Words: 2667
Begun by President Lyndon Johnson, affirmative action programs grew from the belief that the Constitution guarantees more than just an end to illegal discrimination. The idea was to provide reparations to people who were part of the group that bears the scars of slavery and bias. Affirmative action, then and now, is meant to undo the continuing acts of discrimination – actions that are very often systematic and targeted at people solely because they belong to a particular racial or ethnic group. But, should preferential treatment be given to those in a pacific group because of race?
Such preferential treatment required that attention be paid to the same criteria Of race, sex, and ethnicity that had previously been deemed irrelevant. Is such use of these criteria morally justified? That is the key question in a debate that has continued for more than two decades. Racism still exists, but is not as bad as it used to be. If students think that their being discriminated against, it brings about ill feelings towards the people who they think are discriminating against them, and further separates whites from minorities.
Kennedy issued n Order 10925 which established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Their mission was to end discrimination in employment by the government and its contractors. The order required every federal contract to include the pledge that “the contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” (Guttering-Jones, 2011 Additionally, the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated fairly during employment, without regard to heir race, creed, color, or national origin.
Unfortunately, the government’s effort to regulate on the basis of race has had unanticipated consequences. The intent of affirmative action was to take appropriate steps to eradicate the ‘then” widespread practices of racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination. We now know that when the government enacted their power to sort people on the basis of race, such preferential treatment of minorities has caused discrimination against whites.
As stated, the first affirmative action programs came in the wake of the sass civil rights movement, which put a national footlight on damaging acts of racial discrimination that were widely practiced in this country at that time. In affect, affirmative action is a 1 9605 response to the racism of the 1 sass. Slavery was one of the “past wrongs” that Congress sought to “right” when it first enacted affirmative action programs 35 years ago. Should such the injustice of slavery that ended 130 years ago be allowed to affect today’s events? It was naive to think that taking race into account would produce indisputable results for minorities.
In fact, “many beneficiaries f affirmative action have testified that preferential treatment often lead to self-doubt, dependency, and entitlement” (Eastland, 2012). Affirmative action is a catchall phrase referring to laws, customs, and social policies intending to alleviate the types of discrimination that limit opportunities for the variety of demographic groups in various social institutions. More specifically, it refers to both voluntary and mandatory efforts undertaken by federal, state, and local governments, private employers, and schools to combat discrimination and to promote equal opportunity in education and employment for all.
However, the meaning and nature Of affirmative action have changed over the last 30 or so years as a result of congressional, presidential, and court actions The Richard Nixon Administration introduced the concept of using “goals and timetables” to ensure federally contracted construction companies were more racially diverse. In 1 970, he further included women in federal affirmative action programs. For the next several decades, landmark legal victories won under the Civil Rights Act in the U. S. Supreme Court moved the nation closer to equal opportunity.
One such example is displayed in the 1 978 Regents of the University of California vs… Bake (2006). Bake holds that although the university special admission program set aside a quota for places at its medical school in Davis, it violated federal law. Lawfully race could thereby be considered as one of the criteria for admission (McBride, 2006). Women and minorities continued to gain under equal opportunity affirmative action programs, but the gains were threatened under president Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
During their terms many major civil rights legislation was vetoed and programs intended to fight discrimination were tutee. Today, courts continually narrow the limits of equal opportunity affirmative action programs. Debating Affirmative Action As reflected by Eastland, “once preferential treatment was made possible, it spread throughout the public and private sectors. ” Affirmative action is the nation’s much-debated answer to generations of racial injustice and there are signs that Americans are not ready to abandon programs that favor blacks and other minorities in college admissions and on the job. “An U.
S. Appeals court ruling in August against a University of Georgia initiative that favored minority college applicants heightened the national debate (Pickup, 2013). ” At Michigan, officials “boost minorities’ odds of admission on the theory that racial diversity is central to the academic mission” (Pickup). In fact, Michigan has continued to consider race in admissions, accepts lower grade point averages, and test scores from minority applicants. But, asks Barbara Grunter, a white woman rejected by Michigan law school, is it “acceptable to discriminate to achieve racial diversity” (Pickup, 2013).
