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.
Violates the principle of merit
Because we still don’t have equal opportunity. Affirmative action, though initially created to redress the consequences of slavery and segregation, must also serve to stem the effects of continuing discrimination against women as well as people of color. The selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. There is a mandate that in choosing a person of color when past discrimination has resulted in white people receiving preferential treatment. Most jobs are found by word-of-mouth. Since neighborhoods tend to be more segregrated word of mouth leads to the perpetuation of discrimation, intentionally or not. Affirmative action pushes employers to try harder, to cast wider net.
Does affirmative action mean quotas?
No. Affirmative action plans do not impose quota; 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. In 1976, Allan Bakke sued the University of California Medical School at Davis for denying his admission on the basis of reverse discrimination, because 16 out of 100 places in the medical school class were reserved for “economically and educationally disadvantage applicants.” The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, holding that the policy of reserving ...
... middle of paper ...
...is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).
Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats.
In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned many different presidential administrations -- both Republican and Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.
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...
Affirmative action, while a great idea in the beginning, is no longer needed to make up for the past discrimination of women and minorities. It does not get rid of discrimination, but rather creates it towards whites and men. Any form of discrimination is wrong, whether intentional or unintentional. Businesses and universities will set aside a separate pool for minorities and women so they don’t have to originally compete against the whole pool of applicants. A person’s qualifications and how they got to where they are should not be questioned because of affirmative action. The only reason some people are still questioned or considered undeserving is because affirmative action still takes place. Getting rid of affirmative action in universities and businesses will eliminate reverse discrimination and ensure that their qualifications, along with achievements, will not be questioned based on the skin color or gender of a
According to author Judith Boss “Affirmative action involves taking positive steps in job hiring and college admissions to correct certain past injustices against groups”. Affirmative Action is not only for people of color it is also for women. It is needed to achieve full gender equity in schools and the workplace. With that said one of the benefits of affirmative action is to make sure that schools and the workplace stays diverse, it’s to help create communities that are open-minded and expose people to different cultures that are different from their own. Having the ability to interact with other race and nationalities is a big part of the education process. It allows students and employees the ability to interact with people of the opposite
majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be
Affirmative action programs may or may not have been appropriate in times past where inequalities were prevalent and programs to build diversity were mandated. In the United States today, where law bars discrimination, I feel employment opportunities should be based on merit and not on race, sex or any other preconceived notion. Actively recruiting candidates that do not meet minimum requirements or standards is counterproductive to any agency that strives to serve the public in an efficient and effective manner and further erode confidence in government.
More importantly, Mr. Watulak mentions that "affirmative action has some rather unpleasant racist assumptions hiding behind it. The clear implication that minorities could not adequately get ahead without special considerations seems just a touch bigoted." I agree with this because even though affirmative action looks like a positive policy for minorities, it may have a lot of negative consequences as well. It can be true that it has increased job opportunities for minorities but the question is whether it has done so for correct reasons. For example, when a minority gets a high position in a corporation, the other employers may think about why this person received this position.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, affirmative action is “an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and women.” However, despite its well-intentioned policies, it has been the source of much controversy over the years. Barbara Scott and Mary Ann Schwartz mention that “proponents of affirmative action argue that given that racism and discrimination are systemic problems, their solutions require institutional remedies such as those offered by affirmative action legislation” (298). Also, even though racism is no longer direct, indirect forms still exist in society and affirmative action helps direct. On the other hand, opponents to affirm...
Some feel that affirmative action in universities is the answer to the end of racism and inequality. If more black students get into and graduate from good colleges, more of them will go on to even out the lopsided numbers in the work force. Prejudice secretly slips through everyone¹s thoughts. Or so Barbara Ehrenreich believes when she writes of a quiet, subliminal prejudice that is caused by statistics that prove the fewer numbers of blacks in high profile jobs. When we see ninety percent of leadership roles in the corporate world held by white men, we begin to doubt other¹s competence in that field. With so many minorities in menial roles, people begin to believe the white man is best for ...
Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination "That student was accepted because of affirmative action policies." With my first intake of the phrase, I realized that the student, whom I knew and worked with so many times, the one with such a lack of motivational ability, confidence, and ideas, was now occupying my chances towards a preferred school. "Affirmative action", I soon found out, was used by President John F. Kennedy over 30 years ago to imply equality and equal access to all, disregarding race, creed, color, or national origin. As a policy setting out to resolve the problems of discrimination, Affirmative Action is simply nothing more than a quota of reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action emphasizes prospective opportunity more towards statistical measures.
Affirmative action started in the 1960’s as a way to end discrimination against African American and later all minorities - including women. By migrating people of all color into workplaces and colleges/universities seemed to be the suitable solution to diversify our nation. Although blacks had been freed for a 100 years, they continually struggled with segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the segregation of all sort in the United States, however that was not enough. Congress mandated the affirmative action program as a plan of desegregation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made reference to this plan, but it was not until September 1965 that it was enforced by President Lyndon Johnson. The program affected federal jobs, to include federal contracting company, and universities. In order to receive federal funding, each entity had to hire and enroll minorities. Affirmative action was a good jump start to get our nation to where it is today. However, affirmative action should not be continued because it is a form of discrimination, it is more harmful than helpful, and it supplements race or gender for one’s qualification.
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.
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.
Affirmative Action Affirmative action can be defined as action taken to compensate for past unfairness in the education of minorities. The current system of affirmative action allows universities to admit applicants from certain ethnic and minority groups with lower credentials. The main purpose of affirmative action is to produce a diverse campus population that is comparable to today's society. The use of race as a facto by which someone is admitted to college in the long run will compromise the quality of the university. Implicating affirmative action to solve the problem of diversity on today's campuses has lead to the creation of problems.
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).
Affirmative action has been the topic of debate for many years. It has been controversial because it has been said to be a form of reverse discrimination. This paper will discuss the purpose behind affirmative action, as well as, its various strengths and weaknesses. Also, this paper will look at the following issues surrounding affirmative action such as the incompetency myth ( are companies hiring less qualified people?), the impact on employment (what has changed in the work place?), the impact on women (how have their lives changed?) and the impact on employment law (what documents back up affirmative action?). Lastly, a discussion of affirmative action on an international scale, and what international documents have to say about the topic. The purpose of this paper is to bring to light all the issues, and then make an educated statement of whether affirmative action is a worthwhile activity or if there is a better solution.