Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action Affirmative Action Affirmative action is one of the more recent and popular civil rights policies that affect today’s society. Affirmative action can be described as nothing more than a lower educational standard for minorities. It has become quite clear that affirmative action is unfair and unjust. However, in order to blend race, culture, and genders to create a stable and diverse society, someone has to give. How can this be justified? Is there a firm right or wrong to affirmative action? Is this policy simply taking something from one person and giving it to someone else, or is there more to this policy, such as affirmative action being a reward for years of oppression against those whom it affects? There have been many affirmative action plans and experiments attempted over the years; however most have been largely unsuccessful. These plans range from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

In 1986 the Department of Labor published an experiment entitled workforce 2000, which investigated the number of the most recent entrants into the working class from the years nineteen eighty-five to two thousand (Hyde 1). The analysis showed that of those who would be newly entering the workforce, only fifteen percent would be white males(Hyde 1). This course approaching prevalent accomplishment of affirmative action is the end outcome of an operation that began in eighteen sixty-four with the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Hyde1) This act forbids discrimination on the grounds of Blankenship 2 race, color, religion, and national origin. Title VII was meant to serve as a vehicle for affirmative action; however, in order to address the inequities of the nations employment system, another method was needed.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

About one year after Title VII went into effect, President Johnson required government contractors to take affirmative action in the employment of minorities. With this idea, he introduced executive order 11246 on September twenty-fourth of nineteen sixty-five and order 113755 for women shortly after. (Hyde 2) In nineteen seventy-three the Rehabilitation Act was introduced. This act enjoined federal contractors that have a contract existing over two thousand five hundred employees to take affirmative action in the employment of people with handicaps. (Hyde 3) There is no doubt that there will always be controversy with affirmative action until an effective policy is put forth.

Many citizens, organizations, and businesses seem to be slow to realize that government mandated race and sexually based preferences can only be used under extraordinary circumstances. There are many equal opportunity programs, such as the NAACP, that are designed to protect minoritys rights and privileges. Therefore, there is no need for affirmative action to be used to its fullest extent in the world today. This policy is wrong because it involves reverse discrimination, promotes the hiring of less qualified workers, and basically does more wrong than right. A person should be hired for a job position because this person is the most qualified, not because this person is a minority or a female. Suppose an employer hires a person because he or she is a minority; if another applicant is more qualified for the job, then the employer is the person being negatively affected. If it is a prejudice act Blankenship 3 for people to discriminate against minorities, then what makes it right for people to discriminate against the majority? Either way, someone is being discriminated against and affirmative action only legitimizes and legalizes it.

In my personal opinion, affirmative action is a plan that can only enhance racial issues. For instance, what if someone loses out on the job position he or she deserved because this person is a part of the majority? Would race, gender, or a handicap not have anything to do with this injustice? Affirmative action has proven to be an injustice to the majority of society. Over the years there have been numerous cases in which this policy has harmed a great deal of people in order to establish so-called justice for an elite few. Pasour explains one of the thousands of injustices that affirmative action has provided: Affirmative action promotes the hiring of less skilled workers. It sometimes forces employers to choose the best of the minority workers they can find, regardless of whether they have the required job skills. For example, Duke University recently adopted a resolution requiring each department to hire at least one new black for a faculty position by 1993.

However, only six blacks received PH.D’s in mathematics in 1987 in all of the U.S., casting doubts as to whether it would be possible for each department to find a well-qualified black, much less hire one (1). How does the Supreme Court justify that affirmative action is a legitimate plan that benefits the US? The Supreme Court has developed a test that supposedly proves affirmative action to be useful. The case history indicates that the Supreme Court will Blankenship 4 uphold affirmative action efforts as long as it satisfies the affirmative action test(Hyde 6). As an affirmative action plan is prepared yearly, it is put to a test containing three simple mandatory objectives. However, although the objectives are strictly focused on helping the underrepresented, they do not seem to mention anything about not interfering with the rest of the worlds advancement in schools and work force.

Affirmative action in college is worse, because a person not in a minority can be cheated out of their education he or she is seeking. Therefore, the minority would again get the better job. Without saying minorities should not get financial aid or scholarships, a person should receive them for their achievements, not because they are a certain race, gender, or from a certain culture. Is this truly necessary in order to proportionalize a school to the extent that it is in exact ratio to the different types of people in the US? If there is a certain amount of people from one culture in a college and they are the most eligible, then that is fine. However, why take this privilege from someone that deserves it because someone else is in the minority? Maybe affirmative action is necessary in come cases, because anyone that is not blind would have to admit that minorities are often underrepresented or simply forgot about. This policy is the only way that they can be get the job or school that they deserve.

