Despite there is a widespread support for affirmative action in education, the paper argues that affirmative action is merely a means of reverse discrimination against white and Asian students alike, creates a mismatch in colleges, and restricts students from reaching their potentials. In order to help the readers to thoroughly understand the issue, the paper first gives a brief history about affirmative action while defines the term itself and reverse discrimination. Using statistics, the argument then focuses on pointing out why affirmative action is a reverse discrimination. Yet, not only creating a racial preference against white and Asian students, the paper continues the controversy topic with the mismatch theory and how it affects students illustrating by examples. After addressing the mismatch is a product of affirmative action, the discussion that affirmative action restricts student from reaching their full potential takes place, putting an end to the paper.
* * * * *
In 1961, the notion of affirmative action was first appeared when President John F. Kennedy asked government contractors to 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.1” Kennedy originally spoke of "affirmative steps" to prevent discrimination, suggesting general efforts to reach out to minority groups. However, the term is not defined or explained further; there is no indication that a specific policy was intended. Yet, by 1978, the first controversy in college admissions arose in the Bakke v. Regents of the University of California case. Since then, questions about whether or not affirmative action increases equality i...
... middle of paper ...
...ese students also felt that their academic abilities were judged on the basis of ethnic stereotypes. (Crosby, p. 136)
This indicates the fear and doubt affirmative action creates for minority groups. Acceptance into college is an earned privilege, a privilege that one has to work for his or her entire childhood to achieve. Schoolwork, homework, sacrifices; children do these things since they are little to assure their acceptance into a college. It is a rite of passage that society looks forward to. Yet, affirmative action can be taken as a condescension and insult to those people by implying that minorities cannot achieve their goals through hard work and ability. Moreover, instead of trying to strive for the best possibility, affirmative action allows African Americans to use the injustices, which is slavery, as an excuse as to why they cannot be successful today.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A Threat In The Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity And
Purpose: Michaels has published his claim as he wishes to reveal how he sees the purpose of affirmative action in higher education as a front of racial diversity to hide the lack of any class based affirmative action leaving little opportunity for the very low income. Michaels express great satisfaction in how he see affirmative action used basically allowing the rich to triumph while looking like everything is fine and diverse.
Another article titled “The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action” (Source B) by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. takes a similar stance, but walks the reader through an alternative route in reaching a conclusion by discussing the negative aspects of AA on minority students. A third article by the name of “Actually, we still need affirmative action for African Americans in college admissions. Here’s why” (Source C) by Valerie Strauss provides input from the other side of the spectrum by arguing that AA is still needed. While source A provides an extremely biased perspective on affirmative action and does little to persuade the audience with its weak language, source B presents a slightly stronger argument against affirmative through its descriptive language and academic tone, which appeals to the reader but fails to address the opposite side of the dispute. However, source C offers the most compelling argument through its thorough analysis of affirmative action that considers both sides of the spectrum with strong diction and formal tone to effectively convey its ideas to the
Discrimination is still a chronic global issue, and drastic inequalities still exist at the present time. Thus, the Affirmative Action Law is an important tool to many minorities most especially to women, and people of color, for the reason that this program provides an equality on educational, and professional opportunities for every qualified individual living in the United States. Without this program, a higher education would have been impossible for a “minority students” to attain. Additionally, without the Affirmative Action, a fair opportunity to have a higher-level career...
majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be
African- American males have been underrepresented among college students and degree earners for years, however the reason for this is often misconstrued. The percentages of white high school graduates “In 1998-2000 had jumped to 46. However, only 40 percent of African-Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in the same age group were attending college” (McGlynn, Angela Proviteira). The question then to pose, is why minority students are not succeeding in college compared to Caucasian students, “Only 47% of Black male students graduated on time
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Imagine, your walking down the street looking for a job. You see a sign in the window that says, “Whites encouraged to apply.” Imagine the period in time when just being white got you into a college, without any other considerations of grades or athletic ability. Those were the days of the Jim Crow laws. Now these instances have happened in the past 20 years, through new laws called Affirmative Action. The big argument is over these few years of affirmative action. Have they alleviated the pain of the Jim Crow laws? The answer to that question is no. Especially, in the case of the University of Michigan‘s use of Affirmative Action in the acceptance of students. Using race as a factor of admission is wrong and is reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
2. “Mexican Americans as a group fail to achieve well on standard tests of academic achievement, and they do not do as well as their Anglo counterparts in the more subjective evaluations of achievement.” (Carter, 17).
The issue of affirmative action has been a controversial one since its inception. The law was developed during the 1960’s as a result of the civil rights movement and the need to address injustices committed against minorities throughout the United States history. There were multiple attempts to correct the inequities between the majority and the various minorities including the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to create rules to end discrimination. Affirmative action came into being with the executive order 11246 issued by President Johnson. The Civil Rights Act and President Johnson’s executive order have been updated throughout the years to address gender, disabilities, age and other characteristics that could be considered discriminatory.
The discrimination against Caucasian and Asian American students a long with the toleration of lower quality work produced by African American students and other minority students is an example of the problems caused by Affirmative Action. Although affirmative action intends to do good, lowering the standards by which certain racial groups are admitted to college is not the way to solve the problem of diversity in America's universities. The condition of America's public schools is directly responsible for the poor academic achievement of minority children. Instead of addressing educational discrepancies caused by poverty and discrimination, we are merely covering them up and pretending they do not exist, and allowing ourselves to avoid what it takes to make a d... ... middle of paper ... ...
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (6). Dr. King stated this in his famous “I have a Dream" speech in Washington, D.C. in 1963. Is affirmative action still needed in America? Affirmative action is still needed because America does not have enough equality and diversity. Almost all of our American history dealt with inequality between the white men and the black men. As time went on, nothing has changed and is still seen in today’s society. There are two definitions of affirmative action: 1) race-neutral, gender-neutral assurance against actual discrimination and 2) racial-preferences and gender-preferences for the correct races and genders (3). Most Americans associate affirmative action with the second definition, causing much controversy. However, the true and intended meaning of affirmative action is the first one. Affirmative action is essential in America because Americans do not have sufficient diversity and equality in our society.
Signed in an executive order by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity was created to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. Three years later, President Lyndon Johnson presented the Civil Rights Act in 1964 prohibiting discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin (Wang & Shulruf, 2012). Later that same year, President Johnson gave a commencement speech attempting to give an ethical response to the losses both materially and mentally to the African-Americans in slavery in the United States (Chace, 2011). Within the later years of the 1960s, higher education institution administrators, in an effort to boost under-represented groups of minorities, introduced the affirmative action concept into the admissions processes (Wang & Shulruf, 2012). What has been the effect of these monumental milestones for minorities and under-repre... ...
Coming from a different history or culture can be hard if you are trying to fit into a new society. Stereotypes are being used to categorize people into groups based on their background. People like Brent Staples and Judith Ortiz Cofer have experienced multiple situations on which their race, ethnicity, or religion prevented them from pursuing a certain profession or activity. Staples an African male graduated from the university of Chicago with a doctorate in psychology experienced many racial stereotypes based on his skin color. Similarly, Judith Ortiz Cofer a latina woman earned a BA in English from August College and an MA in English from Florida Atlantic university was judged by her culture and the way that she was perceived to other people. Their essays inform us on how they developed their social identities and tell us whether