The subject of affirmative action in college admissions has been hotly debated since its inception. Although affirmative action was originally supported by the vast majority, that same majority is now starting to wonder if there is a better way. Commonly asked questions include: "Is affirmative action still working?" and "Is there an alternative?" The answers to each of these questions will provide insurmountable evidence that affirmative action in college admissions no longer fulfills its intended purpose and that the only viable alternative is to focus more attention on primary schooling for the underprivileged.
The most common question that arises in contemporary debates over affirmative action is, "Does affirmative action still work as intended?" The original purpose of affirmative action in college admissions was to eliminate racial bias in the applicant selection process and provide a helping hand to disadvantaged minority students. Has this happened? The simple answer is "No", but a more precise answer requires more elaboration. Richard Rodriguez, the Mexican-American author of Hunger of Memory and a direct beneficiary of early affirmative action policies, puts it this way, "I think – as I thought in 1967 – that the black civil rights leaders were correct: Higher education was not, nor is it yet, accessible to many black Americans" (Rodriguez 144).
In 1967, civil rights leaders of all types began to pressure universities and colleges all over the United States to admit more minority students and hire more minority teachers. They claimed that racial bias was the nefarious culprit responsible for the low numbers of non-white students and teachers at these institutions and that these low numbers were unrepresentative of the surrounding populations. Affirmative action policies were born in a drive to better represent minorities in institutional America.
However, all has not gone according to plan. In an effort to avoid the label of Racist, colleges and universities sometimes give preferential treatment to minority applicants. This preferential treatment means that promising majority (white) applicants are often passed over for less promising minority applicants. The term Reverse Discrimination has been applied to this phenomena and the flaws of affirmative action policies have become apparent. "Most folks today, with unintended irony, mean by ‘affirmative action' that very preference by skin color that affirmative action was devised to eradicate," as Carl Cohen states in his article "Affirmative Action in Admissions Harms College Students." The article "Affirmative Action is Racist," by K.L. Billingsley, goes a step further and says, " . . . there are three kinds of racism: the David Duke and Adolf Hitler brand based on hatred, the Archie Bunker strain based on ignorance, and, last but not least, the racial bigotry born of patronization." By its very nature of benefiting one race over another, affirmative action failed in its primary goal of eliminating racism in college admissions. Additionally, affirmative action policies also failed the secondary goal of providing a helping hand to disadvantaged minority students. Some will point to the increased numbers of minority students as evidence to the contrary, but does increased representation of the disadvantaged mean that they are any less disadvantaged? Not at all, there are simply more minorities present. Richard Rodriguez describes the influx of disadvantaged students to university life like this, "Cruelly, callously, admissions committees agreed to overlook serious academic deficiency. I knew students in college then barely able to read, students unable to grasp the function of a sentence" (Rodriguez 154). Affirmative action policies are guaranteeing the college experience for students that are ill-equipped to reap the full benefits from it. Even if help can be provided to those that need it, is it right to do so?
The simple statement that minority students in general need additional assistance above and beyond the assistance given to majority students, is an endorsement for the inferiority of minority students. "The underlying philosophy behind affirmative action is the notion that blacks and Hispanics aren't that smart and aren't prepared" (Billingsley). Ruling that minority races are intrinsically disadvantaged and thereby deserving of majority help is another way of stating that minority races are less than the majority races. This is the "racial bigotry born of patronization" that Billingsley spoke of. No race should automatically start out as less than any other.
The majority desire to aid the lesser races in this way robs these minority races from their own greatness as well. "It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as a result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability" (Messerli). Any academic success by a minority is now scrutinized and judged to be the result of affirmative action or not. The minority student in question may never know what the final determining factor of his or her own achievement is. In our society, it is now a simple thing to claim that a minority student was accepted to a university because of his minority status rather than her merit. Richard Rodriguez even validates this with the comment, "When I sought admission to graduate schools, when I applied for fellowships and my summer study grants, when I needed a teaching assistantship, my Spanish surname or the dark mark in the space indicating my race – ‘check one' – nearly always got me whatever I asked for" (Rodriguez 143).
Yet another way in which affirmative action harms rather than helps the minority student is the way it "lowers standards of accountability needed to push students to perform better" (Messerli). By requiring less achievement (GPA or SAT scores) from a minority student in order for that student to gain the same reward (college admission), the minority student is taught that 100% effort is not required. This fosters lazy behavior in minority students and less desire to achieve full potential. Why bother if full potential is not required? "If a minority student can get into Harvard with a 3.2 grade-point average, why should she push herself to get a 4.0?" (Messerli). This could easily create a self-perpetuating cycle of underachievement: low test scores from minorities cause schools to lower standards, lower standards cause a lack of desire to achieve, lack of desire achieve causes test scores to drop even lower, university standards drop even lower, etc.
Under the weight of the numerous flaws in the current practice of affirmative action, hope may seem lost. The reason affirmative action has failed so miserably in its quest to aid the disadvantaged is because it deals only with symptoms and not the root problem. The civil rights leaders of the 1967 noticed that minorities were unrepresented in colleges and universities. The civil rights leaders falsely determined the cause of this to be the fact that minority students were commonly at a disadvantage when it came to the entrance requirements for these institutions. The natural solution was to lower the entrance requirements for minority students in an effort to compensate. This was the natural solution but not the best solution since it dealt only with a symptom (trouble with entrance requirements) rather than the real problem.
When the original advocates for affirmative action noticed that minorities were not able to measure up to whites for entrance requirements, instead of lowering the bar for minorities they should have simply asked "Why can't minorities measure up?" The answer should be obvious. Vast numbers of minority students lacked the good early schooling necessary to get into a good college or university. "Meritocratic standards were dismissed as exclusionary. But activists should have asked why so many minority students could not meet those standards; why so many more would never be in a position to apply. The revolutionary demand would have called for a reform of primary and secondary schools" (Rodriguez 151). If the necessary education reform happened at the primary school level, disadvantaged students would no longer be disadvantaged! They would have all the advantages that the majority students have access to. Minority students with proper primary education would be able to compete with majority students and institutions would not have to lower their standards to admit them.
Greater attention must be paid to the initial rungs in our educational ladder. The recent No Child Left Behind Act is a step in the right direction; at least they are now looking in the right place! The anachronistic affirmative action policies have not fulfilled their intended purpose. Affirmative action in college admissions only treats a symptom of the disease. The solution needed now is to focus all of our efforts on improving primary schooling for the underprivileged. Referring to the above cartoon, why not give everyone the advantages of the majority instead of lowering the standards to fit the minority?
Works Cited
Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." 1995. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. University Library. IUPUI, Indianapolis. 14 Nov. 2004.
Cohen, Carl. "Affirmative Action in Admissions Harms College Students." 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. University Library. IUPUI, Indianapolis. 14 Nov. 2004. < http://galenet.galegroup.com.proxy.ulib.iupui.edu/servlet/
OVRC?vrsn=218&slb=SU&locID=iulib_iupui&srchtp=basic&c=15&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Affirmative+Action%2522&docNum=X3010148224&fail=8192&bConts=16207>
Detroit Free Press. 2001. 14 Nov. 2004.
Messerli, Joe. "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" 2003. BalancedPolitics.org. 14 Nov. 2004. < http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm>
Rodriguez, Richard. Hunger of Memory. New York: Bantam Books, 1983.
Showing posts with label Academic Writing Services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academic Writing Services. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic for many years. This policy was created to ensure equal opportunity for minorities and women in the workforce and educational institutions (Gross, 1977). Over fifty years ago the policy has proven to have a positive effect; but now, many think the policies are no longer needed and that they lead to more problems than they can possibly solve. One side of the argument believes that affirmative action is detrimental to creating a color blind society. The people on the other side of the argument believe that affirmative action promotes the hiring of unqualified individuals just to please society. The policies associated with affirmative action create ratios and quotas to pressure companies to hire based-on race or gender and not on merit. Affirmative action leads to preferential treatment and reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action diminished discrimination against minorities and women, but in turn has caused discrimination against white men. The policy started in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the beginning, affirmative action only targeted reducing "racial imbalance" in the work place: later changed to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts (Zelnick, 1996). Women, elderly, people with disabilities, and all people of color are protected by affirmative action. "The policy goes a step farther by requiring employers to take ‘affirmative' steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers" (Yates, 1997). This starts the controversy with affirmative action.
One heavily debated topic of this debate deals with the usage of "quotas". By law, quotas are prohibited. However, the question is still up in the air whether they exist or not. Thomas J. Kane defends the usage of quotas by using this analogy: "Reserving a parking space for a disabled person has only a ‘minuscule effect' on the availability on parking spots, but it frustrates every driver that passes it." (Fobanjong, 2001) Affirmative action activists argue that the policy does not force employers to hire a predetermined number of any races (Stein, 1997). However, according to K.L. Billingsley,
"One day in January 1995 a number of companies in San Diego, California, woke up to find that they had a "deficient work force." it meant that under San Diego's new Equal Opportunity Ordinance, the companies were guilty of "a statistically significant underutilization of ethnic or gender groups in any occupational category" (1998, Page 1).
These companies are among the many that were threatened with fines if they did not represent a "politically acceptable statistical percentage" number of workers (Yates, 1997). Mike Welbel, owner of The Daniel Lamp Company, experienced this firsthand when his company was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mike was accused and taken to court based on racial discrimination. Prior to this situation discrimination meant "refusal to hire for a desirable position, based-on a group characteristic" (Roberts, 1995). However, the word took on an entirely different meaning following this situation. Now it meant "lack of a politically acceptable statistical percentage" (Yates, 1997). Politically acceptable meaning the percentage of members of targeted groups in the local or regional population. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) computer was the foundation to prosecute Mike Welbel. The company's computer claimed, "Based on 363 companies employing 100 or more people and located within a three-mile radius of The Daniel Lamp Company, Daniel Lamp should employ at any given moment exactly 8.45 blacks" (Yates, 1997). Undoubtedly, that is a quota. Although backers of affirmative action try to disguise the use of quotas with wordiness, it is clear any way that this is looked at, they are using quotas. This means that if a white man and someone belonging to a group protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were applying for the same position with a company, and the company was low on their representation of a certain minority group, he would get it over the white man; even though the white man may be more qualified. Even though law clearly states the EEOC can not set quotas, they continue to exist.
Another highly controversial issue dealing with affirmative action is the fact that colleges are forced to accept prospective students based on race instead of merit. School officials say that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity (Roberts, 1995). John Fobanjong (2001) elaborates on this subject by stating:
" Some companies feel that affirmative action leads to a variety of benefits, including increased productivity, diversity of ideas, a more rational personal policy, and improved community relations" (21).
Nancy Stein along with many others who believe affirmative action is a necessity, claim that an "anti-affirmative action position assumes a narrow, over-simplified conception of merit based on test scores, grade point average, or other measurable standards"(2). They also argue that there is a small correlation between performance or professional success and test scores (Stein,2). However, Nancy Stein claims, "There is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources, and test scores" (3) Activists of this policy feel that college admission tests "tend to reflect the experiences of middle-class students and their access to higher-quality education than that available to less-advantaged students" (Roberts, 6). Therefore, making them culturally biased. On the other hand, critics of affirmative action argue that the students of low-income families who may have also have suffered discrimination became or remained impoverished because of racism (Gross, 34). Choices an individual makes have a greater impact on his or her living conditions than anything else. "Illegitimacy, substance abuse, and poor study and work habits can mire an individual in poverty as surely as racism can" (Zelnick, 3). Others also argue that the majority of the students affected by affirmative action are eighteen-year-olds, born in 1980s. Roger Clegg points out:
"They probably have not participated much in the work force; if they have, the laws prohibiting discrimination against them on the basis of race or ethnicity have been in effect since long before they were born" (2).
Therefore, they are "unlikely to have suffered the kind of systematic discrimination against him or her that would justify systematic discrimination in his or her favor" (Clegg, 2). There is a highly publicized controversy with the admission policies at the University of Michigan. They use a point system to determine worthiness of a prospective student. African American students are given a higher number of points just for being African American (Zelnick, 1996). Those points could be the deciding factor between a white and a black student. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the University Of Michigan's point system was unconstitutional. Using these means to determine a prospective employee or student's qualifications is outrageous. Implicating laws that give one race the upper hand does not promote equality like the program insists it does. Society's attempt to rectify a never-ending racial unbalance is causing more issues than ever.
Many also argue whether affirmative action creates animosity among different racial groups. On one side of this argument are those who believe there needs to be a systematic policy to reprimand the wrong doings against minorities in the past. They feel these policies are helpful and necessary to have a fair and equal society (Zelnick, 1996).
On the other side of the argument are those who feel like Joe Lieberman when he said, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators never intended" (Roberts, 1995). The policy penalizes any effort made by minorities to succeed with out help from anyone (Yates, 1997). Affirmative action has labeled such groups as people unable to make it in their own. Steven Yates further explains this by saying:
"Preferential policies have added fuel to racial tensions by incurring the resentment of those not in protected groups, those who are expected to pay the costs of reparation despite never having engaged in discriminatory practices themselves…"(3).
Thus creating resentment among those not in the protected groups.
Another highly debated subject with affirmative action is whether the policy promotes a color blind society or not. Activists of this policy share a similar opinion with Harry Blackmun when he said:
"In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat someone equally, we must first treat them differently" (Roberts, 4).
Many also argue that some stereotypes may have never been broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable (Stein, 1997). They believe these and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action (Roberts, 54). On the other hand, critics of affirmative action believe that the policy only draws attention to irrelevant characteristics that have no effect on ones performance. For example, there is no association between hair or eye color and professional success or performance. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence either (Fobanjong, 2001). Affirmative action is an unnecessary way to keep society's focus on race instead of merit.
People on the side of affirmative action believe that this policy needs to be used in order to give compensation for what happened to African Americans many years ago.
"Americans spent almost 250 years in slavery and another hundred years in legalized discrimination. Affirmative action was Johnson's way of trying to redress the wrongs of the past and prepare the nation for a future of equality where the American Dream would be available to everyone" (Zlenick, 2006).
However, the original perpetrators and victims are long gone and should not be forced to sacrifice job opportunities or college admissions when they were not responsible for the wrong doings in the first place. Backers of affirmative action continue to argue that even though preferential treatment does occur, "it is justified by the fact that because of past discrimination most women and minorities are too far behind economically to compete effectively" (Yates, 1997). It is absolutely absurd to use this argument that basically states that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative action is a failed attempt to level the playing field between different races and genders in the workplace; instead this policy creates reverse discrimination and should be eliminated.
There are many positives and negatives dealing with affirmative action. The policy's intentions were good; although that does not justify the backlash it has caused on American society. Affirmative action not only creates animosity between racial groups among the public; it also takes our focus off productivity in the workplace and school. In turn it has created a focal point on insignificant skin deep features which prevent a general success for everyone. Quotas and preferential treatment is not fair to any of the parties involved. Affirmative action is an unfair policy that gives an unfair advantage to minorities and women. The first step to creating a color blind society is to abolish affirmative action policies.
References
Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." Racism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Fobanjong, John (2001). Understanding the backlash against affirmative action. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gross, Barry (Ed.). (1977). Reverse discrimination. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Roberts, Craig, Stratton, Paul, Lawrence , & m (1995). The new color line. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Stein, Nancy. "Affirmative Action Does Not Create Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Yates, Steven. "Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Zelnick, Bob (1996). Back fire: A reporter's look at affirmative action. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Affirmative action diminished discrimination against minorities and women, but in turn has caused discrimination against white men. The policy started in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the beginning, affirmative action only targeted reducing "racial imbalance" in the work place: later changed to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts (Zelnick, 1996). Women, elderly, people with disabilities, and all people of color are protected by affirmative action. "The policy goes a step farther by requiring employers to take ‘affirmative' steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers" (Yates, 1997). This starts the controversy with affirmative action.