However, it has gone too far when many are punished so a few can jump in the place they want and may deserve, just not as much as others. Who can say that they would not take advantage of the plan? The answer is very few, and the ones that do take advantage of it still no that it is just not the right way to do things. It is hard to criticize the people who do get into job position or school because of affirmative action, they are Blankenship 5 only doing what comes natural. That is taking advantage of what they can because there are so many chances and the one you miss could be the last one. The only thing that should be criticized is the plan and society itself.

It is seldom that affirmative action benefits society in todays society. Proponents of affirmative action view their opponents with suspicion for good reason. They know not all of their opponents are racist; they also know that many of them are (Guernsey 66). The only thing that will enable affirmative action-or similarly any similarly controversial policy-to be debated in an atmosphere free of suspicions is for the surrounding social context to be decisively transformed (Guernsey 66). The only way that affirmative action could work would be in a society with no diversity, which would mean that affirmative action is needed. As long as there are different cultures, there will always be natural hostility between them.

As long as there is diversity, affirmative action will only create more hostility between these different cultures. Lets say that affirmative action gets its way; what will happen? Every business that hires someone only because of their culture or gender will only be hurting themselves. This is because everyone that were undergraduates or unqualified will not do as good of a job as the ones that were not hired because they were not a minority. Affirmative action can also be dangerous. This is because they are not only cheating themselves but cheating the ones who they serve. For instance, if an architect firm hires a drafter based on affirmative action instead of their skill, then they are hurting the people who get their drafting done through their firm. Blankenship 6 The Supreme Court considers Affirmative action to be a very serious order of business.

Their views of affirmative action are often very different than those of people who get the worst end of the bargain. Many of them only see that affirmative action is a good plan to represent the underrepresented. If this were the only aspect of affirmative action, then no one would be against it. However, something must be blinding them of the thousands of Americans who are shafted habitually in order to pacify a few. Bibliography Work Cited Guersey, JoAnn Bren.

Affirmative action: A problem or a Remedy. Lerner publications Company, Minneapolis MN, 1993. Pasour, Earnest. Affirmative Action: A Counter Productive Policy. The Foundation for Economic Education. (January 1989): 11Pars. 29 Feb, 2000 American History Essays.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action was established as part of society’s efforts to address
continuing problems of discrimination; the empirical evidence presented in the
preceding chapter indicates that it has had some positive impact on remedying
the effects of discrimination. Whether such discrimination lingers today is a
central element of an analysis of affirmative action. The conclusion is clear:
discrimination and exclusion remain all too common. 4.1. Evidence of Continuing
Discrimination There has been undeniable progress in many areas. Nevertheless,
the evidence is overwhelming that the problems affirmative action seeks to
address — widespread discrimination and exclusion and their ripple effects —
continue to exist. Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the
black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment rate; 97
percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are white males; (28) in
1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty,
compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29) In 1993, Hispanic men were half as
likely as white men to be managers or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of
senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service
industries are Hispanic. (31) Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in
the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from
“audit” studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job
seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for
a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or
offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants. (32) Less direct
evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of earnings of blacks and
whites, or males and females. (33) Even after adjusting for characteristics that
affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies
typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male
counterparts. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less
than the average for white men with high school degrees. (34) Last year alone,
the Federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment
discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints were filed with state and local Fair
Employment Practices Commissions, bringing the total last year to over 154,000.

Thousands of other individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated
violence and discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to
name just a few. 4.2 Results from Random Testing The marked differences in
economic status between blacks and whites, and between men and women, clearly
have social and economic causes in addition to discrimination. One respected
method to isolate the prevalence of discrimination is to use random testing, in
which individuals compete for the same job, apartment, or other goal. For
example, the Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc., conducted a
series of tests between 1990 and 1992. The tests revealed that blacks were
treated significantly worse than equally qualified whites 24 percent of the time
and Latinos were treated worse than whites 22 percent of the time. Some examples
document the disparities: Two pairs of male testers visited the offices of a
nationally-franchised employment agency on two different days. The black tester
in each pair received no job referrals. In contrast, the white testers who
appeared minutes later were interviewed by the agency, coached on interviewing
techniques, and referred to and offered jobs as switchboard operators. A black
female tester applied for employment at a major hotel chain in Virginia where
she was told that she would be called if they wished to pursue her application.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Although she never received a call, her equally qualified white counterpart
appeared a few minutes later, was told about a vacancy for a front desk clerk,
later interviewed, and offered the job. A black male tester asked about an ad
for a sales position at a Maryland car dealership. He was told that the way to
enter the business would be to start by washing cars. However, his white
counterpart, with identical credentials, was immediately interviewed for the
sales job. A suburban Maryland company advertised for a typist/receptionist.

