All men are created equal. All men are born with the same unalienable rights, those which cannot be given or taken away. Because of this, it is apparent that one man has no more rights than another, but earned privileges. If a man works forty years of his life in a factory and can feed his family with the money he earns is that a right because he is Caucasian? If a Hispanic man does not work, and cannot feed his family is that unfair treatment? Affirmative Action Laws should be eliminated because they discriminate the Caucasian majority, contradict the Civil Rights Act, and oppose the Bible.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was established to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment among men, regardless of race. The Affirmative Action Laws administer employers to use a selection process when hiring, which concerns race (Scholars). Seemingly contradicting the intentions of the Civil Rights Act, the laws enforce a diverse workplace, without notice of ability. In the late 1970’s reverse discrimination became an issue.
Regardless of its good intentions, the Affirmative Action Laws began to influence the judgment of those with power to make decisions. In 2003, the Supreme Court argued a case when the University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, Caucasian. The university accepted a minority student with lower scores. The District Court found the law school’s use of race unlawful, but the decision was reversed. The use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause (Grutter). There was a great deal of controversy about the decision made.
In the same way, there ...
... middle of paper ...
... laws should be eliminated. Reverse discrimination, as well as any discrimination at all should not be customary; however these laws do not promote the idea of the color blind society that the Civil Rights Act endorses. Teaching people to rely on the government instead of themselves, in the long run will not benefit anyone. Affirmative Action laws are helpless in regards to its intending purpose, and should therefore be eliminated.
Works Cited
Acts. New International Version. 2010. Web. 3 Feb. 2011.
Grutter v. Bollinger. Supreme Court. 23 June 2003.
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: New American
Library, 1964.
Rand, Ayn, and Schwartz, Peter. The Ayn Rand Column. Los Angeles: Second Renaissance
Books, 1991.
Scholars, .Interview by John Stossel and Gena Binkley. Nov 5, 2006. ABC News. TV. 3 Feb 2011.
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
In 2008 Abigail Fisher was denied admission to the University of Texas her argument was that her right to equal protection was violated because the university is using race for their admissions and she is white. Fisher challenged the university’s consideration of race in the undergraduate admissions process. Before Abigail Fisher there was another case that was presented in 1996 similar to that of Fishers the Hopwood v. Texas that also argued race-conscious admissions because of the unfair advantage that minorities were given the unfair advantage. After this case was made the Texas Legislature passed a law agreeing that the top 10 percent of their high school
Ayn Rand’s controversial views and opinions on ethical egoism have paved the way in liberating and absolving society’s conservative elite from feeling guilt or compassion towards those who are less fortunate in society - including those from the middle-class, the working poor and minorities. Though Rand penned her theory decades ago, her brand of ethical egoism is still touted as gospel by some politicians and those in the upper echelons of society, creating gridlock in the government and a deep division among the classes.
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.
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
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 in the U.S. started to come about in the early nineteen sixties. It was enacted along with many other anti-segregation laws, as part of the "Civil Rights act of 1964 and an executive order in 1965 (Affirmative, Encyclopedia Britannica par. 2)." Today affirmative action is still going strong. It has many positive aspects, but it also has several negative affects, one of which is "reverse discrimination.
Is it possible to fill out a job application, apply for college, or even fill out a simple survey without being asked to provide one’s ethnicity? I often wonder how many people actually look at the information I provide instead of the fact that I happen to be Hispanic. Does that make me any different? It is extremely frustrating to realize that despite the civil rights victories of the twenty-first century, our society is still obsessed with race. Advocates of affirmative action will love to tell the American people that minorities are truly benefited by these policies, and that they are thankful for the compensation of the discrimination of their ancestors. Here is one minority who will tell you very differently. Affirmative action is a process of reverse discrimination, giving me unfair advantages based on my race, disregarding my academic abilities and personal motivation. It is degrading that colleges do not think that I can succeed without my ethnicity being a factor in the admissions process. Affirmative action is in no way beneficial to the minorities today, and history will show how it is slowly turning into a process of reverse discrimination.
Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. The Labor Department report found less than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeal between 1990 and 1994. Discrimination was established in only six cases. The report found that, “Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant…. erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualifications.”(SF Chronicle, March 31, 1995) Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.
The black rights and women’s rights movements of the 1960’s fought against injustice and discrimination that had been suffered by minorities for years (Hudson). In response, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in 1961, creating a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandating that projects financed by federal funding would “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias (Hudson). Two more executive orders in 1965 and 1968 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and gender, giving the federal government the power to enforce this prohibition (Hudson). However, in current times, affirmative action programs have suffered setbacks. Affirmative action in education has been abolished in Texas by court order, and in California and Washington it has been terminated by public referendum (Bybee).
Affirmative Action is a policy in the United States of America. It is in use to help minorities get equal treatment in admissions policies for big businesses and higher educational programs. In one way or another, this policy affects almost every person in America. It affects people directly, and most commonly, indirectly. When this policy affects people, it usually affects them in a negative way. When Affirmative Action first started, it was a descent policy, but with changes in society, it has become a policy that does more harm than good. Since this is what the policy currently does, Affirmative Action should be out of use for every application it has a function for. So, this policy should be out of every law book in America to eliminate the negative impact that it is causing. Affirmative Action is outdated because it is turning into a reverse discrimination policy.
Affirmative action should be abolished because the negatives from the program far outweigh the positives. The program is doing a lot of harm to American society instead of helping.
Today there is considerable disagreement in the country over Affirmative Action with the American people. MSNBC reported a record low in support for Affirmative Action with 45% in support and 45% opposing (Muller, 2013). The affirmative action programs have afforded all genders and races, exempting white males, a sense of optimism and an avenue to get the opportunities they normally would not be eligible for. This advantage includes admission in colleges or hiring preferences with public and private jobs; although Affirmative Action has never required quotas the government has initiated a benefits program for the schools and companies that elect to be diversified. The advantages that are received by the minorities’ only take into account skin color, gender, disability, etc., are what is recognized as discriminatory factors. What is viewed as racism to the majority is that there ar...
Most companies after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employed the idea of affirmative action. “Affirmative action is legally driven by federal, state and provincial, and local laws, as well as numerous court cases. It requires written reports containing plans and statistical goals for specific groups of people in terms of such employment practices as hiring, promotions, and layoffs” (Hunt, Osborn, Schermerhorn Jr., 2003, pg.62).
Rand, Ayn, and Nathaniel Branden. The virtue of selfishness, a new concept of egoism.. New York: New American Library, 1964. Print.