One heavily debated topic of this debate deals with the usage of "quotas". By law, quotas are prohibited. However, the question is still up in the air whether they exist or not. Thomas J. Kane defends the usage of quotas by using this analogy: "Reserving a parking space for a disabled person has only a ‘minuscule effect' on the availability on parking spots, but it frustrates every driver that passes it." (Fobanjong, 2001) Affirmative action activists argue that the policy does not force employers to hire a predetermined number of any races (Stein, 1997). However, according to K.L. Billingsley,
"One day in January 1995 a number of companies in San Diego, California, woke up to find that they had a "deficient work force." it meant that under San Diego's new Equal Opportunity Ordinance, the companies were guilty of "a statistically significant underutilization of ethnic or gender groups in any occupational category" (1998, Page 1).
These companies are among the many that were threatened with fines if they did not represent a "politically acceptable statistical percentage" number of workers (Yates, 1997). Mike Welbel, owner of The Daniel Lamp Company, experienced this firsthand when his company was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mike was accused and taken to court based on racial discrimination. Prior to this situation discrimination meant "refusal to hire for a desirable position, based-on a group characteristic" (Roberts, 1995). However, the word took on an entirely different meaning following this situation. Now it meant "lack of a politically acceptable statistical percentage" (Yates, 1997). Politically acceptable meaning the percentage of members of targeted groups in the local or regional population. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) computer was the foundation to prosecute Mike Welbel. The company's computer claimed, "Based on 363 companies employing 100 or more people and located within a three-mile radius of The Daniel Lamp Company, Daniel Lamp should employ at any given moment exactly 8.45 blacks" (Yates, 1997). Undoubtedly, that is a quota. Although backers of affirmative action try to disguise the use of quotas with wordiness, it is clear any way that this is looked at, they are using quotas. This means that if a white man and someone belonging to a group protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were applying for the same position with a company, and the company was low on their representation of a certain minority group, he would get it over the white man; even though the white man may be more qualified. Even though law clearly states the EEOC can not set quotas, they continue to exist.
Another highly controversial issue dealing with affirmative action is the fact that colleges are forced to accept prospective students based on race instead of merit. School officials say that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity (Roberts, 1995). John Fobanjong (2001) elaborates on this subject by stating:
" Some companies feel that affirmative action leads to a variety of benefits, including increased productivity, diversity of ideas, a more rational personal policy, and improved community relations" (21).
Nancy Stein along with many others who believe affirmative action is a necessity, claim that an "anti-affirmative action position assumes a narrow, over-simplified conception of merit based on test scores, grade point average, or other measurable standards"(2). They also argue that there is a small correlation between performance or professional success and test scores (Stein,2). However, Nancy Stein claims, "There is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources, and test scores" (3) Activists of this policy feel that college admission tests "tend to reflect the experiences of middle-class students and their access to higher-quality education than that available to less-advantaged students" (Roberts, 6). Therefore, making them culturally biased. On the other hand, critics of affirmative action argue that the students of low-income families who may have also have suffered discrimination became or remained impoverished because of racism (Gross, 34). Choices an individual makes have a greater impact on his or her living conditions than anything else. "Illegitimacy, substance abuse, and poor study and work habits can mire an individual in poverty as surely as racism can" (Zelnick, 3). Others also argue that the majority of the students affected by affirmative action are eighteen-year-olds, born in 1980s. Roger Clegg points out:
"They probably have not participated much in the work force; if they have, the laws prohibiting discrimination against them on the basis of race or ethnicity have been in effect since long before they were born" (2).
Therefore, they are "unlikely to have suffered the kind of systematic discrimination against him or her that would justify systematic discrimination in his or her favor" (Clegg, 2). There is a highly publicized controversy with the admission policies at the University of Michigan. They use a point system to determine worthiness of a prospective student. African American students are given a higher number of points just for being African American (Zelnick, 1996). Those points could be the deciding factor between a white and a black student. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the University Of Michigan's point system was unconstitutional. Using these means to determine a prospective employee or student's qualifications is outrageous. Implicating laws that give one race the upper hand does not promote equality like the program insists it does. Society's attempt to rectify a never-ending racial unbalance is causing more issues than ever.
Many also argue whether affirmative action creates animosity among different racial groups. On one side of this argument are those who believe there needs to be a systematic policy to reprimand the wrong doings against minorities in the past. They feel these policies are helpful and necessary to have a fair and equal society (Zelnick, 1996).
On the other side of the argument are those who feel like Joe Lieberman when he said, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators never intended" (Roberts, 1995). The policy penalizes any effort made by minorities to succeed with out help from anyone (Yates, 1997). Affirmative action has labeled such groups as people unable to make it in their own. Steven Yates further explains this by saying:
"Preferential policies have added fuel to racial tensions by incurring the resentment of those not in protected groups, those who are expected to pay the costs of reparation despite never having engaged in discriminatory practices themselves…"(3).
Thus creating resentment among those not in the protected groups.
Another highly debated subject with affirmative action is whether the policy promotes a color blind society or not. Activists of this policy share a similar opinion with Harry Blackmun when he said:
"In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat someone equally, we must first treat them differently" (Roberts, 4).
Many also argue that some stereotypes may have never been broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable (Stein, 1997). They believe these and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action (Roberts, 54). On the other hand, critics of affirmative action believe that the policy only draws attention to irrelevant characteristics that have no effect on ones performance. For example, there is no association between hair or eye color and professional success or performance. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence either (Fobanjong, 2001). Affirmative action is an unnecessary way to keep society's focus on race instead of merit.
People on the side of affirmative action believe that this policy needs to be used in order to give compensation for what happened to African Americans many years ago.
"Americans spent almost 250 years in slavery and another hundred years in legalized discrimination. Affirmative action was Johnson's way of trying to redress the wrongs of the past and prepare the nation for a future of equality where the American Dream would be available to everyone" (Zlenick, 2006).
However, the original perpetrators and victims are long gone and should not be forced to sacrifice job opportunities or college admissions when they were not responsible for the wrong doings in the first place. Backers of affirmative action continue to argue that even though preferential treatment does occur, "it is justified by the fact that because of past discrimination most women and minorities are too far behind economically to compete effectively" (Yates, 1997). It is absolutely absurd to use this argument that basically states that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative action is a failed attempt to level the playing field between different races and genders in the workplace; instead this policy creates reverse discrimination and should be eliminated.
There are many positives and negatives dealing with affirmative action. The policy's intentions were good; although that does not justify the backlash it has caused on American society. Affirmative action not only creates animosity between racial groups among the public; it also takes our focus off productivity in the workplace and school. In turn it has created a focal point on insignificant skin deep features which prevent a general success for everyone. Quotas and preferential treatment is not fair to any of the parties involved. Affirmative action is an unfair policy that gives an unfair advantage to minorities and women. The first step to creating a color blind society is to abolish affirmative action policies.
References
Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." Racism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Fobanjong, John (2001). Understanding the backlash against affirmative action. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gross, Barry (Ed.). (1977). Reverse discrimination. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Roberts, Craig, Stratton, Paul, Lawrence , & m (1995). The new color line. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Stein, Nancy. "Affirmative Action Does Not Create Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Yates, Steven. "Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Zelnick, Bob (1996). Back fire: A reporter's look at affirmative action. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic for many years. This policy was created to ensure equal opportunity for minorities and women in the workforce and educational institutions (Gross, 1977). Over fifty years ago the policy has proven to have a positive effect; but now, many think the policies are no longer needed and that they lead to more problems than they can possibly solve. One side of the argument believes that affirmative action is detrimental to creating a color blind society. The people on the other side of the argument believe that affirmative action promotes the hiring of unqualified individuals just to please society. The policies associated with affirmative action create ratios and quotas to pressure companies to hire based-on race or gender and not on merit. Affirmative action leads to preferential treatment and reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action diminished discrimination against minorities and women, but in turn has caused discrimination against white men. The policy started in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the beginning, affirmative action only targeted reducing "racial imbalance" in the work place: later changed to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts (Zelnick, 1996). Women, elderly, people with disabilities, and all people of color are protected by affirmative action. "The policy goes a step farther by requiring employers to take ‘affirmative' steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers" (Yates, 1997). This starts the controversy with affirmative action.
One heavily debated topic of this debate deals with the usage of "quotas". By law, quotas are prohibited. However, the question is still up in the air whether they exist or not. Thomas J. Kane defends the usage of quotas by using this analogy: "Reserving a parking space for a disabled person has only a ‘minuscule effect' on the availability on parking spots, but it frustrates every driver that passes it." (Fobanjong, 2001) Affirmative action activists argue that the policy does not force employers to hire a predetermined number of any races (Stein, 1997). However, according to K.L. Billingsley,
"One day in January 1995 a number of companies in San Diego, California, woke up to find that they had a "deficient work force." it meant that under San Diego's new Equal Opportunity Ordinance, the companies were guilty of "a statistically significant underutilization of ethnic or gender groups in any occupational category" (1998, Page 1).
These companies are among the many that were threatened with fines if they did not represent a "politically acceptable statistical percentage" number of workers (Yates, 1997). Mike Welbel, owner of The Daniel Lamp Company, experienced this firsthand when his company was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mike was accused and taken to court based on racial discrimination. Prior to this situation discrimination meant "refusal to hire for a desirable position, based-on a group characteristic" (Roberts, 1995). However, the word took on an entirely different meaning following this situation. Now it meant "lack of a politically acceptable statistical percentage" (Yates, 1997). Politically acceptable meaning the percentage of members of targeted groups in the local or regional population. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) computer was the foundation to prosecute Mike Welbel. The company's computer claimed, "Based on 363 companies employing 100 or more people and located within a three-mile radius of The Daniel Lamp Company, Daniel Lamp should employ at any given moment exactly 8.45 blacks" (Yates, 1997). Undoubtedly, that is a quota. Although backers of affirmative action try to disguise the use of quotas with wordiness, it is clear any way that this is looked at, they are using quotas. This means that if a white man and someone belonging to a group protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were applying for the same position with a company, and the company was low on their representation of a certain minority group, he would get it over the white man; even though the white man may be more qualified. Even though law clearly states the EEOC can not set quotas, they continue to exist.
Another highly controversial issue dealing with affirmative action is the fact that colleges are forced to accept prospective students based on race instead of merit. School officials say that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity (Roberts, 1995). John Fobanjong (2001) elaborates on this subject by stating:
" Some companies feel that affirmative action leads to a variety of benefits, including increased productivity, diversity of ideas, a more rational personal policy, and improved community relations" (21).
Nancy Stein along with many others who believe affirmative action is a necessity, claim that an "anti-affirmative action position assumes a narrow, over-simplified conception of merit based on test scores, grade point average, or other measurable standards"(2). They also argue that there is a small correlation between performance or professional success and test scores (Stein,2). However, Nancy Stein claims, "There is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources, and test scores" (3) Activists of this policy feel that college admission tests "tend to reflect the experiences of middle-class students and their access to higher-quality education than that available to less-advantaged students" (Roberts, 6). Therefore, making them culturally biased. On the other hand, critics of affirmative action argue that the students of low-income families who may have also have suffered discrimination became or remained impoverished because of racism (Gross, 34). Choices an individual makes have a greater impact on his or her living conditions than anything else. "Illegitimacy, substance abuse, and poor study and work habits can mire an individual in poverty as surely as racism can" (Zelnick, 3). Others also argue that the majority of the students affected by affirmative action are eighteen-year-olds, born in 1980s. Roger Clegg points out:
"They probably have not participated much in the work force; if they have, the laws prohibiting discrimination against them on the basis of race or ethnicity have been in effect since long before they were born" (2).
Therefore, they are "unlikely to have suffered the kind of systematic discrimination against him or her that would justify systematic discrimination in his or her favor" (Clegg, 2). There is a highly publicized controversy with the admission policies at the University of Michigan. They use a point system to determine worthiness of a prospective student. African American students are given a higher number of points just for being African American (Zelnick, 1996). Those points could be the deciding factor between a white and a black student. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the University Of Michigan's point system was unconstitutional. Using these means to determine a prospective employee or student's qualifications is outrageous. Implicating laws that give one race the upper hand does not promote equality like the program insists it does. Society's attempt to rectify a never-ending racial unbalance is causing more issues than ever.
Many also argue whether affirmative action creates animosity among different racial groups. On one side of this argument are those who believe there needs to be a systematic policy to reprimand the wrong doings against minorities in the past. They feel these policies are helpful and necessary to have a fair and equal society (Zelnick, 1996).
On the other side of the argument are those who feel like Joe Lieberman when he said, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators never intended" (Roberts, 1995). The policy penalizes any effort made by minorities to succeed with out help from anyone (Yates, 1997). Affirmative action has labeled such groups as people unable to make it in their own. Steven Yates further explains this by saying:
"Preferential policies have added fuel to racial tensions by incurring the resentment of those not in protected groups, those who are expected to pay the costs of reparation despite never having engaged in discriminatory practices themselves…"(3).
Thus creating resentment among those not in the protected groups.
Another highly debated subject with affirmative action is whether the policy promotes a color blind society or not. Activists of this policy share a similar opinion with Harry Blackmun when he said:
"In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat someone equally, we must first treat them differently" (Roberts, 4).
Many also argue that some stereotypes may have never been broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable (Stein, 1997). They believe these and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action (Roberts, 54). On the other hand, critics of affirmative action believe that the policy only draws attention to irrelevant characteristics that have no effect on ones performance. For example, there is no association between hair or eye color and professional success or performance. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence either (Fobanjong, 2001). Affirmative action is an unnecessary way to keep society's focus on race instead of merit.
People on the side of affirmative action believe that this policy needs to be used in order to give compensation for what happened to African Americans many years ago.
"Americans spent almost 250 years in slavery and another hundred years in legalized discrimination. Affirmative action was Johnson's way of trying to redress the wrongs of the past and prepare the nation for a future of equality where the American Dream would be available to everyone" (Zlenick, 2006).
However, the original perpetrators and victims are long gone and should not be forced to sacrifice job opportunities or college admissions when they were not responsible for the wrong doings in the first place. Backers of affirmative action continue to argue that even though preferential treatment does occur, "it is justified by the fact that because of past discrimination most women and minorities are too far behind economically to compete effectively" (Yates, 1997). It is absolutely absurd to use this argument that basically states that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative action is a failed attempt to level the playing field between different races and genders in the workplace; instead this policy creates reverse discrimination and should be eliminated.
There are many positives and negatives dealing with affirmative action. The policy's intentions were good; although that does not justify the backlash it has caused on American society. Affirmative action not only creates animosity between racial groups among the public; it also takes our focus off productivity in the workplace and school. In turn it has created a focal point on insignificant skin deep features which prevent a general success for everyone. Quotas and preferential treatment is not fair to any of the parties involved. Affirmative action is an unfair policy that gives an unfair advantage to minorities and women. The first step to creating a color blind society is to abolish affirmative action policies.
References
Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." Racism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Fobanjong, John (2001). Understanding the backlash against affirmative action. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gross, Barry (Ed.). (1977). Reverse discrimination. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Roberts, Craig, Stratton, Paul, Lawrence , & m (1995). The new color line. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Stein, Nancy. "Affirmative Action Does Not Create Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Yates, Steven. "Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Zelnick, Bob (1996). Back fire: A reporter's look at affirmative action. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Affirmative action diminished discrimination against minorities and women, but in turn has caused discrimination against white men. The policy started in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the beginning, affirmative action only targeted reducing "racial imbalance" in the work place: later changed to include college admissions and the awarding of government contracts (Zelnick, 1996). Women, elderly, people with disabilities, and all people of color are protected by affirmative action. "The policy goes a step farther by requiring employers to take ‘affirmative' steps to achieve a balanced representation of workers" (Yates, 1997). This starts the controversy with affirmative action.
