Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theoretical foundations of equality in education
The importance of equity in education
History of affirmative action essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theoretical foundations of equality in education
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.
First of all, the establishment of affirmative action after the Civil Rights Era of 1960s promoted the thinking of reverse discrimination. Defined by Dictionary, reverse discrimination is “the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities” (Dictionary.com). It is true that women and peop...
... middle of paper ...
...n arguing why affirmative action is constitutional, why not focus on applying effective solutions based from our past mistakes and help our nation achieve long-term goals? To sum everything up, we as a human race are not perfect, nor will we ever make solutions that will satisfy both side of arguments. One lesson we can learn from this research paper, however, is that everyone should have the ability to fully enjoy their Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments. Nonetheless, 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 all contributed to the danger of affirmative action. It may be created with good intentions, but certainly not applicable to our society now if all of us wish to be treated equal.
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
3.The term Affirmative action has played a huge role in the past one hundred years of American politics. It is simply defined as an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer. Civil Rights of American citizens have drastically changed because of Affirmative action. With almost anything in politics, there is a debate for and against Affirmative action. Supporters of this say that this helps encourage e...
The Affirmative Action Law was formed as a solution to the long history of animosity towards minorities, and to eradicate the segregation between minorities and majorities. The program certainly aided many of disadvantage people living in the United States. The Affirmative Action encouraged many individuals, particularly, women, and group of people that belongs to different ethnic groups to have hopes and dreams due to the fair chance that were being given by the program. However, even though the Affirmative Action Law’s aim is to provide equal human rights for all the citizens of the United States, there will always be a group of people who will oppose, because each individuals’ have different notion and needs.
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.
It is an undeniable fact that many groups in the world are of a disadvantaged nature. Over the course of history, unfairness has spread far and wide in the forms of slavery, discrimination, war, and conquest. Unfortunately, rectifying these issues in a modern age is no easy task. Although in present day American society we have abolished slavery, given all races and genders the opportunity to vote, and eliminated restrictions on who can receive an education, it is extremely difficult for some to generationally climb out of the pit of injustice. As a result of this historical discrimination, many human beings are placed in a disadvantaged state economically. At the same time; however, there are many of an economically disadvantaged state whose ancestors have never received discrimination, as well as affluent families whose ancestors have. Affirmative action, also known as positive discrimination, was part of an executive order signed by President Kennedy in the 1960s as a solution to problems faced only by the former group. Ultimately, affirmative action is an injustice in itself that causes more problems than it hinders. In my essay, I plan to deconstruct three common arguments for affirmative action while providing two decent arguments against it. Affirmative action is supposed to positively discriminate instead of negatively, but it is possible to create a system without discrimination at all.
Subconscious prejudices, self-segregation, political correctness, reverse discrimination, and ignorance all wade in the pool of opinions surrounding affirmative action and racial animosity. With racial tensions ever present in this country, one might question whether the problems can be solved by affirmative action.
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...
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.
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 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.
The goal of affirmative action was not (or at least should not have been) to promote diversity.
Then why is affirmative action even allowed? Why do we, as Americans, need affirmative action to be used? Because it makes sure that the minority population is not refused their right to an education or a job. Because there are racists out there, ones who might need this policy to tell them that what they have been taught to believe is indeed unfair and unlawful.
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 not the solution; it is a way of ignoring the problems with America's educational department. The government needs to initiate the improvement of precollege education and eliminate affirmative action.
Although some of the worst employment discrimination was eliminated by the Civil Rights Act in 1964, many women continue to undergo unfair and unlawful discrimination in the workplace. Even though women have come a long way, they are still being discriminated against in certain fields of work. High-end jobs, most commonly large companies and medical fields, continue to discriminate against women even though they have the same job qualifications as men.