So, as long as affirmative action operates, people will be lead to think that every minority tuned would not have Won that opportunity without preferential treatment, “which is a judgment that strips minorities of the respect due them as individuals” (Eastland). Our founding charter declares, “All men are created equal” and are “endowed by their creator with unalienable rights,” among them “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ” However, as Eastland reflects (478), the commitment to the proposition is intended to note that individuals not groups have rights and that “all individuals should enjoy a fundamental equality of rights. So, the individuals who have equal rights may e of any race or ethnic background. As an article in the USA today reflects, “Colleges today may consider race as one of several factors in deciding whom to admit, partly based on the value of a diverse student body. ” Such actions encourage Americans to think Of themselves in racial and ethnic terms, which have lead to resentment and further racism. Sometimes the resentment from white students leads to hate crimes, which further increases racial tensions.
Just think if you lost your job or your college admittance papers were not accepted because there were not enough Asians. Whom do you hind you would blame for your lost job? This is one reason why affirmative action is increasing racism in America. Racial tensions increase when people of opposite races fight for high paying jobs and high stake schools. It’s only natural for the white person to blame the reason he didn’t get the job the minority got the position instead. The result of this leads to different ethnic groups blaming each other on things such as pay, their economical situation, and their general contentment.
As a result, hate crimes from economic strife are enacted. While affirmative action may be a necessary tactic to achieve ore racial and cultural diversity on campus and such diversity is an end good in itself, white students have challenged this ruling in several class action suits. One such example is displayed in a Cincinnati lawsuit where “the university of Michigan denied admission in 1 995 to a white undergraduate applicant named Jennifer Grata” (Lie, 2012). This example is not intended as a means to indulge in what is called “the causation fallacy. Contrary to this fact, several similar cases demonstrate how minority applicants have a significant advantage over deserving white applicants who lose out. Even President Bush as stated: “l strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the university of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed” (The White House). More White people in the work force are losing jobs because companies have to make racial quotas. The more qualified are losing out of job positions because of affirmative action.
An example of this: Sharon Taxman had sued alleging reverse discrimination in 1989 when, for reasons of racial diversity, she was laid off so that the school board could keep Debra Williams, the only lack teacher in the business department where the two women worked. Taxman, who was later rehired, had won in lower courts (Lie, 2012). In a last minute out of court settlement, a civil rights group agreed to intervene and pay an undisclosed amount to the teacher and her lawyers. They were afraid of the Supreme Court ruling that might have come out of this case (Wilson, 1998).
This example is against the constitution and is risking white people’s jobs, the Supreme Court agrees and even our previous President Bush agrees. What people need to understand is we need to find another way to pep discrimination from happening in collages and in the work place. Affirmative action leads to less qualified people getting jobs. “Minimally qualified is a far cry from equally or best qualified (the backlash)”. This brings us to the question of whether it is right to let minimally qualified students into colleges because they are more likely to fail then the more qualified students are.
Would you want a minimally qualified doctor treating you for an illness, or half rate teacher instructing your child (the backlash)? Affirmative action thusly brings about poorer quality in generally every aspect of life. If you’re in New York and you get a cab your driver may not be qualified for his job and he may not know all the little shortcuts. So, it may end up taking an extra 30 minutes to get to your location. Or maybe, a detective was a less qualified person who got his job and he doesn’t find your missing child as a result.
Perhaps, your surgeon was less qualified when he applied to medical school and he ends up causing havoc when operating on you and you die! Are you still skeptical? Well its true, the “New Jersey State Police have tried to comply with the ‘dumber down’ racial hiring requirements imposed by the U. S. Department of Justice and legal threats by the NAACP, but many of the minority applicants still failed the easier application requirements (Diamond, 2000). That’s right the New Jersey police department is limiting requirements needed to get into the ‘force” because of the limited minorities applying for work.