One heavily debated topic of this debate deals with the usage of "quotas". By law, quotas are prohibited. However, the question is still up in the air whether they exist or not. Thomas J. Kane defends the usage of quotas by using this analogy: "Reserving a parking space for a disabled person has only a ‘minuscule effect' on the availability on parking spots, but it frustrates every driver that passes it." (Fobanjong, 2001) Affirmative action activists argue that the policy does not force employers to hire a predetermined number of any races (Stein, 1997). However, according to K.L. Billingsley,
"One day in January 1995 a number of companies in San Diego, California, woke up to find that they had a "deficient work force." it meant that under San Diego's new Equal Opportunity Ordinance, the companies were guilty of "a statistically significant underutilization of ethnic or gender groups in any occupational category" (1998, Page 1).
These companies are among the many that were threatened with fines if they did not represent a "politically acceptable statistical percentage" number of workers (Yates, 1997). Mike Welbel, owner of The Daniel Lamp Company, experienced this firsthand when his company was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mike was accused and taken to court based on racial discrimination. Prior to this situation discrimination meant "refusal to hire for a desirable position, based-on a group characteristic" (Roberts, 1995). However, the word took on an entirely different meaning following this situation. Now it meant "lack of a politically acceptable statistical percentage" (Yates, 1997). Politically acceptable meaning the percentage of members of targeted groups in the local or regional population. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) computer was the foundation to prosecute Mike Welbel. The company's computer claimed, "Based on 363 companies employing 100 or more people and located within a three-mile radius of The Daniel Lamp Company, Daniel Lamp should employ at any given moment exactly 8.45 blacks" (Yates, 1997). Undoubtedly, that is a quota. Although backers of affirmative action try to disguise the use of quotas with wordiness, it is clear any way that this is looked at, they are using quotas. This means that if a white man and someone belonging to a group protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were applying for the same position with a company, and the company was low on their representation of a certain minority group, he would get it over the white man; even though the white man may be more qualified. Even though law clearly states the EEOC can not set quotas, they continue to exist.
Another highly controversial issue dealing with affirmative action is the fact that colleges are forced to accept prospective students based on race instead of merit. School officials say that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity (Roberts, 1995). John Fobanjong (2001) elaborates on this subject by stating:
" Some companies feel that affirmative action leads to a variety of benefits, including increased productivity, diversity of ideas, a more rational personal policy, and improved community relations" (21).
Nancy Stein along with many others who believe affirmative action is a necessity, claim that an "anti-affirmative action position assumes a narrow, over-simplified conception of merit based on test scores, grade point average, or other measurable standards"(2). They also argue that there is a small correlation between performance or professional success and test scores (Stein,2). However, Nancy Stein claims, "There is a major relationship between race, income level, educational resources, and test scores" (3) Activists of this policy feel that college admission tests "tend to reflect the experiences of middle-class students and their access to higher-quality education than that available to less-advantaged students" (Roberts, 6). Therefore, making them culturally biased. On the other hand, critics of affirmative action argue that the students of low-income families who may have also have suffered discrimination became or remained impoverished because of racism (Gross, 34). Choices an individual makes have a greater impact on his or her living conditions than anything else. "Illegitimacy, substance abuse, and poor study and work habits can mire an individual in poverty as surely as racism can" (Zelnick, 3). Others also argue that the majority of the students affected by affirmative action are eighteen-year-olds, born in 1980s. Roger Clegg points out:
"They probably have not participated much in the work force; if they have, the laws prohibiting discrimination against them on the basis of race or ethnicity have been in effect since long before they were born" (2).
Therefore, they are "unlikely to have suffered the kind of systematic discrimination against him or her that would justify systematic discrimination in his or her favor" (Clegg, 2). There is a highly publicized controversy with the admission policies at the University of Michigan. They use a point system to determine worthiness of a prospective student. African American students are given a higher number of points just for being African American (Zelnick, 1996). Those points could be the deciding factor between a white and a black student. In June of 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the University Of Michigan's point system was unconstitutional. Using these means to determine a prospective employee or student's qualifications is outrageous. Implicating laws that give one race the upper hand does not promote equality like the program insists it does. Society's attempt to rectify a never-ending racial unbalance is causing more issues than ever.
Many also argue whether affirmative action creates animosity among different racial groups. On one side of this argument are those who believe there needs to be a systematic policy to reprimand the wrong doings against minorities in the past. They feel these policies are helpful and necessary to have a fair and equal society (Zelnick, 1996).
On the other side of the argument are those who feel like Joe Lieberman when he said, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators never intended" (Roberts, 1995). The policy penalizes any effort made by minorities to succeed with out help from anyone (Yates, 1997). Affirmative action has labeled such groups as people unable to make it in their own. Steven Yates further explains this by saying:
"Preferential policies have added fuel to racial tensions by incurring the resentment of those not in protected groups, those who are expected to pay the costs of reparation despite never having engaged in discriminatory practices themselves…"(3).
Thus creating resentment among those not in the protected groups.
Another highly debated subject with affirmative action is whether the policy promotes a color blind society or not. Activists of this policy share a similar opinion with Harry Blackmun when he said:
"In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat someone equally, we must first treat them differently" (Roberts, 4).
Many also argue that some stereotypes may have never been broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable (Stein, 1997). They believe these and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action (Roberts, 54). On the other hand, critics of affirmative action believe that the policy only draws attention to irrelevant characteristics that have no effect on ones performance. For example, there is no association between hair or eye color and professional success or performance. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence either (Fobanjong, 2001). Affirmative action is an unnecessary way to keep society's focus on race instead of merit.
People on the side of affirmative action believe that this policy needs to be used in order to give compensation for what happened to African Americans many years ago.
"Americans spent almost 250 years in slavery and another hundred years in legalized discrimination. Affirmative action was Johnson's way of trying to redress the wrongs of the past and prepare the nation for a future of equality where the American Dream would be available to everyone" (Zlenick, 2006).
However, the original perpetrators and victims are long gone and should not be forced to sacrifice job opportunities or college admissions when they were not responsible for the wrong doings in the first place. Backers of affirmative action continue to argue that even though preferential treatment does occur, "it is justified by the fact that because of past discrimination most women and minorities are too far behind economically to compete effectively" (Yates, 1997). It is absolutely absurd to use this argument that basically states that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative action is a failed attempt to level the playing field between different races and genders in the workplace; instead this policy creates reverse discrimination and should be eliminated.
There are many positives and negatives dealing with affirmative action. The policy's intentions were good; although that does not justify the backlash it has caused on American society. Affirmative action not only creates animosity between racial groups among the public; it also takes our focus off productivity in the workplace and school. In turn it has created a focal point on insignificant skin deep features which prevent a general success for everyone. Quotas and preferential treatment is not fair to any of the parties involved. Affirmative action is an unfair policy that gives an unfair advantage to minorities and women. The first step to creating a color blind society is to abolish affirmative action policies.
References
Billingsley, K.L. "Affirmative Action Is Racist." Racism. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Fobanjong, John (2001). Understanding the backlash against affirmative action. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gross, Barry (Ed.). (1977). Reverse discrimination. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Roberts, Craig, Stratton, Paul, Lawrence , & m (1995). The new color line. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Stein, Nancy. "Affirmative Action Does Not Create Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Yates, Steven. "Affirmative Action Creates Reverse Discrimination." Discrimination. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Retrieved October 15, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Apollo Group.
Zelnick, Bob (1996). Back fire: A reporter's look at affirmative action. Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing.
Affirmative Action as Racial Discrimination
Affirmative Action as Racial Discrimination
The controversy over affirmative action is growing to embody most all selective decisions in American society. From public protection to college admissions, people are becoming resentful of such affirmative action programs. The applicability of these programs in today's American society has been challenged by people ranging from the everyday "Joe", who is finding reverse discrimination in the workplace, to college applicants, who are finding that it takes more than good grades to get admitted, to the Supreme Court, who is finding that some college admissions policies are unconstitutional and promote diversity through unfair means. In California, for example, Gov. Pete Wilson has already pushed an initiative ending affirmative action practices in colleges and universities. The initiative passed, after a 10-hour meeting, through The California Board of Reagents with a 10-15 vote. in Michigan, the state legislature is conducting hearings on the "fairness" of affirmative action. David Jaye, a Republican member of the Michigan State legislature, said affirmative action creates economic imbalances within the system. Affirmative action policies are means for reverse discrimination against the non-minority population and should be repealed by the United States government.
The phrase "affirmative action" was first used in a racial discrimination context in Executive Order No. 10,925 issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 (Brown). This executive order indicated that federal contractors should take affirmative action to ensure that job applicants and employees are treated "without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"(Brown). Kennedy's executive order implied equal opportunity and nothing else. The system that has since evolved is a perversion of the original intent of affirmative action.
The dynamic history of affirmative action has its roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and stems from the United States Supreme Court Case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order #11246 at Howard University that required federal contractors to undertake affirmative action to increase the number of minorities that they employ (Brown). He wanted to ensure that minorities were recruited to have real and equal opportunity to be hired and then eventually get a promotion.
When this Civil Rights Act was passed, its spirit was not one of reverse discrimination but of getting employers to consider applicants objectively in filling jobs within their companies. Hubert Humphrey, a major sponsor of the Act, swore that he would eat the bill if it were ever used for discrimination of any sort. The past cannot be changed and we should stop compensating people who were never hurt at the expense of people who have done them no harm.
In 1969, the Department of Labor exposed widespread racial discrimination of the Construction Department so President Richard M. Nixon decided to incorporate a system of "goals and timetables" to evaluate federal construction companies according to affirmative action. This idea of "goals and timetables" provided guidelines for companies to follow and comply with affirmative action regulations (Brown). Many companies now use these quotas in order to receive tax breaks from the government. Now the government not only promotes discrimination but also pays the employers to do so.
During the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, affirmative action was expanded to people with disabilities and Vietnam veterans but there were no goals or timetables for these two groups. This type of affirmative action required recruitment efforts, accessibility, accommodation and reviews of physical and mental job qualifications (Brown). This legislation did wonders for the disabled in terms of jobs and promoted equality so that even the handicapped and elderly could receive employment.
President Jimmy Carter consolidated all federal agencies that were required by law to follow affirmative action into the Department of Labor (Brown). Before Carter did this, each agency handled affirmative action in its own individual way. However, some were not as consistent as other agencies. He created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) in 1978 to ensure compliance with the affirmative action policies (Brown).
Affirmative action has had its greatest amount of success in city, state, and federal government jobs. Slowly, the minority employment levels in these jobs began to generally mirror the relative minority population. Since the 1960s the area of law enforcement witnessed the greatest increase in minority applicants, and in jobs offered to minorities. This should be viewed as an extremely positive thing, because prior to affirmative action these jobs were almost completely closed off to minorities and woman. The influx has been greatest in the area of government, state and city, because this type of work is easier for affirmative action to watch over and regulate. Affirmative action has experienced considerably less success in integration in big business, such as General Motors, RJR Nabisco, and Microsoft. This is do to the fact that big business' often employ entire towns or regions so the minority employee percentage is generally representative the town's minority population. This is why big business has been more resistant to affirmative action and harder to regulate (Ryan 37).
Long ago, the government sanctioned these affirmative action policies in order to create an equal opportunity for people of all races. In a time when an obvious discriminatory attitude toward minorities could be felt, affirmative action came to the rescue and helped to push equality and equal opportunity. Minorities could get jobs because they deserved them and the government as much. In today's society, discrimination is less prevalent than in the 1970's. People are generally tolerant of one another and can coexist without butting heads. To those who would disagree, here are some data: 75% of black Americans say they have never suffered from discrimination in getting a quality education; 73% say that they have never been subject to discrimination in getting descent housing; 60% say they have never suffered discrimination in getting a job. These data are taken from a 1995 ABC News/Washington Post poll (Williams). As for females, 77% say they have never suffered from discrimination in terms of salaries on their present jobs; 73% have never suffered so in other places of employment; and 83% say they were never turned down for a job in favor of a man. These are from a 1992 New York Times Women's Survey (Quigly).
In California, the issue of affirmative action is one of the most controversial. Asian students at the University of California's Berkley campus were felt to be over-represented due to their outstanding academic performance and were actually placed at a disadvantage under certain affirmative action programs (Bresler). In Los Angeles County, affirmative action goals were raised for Hispanics, who, as a result of immigration, have become almost 40% of the county, and lowered for blacks who represent 12% of the population and have 30% of the county jobs (Bresler). Due to this inequality of representation, new tensions have risen between the two groups.
Previous to the passing of the California initiative named Proposition 209 in November 1996, Californian government agencies were pushed to employ reasonably skilled minorities and essentially required to make contracts almost exclusively with minority-owned businesses (Ayres). This type of hiring and contracting quietly removed non-minority-owned businesses from being in contention for receiving a government contract. As a result, a lawsuit was filed against the state of California alleging that this form of public contracting violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and should be seen as reverse discrimination against non-minorities (Ayres). The man who filed the lawsuit won, and the policies, which govern such public contracting, have since been amended. In this instance, it was clearly seen that a preference toward certain minority groups was established and implemented, causing essentially the blacklisting of non-minority-owned businesses in the state of California. This type of behavior is what can be classified as reverse discrimination, or discrimination primarily directed at Anglo and Asian American that is generally the result of affirmative action polices.
Another instance where affirmative action was implemented without good reason occurred in the town of Piscataway Township, NJ ("A Blow to"). In this case, the Board of Education needed to lay off one teacher from the high school business faculty. The choice was narrowed down to Debra Williams, a black woman, or Sharon Taxman, who is white. Both teachers had begun working on the same day in 1980 and were considered equal in ability. The two were also judged equal with respect to work performance, certification, evaluations, teaching ability and volunteerism ("A Blow to").
Rather than flip a coin, as was traditionally done, the Board of Education invoked a statewide affirmative action policy, for the first and only time in 18 years and retained Mr. Williams (Greenhouse). Board members reasoned that it was important, not only for the students, but also for the faculty, to maintain diversity on the business education staff ("A Blow to"). Ms. Taxman sued under the Civil Right Act of 1964 and, with the support of the Bush Administration's Justice Department, won in a Federal district court (Greenhouse). By the time the case reached the Federal appeals court, which is based in Philadelphia, the Clinton Administration was in office. The White House switched positions and argued that the school system could take race into account in determining which teacher to retain. The Administration argued that the lower court ruling excessively obstructed voluntary affirmative action programs ("A Blow to").
This argument fell on deaf ears as the appeals court voted 8-to-4 and upheld the lower court's decision ("A Blow to"). The majority found that under the law, race could be considered in hiring and layoffs to remedy past discrimination. But Piscataway's schools had never been found guilty of discrimination and, other than the business faculty, there was no evidence that minorities were underrepresented among teachers in the high school or the district. With this considered, the majority held that favoring the black individual was illegal race discrimination ("A Blow to"). Even though the goal in this case was to maintain diversity, the majority said that maintaining diversity could only be justified to correct past discrimination or a severe imbalance in the teaching force.
Affirmative Action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. In that, it promotes the hiring of less skilled workers: the employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best available employee. This bothers employers as well as employees who do not qualify for Affirmative Action; the employers feel they ended up with a lesser quality worker. Every employee from a minority that benefits from Affirmative Action bears a mark of "not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group", even if the person was selected for being the best available on the complete job market. The bypassed employees feel tricked by the government or the minority. The last could fire up racism among the bypassed group, while affirmative action was introduced to decrease racism.
