The Problem With Affirmative Action
One of the problems with affirmative action is that it is not based on economic status. A poor minority has the same chance for advancement under affirmative action as a rich one. Critics have raised many questions about that practice
There have been charges levied by critics claiming that affirmative action has violated the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment said, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Reverse discrimination is what the opponents of affirmative action claim race based hiring and education admissions is. In many colleges there are quotas or slots that are set aside for minorities. These reserved slots sometimes go to minority students that meet minimum qualifications but may not posses the some of same high grades or test scores as whites. ("Regents argue over challenge to UC minority police"- Los Angeles Times)
On July 27, 1995, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole introduced broad legislation that would end all race and gender based federal affirmative action programs to the extent they require quotas, goals, or timetables, allowing only recruitment outreach efforts into applicant pools provided no numerical objective is associated with such efforts. (Source - "Some thoughts regarding the present affirmative action debate." by Leonard J. Biermann )
If the justification for affirmative action is reparations for prior injustices why are whites not considered? What about all the other ethnicities that suffered from historical institutionalized racism? Affirmative Action selectively discludes these people from preferential treatment, except for the females.
Another issue is the "immigration-with-preference paradox," as Frederick R. Lynch describes it. This omission of non-black minorities from affirmative action. Frequently, arguments in favor of affirmative action present the case that blacks are "owed" for the past racism and oppression against them. This ignores the fact that a great nuraber of non-black minorities are included in affirmative action programs, many of which are only recent arrivals to this country. (Source - Invisible Victims: p. 148-149. by Frederick R. Lynch)
Some of the basis for affirmative action is to repay groups of people who have been mistreated in the past. Blacks have been enslaved, Japanese were put in internment camps, Mexicans had part of their land taken away, women were barred from voting, and so on. Affirmative action is sort of a pay back of sorts. These minorities and women deserve reparations for what their ancestors went through.
Backers of affirmative action are groups such as the National Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization of Women claim that there is still racism and sexism in the United States. They claim that affirmative action forces "a level playing" field that gives minorities and women a chance to advance where they may not have otherwise. They want America's professional work force to look like America. (Source - White House, Report to the President)
Understanding that affirmative action is a "social change" program, it becomes clear that the involvement of a great variety of people helping others to succeed not only promotes equal employment and a reduction in discrimination, but improves life for all of us. Many employers do not see diversity as an asset. They still may discriminate against people of color and women if there were no programs out there to give minorities a chance. Many times employers do not see how much of an asset diversity is until they institute an affirmative action program. (Source - "Effective Affirmative Action - Creating Strategic Alliances." by Dawn Hyde)
To look how much affirmative action has helped you only have to look back about thirty years ago. Education opprotunites for minorites such as blacks were not there. If a black male was lucky enough to get into and graduate from a college his employment opprotunities were very low. Only thirty years later minorites who were given a chance under affirmative action programs have become succesful and productive merabers of society. (Source - "Evaluation of Affirmative Action Programs" - The White House - July 1995)
There have been many suggestions put forth on both sides of the affirmative action debate. Some of them include adding an economic harRABhip rule which ensures that minorities actually need the extra help that affirmative action gives them. If this harRABhip rule was inacted there would need to be a certain kind of card or other identification that is needed to ensure that somebody is actually a underprivileged minority.
Affirmative action was put in place for several reasons one of them being a payback for past discrimination. Somebody is going to have decide when the payback will end. And if it does end will that mean the end of affirmative action?
People like Frederick R. Lynch believe that immigrants should not be able to reap the benefits of affirmative action because they have just entered the country. There would have to be some other form of identification to figure out if you have been in this country long enough.
Requiring this much identification could be ruled unconstitutional because having all this identification to receive affirmative action help could be declared illegal do to the person's right to privacy.
Even though affirmative action does not require quotas many companies and government agencies still have them. All affirmative action requires is a "good faith effort" to try to integrate minorities. People like President Bill Clinton want to keep affirmative action a viable program although they want to cut back on quotas. They see quotas as reverse discrimination. Many courts are also seeing it that way and they are beginning to move towarRAB declaring them illegal. If quotas are declared illegal affirmative action would have to justify what a "good faith effort" is and how it will be enforced.
Leaving affirmative action the way it is and letting the courts decide what is fair and what is not may be another course of action taken. Politicians are not likely to change affirmative action for at least another couple years. The ballot measure being brought up in California called the California Civil Rights Act will try to eliminate many parts of affirmative action but that may be tied up in court for years to come like Proposition 187.
There are many good reasons to keep affirmative action and there are many to dismantle it. A problem created by totally doing away with affirmative action is there would be no way to protect minorities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be demolished. There would be little to no accounting for companies or government agencies that discriminated against minorities or women.
It is the general conscious that reverse discrimination is not the correct way to solve discrimination. Quotas are a form of reverse discrimination and will probably be done away with entirely. This will leave a job market with more leeway to decide how many minorities they should hire. Some employers may not hire any and some will continue to integrate the workplace at the pace they are going now. The discretion will be left up to the employers for the most part.
This may lead to a whiter workforce. It could also lead going back to the old boys network of hiring all of their cronies. Realistically not many employers, especially large corporations, want to be viewed as all white. They would be conceived to be racist and would lose credit with public at large.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would need to change greatly. There would have to be able to have some guidelines to ensure fair treatment of minorities and women. The E.E.O.C. would probably have to spend some more time in court fighting
Overall affirmative action is still a very viable program with or without quotas. It is still needed in some form to attack racists and sexists heading up companies and also colleges. Without affirmative action safeguarRAB would be almost non-existent. Many minorities and women have been given a chance to succeed where they almost would have not been able to before.
