirmative action argue this advantage is needed because of how badly discriminated the people of color once were. Because of the discrimination that once was these people claim that they are at a disadvantage, and always have been, therefore equality of opportunity is needed. It is also said that affirmative action is used to encourage diversity and integration. This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, how it is implemented in society today, and evaluate the arguments that it presents.
Currently, the main question concerning affirmative action is whether or not it is the best way to combat inequality. Also: What groups should or should not have affirmative action? When will the problem be “solved” and affirmative action no longer necessary? While the United States is divided between 49% of citizens supporting affirmative action programs and 43% opposing them, many Americans have a difficult time even defining what affirmative action is (Gallup 2003). The term ‘affirmative action’ includes laws, policies, and programs designed to reduce or eliminate inequality (Hudson). Inequality is also a difficult term to define, but the fact that significantly fewer women and minorities enjoy high paying jobs, attend prestigious universities, and reside in wealthy neighborhoods m...
Very vital issues are discussed under this video especially when arguing affirmative action. The case and the merits discussed dealt with Cheryl Hopwood, who was denied admission to a Texas law school, which held that the “Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow race to be used as a factor in law school admission.” Although the United State Supreme Court denied certiorari, she had the potential to impact the future of affirmative action programs significantly and should capture the attention of law school admissions committees across the nation. Furthermore, the goals of the law school’s affirmative action admissions program included achieving diversity and overcoming early effects of discrimination. This
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
Equality and equal opportunity are two terms that have changed or have been redefined over the last 100 years in America. The fathers of our constitution wanted to establish justice and secure liberty for the people of the United States. They wrote about freedom and equality for men, but historically it has not been practiced. In the twentieth century large steps have been made to make the United States practice the ideals declared in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The major changes following Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her bus seat to a young white man and the Brown v. Board of Education trial in 1954. These Supreme Court rulings altered American society and began the desegregation and integration movements. In the 1950’s many writers took interest in writing about segregation, desegregation, integration and black history in general. Many historians write about segregation still existing today and the problems in which integration never had the chance to correct.
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 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).