In the spring of 1996, a Federal court handed down a decision that helped to tip the constitutional scales. In Hopwood vs. Texas, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down an affirmative action program adopted by the University of Texas Law School that set lower minimum standards for Law School Admissions Tests (LSAT) and grade-point averages for blacks and Mexican-American applicants than for other groups (Bresler). The court ordered, under penalty of punitive damages, to adopt a colorblind admissions policy immediately. Judge Jerry Smith, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, "the use of race to achieve a diverse student body can not be a state interest compelling enough to meet the steep standard of steep standard of strict scrutiny. Within the general principles of the Fourteenth Amendment, the use of race in admissions for diversity in higher education contradicts, rather than furthers, the aims of equal protection" (qtd. in Bresler). This argument shows that while trying to produce diversity within a college, corporation or factory, one can do more harm and create deeper chasms to form between to races.
Affirmative action does provide people from certain minorities with a job they would not have gotten. But if, after reading all the above, one could think of the quality of this job, in surroundings hostile towards the minority the employee is from, one could seriously doubt the fact whether this employee is happy with this job. It is better than no job, but that is about it. This same feeling can probably be applied to college students as well.
Colleges and universities frequently also have quotas for how many blacks it is necessary to admit to "round out" their freshman classes. An example is the admission practices at Berkeley. Only 40 per cent of the entering class in 1988 were selected solely on the basis of academic merit. While whites or Asian-Americans need at least a 3.7 grade point average in high school to be considered for admission, most minority candidates who meet a lower fluctuating standard are automatically admitted (Shea). Berkeley continues this practice of preferential admissions for minorities even though the graduation rate of minorities is very low. Expectedly, 66 per cent of whites or Asian-Americans graduate, while only 27 per cent of black students graduate (Shea).
In the state of Michigan, Jennifer Gratz, a high school graduate who finished 13th out of her class of 298 with a 3.7 G.P.A. and a 25 (out of 36) on the ACT, filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan (Reibstein). The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor turned down Gratz, who is white, for admission, even though minorities with the same or lesser credentials were admitted. To prove her point, her lawyers say that they have uncovered confidential documents that explicitly spell out Michigan's biased admissions policy. Gratz says "they are using race as a factor for admissions by weeding out students that aren't of that minority race" (qtd. in Reibstein). The documents, most of which simply have an intersecting grid of minimum accepted academic values that are classified into 2 columns: white and minority, show a clear bias by allowing the minimum academic values, such as the ACT or high school G.P.A., to be lowered for the minority groups. Here is one example: for a white student with a 3.7 G.P.A. (out of 4.0) and an SAT of 1,250 (out of 1,600) would be placed on the waiting list while a minority with the same numbers would be admitted. Terence Pell, a lawyer for the Center for Individual rights says that "this plan invokes the naked use of racial bias just for the sake of a certain racial mix" (qtd. in Reibstein). By the University's admissions office standard, non-minority applicants must excel past their already high scores and even then there is not a slight guarantee that these scores will not be undermined by the admissions policy. The University of Michigan has created an unequal system where young, bright, non-minorities are discriminated against because their academic values are simply too high. This is the essence of reverse discrimination and its correlation to affirmative action.
The most qualified individuals must succeed in modern day American society in an effort to promote competitiveness and the capitalistic theory that all are given an equal chance to achieve the "American dream." The existence of affirmative action policies and quotas has prevented these efforts from flourishing. Furthermore, affirmative action creates unwanted race distinctions. As a nation devoted to equality, the United States must do away with these unproductive race-dividing policies. By eliminating them, Americans can take major steps in promoting competition and overcoming the color barrier. In his famous march in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. longed for a society where "people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Skin-color and social status should be irrelevant in hiring employees. Judging people by the "content of their character" and their capabilities will create a thriving country.
Works Cited
"A Blow to Affirmative Action in Schools." New York Times. 15 August 1996. A26.
Ayres, Drummond Jr. "California Governor Vows to Cut Affirmative Action." New York Times. 1 June 1995. B10.
Bresler, Robert. "Affirmative Action on the Rocks." USA Today (Magazine). July 1996: P7.
Brown, Shelli. "History of Affirmative Action." Affirmative Action. 23 May 1996. . 15 March 1998.
Greenhouse, Linda. "Administration Backs Off White Teachers's Dismissal." New York Times. 6 June 1997. B4.
Quigly, Dana. "Success?" New York Times. 25 August 1992: C5.
Reibstein, Larry. "What Color Is an A?" Newsweek. 29 Dec. 1997: 76.
Ryan, James. In Defense of Affirmative Action. New York: Harper, 1991. 37.
Shea, Christopher. "Under UCLA's Elaborate System Race Makes a Big Difference." Chronical of Higher Education. 28 April 1995: A12.
Williams, Ronald. "A New Opinion" Washington Post. 7 June 1995: B6.
The controversy over affirmative action is growing to embody most all selective decisions in American society. From public protection to college admissions, people are becoming resentful of such affirmative action programs. The applicability of these programs in today's American society has been challenged by people ranging from the everyday "Joe", who is finding reverse discrimination in the workplace, to college applicants, who are finding that it takes more than good grades to get admitted, to the Supreme Court, who is finding that some college admissions policies are unconstitutional and promote diversity through unfair means. In California, for example, Gov. Pete Wilson has already pushed an initiative ending affirmative action practices in colleges and universities. The initiative passed, after a 10-hour meeting, through The California Board of Reagents with a 10-15 vote. in Michigan, the state legislature is conducting hearings on the "fairness" of affirmative action. David Jaye, a Republican member of the Michigan State legislature, said affirmative action creates economic imbalances within the system. Affirmative action policies are means for reverse discrimination against the non-minority population and should be repealed by the United States government.
The phrase "affirmative action" was first used in a racial discrimination context in Executive Order No. 10,925 issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 (Brown). This executive order indicated that federal contractors should take affirmative action to ensure that job applicants and employees are treated "without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"(Brown). Kennedy's executive order implied equal opportunity and nothing else. The system that has since evolved is a perversion of the original intent of affirmative action.
The dynamic history of affirmative action has its roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and stems from the United States Supreme Court Case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order #11246 at Howard University that required federal contractors to undertake affirmative action to increase the number of minorities that they employ (Brown). He wanted to ensure that minorities were recruited to have real and equal opportunity to be hired and then eventually get a promotion.
When this Civil Rights Act was passed, its spirit was not one of reverse discrimination but of getting employers to consider applicants objectively in filling jobs within their companies. Hubert Humphrey, a major sponsor of the Act, swore that he would eat the bill if it were ever used for discrimination of any sort. The past cannot be changed and we should stop compensating people who were never hurt at the expense of people who have done them no harm.
In 1969, the Department of Labor exposed widespread racial discrimination of the Construction Department so President Richard M. Nixon decided to incorporate a system of "goals and timetables" to evaluate federal construction companies according to affirmative action. This idea of "goals and timetables" provided guidelines for companies to follow and comply with affirmative action regulations (Brown). Many companies now use these quotas in order to receive tax breaks from the government. Now the government not only promotes discrimination but also pays the employers to do so.
During the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, affirmative action was expanded to people with disabilities and Vietnam veterans but there were no goals or timetables for these two groups. This type of affirmative action required recruitment efforts, accessibility, accommodation and reviews of physical and mental job qualifications (Brown). This legislation did wonders for the disabled in terms of jobs and promoted equality so that even the handicapped and elderly could receive employment.
President Jimmy Carter consolidated all federal agencies that were required by law to follow affirmative action into the Department of Labor (Brown). Before Carter did this, each agency handled affirmative action in its own individual way. However, some were not as consistent as other agencies. He created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) in 1978 to ensure compliance with the affirmative action policies (Brown).
Affirmative action has had its greatest amount of success in city, state, and federal government jobs. Slowly, the minority employment levels in these jobs began to generally mirror the relative minority population. Since the 1960s the area of law enforcement witnessed the greatest increase in minority applicants, and in jobs offered to minorities. This should be viewed as an extremely positive thing, because prior to affirmative action these jobs were almost completely closed off to minorities and woman. The influx has been greatest in the area of government, state and city, because this type of work is easier for affirmative action to watch over and regulate. Affirmative action has experienced considerably less success in integration in big business, such as General Motors, RJR Nabisco, and Microsoft. This is do to the fact that big business' often employ entire towns or regions so the minority employee percentage is generally representative the town's minority population. This is why big business has been more resistant to affirmative action and harder to regulate (Ryan 37).
Long ago, the government sanctioned these affirmative action policies in order to create an equal opportunity for people of all races. In a time when an obvious discriminatory attitude toward minorities could be felt, affirmative action came to the rescue and helped to push equality and equal opportunity. Minorities could get jobs because they deserved them and the government as much. In today's society, discrimination is less prevalent than in the 1970's. People are generally tolerant of one another and can coexist without butting heads. To those who would disagree, here are some data: 75% of black Americans say they have never suffered from discrimination in getting a quality education; 73% say that they have never been subject to discrimination in getting descent housing; 60% say they have never suffered discrimination in getting a job. These data are taken from a 1995 ABC News/Washington Post poll (Williams). As for females, 77% say they have never suffered from discrimination in terms of salaries on their present jobs; 73% have never suffered so in other places of employment; and 83% say they were never turned down for a job in favor of a man. These are from a 1992 New York Times Women's Survey (Quigly).
In California, the issue of affirmative action is one of the most controversial. Asian students at the University of California's Berkley campus were felt to be over-represented due to their outstanding academic performance and were actually placed at a disadvantage under certain affirmative action programs (Bresler). In Los Angeles County, affirmative action goals were raised for Hispanics, who, as a result of immigration, have become almost 40% of the county, and lowered for blacks who represent 12% of the population and have 30% of the county jobs (Bresler). Due to this inequality of representation, new tensions have risen between the two groups.
Previous to the passing of the California initiative named Proposition 209 in November 1996, Californian government agencies were pushed to employ reasonably skilled minorities and essentially required to make contracts almost exclusively with minority-owned businesses (Ayres). This type of hiring and contracting quietly removed non-minority-owned businesses from being in contention for receiving a government contract. As a result, a lawsuit was filed against the state of California alleging that this form of public contracting violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and should be seen as reverse discrimination against non-minorities (Ayres). The man who filed the lawsuit won, and the policies, which govern such public contracting, have since been amended. In this instance, it was clearly seen that a preference toward certain minority groups was established and implemented, causing essentially the blacklisting of non-minority-owned businesses in the state of California. This type of behavior is what can be classified as reverse discrimination, or discrimination primarily directed at Anglo and Asian American that is generally the result of affirmative action polices.
Another instance where affirmative action was implemented without good reason occurred in the town of Piscataway Township, NJ ("A Blow to"). In this case, the Board of Education needed to lay off one teacher from the high school business faculty. The choice was narrowed down to Debra Williams, a black woman, or Sharon Taxman, who is white. Both teachers had begun working on the same day in 1980 and were considered equal in ability. The two were also judged equal with respect to work performance, certification, evaluations, teaching ability and volunteerism ("A Blow to").
Rather than flip a coin, as was traditionally done, the Board of Education invoked a statewide affirmative action policy, for the first and only time in 18 years and retained Mr. Williams (Greenhouse). Board members reasoned that it was important, not only for the students, but also for the faculty, to maintain diversity on the business education staff ("A Blow to"). Ms. Taxman sued under the Civil Right Act of 1964 and, with the support of the Bush Administration's Justice Department, won in a Federal district court (Greenhouse). By the time the case reached the Federal appeals court, which is based in Philadelphia, the Clinton Administration was in office. The White House switched positions and argued that the school system could take race into account in determining which teacher to retain. The Administration argued that the lower court ruling excessively obstructed voluntary affirmative action programs ("A Blow to").
This argument fell on deaf ears as the appeals court voted 8-to-4 and upheld the lower court's decision ("A Blow to"). The majority found that under the law, race could be considered in hiring and layoffs to remedy past discrimination. But Piscataway's schools had never been found guilty of discrimination and, other than the business faculty, there was no evidence that minorities were underrepresented among teachers in the high school or the district. With this considered, the majority held that favoring the black individual was illegal race discrimination ("A Blow to"). Even though the goal in this case was to maintain diversity, the majority said that maintaining diversity could only be justified to correct past discrimination or a severe imbalance in the teaching force.
Affirmative Action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. In that, it promotes the hiring of less skilled workers: the employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best available employee. This bothers employers as well as employees who do not qualify for Affirmative Action; the employers feel they ended up with a lesser quality worker. Every employee from a minority that benefits from Affirmative Action bears a mark of "not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group", even if the person was selected for being the best available on the complete job market. The bypassed employees feel tricked by the government or the minority. The last could fire up racism among the bypassed group, while affirmative action was introduced to decrease racism.
In the spring of 1996, a Federal court handed down a decision that helped to tip the constitutional scales. In Hopwood vs. Texas, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down an affirmative action program adopted by the University of Texas Law School that set lower minimum standards for Law School Admissions Tests (LSAT) and grade-point averages for blacks and Mexican-American applicants than for other groups (Bresler). The court ordered, under penalty of punitive damages, to adopt a colorblind admissions policy immediately. Judge Jerry Smith, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, "the use of race to achieve a diverse student body can not be a state interest compelling enough to meet the steep standard of steep standard of strict scrutiny. Within the general principles of the Fourteenth Amendment, the use of race in admissions for diversity in higher education contradicts, rather than furthers, the aims of equal protection" (qtd. in Bresler). This argument shows that while trying to produce diversity within a college, corporation or factory, one can do more harm and create deeper chasms to form between to races.
Affirmative action does provide people from certain minorities with a job they would not have gotten. But if, after reading all the above, one could think of the quality of this job, in surroundings hostile towards the minority the employee is from, one could seriously doubt the fact whether this employee is happy with this job. It is better than no job, but that is about it. This same feeling can probably be applied to college students as well.
Colleges and universities frequently also have quotas for how many blacks it is necessary to admit to "round out" their freshman classes. An example is the admission practices at Berkeley. Only 40 per cent of the entering class in 1988 were selected solely on the basis of academic merit. While whites or Asian-Americans need at least a 3.7 grade point average in high school to be considered for admission, most minority candidates who meet a lower fluctuating standard are automatically admitted (Shea). Berkeley continues this practice of preferential admissions for minorities even though the graduation rate of minorities is very low. Expectedly, 66 per cent of whites or Asian-Americans graduate, while only 27 per cent of black students graduate (Shea).
In the state of Michigan, Jennifer Gratz, a high school graduate who finished 13th out of her class of 298 with a 3.7 G.P.A. and a 25 (out of 36) on the ACT, filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan (Reibstein). The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor turned down Gratz, who is white, for admission, even though minorities with the same or lesser credentials were admitted. To prove her point, her lawyers say that they have uncovered confidential documents that explicitly spell out Michigan's biased admissions policy. Gratz says "they are using race as a factor for admissions by weeding out students that aren't of that minority race" (qtd. in Reibstein). The documents, most of which simply have an intersecting grid of minimum accepted academic values that are classified into 2 columns: white and minority, show a clear bias by allowing the minimum academic values, such as the ACT or high school G.P.A., to be lowered for the minority groups. Here is one example: for a white student with a 3.7 G.P.A. (out of 4.0) and an SAT of 1,250 (out of 1,600) would be placed on the waiting list while a minority with the same numbers would be admitted. Terence Pell, a lawyer for the Center for Individual rights says that "this plan invokes the naked use of racial bias just for the sake of a certain racial mix" (qtd. in Reibstein). By the University's admissions office standard, non-minority applicants must excel past their already high scores and even then there is not a slight guarantee that these scores will not be undermined by the admissions policy. The University of Michigan has created an unequal system where young, bright, non-minorities are discriminated against because their academic values are simply too high. This is the essence of reverse discrimination and its correlation to affirmative action.