One of the problems with affirmative action is that it is not based on economic status. A poor minority has the same chance for advancement under affirmative action as a rich one. Critics have raised many questions about that practice
There have been charges levied by critics claiming that affirmative action has violated the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment said, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Reverse discrimination is what the opponents of affirmative action claim race based hiring and education admissions is. In many colleges there are quotas or slots that are set aside for minorities. These reserved slots sometimes go to minority students that meet minimum qualifications but may not posses the some of same high grades or test scores as whites. ("Regents argue over challenge to UC minority police"- Los Angeles Times)
On July 27, 1995, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole introduced broad legislation that would end all race and gender based federal affirmative action programs to the extent they require quotas, goals, or timetables, allowing only recruitment outreach efforts into applicant pools provided no numerical objective is associated with such efforts. (Source - "Some thoughts regarding the present affirmative action debate." by Leonard J. Biermann )
If the justification for affirmative action is reparations for prior injustices why are whites not considered? What about all the other ethnicities that suffered from historical institutionalized racism? Affirmative Action selectively discludes these people from preferential treatment, except for the females.
Another issue is the "immigration-with-preference paradox," as Frederick R. Lynch describes it. This omission of non-black minorities from affirmative action. Frequently, arguments in favor of affirmative action present the case that blacks are "owed" for the past racism and oppression against them. This ignores the fact that a great nuraber of non-black minorities are included in affirmative action programs, many of which are only recent arrivals to this country. (Source - Invisible Victims: p. 148-149. by Frederick R. Lynch)
Some of the basis for affirmative action is to repay groups of people who have been mistreated in the past. Blacks have been enslaved, Japanese were put in internment camps, Mexicans had part of their land taken away, women were barred from voting, and so on. Affirmative action is sort of a pay back of sorts. These minorities and women deserve reparations for what their ancestors went through.
Backers of affirmative action are groups such as the National Advancement of Colored People and the National Organization of Women claim that there is still racism and sexism in the United States. They claim that affirmative action forces "a level playing" field that gives minorities and women a chance to advance where they may not have otherwise. They want America's professional work force to look like America. (Source - White House, Report to the President)
Understanding that affirmative action is a "social change" program, it becomes clear that the involvement of a great variety of people helping others to succeed not only promotes equal employment and a reduction in discrimination, but improves life for all of us. Many employers do not see diversity as an asset. They still may discriminate against people of color and women if there were no programs out there to give minorities a chance. Many times employers do not see how much of an asset diversity is until they institute an affirmative action program. (Source - "Effective Affirmative Action - Creating Strategic Alliances." by Dawn Hyde)
To look how much affirmative action has helped you only have to look back about thirty years ago. Education opprotunites for minorites such as blacks were not there. If a black male was lucky enough to get into and graduate from a college his employment opprotunities were very low. Only thirty years later minorites who were given a chance under affirmative action programs have become succesful and productive merabers of society. (Source - "Evaluation of Affirmative Action Programs" - The White House - July 1995)
There have been many suggestions put forth on both sides of the affirmative action debate. Some of them include adding an economic harRABhip rule which ensures that minorities actually need the extra help that affirmative action gives them. If this harRABhip rule was inacted there would need to be a certain kind of card or other identification that is needed to ensure that somebody is actually a underprivileged minority.
Affirmative action was put in place for several reasons one of them being a payback for past discrimination. Somebody is going to have decide when the payback will end. And if it does end will that mean the end of affirmative action?
People like Frederick R. Lynch believe that immigrants should not be able to reap the benefits of affirmative action because they have just entered the country. There would have to be some other form of identification to figure out if you have been in this country long enough.
Requiring this much identification could be ruled unconstitutional because having all this identification to receive affirmative action help could be declared illegal do to the person's right to privacy.
Even though affirmative action does not require quotas many companies and government agencies still have them. All affirmative action requires is a "good faith effort" to try to integrate minorities. People like President Bill Clinton want to keep affirmative action a viable program although they want to cut back on quotas. They see quotas as reverse discrimination. Many courts are also seeing it that way and they are beginning to move towarRAB declaring them illegal. If quotas are declared illegal affirmative action would have to justify what a "good faith effort" is and how it will be enforced.
Leaving affirmative action the way it is and letting the courts decide what is fair and what is not may be another course of action taken. Politicians are not likely to change affirmative action for at least another couple years. The ballot measure being brought up in California called the California Civil Rights Act will try to eliminate many parts of affirmative action but that may be tied up in court for years to come like Proposition 187.
There are many good reasons to keep affirmative action and there are many to dismantle it. A problem created by totally doing away with affirmative action is there would be no way to protect minorities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be demolished. There would be little to no accounting for companies or government agencies that discriminated against minorities or women.
It is the general conscious that reverse discrimination is not the correct way to solve discrimination. Quotas are a form of reverse discrimination and will probably be done away with entirely. This will leave a job market with more leeway to decide how many minorities they should hire. Some employers may not hire any and some will continue to integrate the workplace at the pace they are going now. The discretion will be left up to the employers for the most part.
This may lead to a whiter workforce. It could also lead going back to the old boys network of hiring all of their cronies. Realistically not many employers, especially large corporations, want to be viewed as all white. They would be conceived to be racist and would lose credit with public at large.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would need to change greatly. There would have to be able to have some guidelines to ensure fair treatment of minorities and women. The E.E.O.C. would probably have to spend some more time in court fighting
Overall affirmative action is still a very viable program with or without quotas. It is still needed in some form to attack racists and sexists heading up companies and also colleges. Without affirmative action safeguarRAB would be almost non-existent. Many minorities and women have been given a chance to succeed where they almost would have not been able to before.