When a black tester applied for the position, she was interviewed but heard
nothing further. When an identically qualified white tester was interviewed, the
employer offered her a better position that paid more than the receptionist job
and that provided tuition assistance. Follow up calls by the black tester
elicited no response eventhough the white tester refused the offer. A GAO audit
study uncovered significant discrimination against Hispanic testers. Hispanic
testers received 25 percent fewer job interviews, and 34 percent fewer job
offers than other testers. In one glaring example of discrimination,

Affirmative Action

.. from the same communities as their students they will be aware of the problems facing their community and that of their students, that way they can better help theses kids, than someone that lives outside of the children The community and has no idea of the problems they are facing. In 1984 their were seventy-one women professors out of 1,112 (6.4 per cent). They were not however, evenly distributed across subjects and departments, but were concentrated in conventionally female areas. Three out of five professors of library science are women, and five out of seven professors or nursing. Women are also notable represented in education ( seven out of forty-nine professors) and social work (six out of twenty- one professors).

In contrast there is only one women professor out of thir! ty-eight in business administration and one out of 147 in engineering(Webb 538). An examination of numbers of posts lost or gained between 1980 and 1984 also reveals that areas where women are most concentrated have been cut back most significantly: numbers of post in nursing, for example, have declined across all grades while numbers of posts in engineering and business administration have stayed constant or increased. A case study demonstrated that equal opportunity is far from a matter of following a simple programme(Webb 545). Sonia Liff was quoted as say Women and minorities fail not because they are less Abel to carry out the tasks; they are excluded because of the way that they necessary qualification are defined. The competition is structured against women and minorities because the job is perceived as requiring skills, experience and working patterns far mor likely to be found amongst white men, or indeed seen as inherently male. What should be asked of employers is not that they accept less qualified, less able women or minorities in preference to white men but that they rethink what the job requires that do not rule out competent women or minarets.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Bowman Transportation Co. discriminated against black applicants for jobs as truck drivers within the company to more desirable position. The lower courts found in favor of the blacks in this predicament, ordering that they be given preference in the future job opening. The Burger court took the previous ruling against Bowman Transportation Co.

One step further and ruled that retroactive seniority could be awarded to racial minorities who had been discriminated against in violation of Title VII (Janosik 1204). A major objective of Title VII, noted by the court majority, is to provide appropriate compensation for those injured because of discrimation in the workplace. Even though the court ruled that awarding a minority who has been discriminated against is acceptable, it might not be so in some cases, so compenstating minorities for past discriminatory action upon them by some other company would not apply, but if a company does discrimate against someone, the person that they discriminate against is applicable for compensation. After the mid-1970’s an increasing number of Burger Courts cases involved the widely debated issue of Affirmative Action in employment (Janosik 1210). Society must realize that Affirmative Action plans is rather a safety net to prevent discriminatory acts against non whites males than just a method of employing minorities and women into the workforce there is substantial evidence of the countinuing veritical and horizontal occupational segregation between men, women and minorities( Webb 533).

Yet many people against Affirmative Action see Affirmative Action plans and Executive orders as an advantage that is given to minorities and woment by the Federal Government and that is why they cannot see Affirmative Action plans and executive orders as safety nets for women and minorities. Those opposed to the idea of affirmative action feel that affirmative action is actually reversed discrimination at work; but a recent study by Alfred Blumorosen, a professor at Rutgers University law school, found that only a few dozen reported cases of reverse discrimination in federal courts over the past four years, most of which were rejected by the courts. (America Online 1). These same people also feel that Affirmative Action leads to lower standards of education needed to work, this is totally untrue. Affirmative action plans are not placing people in job that they are not qualified for. The people that are given job by Affirmative Action plans have graduated from four year universities or have the Assossiates degree.

No one can stay employed in a job if they do not have skills to preform their task. To say Affirmative action acts on the basis of prejudice is not true. Affirmative Action does not display bias or has irrational hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. Affirmative action plans is just a way of helping poeple to get jobs. Republican lawmakers and presidential hopefulls are vying with eac other to stake out the strongest position for curtailing or abolishing racial and gender preferences in federal programs (Gottlieb551).

Robert Doles closest rival, senator Phil Gramm of Texas, pledged to wipe out minority preference in the ferderal government with a stroke of a pen if elected. This is a policy that needs to be overturned. Gramm said on CBS Face the Nation April 16. Yet none of these politican have a solution more effective of preventing discrimination in jobs and at the same time helps minorites find jobs. President Clinton, is facing a no-win situation betweeen traditional civil rights constitutenciesand the many angry white males in this country.