The most qualified individuals must succeed in modern day American society in an effort to promote competitiveness and the capitalistic theory that all are given an equal chance to achieve the "American dream." The existence of affirmative action policies and quotas has prevented these efforts from flourishing. Furthermore, affirmative action creates unwanted race distinctions. As a nation devoted to equality, the United States must do away with these unproductive race-dividing policies. By eliminating them, Americans can take major steps in promoting competition and overcoming the color barrier. In his famous march in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. longed for a society where "people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Skin-color and social status should be irrelevant in hiring employees. Judging people by the "content of their character" and their capabilities will create a thriving country.
Works Cited
"A Blow to Affirmative Action in Schools." New York Times. 15 August 1996. A26.
Ayres, Drummond Jr. "California Governor Vows to Cut Affirmative Action." New York Times. 1 June 1995. B10.
Bresler, Robert. "Affirmative Action on the Rocks." USA Today (Magazine). July 1996: P7.
Brown, Shelli. "History of Affirmative Action." Affirmative Action. 23 May 1996. . 15 March 1998.
Greenhouse, Linda. "Administration Backs Off White Teachers's Dismissal." New York Times. 6 June 1997. B4.
Quigly, Dana. "Success?" New York Times. 25 August 1992: C5.
Reibstein, Larry. "What Color Is an A?" Newsweek. 29 Dec. 1997: 76.
Ryan, James. In Defense of Affirmative Action. New York: Harper, 1991. 37.
Shea, Christopher. "Under UCLA's Elaborate System Race Makes a Big Difference." Chronical of Higher Education. 28 April 1995: A12.
Williams, Ronald. "A New Opinion" Washington Post. 7 June 1995: B6.
Affirmative Action is not the solution
It is spring, which means sunny weather and flowers in full bloom. But for college seniors, spring brings about judgment day. The day when you find out if all the hard work you did in high school paid off or if you are lucky enough to get by with your four years off slacking. The day I am referring to is the day when high school seniors hear about whether they will be accepted or rejected from the colleges to which they applied. The last thing a senior would want to hear would be a rejection from the college of their dreams. This rejection would be even more painful if the student learned it was for unjust reasons. Puzzled by their rejection letters, many students wonder why someone with lower qualifications than them were granted acceptance to the same schools they were rejected from. Every year many of these disgruntled students point to the issue of race. Although many things are put into consideration when deciding whether or not to accept someone, the issue of race is often most talked about. I believe that affirmative action in the college admissions process should be terminated and my new solution should be instituted in its place.
Affirmative action is a policy that was put in place to create more diversity not only in the classroom but also in the job market. Beginning in the 1960s, affirmative action aimed to compensate for past discrimination with a racially just society in mind
(Sterba, 286). Many people in the sixties believed that giving blacks their freedom was not enough to right the wrongs of slavery. This is the premise of affirmative action set by President Lyndon B. Johnson who believed you cannot simply free an enslaved man and say " ‘you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair." Taking the president's words to heart, higher level educators started to recruit minority students as a part of their education mission (Garrison-Wade and Lewis, 24). For once college admission officers began taking into account the race of the applicant when deciding on their fate. Not everybody was happy with the decision to change the admission standards. Several court cases took place in which a student went against the beliefs of affirmative action. The first involving a white student named Allan Bakke who thought he was being discriminated against because a minority less deserving than him was admitted to graduate school and he was denied. The most up to date case concerning affirmative action involved the University of Michigan (UM) Law School. In both the Backe and UM cases the Court ruled that race can still be considered a factor in considering applicants. But, in the 2003 Gratz v. Reagents case the Court ruled that a point based system that awards extra points for race can't be used in the admissions process. I feel that the Court was right in eliminating point based systems but, I feel that they should eliminate affirmative action all together.
I know that many may be wondering why someone like myself, an African-American, would be against something that I have undoubtedly benefited from in the past. The reason for my disapproval being that I see fundamental flaws with the policy of affirmative action currently instituted. Although targeted to reverse the ills brought on by slavery, affirmative action rarely benefits the intended group of students therefore resulting in no difference in diversity. The truly poor minorities, the group that should benefit from affirmative action the most, rarely apply to enter universities and the better-off learn how to play the system (Sowell, 150). Another reason I believe affirmative action is not working is the fact that it was started to help minorities get out of poverty but it is not accomplishing that goal. Studies done by economists show that minorities are climbing out of poverty at a slower rate than they were before affirmative action took place. Why has something that was put in place to help minorities in the job market hurt them? I can recall when my friend, who happened to be a minority, got bad grades one quarter in his junior year of high school. When someone asked him if he was afraid that it would hurt his chances of getting into the college of his choice, he responded by saying ‘it would hurt me if I was white." This leads me to believe that the policy of affirmative action is decreasing minorities' motivation to do well in school. If minorities know that they will be given preferential treatment, then they will feel like there is no need to do as well or better then those without the benefit of affirmative action. Many of the supporters of affirmative action are unaware of the bad effects of preferential treatment.
I am aware of the stance held by all of the people in favor of affirmative action.
Many people say that affirmative action is needed because it is the only means of real diversity. I can not tell you how many times my friends, who are not minorities, say that "if it wasn't for affirmative action, then there will be nothing but Asians and Whites in college." I do not argue that diversity is a bad thing but, diversity by means of affirmative action is because many times minorities attend colleges that they are not qualified to attend. Many colleges accept a "token number of blacks" (Sterba, 287) in order to meet certain quotas and be able to call their colleges diverse. In addition to diversity many supporters bring up the topic of slavery. For many years slavery has oppressed blacks and
created a enormous gap between the education and job opportunities of blacks compared to whites. Now, the supporters believe that affirmative action is a perfect way to help blacks bridge the gap and make up for the discrimination they experienced while being enslaved (Hovannisian). But, I argue that affirmative action only exhibits a form of reverse discrimination against non-minorities. Many non-minorities are more than meeting the requirements of colleges but not getting in, while minorities that did not do as well are unjustly taking their place. Is it possible to be over qualified for a job or for acceptance to a school? Surprisingly, the supporters of affirmative action believe in being over qualified. When I explain to them the flaws in affirmative action, many respond by asking me ‘how will you create diversity in the classroom and the workplace.'
My solution to the problem is to get rid of affirmative action with a different kind of affirmative action. No longer should race be considered but instead, affirmative action should be based on one's socioeconomic status. Many people, including myself believe that no one should be discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, etc. Discrimination led to slavery in the U.S.A. and now the unjust refusal of many over qualified college applicants. If only socioeconomic status was considered then the right group of minorities will be targeted, the poor and underprivileged. I believe there is no reason that a black student who is of the same socioeconomic status of a white student should receive preferential treatment, they have the same opportunity to excel and neither is at an advantage. In addition, basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status will solve the problem of diversity in college. Many privileged students in selective colleges will be exposed to underprivileged students for the first time. Therefore, there would be diversity in the school based on social class. Also, diversity based on race would occur because many of the underprivileged youth in the U.S.A are minorities.
Although, many of my fellow minority applicants would shocked at the fact that I am disputing something that benefits me, I believe that I have to prove higher level education wrong. I feel that affirmative action should be eliminated because it does not accomplish what it was made to do. Minorities are not rising from poverty at a faster rate and diversity in college is addressed the wrong way. I have come to the realization that the supporters of affirmative action are in fact hypocrites. They claim that the policy is important to mend the wounds from their past discrimination when in fact they themselves are participating in reverse discrimination towards non-minorities. My plan basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status rather than race should be instituted in order to truncate the gap between whites and minorities.
Affirmative action is a policy that was put in place to create more diversity not only in the classroom but also in the job market. Beginning in the 1960s, affirmative action aimed to compensate for past discrimination with a racially just society in mind
(Sterba, 286). Many people in the sixties believed that giving blacks their freedom was not enough to right the wrongs of slavery. This is the premise of affirmative action set by President Lyndon B. Johnson who believed you cannot simply free an enslaved man and say " ‘you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair." Taking the president's words to heart, higher level educators started to recruit minority students as a part of their education mission (Garrison-Wade and Lewis, 24). For once college admission officers began taking into account the race of the applicant when deciding on their fate. Not everybody was happy with the decision to change the admission standards. Several court cases took place in which a student went against the beliefs of affirmative action. The first involving a white student named Allan Bakke who thought he was being discriminated against because a minority less deserving than him was admitted to graduate school and he was denied. The most up to date case concerning affirmative action involved the University of Michigan (UM) Law School. In both the Backe and UM cases the Court ruled that race can still be considered a factor in considering applicants. But, in the 2003 Gratz v. Reagents case the Court ruled that a point based system that awards extra points for race can't be used in the admissions process. I feel that the Court was right in eliminating point based systems but, I feel that they should eliminate affirmative action all together.
I know that many may be wondering why someone like myself, an African-American, would be against something that I have undoubtedly benefited from in the past. The reason for my disapproval being that I see fundamental flaws with the policy of affirmative action currently instituted. Although targeted to reverse the ills brought on by slavery, affirmative action rarely benefits the intended group of students therefore resulting in no difference in diversity. The truly poor minorities, the group that should benefit from affirmative action the most, rarely apply to enter universities and the better-off learn how to play the system (Sowell, 150). Another reason I believe affirmative action is not working is the fact that it was started to help minorities get out of poverty but it is not accomplishing that goal. Studies done by economists show that minorities are climbing out of poverty at a slower rate than they were before affirmative action took place. Why has something that was put in place to help minorities in the job market hurt them? I can recall when my friend, who happened to be a minority, got bad grades one quarter in his junior year of high school. When someone asked him if he was afraid that it would hurt his chances of getting into the college of his choice, he responded by saying ‘it would hurt me if I was white." This leads me to believe that the policy of affirmative action is decreasing minorities' motivation to do well in school. If minorities know that they will be given preferential treatment, then they will feel like there is no need to do as well or better then those without the benefit of affirmative action. Many of the supporters of affirmative action are unaware of the bad effects of preferential treatment.
I am aware of the stance held by all of the people in favor of affirmative action.
Many people say that affirmative action is needed because it is the only means of real diversity. I can not tell you how many times my friends, who are not minorities, say that "if it wasn't for affirmative action, then there will be nothing but Asians and Whites in college." I do not argue that diversity is a bad thing but, diversity by means of affirmative action is because many times minorities attend colleges that they are not qualified to attend. Many colleges accept a "token number of blacks" (Sterba, 287) in order to meet certain quotas and be able to call their colleges diverse. In addition to diversity many supporters bring up the topic of slavery. For many years slavery has oppressed blacks and
created a enormous gap between the education and job opportunities of blacks compared to whites. Now, the supporters believe that affirmative action is a perfect way to help blacks bridge the gap and make up for the discrimination they experienced while being enslaved (Hovannisian). But, I argue that affirmative action only exhibits a form of reverse discrimination against non-minorities. Many non-minorities are more than meeting the requirements of colleges but not getting in, while minorities that did not do as well are unjustly taking their place. Is it possible to be over qualified for a job or for acceptance to a school? Surprisingly, the supporters of affirmative action believe in being over qualified. When I explain to them the flaws in affirmative action, many respond by asking me ‘how will you create diversity in the classroom and the workplace.'
My solution to the problem is to get rid of affirmative action with a different kind of affirmative action. No longer should race be considered but instead, affirmative action should be based on one's socioeconomic status. Many people, including myself believe that no one should be discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, etc. Discrimination led to slavery in the U.S.A. and now the unjust refusal of many over qualified college applicants. If only socioeconomic status was considered then the right group of minorities will be targeted, the poor and underprivileged. I believe there is no reason that a black student who is of the same socioeconomic status of a white student should receive preferential treatment, they have the same opportunity to excel and neither is at an advantage. In addition, basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status will solve the problem of diversity in college. Many privileged students in selective colleges will be exposed to underprivileged students for the first time. Therefore, there would be diversity in the school based on social class. Also, diversity based on race would occur because many of the underprivileged youth in the U.S.A are minorities.
Although, many of my fellow minority applicants would shocked at the fact that I am disputing something that benefits me, I believe that I have to prove higher level education wrong. I feel that affirmative action should be eliminated because it does not accomplish what it was made to do. Minorities are not rising from poverty at a faster rate and diversity in college is addressed the wrong way. I have come to the realization that the supporters of affirmative action are in fact hypocrites. They claim that the policy is important to mend the wounds from their past discrimination when in fact they themselves are participating in reverse discrimination towards non-minorities. My plan basing affirmative action on socioeconomic status rather than race should be instituted in order to truncate the gap between whites and minorities.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action has become of the most controversial social policy issues to be discussed in recent years. It is controversial because it challenges fundamental American beliefs. As Seymour Martin Lipset put it: "Affirmative Action policies have forced a sharp confrontation between two core American values: equality and individualism."(Dudley7) This values oriented approach, which pervades popular discussion and derives from functionalist sociology, fails to explain why similar challenges to our core values did not in the past result in the kind of spite surrounding Affirmative Action today. As the popular lore and written history of urban politics in America demonstrate and as minority leaders today frequently point out, benefits were routinely distributed to individuals not on merit, but on racial criteria (Sigelman7).
The Federal, state, and local governments run currently many programs intended to increase opportunities for various groups including women, and minority groups. These programs are commonly called ''affirmative action" programs. For example; state law identifies specific goals for the participation of women, and minority-owned companies on work involved with state contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, which include that at least minority-owned companies should do 15 percent of the value of contract work, and at least 5 percent should be done by women-owned companies. The law requires departments, however, to reject bids from companies that have not made sufficient ''good faith efforts" to meet these goals. Other examples of affirmative action programs include: Public college and university programs such as scholarship, tutoring, and outreach that are targeted toward minority or women students. Goals and timetables to encourage the hiring of members of ''underrepresented" groups for state government jobs. State and local programs required by the federal government as a condition of receiving federal funds such as requirements for minority-owned business participation in state highway construction projects funded in part with federal money.
The federal government in President Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 first used the term. The directive ordered contractors to "take affirmative action to insure that applicants were employed, and employees are treated during their employment, with out regard to their race, creed, or color, or national origin." (William7) In 1998 the federal government had no less than 160 affirmative action programs overseeing the hiring of governments workers as well as the employment practices of companies contracted to do business with the federal government. Those in favor of these laws argue that affirmative action is a logical way of leveling the playing field because white males had dominated society for way too long and closed off opportunities to females, and minorities.
In the Maine School Administrative District No. 32, it is the intent to pursue policies of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity in all of its departments, programs, and activities. They've used affirmative action to insure that all applicants are treated fairly during employment. Such affirmative action applies to, but is not limited to, employment, appointment, selection, up grading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, lay-off, termination, rates of pay and fringe benefits or other forms of compensation and selection for training or academic leave. It also has established procedures to insure that the effects of its actions upon students, parents, citizens, local educational authorities, schools, libraries, towns and other organizations, and persons are non-discriminatory. It is their policy to insure equal employment/educational opportunities/affirmative action regardless of race, sex, color, national origin, marital status, religion, age or handicap in accordance with all federal and state legislation relative to discrimination.
One law against Affirmative Action is Proposition 209 in California. This law prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, schools, and other government agencies from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Governor Pete Wilson of California, Ward Connerly, Chairman of California Civil Rights Initiative, and Pamela A. Lewis Co-Chair have stated, "We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged. And not every ''minority" is disadvantaged. Real ''affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis. Let's not perpetuate the myth that ''minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against or for any individual"( Brune7).
