Affirmative Action As A Diversity Policy example essay topic

Affirmative action is a policy that most Americans are aware and familiar with. In a nutshell, affirmative action allows minorities (blacks, Latinos, women among a few) to have a better chance at success. The intent of affirmative action is to help these persons achieve higher learning and also to get better jobs. However noble the original intent of affirmative action, it has come up against some fierce opposition in the past few years as well as in the past.

Affirmative action is a huge part of American society and is addressed by many important government officials. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said he is for it (affirmative action) if it means, remedying proven past discrimination against individuals. But he also added: If affirmative action means quotas, set-asides and other preferences that favor individuals simply because they happen to belong to certain groups, then that's where I draw the line. Our current president Bill Clinton acknowledged that many believed that affirmative action always amounts to group preferences over individual merit, and that it demeans those who benefit from it and discriminates against those who are not helped by it. These views on affirmative action have been voiced since the starting line of this policy.

In announcing affirmative action in 1965 Lyndon Johnson said, You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race and then say, You are free to compete with all the others, and still justly believe you have been completely fair. Most persons opposed to what affirmative action is, aren t suggesting doing away with it. Mend it, don t end it is the latest slogan used by defenders of affirmative action from Jesse Jackson to Bill Clinton according to Thomas Sowell author of Drive a stake through it an article on affirmative action. In her essay. Reclaiming the Vision: What Should We Do After Affirmative Action?

Constance Horner suggests that instead of phasing out affirmative action, legislators should instead examine the reasons for discontent with the affirmative action policies and then work to create sound replacement policies. Constance Horner defines affirmative action as a, moral vision of a racially integrated society aspiring to equal justice and equal opportunity for black Americans. Horner, in her essay, goes on to explain what, in her opinion, must be done to save affirmative action from disintegration in America. According to Horner America, since the Civil War, has been working towards a vision of a just and integrated society hence the Civil Rights movement of the 1970's and most blacks see affirmative action as a national commitment to their advancement. However there is little question, in Horner's mind, that affirmative action will be modified, phased out, or even terminated. Much opposition to affirmative action comes from a generalized hostility (white male rage) stemming from low wage growth and job loss or from the flaring up of a permanent racism that can never be fully repressed.

Horner says that these explanations fail as full explanation. The moral vision of affirmative action was to create a nondiscriminatory, integrated society. Horner says that the society mean to integrate now separated by race. Through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 15, billions of dollars are set aside for blacks, women and any other minority said to be socially and economically disadvantaged. Persons counted by census under the OMB Directive are asked to fill out a box to identify themselves racially as black, white etc. The government, by doing this, is: Ironically, and much to the point of the country's discontent with the governments affirmative action structures, the use of racial categorization is imposing a powerful set of incentives for those receiving benefits to remain distinctly in those catagories.

In Horner's opinion the government is encouraging those who are multi-racial to lean towards their discriminated half. Such as a half black / half white person saying they are black to get receive a better job The basic tone of Horner's essay is that affirmative action is a noble cause with a few glitches. She believes that, How long the effort takes is less important that that is be headed in the right direction. Michael Tomasky, in his essay Reaffirming Our Actions, talks about the pros and cons of affirmative action what is has become and what it was mean to accomplish. Tomasky begins be saying that in the late nineties affirmative action laws, along with welfare and immigration laws, are going to be rewritten. He says we must find ways to redefine affirmative action on terms acceptable, both to us and to a majority of Americans.

Tomasky says that affirmative action has contributed to racial integration but no one can be sure as to how much. He says that affirmative action was very necessary to help black Americans to rise about their repression. However along the way it changes from a reparations policy to a diversity policy now including women, Latinos and any and all minority groups. Tomasky is a great supporter of affirmative action as a reparation policy. He says that America's literal cash cost owed to African Americans is in the billions. Untold billions.

In this respect, white society has only begun paying black people back. Tomasky sees affirmative action as a diversity policy now including women and other minority groups. He doesn t believe that these groups claims on a while America's conscience in nearly as high as that of blacks. He goes on to say, I do not suggest an affirmative action limited to black Americans only. Such a program would have even less chance than the current one. Besides diversity is a good thing.

But where do it's demands logically stop, and why? These two essays provide wonderful examples of the advantages of affirmative action but they also address the downfalls to such a policy. Both authors tell the readers that this is a time of great social change. They also say that with the proper knowledge, anyone can better understand what affirmative action is and what can be done about repairing what has essentially gone wrong with the system. Constance Horner's essay, although very well written and backed up by many facts, is not as effective an argument as Michael Tomasky's.

She uses many examples that are difficult to follow and understand if you are not truly familiar with the topic at hand. In her essay Horner refers to the antipathy towards big government and the OMB Directive 15, topics not well known by the American public in general. These examples, although very pertinent to the issue of affirmative action, do not have the same effect on a person who is not well versed on the issue. Tomasky speaks in layman's terms so as to allow anyone to understand the issue of affirmative action.

Tomasky's essay focuses on affirmative action in a much clearer way than Horner's. He does not concentrate on why affirmative action is bad for America; he shows us more of why it was brought about in the first place. He does not confuse the reader with too many hard to follow facts and does not give suggestions for change. He allows the reader to form his or her own opinion on the matter. He also cites many examples that the American public is familiar with, such as the decision of the University of California to no longer use affirmative action as a factor for admissions. By doing so he has allowed the reader to identify with feelings they may already have on the subject.