These men wish to change federal affimative action policies but promise to continue efforts to eliminate discrimination. Yet no plan or proposal that Republican lawmakers, or angry white males have created has help decrease the number of discrimantory act by a company or has helped minorities find jobs than Affirmative Action plans existing today. These same Republican lawmakers are pushing ahead with efforts to unravel affirmative action, encouraged and empowered by a dramatic Supreme court ruling that cas doubt on federal programs seeking to advance women and minorities. The high court June 12 handed down a 5-4 opinion in a closely watched case, Adarand Construction v. Pena, that challenged a federal Affirmative Action Program. The majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day OConnor, did not actually strike down any Affirmative Action programs, but it criticized the moral justification for Affirmative Aciton, saying that race conscious programs can amount to unconstitutional reverse discrimination and even harm those they seek to advance.

Yet they had not proven any way in which Affirmative Action can harm those they seek to advance. Republican had been preparing a legislative assault on federal Affirmative Action, either by eliminating programs or with a sweeping measure to outlaw virtually all federal preferecnes on the basis of race or gender. Their targets include scores of congressional and executive branch initiatives that offer special consideration or set-aside for women, minorities and others in federal contracting and hiring. This proves that Republicans wish to eliminate Affirmative Action plan and replace it with nothing. With nothing to help women or minorities their is minimal chances of them competing in the job market.

In defending the program, the Clinton administration stressed that white-owned companies can quaify for bonuses given by Affrimative Action Plans if they prove that they are Socially or enconomically disadvantaged. Some critics of Affirmative Action want to adopt social or economic hardship as a criterion for all Affirmative Action plans. Civi rights groups say they are not opposed to using socioeconomic disadvantages, but want to keep policies specifically aimed at women and minorities too(America Online 3). Speculation about the future of Affirmative Action must go beyond prognosis of the courts configuration and estimations of its respect for precedents said John Naibandian of University of Kansas (Public Administration Reveiw 43). He was also quoted as saying , Over an 18-year period, adminstrators hve become sensitized to court decisionexpressing the value of social equity.

It is unreasonable to anticpate sudden administrative reversal of these impacts now regardlass of Court action (Public Administration Review 43). Some observers have suggested that the solution to racial inequality in the United States lies largely in a two-pronged attack on discrimination in educationm and employment. If such a solution is possible, certainly the Supreme Court will play a role. But, in a system of separation of powers, it is axiimatic that only so much can be accomplished by even the most activist Courts. That is why all human beings must strive to understand the total implication of what they do.

They must help each other see that there is a problem in employing women and minorities. Saul Solano Honegger English 102 October 18, 1995 Affirmative action: Is it a form of Racisim? Thesis: Although many people believe affirmative action is a form of racism, it is actually used to help minorities find employment in an otherwise racist world. I. Civil War A. Laws passed during the civil war B.

Plans used to help laws II. JFK and Excecutive order A. Steps taken by JFK B. JFK Executive order taking effect III. Other Presidents A. Harry Truman controbution to Affirmative Action B.

FDR controbution to Affirmative Action C. D. Eisnehower Executive order IV. Court Cases A. Firefighters Local Union No.1784 v. Stotts B. Stelle v. Louisvill & Nashville Railroad C.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. D. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green E.

Hazelwood School District v. United States V. Those against Affirmative Action A. Why are white male against Affirmative Aciton Plans B. Why white male dislike the idea of affirmative action Kaus, Mickey. The End of Equality New York: Basic,1992.

Urofsky, Melvin. The Conflicts of Rights New York: Scribner 1990. Verba, Sidney, and Gary R. Orren. Equality in America Massaschuettes Harvard, 1984.

Hugh, Graham The American Judical System New York:Scribner, 1987. Jost, Kenneth. America Online Internet, 1995 Webb, Janette and Sonia, Liff. Play he white man: the social construction of fairness and competition in equal opportunity. The Sociological Reveiw v.36, Aug. 88 532-51 Perman, Florence.

The players and the problems in the Eeo enforcement process: a status report Pulbic Administration Reveiw v.48, July/Aug. 88, 827-33 Boris Eileen and Honey Michael. Gender, race and the policies of the Labor Department. Monthly Labor Review v.111, Feb. 88, 26-36. Nalbandian, John.

The U.S. Supreme courts consensus on Affirmative Action. Public Administration Reveiw. v.49, Jan./Feb. 89, 38-45 Tatel, David and Minchber, Elliot.

The Supreme Courts 1987 decision on voluntary Affirmative Action. Public Management. v.69, Dec. 87, 3-5 Steel, Brents and Lovrich, Nicholas P. Equality and Efficiency Tradeoffs in Affirmative Action. The Social Science Journal v.24, Nov.

87, 53-70 Leonard, Jonathan S. What was Affirmative Action. The American Economic Review v.76, May 86, 359-63.


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out