There are over 400 diverse, community-based organizations in California are dedicated to the effort to end Proposition 209. The so called Civil Right's Initiative, which is neither civil nor right, is really a deceptive attempt to recreate gender discrimination, and slam shut the doors of opportunity that African Americans have fought so hard to open. Affirmative action is not a system of officially designated groups with enforced boundaries and memberships, as Europeans steeped in corporatist traditions envision of such things. Neither is it a system of group rights in the sense intended by domestic critics of affirmative action who see it as adverse to fundamental American values.
What we do have is an example of American superiority: a unique but typically American mixture, and a system of rights afforded to groups that are weakly constituted. To some it might seem that this argument is an: black/white, or us/them debate. "Whites are as deeply divided on affirmative action, the level of routine race and sex discrimination and the role of the government in addressing it", according to a Seattle Times national poll (Tom). The poll indicated that 51 percent of whites--and 72 percent of minorities--still believe in the ideals of affirmative action.
Both whites and minorities want the way it actually works, reformed. The Times poll suggested many whites want to do away with goals and timetables for hiring and promotion as well as set-asides of public contracts for minority and women's firms. A popular reform, the poll indicated, would be to change affirmative action so that it is based on economic disadvantage rather than race and gender. But most civil-rights leaders reject that approach, feeling affirmative action should remain in force until its foes offer a better alternative. William Connerly of California warned that people wanting to give "politically correct" responses could skew the results of this poll, and others. Often they tell pollsters one thing about race, he said, then vote the opposite way.
Connerly seized on the poll's suggestion that most whites believe affirmative action leads to unqualified minorities being pushed ahead of better-qualified whites in hiring, promotion and college admissions. He said that has grave implications for the notion that affirmative action is responsible for the expansion of the black middle class, because it suggests whites think they are not qualified for their jobs. "If you don't have the training and education, you won't get the job," he said (Brune7).
It was and still is necessary to have law that state blacks and women need to be give equal treatment in employment and admission to jobs, and schools. If Affirmative Action was done away with a return to what was happening a generation ago could arise again. No employment of blacks and women, it will be a return to the one thing that once was fought so hard for. The main group that is so upset is the white male establishment cut, and dry. The feeling is that when one black student is admitted into a prestigious school and a white is not, that is so much more deserving it is reverse discrimination. The feeling now is that, ok we gave you a hand out and now undeserving under qualified blacks are being employed and admitted, and that is not fair to the logically more qualified white male (Fine7).
No one wants to be treated unfairly, but by getting rid of Affirmative Action employers and schools will not be obligated to admit, and hire African Americans. Weather people want to admit it or not there is still a racial problem in this country. There has only been a generation of equal treatment, and only through the blood, sweat, ranting, and deaths of others has this happened. Learning from the past is something that is always pointed out. These laws of affirmative action were put into place because of inequality. Let not the work of those past go in vain.
WORKS CITED
Brune, Tom and Lynne K. Varner,"The Future of Affirmative Action: What Do Whites
Want? Civil" Seattle Times (Seattle, WA) 1999
Dudley, William. Ed. Opposing View Points in Social Issues. Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.
Fine, Terri Susan. "Race and Political Culture: Blacks, Whites and Commitment to
Individualism," SOUTHEASTERN POLITICAL REVIEW; Vol. 19, No. 1, 23-36.
Sigelman, Lee, and Susan Welch. BLACK AMERICANS' VIEWS OF RACIAL
INEQUALITY: THE DREAM DEFERRED. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
The Federal, state, and local governments run currently many programs intended to increase opportunities for various groups including women, and minority groups. These programs are commonly called ''affirmative action" programs. For example; state law identifies specific goals for the participation of women, and minority-owned companies on work involved with state contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, which include that at least minority-owned companies should do 15 percent of the value of contract work, and at least 5 percent should be done by women-owned companies. The law requires departments, however, to reject bids from companies that have not made sufficient ''good faith efforts" to meet these goals. Other examples of affirmative action programs include: Public college and university programs such as scholarship, tutoring, and outreach that are targeted toward minority or women students. Goals and timetables to encourage the hiring of members of ''underrepresented" groups for state government jobs. State and local programs required by the federal government as a condition of receiving federal funds such as requirements for minority-owned business participation in state highway construction projects funded in part with federal money.
The federal government in President Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 first used the term. The directive ordered contractors to "take affirmative action to insure that applicants were employed, and employees are treated during their employment, with out regard to their race, creed, or color, or national origin." (William7) In 1998 the federal government had no less than 160 affirmative action programs overseeing the hiring of governments workers as well as the employment practices of companies contracted to do business with the federal government. Those in favor of these laws argue that affirmative action is a logical way of leveling the playing field because white males had dominated society for way too long and closed off opportunities to females, and minorities.
In the Maine School Administrative District No. 32, it is the intent to pursue policies of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity in all of its departments, programs, and activities. They've used affirmative action to insure that all applicants are treated fairly during employment. Such affirmative action applies to, but is not limited to, employment, appointment, selection, up grading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, lay-off, termination, rates of pay and fringe benefits or other forms of compensation and selection for training or academic leave. It also has established procedures to insure that the effects of its actions upon students, parents, citizens, local educational authorities, schools, libraries, towns and other organizations, and persons are non-discriminatory. It is their policy to insure equal employment/educational opportunities/affirmative action regardless of race, sex, color, national origin, marital status, religion, age or handicap in accordance with all federal and state legislation relative to discrimination.
One law against Affirmative Action is Proposition 209 in California. This law prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, schools, and other government agencies from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Governor Pete Wilson of California, Ward Connerly, Chairman of California Civil Rights Initiative, and Pamela A. Lewis Co-Chair have stated, "We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged. And not every ''minority" is disadvantaged. Real ''affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis. Let's not perpetuate the myth that ''minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against or for any individual"( Brune7).
There are over 400 diverse, community-based organizations in California are dedicated to the effort to end Proposition 209. The so called Civil Right's Initiative, which is neither civil nor right, is really a deceptive attempt to recreate gender discrimination, and slam shut the doors of opportunity that African Americans have fought so hard to open. Affirmative action is not a system of officially designated groups with enforced boundaries and memberships, as Europeans steeped in corporatist traditions envision of such things. Neither is it a system of group rights in the sense intended by domestic critics of affirmative action who see it as adverse to fundamental American values.
What we do have is an example of American superiority: a unique but typically American mixture, and a system of rights afforded to groups that are weakly constituted. To some it might seem that this argument is an: black/white, or us/them debate. "Whites are as deeply divided on affirmative action, the level of routine race and sex discrimination and the role of the government in addressing it", according to a Seattle Times national poll (Tom). The poll indicated that 51 percent of whites--and 72 percent of minorities--still believe in the ideals of affirmative action.
Both whites and minorities want the way it actually works, reformed. The Times poll suggested many whites want to do away with goals and timetables for hiring and promotion as well as set-asides of public contracts for minority and women's firms. A popular reform, the poll indicated, would be to change affirmative action so that it is based on economic disadvantage rather than race and gender. But most civil-rights leaders reject that approach, feeling affirmative action should remain in force until its foes offer a better alternative. William Connerly of California warned that people wanting to give "politically correct" responses could skew the results of this poll, and others. Often they tell pollsters one thing about race, he said, then vote the opposite way.
Connerly seized on the poll's suggestion that most whites believe affirmative action leads to unqualified minorities being pushed ahead of better-qualified whites in hiring, promotion and college admissions. He said that has grave implications for the notion that affirmative action is responsible for the expansion of the black middle class, because it suggests whites think they are not qualified for their jobs. "If you don't have the training and education, you won't get the job," he said (Brune7).
It was and still is necessary to have law that state blacks and women need to be give equal treatment in employment and admission to jobs, and schools. If Affirmative Action was done away with a return to what was happening a generation ago could arise again. No employment of blacks and women, it will be a return to the one thing that once was fought so hard for. The main group that is so upset is the white male establishment cut, and dry. The feeling is that when one black student is admitted into a prestigious school and a white is not, that is so much more deserving it is reverse discrimination. The feeling now is that, ok we gave you a hand out and now undeserving under qualified blacks are being employed and admitted, and that is not fair to the logically more qualified white male (Fine7).
No one wants to be treated unfairly, but by getting rid of Affirmative Action employers and schools will not be obligated to admit, and hire African Americans. Weather people want to admit it or not there is still a racial problem in this country. There has only been a generation of equal treatment, and only through the blood, sweat, ranting, and deaths of others has this happened. Learning from the past is something that is always pointed out. These laws of affirmative action were put into place because of inequality. Let not the work of those past go in vain.
WORKS CITED
Brune, Tom and Lynne K. Varner,"The Future of Affirmative Action: What Do Whites
Want? Civil" Seattle Times (Seattle, WA) 1999
Dudley, William. Ed. Opposing View Points in Social Issues. Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.
Fine, Terri Susan. "Race and Political Culture: Blacks, Whites and Commitment to
Individualism," SOUTHEASTERN POLITICAL REVIEW; Vol. 19, No. 1, 23-36.
Sigelman, Lee, and Susan Welch. BLACK AMERICANS' VIEWS OF RACIAL
INEQUALITY: THE DREAM DEFERRED. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action
In the United States Affirmative Action refers to programs, laws and social policies to overcome the effects of and discrimination that limits opportunities for a variety of demographic groups in various social institutions. Affirmative Action is meant to allocate a certain number of employment opportunities for members of the specific groups such as minorities and women.
Affirmative Action regulations are policies used in the United States in increase employment opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admission and the awarding of government contracts. Minorities may include any underrepresented group, as on defined by race, ethnicity or gender. In general affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, business and or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity such as a corporation or by society as a whole.
Until the mid-1960’s legal barriers prevented blacks and other racial minorities in the United States from entering many jobs and educational institutions. However, women were rarely barred from jobs or education, many universities would not allow them entry and many companies would not hire them. The Civil rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment was the first legislation to address these barriers. Title VII banned discrimination in employment laid the groundwork for subsequent development of affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act laid the ground work for The Equal Employment Opportunity commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance which became important enforcement agencies for affirmative action.
Present John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term affirmative action in 1961 signing Executive Order 10925. The order stated that contractors doing business with the government will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.
President Richard Nixon was the first to implement federal policies designed to guarantee minority hiring in response to continual racial inequalities in the workforce. In 1969 the Nixon administration developed the Philadelphia Plan, requiring contractors working on federally assisted projects set specific goals for hiring minorities.
From conception of affirmative action in the United States in the 1960’s there has been controversy. Critics charge that affirmative action policies which give preferential treatment to people based on their membership in a group, violate the principal that all individuals are equal under the law. It is argued that is unfair to discriminate against members of one group to compensate for discrimination that unfairly prevents whites and men from being hired and or promoted. Very qualified applicants can be denied or overlooked for employment or college entrance because of their race.
Advocates of affirmative respond that discrimination is by, by definition, unfair treatment of people because they belong to a certain group. Therefore, effective remedies must aid groups that have suffered from discrimination.
As with most management objectives, a systemic system plan based on sound organizational analysis and problem identification is crucial to the accomplishment of affirmative objectives. For this reason, the council urges all State and local governments to develop and implement results oriented affirmative action plans which deal with the problems identified.
In the public sector of our society this means that all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin shall have equal access to the positions in the public service limited only by their ability to do the job.
Public sector of affirmative actions should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. Selections under such plans should be based upon the ability of the applicant (s) to do the work. Such plans should not require the selection of the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor they should they require the selection of persons on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
Executive Order 11246 has the following regulations and requirements for the private sector. The executive order requires covered contractors and subcontractors to refrain from discrimination and to engage in affirmative measurements to ensure that applicants and employees receive equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion sex, and or national origin.
The order requires all covered contractors and subcontractors to include a specific equal opportunity clause in each of their nonexempt contracts and subcontracts.
The Department of Labor’s regulations prohibit discrimination in such employment practices as requirement, rates of pay, upgrading, layoff, promotion, and selection for training. Employers may not make dictions based on race color, religion, sex, or national origin in requirement or advertising efforts, employment opportunities, wages, hours, job classifications, seniority, retirement ages.
These requirements of affirmative action apply to employers who contract with the federal government to provide goods and services of $50.000 or more and employee at least 15 or more employees.
The Office of Contract Compliance Program mandates that a formal written Affirmative
Action Plan is required of employers who employee 50 or more employees and any of the following: Federal contracts or subcontracts in excess of $50.000 of more, government bills of lading which can be expected to total $50.000 or more, serves as a depository of government funds in any amount and is a financial institution which is an issuing and paying agent for the
U. S. savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.
Affirmative Action plans should have a work force analysis, two factor analysis, unitization analysis, adverse impact analysis, written narrative, and compensation analysis.
In January of 2005 The University of Connecticut Health Center was found by the Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities to have an Affirmative Action Plan that did not demonstrate good faith efforts to achieve affirmative action hiring goals. The University of Connecticut Health Care Center with the human resource department implemented these procedures: All applicants and search candidates must complete a UCHC application form which requests voluntary provisions of demographic information required by the CHRO. No hiring offer will be made absent a completed UCHC application form. Human Resource may designate goal candidate who must be interviewed as part of the selection process. The hiring department will be required to provide basic race and sex demographic information on each candidate that is interviewed. The hiring department must provide written selection justification with comparative information of the successful candidate’s qualifications and experience. Hiring offers may be delayed by Human Resources if written selection justification is not provided and or incomplete.
Every new and existing employee has to complete the mandatory diversity training program.
In conclusion, Affirmative Action was created as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In moral issues in business affirmative action is described as a program to take race, sex, color, gender and national origin into account as a part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exists as a result of past discrimination. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order 10925, which made all federal contractors take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to race color, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed, prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on color, sex, religion or national origin. The Civil Rights Act came at the height of the civil rights movement and it forced the diversification of business and schools that would otherwise support segregation. Today, business and continuing education institutions are required to have an affirmative action programs to ensure they have people of all races and both genders reppesented in their population.
References
Affirmative Action. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Small business Encyclopedia:
http;//www.answers.com/topic/affirmitive-action
Affirmative Action Plans. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from California Employers Association:
http;//www.employers.org/services/Affirmative Action Plan.html
Finkelman, P. Affirmative Action . Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Encarta:
http;//www.encarta.msn.com/text_761580666___0/Affirmative_Action.html
Message Archive. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from University of Connecticut Health Center:
http://www/uchc.edu/vicepresident/message/affirnative_action.html
Policy Statement on Affermintive Action. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from U.S. Department of
In the United States Affirmative Action refers to programs, laws and social policies to overcome the effects of and discrimination that limits opportunities for a variety of demographic groups in various social institutions. Affirmative Action is meant to allocate a certain number of employment opportunities for members of the specific groups such as minorities and women.
Affirmative Action regulations are policies used in the United States in increase employment opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admission and the awarding of government contracts. Minorities may include any underrepresented group, as on defined by race, ethnicity or gender. In general affirmative action has been undertaken by governments, business and or educational institutions to remedy the effects of past discrimination against a group, whether by a specific entity such as a corporation or by society as a whole.
Until the mid-1960’s legal barriers prevented blacks and other racial minorities in the United States from entering many jobs and educational institutions. However, women were rarely barred from jobs or education, many universities would not allow them entry and many companies would not hire them. The Civil rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and employment was the first legislation to address these barriers. Title VII banned discrimination in employment laid the groundwork for subsequent development of affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act laid the ground work for The Equal Employment Opportunity commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance which became important enforcement agencies for affirmative action.
Present John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term affirmative action in 1961 signing Executive Order 10925. The order stated that contractors doing business with the government will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.
President Richard Nixon was the first to implement federal policies designed to guarantee minority hiring in response to continual racial inequalities in the workforce. In 1969 the Nixon administration developed the Philadelphia Plan, requiring contractors working on federally assisted projects set specific goals for hiring minorities.
