Affirmative Action: Discrimination Against White People Affirmative action is wrong and will not help solve the problems minorities face. The reason it is wrong is because it's discrimination. It has no place in today's society in today's society because it does more bad than good. In addition to that most people don't enjoy the presence of affirmative action. Also, it appears that affirmative action can actually be detrimental to employees health. First of all, affirmative action is discrimination, there is no hiding it. When an employer hires anyone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else if more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. Affirmative action legalizes discrimination (Steele 1990, 39). "I thought discrimination was illegal in this country (Buchanan 1995, 1)." Also, if this discrimination continues racism in the United States may become worse. Imagine what you would feel like if you couldn't get a job just because you are a white man and not a hispanic man. The racism will become worse because of it, and that is the very thing it is trying to prevent. It is possible that because of affirmative action, racism will grow and continue to grow until we history repeats itself and we end up living under Jim Crow laws again. That is an extreme possibility to end up under Jim Crow laws again, but it is a definite possibility to end up somewhere close to Jim Crow laws again. In addition to that, people say affirmative action is ok because it cures past discrimination (Keyes 1996, 1). Discrimination wasn't ok when blacks were the ones getting the short end of the stick. Therefore it's not ok when whites are discriminated against (DeWit 1996, 1). Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, affirmative action doesn't make discrimination ok just because it's against blacks instead of whites. Affirmative action in college is the most discriminating thing this country has ever seen since the Jim Crow laws many years ago (Buchanan 1995, 1). At ivy league colleges the median GPA of applicants is close to 4.0 and S.A.T.'s are close to 1300, minorities are let in with GPA's less than 3.0 and S.A.T.'s less than 1000 (D'Souza 1990, 231). The only way for colleges to achieve ethnic proportionalism is to downplay or abandon merit criteria and to accept students from typically under represented groups, such as blacks, hispanics, and american indians, over better qualified students from among whites and asian americans (D'Souza 1990, 231). Obviously, affirmative action is allowing undereducated citizens to get into college when the people that are qualified aren't getting accepted when they should. When we passed the equal opportunities law, it didn't mean treat different races differently, it means we should treat all people as equals, affirmative action doesn't treat everyone as equals (Hacker 1990, 229). If we lower acceptance standards for minorities, we should lower standards for everyone. Since nobody would do that we should raise To view the rest of this essay you must be a screwschool member click here to become a member.
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
is David, the leader of the group of Vampires, but is in fact Max, who
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
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.
From its points of origin, the intended use of affirmative action is to ensure that employees and applicants of jobs are treated equally regardless of their race, religion, and national origin. There is no question about this being the right approach. But, as mentioned in the article, when a company qualifies for government subsidies just for selecting a minority over equally qualified non-minorities, it's difficult to argue that affirmative action is working the way it's supposed to be.
Affirmative action is without a doubt, one of the most controversial and debated political topics found throughout the entirety of the history of the United States, especially in regards to college admissions. On both sides of the argument, you have millions of Americans vitriolically defending their beliefs as to whether or not affirmative action is a positive thing that benefits the entirety of America as a whole, or rather an outdated model existing well past its expiration date. Both sides of the argument have its pro and cons, but personally, I am of the opinion that affirmative action in regards to college admissions does more harm than good for America as a whole on a social, political, and economic level, and that it at the very least needs to be modified heavily, if not abolished altogether. However, in order to first understand the arguments both supporting and decrying affirmative action, as well as the controversy behind it, we first need to delve into its history for the related context.
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.
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
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...
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 ... ...
Known as one of the biggest obstacles in higher education to date would arguably be the use of affirmative action within the higher education admission process for both private and public institutions (Kaplin & Lee, 2014; Wang & Shulruf, 2012). The focus of current research is an attempt to either justify or deny the use of affirmative action within current practices through various higher education institutions, and though any one person could potentially be swayed to side with the rationale to maintain its use or disregard, the facts are quite clear that the future of this practice is unclear. Therefore, this essay will present current research in an attempt to determine if affirmative action should continue to be used within college admission decisions.
Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school....
Affirmative action is not ethical because it is against the law on equal opportunities. When it is supposed to help the disadvantaged, it instead suggests that people of color are inferior and therefore need special privileges in order to succeed. Affirmative action also offends the ethnic minorities on account that they are not allowed to compete head to head with the advantaged group. On the other hand, not all that is about affirmative action hurt the white. It helps remove conscious and unconscious stereotypes that affect both races. It also sets the stage for fairness when everyone regardless of color is given the chance to prove themselves. Unfortunately, this could only happen when it concerns people from ethnic minorities who have equal abilities, or rather the initiative to get qualified for the desired position.
Affirmative action in the United States has sought to rectify discrimination in society by favoring minority groups and women. After emerging from debates on non-discrimination approaches in the 1940s, the debates led to implemented policies requiring non-discrimination in employment. These policies developed to bridge the inequalities between different races, ethnicities, and genders after reports suggested the unfair advantages for whites and males. However, the practice of affirmative action is in a moment of intense debate in its fifty year history. This policy is often viewed as black and white, since two sides of opposite views arise from it. First off, it is well-known that affirmative action acts to allocate jobs and opportunities to