Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of affirmative action
The role of affirmative action
The role of affirmative action
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of affirmative action
Affirmative action refers to policies established to benefit the under-represented minorities in the fields of education, employment and culture. This is meant to avert the historical discrimination on the basis of religion, color, national origin or sex during hiring process. Implementation of these policies may encompass preferential selection in the job market. This results in mixed reactions and opinions from the public generating a lot of controversies.
The progress, justification and contesting of preferential affirmative action has ensued in two ways. The first is administrative and legal systems. Departments of government, courts and legislatures have formulated and implemented guidelines calling for affirmative action. The other is public discussion, where the policy of preferential management has generated many controversies. The two pathways make inadequate interaction, with the public arguments not based in any prevailing lawful practices.
The controversy began around 1972 and shaped off after 1980.After many years of subjugation, it seemed irrational to evaluate blacks by the same standards as whites. In 1990s there was renaissance of the discussion which led to the USA Supreme Court's verdict in 2003 to uphold definite types of affirmative action. The first debates involved gender and racial inclinations since affirmative action was mostly about the factory, corporate and college grounds. Later the controversy became all about ethnicity and race. This is because at the start of the 21st century African-Americans and Hispanics needed help in admission to certain colleges. The fundamental principle of affirmative action was fairness. Examples of affirmative action presented by the United States Department of Labor con...
... middle of paper ...
...on the actual implementation of preferences. Students should be able to know the variances used to in admissions and levels of academic training needed. This will help reduce the mismatching.
Learning institutions should also not use race as a basis of preference at the expense of socioeconomic preferences. They should also not use race-based scholarships rather use need based ones. This will lead to more honest policies and enquiries.
I’m not cancelling the fact that discrimination still exists in the United States. I believe there is a big difference between equal opportunity and affirmative action. I would rather earn my achievements based on my merits than have gotten lucky based on a quota system. There is nothing more proud than being a minority and knowing your hard work paid off. It’s the 21st century; everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed.
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.
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
We all have heard regarding the controversial arguments and debates regarding whether affirmative action is valid under U.S. Constitution. Before discussing whether to support or refute affirmative action, there is a need for all of us to know what affirmative action really is. By definition, affirmative action policies are those institutions and organizations vigorously engages in an effort work of improving the lives of minorities in the United States (NCSL). This means that institutions attempt to find ways to provide groups that have been historically excluded from American society equal accesses to public necessities such as education, salary pay, and so forth. To me, the application of the affirmative action in the society we live in clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids authorities to “deny...any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (The Library of Congress). Throughout this research paper we will go into details and explain four reasons why affirmative action violates the Fourteenth Amendments and should be unconstitutional. These reasons are as follows: the development of reverse discrimination, the creation of stigma against women and minorities, the buildup of racial tension, and the fact of attempting to solve a racial problem that no longer exist.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…." Even before it became a nation, America was heralded as a land of equality. Thomas Jefferson's statement begs more than a few questions, one of which is: "How can we ensure equality to everyone?" Beginning in the late 1960s, the federal government provided an answer to this question in the form of affirmative action. In recent years, many people have called this policy into question. Interestingly, affirmative action is sometimes attacked by the people it helps, and defended by those it hurts. In particular, two recent essays demonstrate that people's race does not necessarily determine their beliefs on the issue of affirmative action. "Why I Believe in Affirmative Action" is by Paul R. Spickard, a white man who is defending affirmative action, while "A Negative Vote on Affirmative Action" is by Shelby Steele, an African-American who is attacking the program. When the two essays are considered as responses to each other, Steele's logical explanations of the effects and implications of affirmative action expose the flaws in Spickard's ethical arguments supporting it.
Affirmative action. What was its purpose in the first place, and do we really need it now? It began in an era when minorities were greatly under represented in universities and respectable professions. Unless one was racist, most agreed with the need of affirmative action in college admissions and in the workplace. Society needed an active law that enforced equality during a period when civil rights bills were only effective in ink. With so much of America¹s work force spawned from integrated schools now, some may question whether racism really is the problem anymore, and many college students might answer yes. They see it on college campuses today, and they are not sure why.
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...
The government thinks that implementing affirmative action will repair inequality, but it cannot. In the midst of tying to promote equality, they are promoting discrimination. Discrimination is the violation of one’s human rights based on gender, sex, race, ethnicity and/or relation. President Johnson felt that blacks being free and able to go to the same school as Caucasians were not just enough for the past discrimination and turmoil the African Americans went through. Affirmative action was used as a cure to remedy lost times. Sandal made some valid points; he noted that th...
Affirmative action or positive discrimination can be defined as providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against. This consists of preferential access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare. In employment, affirmative action may also be known as employment equity. Affirmative action requires that institutions increase hiring and promotion of candidates of mandated groups. (Rubenfeld, 1997, p. 429)
Affirmative action is a much debated topic based on the efforts of our government to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. Affirmative action is a way of helping minorities in our country get jobs and avoid racial injustice. Many large companies have increased their employment of minorities after adopting these policies (Plous).
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...
Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic way of opening doors of education, employment and business opportunities to qualified individuals. Programs about reaching out to affirmative action are built on the American dream that there is enough education, employment and respect for everyone in this country. The programs are not about reverse discrimination or hiring unqualified applicants (Colonnese 197).
Pursuing this further, in the beginning, from the sociological perspective, affirmative action was approved in order to reprimand the African Americans who have suffered from discrimination through the years. Now this policy has spread to all minorities and are now seen as quotas where one minority has an advantage over another. That is why there are many people who do not agree with affirmative action. Certain groups can create an opportunity for themselves and only gain advantages that the p...
Affirmative Action is defined as an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and woman (Merriam-Webster). Recently a landmark decision on a regarding affirmative action has being in the forefront; Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in which the United States Supreme Court banned the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. A white law school candidate in 1997 with a GPA of 3.8 trials the University of Michigan Law School use of race being the reason in the admissions process due to being denied as a student at Michigan Law. The decision in this court case was the University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmative action was set in 1961 to ensure that minorities can obtain a job based on ethnicity in hopes to make up for past discrimination and diversify the work place, giving them an equal opportunity to prosper. This eventually trickled down into the Educational system which it eventually lost its way. Many students go on dreaming and working hard in order to eventually get that highly desired admissions letter their final year of High School. But what happens when your admission letter was given to another person less qualified academically but because of their race they filled that spot needed to meet the schools quota. Affirmative action places students into schools they do not match up academically leading them to ultimately not prosper. Racial preference should not be used to meet a quota, a person hard work and character should outshine their ethnic background and should not play apart in any decision making.
Supporters of affirmative action typically tend to support this cause in the perspective that by doing so we are helping make up for the discrimination and pain that we have caused such minorities in the past. Those who support Affirmative Action feel that because some widely known people, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported it they can feel some sort of affirmation (American Civil Liberties Union, 2017). Some of the notable people/organizations that the ACLU (2017) cites as being supporters of Affirmative Action include: the U.S. Military, Microsoft, Nike, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, General Electric, 3M, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, Procter & Gamble, Reebok, Xerox, Brown