From conception of affirmative action in the United States in the 1960’s there has been controversy. Critics charge that affirmative action policies which give preferential treatment to people based on their membership in a group, violate the principal that all individuals are equal under the law. It is argued that is unfair to discriminate against members of one group to compensate for discrimination that unfairly prevents whites and men from being hired and or promoted. Very qualified applicants can be denied or overlooked for employment or college entrance because of their race.
Advocates of affirmative respond that discrimination is by, by definition, unfair treatment of people because they belong to a certain group. Therefore, effective remedies must aid groups that have suffered from discrimination.
As with most management objectives, a systemic system plan based on sound organizational analysis and problem identification is crucial to the accomplishment of affirmative objectives. For this reason, the council urges all State and local governments to develop and implement results oriented affirmative action plans which deal with the problems identified.
In the public sector of our society this means that all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin shall have equal access to the positions in the public service limited only by their ability to do the job.
Public sector of affirmative actions should be achievement of genuine equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons. Selections under such plans should be based upon the ability of the applicant (s) to do the work. Such plans should not require the selection of the unqualified, or the unneeded, nor they should they require the selection of persons on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
Executive Order 11246 has the following regulations and requirements for the private sector. The executive order requires covered contractors and subcontractors to refrain from discrimination and to engage in affirmative measurements to ensure that applicants and employees receive equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion sex, and or national origin.
The order requires all covered contractors and subcontractors to include a specific equal opportunity clause in each of their nonexempt contracts and subcontracts.
The Department of Labor’s regulations prohibit discrimination in such employment practices as requirement, rates of pay, upgrading, layoff, promotion, and selection for training. Employers may not make dictions based on race color, religion, sex, or national origin in requirement or advertising efforts, employment opportunities, wages, hours, job classifications, seniority, retirement ages.
These requirements of affirmative action apply to employers who contract with the federal government to provide goods and services of $50.000 or more and employee at least 15 or more employees.
The Office of Contract Compliance Program mandates that a formal written Affirmative
Action Plan is required of employers who employee 50 or more employees and any of the following: Federal contracts or subcontracts in excess of $50.000 of more, government bills of lading which can be expected to total $50.000 or more, serves as a depository of government funds in any amount and is a financial institution which is an issuing and paying agent for the
U. S. savings bonds and savings notes in any amount.
Affirmative Action plans should have a work force analysis, two factor analysis, unitization analysis, adverse impact analysis, written narrative, and compensation analysis.
In January of 2005 The University of Connecticut Health Center was found by the Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities to have an Affirmative Action Plan that did not demonstrate good faith efforts to achieve affirmative action hiring goals. The University of Connecticut Health Care Center with the human resource department implemented these procedures: All applicants and search candidates must complete a UCHC application form which requests voluntary provisions of demographic information required by the CHRO. No hiring offer will be made absent a completed UCHC application form. Human Resource may designate goal candidate who must be interviewed as part of the selection process. The hiring department will be required to provide basic race and sex demographic information on each candidate that is interviewed. The hiring department must provide written selection justification with comparative information of the successful candidate’s qualifications and experience. Hiring offers may be delayed by Human Resources if written selection justification is not provided and or incomplete.
Every new and existing employee has to complete the mandatory diversity training program.
In conclusion, Affirmative Action was created as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In moral issues in business affirmative action is described as a program to take race, sex, color, gender and national origin into account as a part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exists as a result of past discrimination. In 1961 President John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order 10925, which made all federal contractors take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to race color, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed, prohibiting all forms of discrimination based on color, sex, religion or national origin. The Civil Rights Act came at the height of the civil rights movement and it forced the diversification of business and schools that would otherwise support segregation. Today, business and continuing education institutions are required to have an affirmative action programs to ensure they have people of all races and both genders reppesented in their population.
References
Affirmative Action. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Small business Encyclopedia:
http;//www.answers.com/topic/affirmitive-action
Affirmative Action Plans. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from California Employers Association:
http;//www.employers.org/services/Affirmative Action Plan.html
Finkelman, P. Affirmative Action . Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Encarta:
http;//www.encarta.msn.com/text_761580666___0/Affirmative_Action.html
Message Archive. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from University of Connecticut Health Center:
http://www/uchc.edu/vicepresident/message/affirnative_action.html
Policy Statement on Affermintive Action. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from U.S. Department of
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is the perfect fuel for a heated debate among Americans in society today. It is rapidly becoming the most prominent target as many of the gains won by the Civil Rights Movement of 1960's are now in danger of being overturned. In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in schools. In recent years, affirmative action has been debated more intensely than at any other time in its 35- year history. Many supporters view affirmative action as a milestone, many opponents see it as a millstone, and many others regard it as both or neither, as a necessary but imperfect, remedy for an intractable social disease. Many people who are opponents of affirmative action might disagree but I believe affirmative action is a positive political stance for the advancement of black people in America.
Affirmative action measures were established to fight racial discrimination. It is a policy to encourage equal opportunity and to level the playing field for groups as well as address and redress systematic, economic, and political discrimination against any group of people that are underrepresented or have a history of being discriminated against. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmative action "is considered essential to assuring that jobs are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified persons without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristic (Stein 15)." The roots of affirmative action lie in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination illegal and established equal employment opportunity for all America regardless of race, cultural background, color, or religion. At first affirmative action aimed to eliminate racial imbalance in hiring policies. Later the goals were extended to include college
admissions and awarding of government contracts. Subsequent provisions extended protections to all people of color, women, and older people, and people with disabilities. Affirmative action goes farther by reassuring employers to take "affirmative" step to achieve a balanced representation of workers.
Affirmative action is practiced in many areas of our society, in addition to leveling the playing field for people of color. Many declare, such as myself, that those in the minority group need and deserve aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. One area affirmative action addresses is preferential hiring programs. Many times people of color have been excluded from hiring pools, overtly discriminated against, and unfairly eliminated because of inappropriate qualification standards or have been rendered unqualified because of discrimination in education. Sometimes it is argued that affirmative action means that the best qualified person will not be hired. However, it has been demonstrated many times in hiring and academic recruitment that test and educational qualifications are not necessarily the best predictors of future success. This does not mean unqualified people should be hired. It means qualified people who may not have the highest test scores or grades, but who are ready to do the job may be hired. Employers have traditionally hired people not only on test scores, but on personal appearance, demonstrating that talent or closer ability can be defined many ways. As people emphasize the need for a color blind society, the reality is that color blind policies often put racial minorities at the disadvantage. For instance "color blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs because senior employees are usually
white (Ezorsky 9)." Likewise color blind college admissions seem to favor white students because of their earlier educational advantages.
It is also believed that schools work on a quota to get a fair amount people of color. Affirmative action plans do not impose quotas; they simply seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach programs, setting goals, and timetables and establishing training programs among other measures. Students are frequently admitted on basis of many preferences such as personal connections, financial contributions, geographical diversity or athletic skill. According to one source, "far more whites have entered the gates of ten most elite institutions through ‘alumni preference' than the combined numbered of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action (Murell et al 78)." Further more, children of alumni admitted to Harvard had SAT scores that averaged 35 points lower than other Harvard students (Murell et al 79). In fact the without affirmative action the percentage of black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen et al 5)."This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.
On the contrary opponents of affirmative action feel that it is an ineffective political stance that inhibits the move toward racial equality in America. One argument against affirmative action is that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism. It is said that affirmative action increases the chance that a minority student will fail where standards are higher, instead of succeeding where the standards are at the level that matches the student's academic capabilities. Opponents of affirmative
action say they want to protect the rights of the individuals and that race and gender are irrelevant. However, they ignore the fact that it has always mattered whether an individual is white or of color, male or female, rich or poor. Opportunities in life have always been conditioned by those factors. I believe everything should be based on merit. There have always been preferences, yet no one ever said they lowered the quality until they began to be applied for the benefit of people of color. There is no evidence that affirmative action has lowered the quality in any situation. Employers tend to sometimes hire people like themselves and to think of them as the most qualified. "Merit" becomes the justification for this because it's somewhat harder to see and trust the qualifications of someone different.
Some critics have argued that affirmative action is a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality (Wilkins 410). Affirmative action is not a solution to creating an unbiased society, some might say but what is? Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. It is believed that the fundamental lesson of discrimination should have taught us to give anyone preference based on skin color, sex, or religious beliefs, is wrong. More importantly, Roger Wilkins believes that preferential hiring might actually fuel, rather than extinguish, feelings of hospitality (Wilkins 412). Along with that there is no reason to believe that anyone in today's society can not achieve whatever they wish.
Another argument raised against affirmative action is that white people have to pay for past discrimination and may not get the jobs they deserve. It is true that some
white people may not get specific job opportunities because of affirmative action policies and may suffer as a result. It can not be forgotten that a lot of people of color have also lost specific job opportunities as a result of racial discrimination. To be concerned only with white applicants who don't get the job and not with the people of color who don't is racial preference. People are just afraid what they have, meaning power. Anyone who benefit from affirmative action programs are now depicted as undeserving and taking away from what others have. People from the dominant society have a fear of losing control over the economic, political, and cultural direction, particularly to people from unfamiliar cultures.
All in all, affirmative action has become a great issue among Americans. Many believe that affirmative action is reverse discrimination and that we are taking a step backwards as we try to move toward an equal society. In reality we still don't have opportunity in our society. Affirmative action though initially created to redress the consequences of slavery and segregation must also serve to stem the effects of continuing discrimination against people pf color. I believe affirmative action benefits America as a whole. Having a truly demographic and just society demands it because racism, sexism, and all discrimination tear at the fabric of society. The Dean of the University of Washington's Law School summed it up by saying "in an increasing multicultural nation with a global reach, a commitment to diversity- to broadening the boundaries of inclusiveness of American institutions- is economically necessary, morally imperative and constitutionally legitimate (Stein 15)." I have found that affirmative action policies are aiding to provide an equal opportunity to those groups who have been systematically
denied it. Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination but a vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. Some white men are opposed to giving others the opportunity they have historically enjoyed and seem to complain about reverse discrimination in response to steps that have been taken in that direction. Therefore, affirmative action type programs simply balance out the scales and influence whether personal attributes such as race will be used against minorities. Until the picture changes and minorities are not discriminated against, affirmative action will be vital in any efforts to address poverty and achieve equal opportunity. Moreover, race still matters so we need more affirmative action, not less.
Work Cited
Bowen, W.G., Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long- term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press p. 5.
Ezorsky, G. (1991). Racism and Justice: The Case for Affirmative Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press p. 9.
Murell, A.J., Jones, R. (1996). Assessing Affirmative Action: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Social Issues p. 52, 77-92.
Stein, Nancy. (June 1995). Questions and Answer about Affirmative Action. Crossroads Magazine, No. 52. Oakland California p.15.
Wilkins, R. (May 1995). Racism has its Privileges: The Case for Affirmative Action. The Nation, p. 409-410, 412, 414-416.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: PAVING A WAY TOWARD AN EQUAL SOCIETY
Affirmative action measures were established to fight racial discrimination. It is a policy to encourage equal opportunity and to level the playing field for groups as well as address and redress systematic, economic, and political discrimination against any group of people that are underrepresented or have a history of being discriminated against. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmative action "is considered essential to assuring that jobs are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified persons without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristic (Stein 15)." The roots of affirmative action lie in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination illegal and established equal employment opportunity for all America regardless of race, cultural background, color, or religion. At first affirmative action aimed to eliminate racial imbalance in hiring policies. Later the goals were extended to include college
admissions and awarding of government contracts. Subsequent provisions extended protections to all people of color, women, and older people, and people with disabilities. Affirmative action goes farther by reassuring employers to take "affirmative" step to achieve a balanced representation of workers.
Affirmative action is practiced in many areas of our society, in addition to leveling the playing field for people of color. Many declare, such as myself, that those in the minority group need and deserve aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. One area affirmative action addresses is preferential hiring programs. Many times people of color have been excluded from hiring pools, overtly discriminated against, and unfairly eliminated because of inappropriate qualification standards or have been rendered unqualified because of discrimination in education. Sometimes it is argued that affirmative action means that the best qualified person will not be hired. However, it has been demonstrated many times in hiring and academic recruitment that test and educational qualifications are not necessarily the best predictors of future success. This does not mean unqualified people should be hired. It means qualified people who may not have the highest test scores or grades, but who are ready to do the job may be hired. Employers have traditionally hired people not only on test scores, but on personal appearance, demonstrating that talent or closer ability can be defined many ways. As people emphasize the need for a color blind society, the reality is that color blind policies often put racial minorities at the disadvantage. For instance "color blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs because senior employees are usually
white (Ezorsky 9)." Likewise color blind college admissions seem to favor white students because of their earlier educational advantages.
It is also believed that schools work on a quota to get a fair amount people of color. Affirmative action plans do not impose quotas; they simply seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach programs, setting goals, and timetables and establishing training programs among other measures. Students are frequently admitted on basis of many preferences such as personal connections, financial contributions, geographical diversity or athletic skill. According to one source, "far more whites have entered the gates of ten most elite institutions through ‘alumni preference' than the combined numbered of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action (Murell et al 78)." Further more, children of alumni admitted to Harvard had SAT scores that averaged 35 points lower than other Harvard students (Murell et al 79). In fact the without affirmative action the percentage of black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen et al 5)."This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.
On the contrary opponents of affirmative action feel that it is an ineffective political stance that inhibits the move toward racial equality in America. One argument against affirmative action is that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism. It is said that affirmative action increases the chance that a minority student will fail where standards are higher, instead of succeeding where the standards are at the level that matches the student's academic capabilities. Opponents of affirmative
action say they want to protect the rights of the individuals and that race and gender are irrelevant. However, they ignore the fact that it has always mattered whether an individual is white or of color, male or female, rich or poor. Opportunities in life have always been conditioned by those factors. I believe everything should be based on merit. There have always been preferences, yet no one ever said they lowered the quality until they began to be applied for the benefit of people of color. There is no evidence that affirmative action has lowered the quality in any situation. Employers tend to sometimes hire people like themselves and to think of them as the most qualified. "Merit" becomes the justification for this because it's somewhat harder to see and trust the qualifications of someone different.
Some critics have argued that affirmative action is a superficial solution that does not address deeper societal problems by redistributing wealth and developing true educational equality (Wilkins 410). Affirmative action is not a solution to creating an unbiased society, some might say but what is? Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. It is believed that the fundamental lesson of discrimination should have taught us to give anyone preference based on skin color, sex, or religious beliefs, is wrong. More importantly, Roger Wilkins believes that preferential hiring might actually fuel, rather than extinguish, feelings of hospitality (Wilkins 412). Along with that there is no reason to believe that anyone in today's society can not achieve whatever they wish.
Another argument raised against affirmative action is that white people have to pay for past discrimination and may not get the jobs they deserve. It is true that some
white people may not get specific job opportunities because of affirmative action policies and may suffer as a result. It can not be forgotten that a lot of people of color have also lost specific job opportunities as a result of racial discrimination. To be concerned only with white applicants who don't get the job and not with the people of color who don't is racial preference. People are just afraid what they have, meaning power. Anyone who benefit from affirmative action programs are now depicted as undeserving and taking away from what others have. People from the dominant society have a fear of losing control over the economic, political, and cultural direction, particularly to people from unfamiliar cultures.