They have even lowered the college education levels from 4 years to 2 years. This means that all the people in New Jersey have fresh new recruits that will be less equipped in handling the criminals (Diamond, 2000). The point is who wants less qualified people, when you can have the best person doing any job? Not only is it racist to discriminate, but it also enacts a lesser quality working class. White students and employees are losing out on opportunities and are losing jobs. Furthermore, this contributes to the overall fall of the majority. People who are losing their jobs because of affirmative action might have to go on welfare.
In effect, their credit would go down the drain and they may even have to move to smaller houses. A prefect example of this is reflected in the following: CHERRY HILL, N. J. ” “A State Police superintendent who was fired for saying minorities were more likely to be involved in cocaine and Arizona trafficking is suing the state for discrimination. ” Carl Williams’ claims that Gob. Christine Todd Whitman and former Attorney General Peter Verviers, now a state Supreme Court justice, fired Williams in February “because of his status as a white male, age 59, in order to replace him with a black superintendent” (Diamond, 2000).
White people are losing their jobs and it is completely unfair. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense that New Jersey Police Department was in need of more minorities. So, the police department fired Williams for something he ‘questionably’ said so as to boost heir quotas. Luckily, Williams filed a lawsuit seeking more than $21 million (Diamond, 2000). What people don’t know is if you’re trying to bring people up from the streets while using affirmative action, you are also bringing more people to the streets by doing so.
Maybe the answer is as simple as creating a government-funded program where non-qualified minorities are taught the skills necessary for high paying jobs and they are paid while being taught. One additional solution could be the hiring of unqualified minorities in entry- level positions at companies so that they can learn the skills needed for the Geiger paying jobs. It IS unfair for people who already have high paying positions to lose their jobs because a diversity quota has not been met. Affirmative action is widely thought to be unfair because it benefits minority college applicants at the expense of more deserving whites.
Allan Bake was another rejected white applicant who won admission in 1 978 to the University of California at Davit’s medical school after convincing the high court that the school’s policy of reserving 16 of 100 seats each year for minority students was unconstitutional. For many Americans, the success of Basket’s lawsuit has mongo highlighted what is unfair about affirmative action in that “no one in America should be discriminated against on account of race” (Eastland). Affirmative action is reverse discrimination.
It was made to right the wrong of discriminating against blacks, but it has only accomplished discriminating against white people. Most people believe two wrongs don’t make a right and believe this is what the government was trying to do. Allowing minority students or minority employees to take jobs from others just to meet a quota is discriminating. Radical ways of trying to end racism in America will only end p igniting into an even more heinous problem. Such is the case with affirmative action. “Affirmative Action leads directly to lower or even no standards of excellence.
The only standard of excellence that has any value under affirmative action is skin color, gender, and ethnicity. We are left with minimal and not even average standards (Wilson, 1998). Reverse discrimination is not the answer to our problems, but merely a half-baked concoction that does not work in the world. Conclusion: Personal Argument A solution to affirmative action would be to end quotas all together and begin a new program. It is given that as long as there are different ethnicities that discrimination will continue to plague this world.
Race should only be considered when both applicants equally qualify for a job or school. However, it is unlikely that two applicants would exactly be equal as there would be at least one defining thing about the person that would distinguish himself from the other (such as his attitude, charisma, SECT. ). If the applicants are exactly equal then hire them both. Or in a situation that calls for only one person have them draw straws… But severely doubt that two applicants would not eve at least one better character then the other or even that the employer should let it go to chance.
Luck is a better determining factor then race is and it is fairer for both applicants. Today, our society consists of many races and ethnic groups and any law that tries to distinguish among the groups and to favor one over another is bound to fail the country. In fact, as argued, affirmative action causes unfairness to non-minority applicants. Certainly, minority applicants are not the only ones who contribute to educational and work diversity. Such programs stamp all minorities with a badge of inferiority.