All in all, affirmative action has become a great issue among Americans. Many believe that affirmative action is reverse discrimination and that we are taking a step backwards as we try to move toward an equal society. In reality we still don't have opportunity in our society. Affirmative action though initially created to redress the consequences of slavery and segregation must also serve to stem the effects of continuing discrimination against people pf color. I believe affirmative action benefits America as a whole. Having a truly demographic and just society demands it because racism, sexism, and all discrimination tear at the fabric of society. The Dean of the University of Washington's Law School summed it up by saying "in an increasing multicultural nation with a global reach, a commitment to diversity- to broadening the boundaries of inclusiveness of American institutions- is economically necessary, morally imperative and constitutionally legitimate (Stein 15)." I have found that affirmative action policies are aiding to provide an equal opportunity to those groups who have been systematically
denied it. Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination but a vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. Some white men are opposed to giving others the opportunity they have historically enjoyed and seem to complain about reverse discrimination in response to steps that have been taken in that direction. Therefore, affirmative action type programs simply balance out the scales and influence whether personal attributes such as race will be used against minorities. Until the picture changes and minorities are not discriminated against, affirmative action will be vital in any efforts to address poverty and achieve equal opportunity. Moreover, race still matters so we need more affirmative action, not less.
Work Cited
Bowen, W.G., Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long- term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press p. 5.
Ezorsky, G. (1991). Racism and Justice: The Case for Affirmative Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press p. 9.
Murell, A.J., Jones, R. (1996). Assessing Affirmative Action: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Social Issues p. 52, 77-92.
Stein, Nancy. (June 1995). Questions and Answer about Affirmative Action. Crossroads Magazine, No. 52. Oakland California p.15.
Wilkins, R. (May 1995). Racism has its Privileges: The Case for Affirmative Action. The Nation, p. 409-410, 412, 414-416.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: PAVING A WAY TOWARD AN EQUAL SOCIETY
Affirmative Action
In 1997, three students were denied admission into the University of Michigan. Each of them, in turn, sued the school, charging them with discrimination. In one of the cases, a student was denied admission into Michigan's law school. Chicago Sun-Times writers Dave Newbart and Kate Grossman reported that last Monday, June 23, 2003, in a 5-4 majority ruling, swing vote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor judged for the school maintaining their right to consider the race of their applicants. In a second decision, the court ruled that they supported the University's use of race in their admissions policy, but use of a point system was unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment (Equal Protection Clause). Why then was the student still dissatisfied with the ruling? She was suing the school for reverse discrimination stemming from the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action towards their applicants. The student was white.
The lawsuit sent shockwaves across the nation. Though the case centered on college admission practices, affirmative action plays a role in many everyday matters, especially towards procedures regarding employment. Before delving into discourse and opinions, the background and history of affirmative action should be discussed.
According to writer Stephen Cahn, affirmative action's origins stem from an executive order that John F. Kennedy wrote in regards to the hiring practices of employers. Cahn writes that the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity Employment stated federal contractors "...will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The Contractor will take 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." The principle of this order from President Kennedy was more developed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which in part stated that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." About one year later, President Lyndon B. Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action emphasizing that civil rights laws alone were not enough to resolve discrimination. Just months later, President Johnson issued an order to enforce affirmative action toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Employers must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. Two years later, the order was amended to cover discrimination based on gender. In 1969, President Richard Nixon issued an order that further defined the "goals" of affirmative action. C. Price Jones of the Michigan Daily reported that the order stated it "...would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment," minority referring specifically to "Negroes, American Indians, Orientals, and Spanish Surnamed Americans" (Cahn) .
Nine years later, a landmark case hit the nation. In the case of the University of California v. Bakke, a white student, Allen Bakke, sued the university for reverse discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, but quotas were unconstitutional. Where as the subject of strict quotas was struck down, just two years later, the court ruled that in the case of Fullilove v. Klutznick, certain quotas "...were not unconstitutional and that 15 percent of public works funds be set aside for minority contractors" (Jones) . In the 1996 case of Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, the court ruled that the Bakke decision was invalid and that the school's affirmative action admissions policy was suspended. One more landmark in the history of affirmative action is the enactment of Proposition 209 in the state of California. It bans all forms of affirmative action, which in turn banned all forms of discrimination and preferential treatment (Jones). Thus bringing us back to last Monday's ruling that affirmative action be upheld by university admissions.
The history, as a whole, of affirmative action beings up a very heated debate about the morals of affirmative action. It has been both praised and denounced by minority leaders and "WASPs" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) alike. Affirmative action is only part of a potential answer to racial, gender and class inequality. In focusing on education and employment, affirmative action is seen as a temporary fix that will subside when the "playing field" is level for all American citizens. Promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships and financial aid that had been almost exclusive to white males before affirmative action are now available to the minority (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and women). Many commend that affirmative action's role in achieving racial and gender equality is important. Others agree the opposite.
Dr. Cornell West, the director of Afro-American Studies at Princeton University, states in his book, Race Matters, "We should see [affirmative action] as primarily playing a negative role – namely, to ensure that discriminatory practices against women and people of color are abated" (95) . Dr. West contends that affirmative action harms the fight against racial and gender inequality and in effect, class inequality. His argument is that change will become a reality when class lines no longer exist. He also reasons that affirmative action would not be necessary if those in power could show "...good will and meritorious judgments" (96) in declining discrimination toward those of a different race or gender. The roles of those in power are not the only roles that need to change. Dr. West argues, in regard to Black Americans, that self-respect and self-regard (or rather disregard) issues need to be addressed by the individual. He feels that individuals stereotype themselves into believing that their self-worth and identity is based on their class in society. (98) In the end, Dr. Cornell West's feelings on the role of affirmative action are based and limited to what reallocation actions are being made towards minorities and how minorities change their view of themselves.
My feelings on affirmative action take on a different role. Being an Asian-American, I see it as a double-edged sword. Where in one situation, such as a being admitted to college as a freshman, affirmative action gives me an upper hand, if I were to take that same argument to get into medical school, affirmative action just might take that opportunity away from me. How?
Bibliography:
Race Matters, Cornell West
The lawsuit sent shockwaves across the nation. Though the case centered on college admission practices, affirmative action plays a role in many everyday matters, especially towards procedures regarding employment. Before delving into discourse and opinions, the background and history of affirmative action should be discussed.
According to writer Stephen Cahn, affirmative action's origins stem from an executive order that John F. Kennedy wrote in regards to the hiring practices of employers. Cahn writes that the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity Employment stated federal contractors "...will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The Contractor will take 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." The principle of this order from President Kennedy was more developed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which in part stated that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." About one year later, President Lyndon B. Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action emphasizing that civil rights laws alone were not enough to resolve discrimination. Just months later, President Johnson issued an order to enforce affirmative action toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Employers must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. Two years later, the order was amended to cover discrimination based on gender. In 1969, President Richard Nixon issued an order that further defined the "goals" of affirmative action. C. Price Jones of the Michigan Daily reported that the order stated it "...would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment," minority referring specifically to "Negroes, American Indians, Orientals, and Spanish Surnamed Americans" (Cahn) .
Nine years later, a landmark case hit the nation. In the case of the University of California v. Bakke, a white student, Allen Bakke, sued the university for reverse discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, but quotas were unconstitutional. Where as the subject of strict quotas was struck down, just two years later, the court ruled that in the case of Fullilove v. Klutznick, certain quotas "...were not unconstitutional and that 15 percent of public works funds be set aside for minority contractors" (Jones) . In the 1996 case of Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, the court ruled that the Bakke decision was invalid and that the school's affirmative action admissions policy was suspended. One more landmark in the history of affirmative action is the enactment of Proposition 209 in the state of California. It bans all forms of affirmative action, which in turn banned all forms of discrimination and preferential treatment (Jones). Thus bringing us back to last Monday's ruling that affirmative action be upheld by university admissions.
The history, as a whole, of affirmative action beings up a very heated debate about the morals of affirmative action. It has been both praised and denounced by minority leaders and "WASPs" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) alike. Affirmative action is only part of a potential answer to racial, gender and class inequality. In focusing on education and employment, affirmative action is seen as a temporary fix that will subside when the "playing field" is level for all American citizens. Promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships and financial aid that had been almost exclusive to white males before affirmative action are now available to the minority (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and women). Many commend that affirmative action's role in achieving racial and gender equality is important. Others agree the opposite.
Dr. Cornell West, the director of Afro-American Studies at Princeton University, states in his book, Race Matters, "We should see [affirmative action] as primarily playing a negative role – namely, to ensure that discriminatory practices against women and people of color are abated" (95) . Dr. West contends that affirmative action harms the fight against racial and gender inequality and in effect, class inequality. His argument is that change will become a reality when class lines no longer exist. He also reasons that affirmative action would not be necessary if those in power could show "...good will and meritorious judgments" (96) in declining discrimination toward those of a different race or gender. The roles of those in power are not the only roles that need to change. Dr. West argues, in regard to Black Americans, that self-respect and self-regard (or rather disregard) issues need to be addressed by the individual. He feels that individuals stereotype themselves into believing that their self-worth and identity is based on their class in society. (98) In the end, Dr. Cornell West's feelings on the role of affirmative action are based and limited to what reallocation actions are being made towards minorities and how minorities change their view of themselves.
My feelings on affirmative action take on a different role. Being an Asian-American, I see it as a double-edged sword. Where in one situation, such as a being admitted to college as a freshman, affirmative action gives me an upper hand, if I were to take that same argument to get into medical school, affirmative action just might take that opportunity away from me. How?
Bibliography:
Race Matters, Cornell West
Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action
Should a man be hired for his skills or for the color of his skin? Is racial diversity in the business world more important then the most qualified workers? Affirmative action has become an important topic in today's society to better diversify the different races in America. Affirmative action is a set of public policies that were designed for the elimination of discrimination toward race, color, sex, etc. These policies are under attack today because of the unfairness toward the more qualified people. Increasing opportunities for a minority that has suffered past discrimination is the cause for affirmative action, and for the reverse discrimination toward the majority. Many people view discrimination toward one race today to compensate for the discrimination of another race in the past as unfair. This reverse discrimination is unfair treatment toward the majority. Affirmative actions are policies created to give preferential treatment to the discriminated, but also discriminate as well.
Affirmative action was first referenced to in 1961 with the signing of Executive order 10925 (Brunner). With this the Committee on Equal Opportunity was created, and was mandated that "projects financed with federal funds ‘take affirmative action' to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias" (Brunner). Three years later, in 1964 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act that prohibits any form of discrimination (Brunner). On June 4, 1965, President Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action saying, "that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination" (Brunner). Supporters of affirmative action say that the government must make up for the past by aiding groups that have been discriminated against. They argue that goals for hiring are necessary to integrate fields traditionally closed and minorities because of discrimination. Does achieving these goals help the American population?
College admissions are a great example of affirmative action. Colleges across the country must admit a certain number of minorities every year into their college. To admit minorities though comes at a cost to the majority. Colleges can only admit a certain number of people in every year as well as certain number of minorities. To do so they must turn down applicants from entering their school that may be more qualified or better fit for the education. Even medical schools are forced to follow the rules set to help minorities. Until recently, medical schools used a numeric point system to rank candidates in the admission process (Croasdale). However, the government ruled this form of admission process unconstitutional forcing schools to rethink their admission process (Croasdale). Some people view the racial preference in college admissions as a positive thing, saying that diversity is a benefit for all students (Bowen). While others view this is a discredited achievement toward the minorities as well as discrimination toward other races.
Some people find affirmative action as a good thing in today's society. Arguments that are for affirmative action include social good: compensatory justice; and the ideal of equality (McElroy). "Affirmative action drives a wedge between individual worth and economic success" (McElroy). It is affirmative action that gives minorities the rights to many parts of life they did not have before. They are able to get jobs and get into colleges that they though were impossible. Minorities as doctors are good because "minority physicians are more likely to practice in medically underserved areas, improving access to care for these generally poor, minority communities" (Croasdale).
Affirmative action in today's society has gotten out of hand. Minorities are receiving benefits that discriminate the majority in America. To repay a minority because of previous discriminations toward them is unfair punishment to the people that it affects today. Reverse discrimination should not be allowed to help diversify America in today's world. Affirmative action are policies set up to help the discriminated, however they discriminate toward the majority at the same time.
Works Cited
Bowen, William G. "Gratz v. Bollinger" Debating Racial Preference. 2005
March 28, 2005
Brunner, Borgna. "Timeline of Affirmative Actions Milestones" Fact Monster. 2005
< http://www.factmonster.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>
March 27, 2005
Croasdale, Myrle. "Affirmative action ruling affects medical schools, too"
American Medical News. 2003
< http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/07/14/prsb0714.htm>
March 27, 2005
McElroy, Wendy. "What Does Affirmative Action Affirm?" Zetitics. 2005
< http://www.zetetics.com/mac/affirm.htm> March 26, 2005
Should a man be hired for his skills or for the color of his skin? Is racial diversity in the business world more important then the most qualified workers? Affirmative action has become an important topic in today's society to better diversify the different races in America. Affirmative action is a set of public policies that were designed for the elimination of discrimination toward race, color, sex, etc. These policies are under attack today because of the unfairness toward the more qualified people. Increasing opportunities for a minority that has suffered past discrimination is the cause for affirmative action, and for the reverse discrimination toward the majority. Many people view discrimination toward one race today to compensate for the discrimination of another race in the past as unfair. This reverse discrimination is unfair treatment toward the majority. Affirmative actions are policies created to give preferential treatment to the discriminated, but also discriminate as well.
Affirmative action was first referenced to in 1961 with the signing of Executive order 10925 (Brunner). With this the Committee on Equal Opportunity was created, and was mandated that "projects financed with federal funds ‘take affirmative action' to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias" (Brunner). Three years later, in 1964 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act that prohibits any form of discrimination (Brunner). On June 4, 1965, President Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action saying, "that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination" (Brunner). Supporters of affirmative action say that the government must make up for the past by aiding groups that have been discriminated against. They argue that goals for hiring are necessary to integrate fields traditionally closed and minorities because of discrimination. Does achieving these goals help the American population?
College admissions are a great example of affirmative action. Colleges across the country must admit a certain number of minorities every year into their college. To admit minorities though comes at a cost to the majority. Colleges can only admit a certain number of people in every year as well as certain number of minorities. To do so they must turn down applicants from entering their school that may be more qualified or better fit for the education. Even medical schools are forced to follow the rules set to help minorities. Until recently, medical schools used a numeric point system to rank candidates in the admission process (Croasdale). However, the government ruled this form of admission process unconstitutional forcing schools to rethink their admission process (Croasdale). Some people view the racial preference in college admissions as a positive thing, saying that diversity is a benefit for all students (Bowen). While others view this is a discredited achievement toward the minorities as well as discrimination toward other races.
Some people find affirmative action as a good thing in today's society. Arguments that are for affirmative action include social good: compensatory justice; and the ideal of equality (McElroy). "Affirmative action drives a wedge between individual worth and economic success" (McElroy). It is affirmative action that gives minorities the rights to many parts of life they did not have before. They are able to get jobs and get into colleges that they though were impossible. Minorities as doctors are good because "minority physicians are more likely to practice in medically underserved areas, improving access to care for these generally poor, minority communities" (Croasdale).
Affirmative action in today's society has gotten out of hand. Minorities are receiving benefits that discriminate the majority in America. To repay a minority because of previous discriminations toward them is unfair punishment to the people that it affects today. Reverse discrimination should not be allowed to help diversify America in today's world. Affirmative action are policies set up to help the discriminated, however they discriminate toward the majority at the same time.
Works Cited
Bowen, William G. "Gratz v. Bollinger" Debating Racial Preference. 2005
March 28, 2005
Brunner, Borgna. "Timeline of Affirmative Actions Milestones" Fact Monster. 2005
< http://www.factmonster.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>
March 27, 2005
Croasdale, Myrle. "Affirmative action ruling affects medical schools, too"
American Medical News. 2003
< http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/07/14/prsb0714.htm>
March 27, 2005
McElroy, Wendy. "What Does Affirmative Action Affirm?" Zetitics. 2005
< http://www.zetetics.com/mac/affirm.htm> March 26, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)