Discrimination Affirmative Action example essay topic

Reverse discrimination Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. The Labor Department report found less than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeal between 1990 and 1994. Discrimination was established in only six cases. The report found that, "Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant... erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualifications". (SF Chronicle, March 31, 1995) Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does.

Violates the principle of merit Because we still don't have equal opportunity. Affirmative action, though initially created to redress the consequences of slavery and segregation, must also serve to stem the effects of continuing discrimination against women as well as people of color. The selection of unqualified candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action. There is a mandate that in choosing a person of color when past discrimination has resulted in white people receiving preferential treatment.

Most jobs are found by word-of-mouth. Since neighborhoods tend to be more segregated word of mouth leads to the perpetuation of, intentionally or not. Affirmative action pushes employers to try harder, to cast wider net. Does affirmative action mean quotas? No.

Affirmative action plans do not impose quota; they simply seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach programs, setting goals and timetables and establishing training programs, among other measures. In 1976, Allan Bakke sued the University of California Medical School at Davis for denying his admission on the basis of reverse discrimination, because 16 out of 100 places in the medical school class were reserved for "economically and educationally disadvantage applicants". The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, holding that the policy of reserving specified slots was a quota system and illegal. However, the Court also held that race could be included as a factor in determining admission, as long as it was not the exclusive basis on which a decision was made. Why should white women care about affirmative action?

Women, in general, have been the main beneficiaries of affirmative action. The number of women entering profession has increased substantially. Women tend to work in a narrow range of low paying, low-status jobs. Women occupy 44 percent of all federal jobs but only 13 percent of the top jobs according to The Feminist Majority, March 14, 1995. Affirmative action stigmatize people of color Stereotypes plagues people of color and would continue to do even if this policy was eliminated. Now people of color are stigmatized by being told, "The only reason you " re here is because of affirmative action".

So they are faced with the constant need to prove that they are qualified. Why don't we change affirmative action to policies that help people based on economic need instead of race of gender? This approach would benefit people of color who are disadvantaged economically. People of color have been discriminated against based entirely on race for hundreds of years. Therefore, policies to eliminate discrimination must address the issue of race. We need programs based on economic need in addition to, but not instead of, affirmative action.

Tests are inadequate Many tests are inadequate to predict success. Numerous studies have found that there is only a slight relationship between test scores and performance or professional achievement. Regarding college admissions, tests are culturally biased in that they tend to reflect the experience of middle class students and their access to higher quality education than that available to less advantage students. Violates principles of compensatory justice Affirmative action is not an attempt to make up for slavery, it is an attempt to correct today's discrimination against minorities and women in our society. Affirmative action policies address and redress systematic economic and political discrimination against any group of people that are underrepresented or have a history of being discriminated against in particular institutions. Beneficiaries of these programs have included white men and women, people with disabilities, and poor and working class people, but their primary emphasis has been on addressing racial discrimination.

Specific white people may not get the specific job opportunity because of affirmative action policies and may suffer as a result. This lack of opportunity is unfortunate; the structural factors which produce a lack of decent jobs needs to be addressed. Harms it's intended beneficiaries A more careful analysis reveals that affirmative action programs have benefited substantial numbers of poor and working class people of color. Access to job training programs, vocational school, and semi-skilled and skilled blue -collar, pink-collar, police and firefighter has increased substantially through affirmative action programs.

Even in the professions, many people of color who have benefited from affirmative action have been form families of low income and job status. Does affirmative action benefit society as a whole? Yes. Having a truly democratic and just society demands it because racism, sexism and all discrimination tear at the very fabric of society. A nation that seeks to maintain privilege "abandons its soul... because so many people are excluded from the possibility of decent lives and from any sense of community with the rest of society". (Roger Wilkins, The Nation, March 27, 1995) Private corporations have embraced affirmative action, knowing that it is good business to have a work force that reflects the demographics of the community.

"Equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity programs have been indispensable both to our educational mission and to our ability to achieve a diversified community of learning. The only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies. Although this statement sounds intuitively plausible, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991). Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it.

Affirmative action has not succeeded in increasing female and minority representation. Several studies have documented important gains in racial and gender equality as a direct result of affirmative action (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Murrell & Jones, 1996). For example, according to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ('Reverse Discrimination,' 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of non contractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e. g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.

Affirmative action may have been necessary 30 years ago, but the playing field is fairly level today. Despite the progress that has been made, the playing field is far from level. Women continue to earn 76 cents for every male dollar (Bowler, 1999). Black people continue to have twice the unemployment rate of White people, twice the rate of infant mortality, and just over half the proportion of people who attend four years or more of college (see Figure 1). In fact, without affirmative action the percentage of Black students at many selective schools would drop to only 2% of the student body (Bowen & Bok, 1998). This would effectively choke off Black access to top universities and severely restrict progress toward racial equality.

Myth 4: The public doesn't support affirmative action anymore. Public opinion polls suggest that the majority of Americans support affirmative action, especially when the polls avoid an all-or-none choice between affirmative action as it currently exists and no affirmative action whatsoever (see Table 1). For example, a Time / CNN poll found that 80% of the public felt 'affirmative action programs for minorities and women should be continued at some level' (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995 a). What the public opposes are quotas, set-asides, and 'reverse discrimination.

' For instance, when the same poll asked people whether they favored programs 'requiring businesses to hire a specific number or quota of minorities and women,' 63% opposed such a plan (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995 b). As these results indicate, most members of the public oppose racial preferences that violate notions of procedural justice -- they do not oppose affirmative action. A large percentage of White workers will lose out if affirmative action is continued. Government statistics do not support this myth.

According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 1% of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job-qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1%. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing (Ivins, 1995). If Jewish people and Asian Americans can rapidly advance economically, African Americans should be able to do the same.

This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. As historian Roger Wilkins has pointed out, Blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else (Wilkins, 1995). Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face. You can't cure discrimination with discrimination.

The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Affirmative action tends to undermine the self-esteem of women and racial minorities. Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases (Heilman, Simon, & Rep per, 1987; Steele, 1990), interview studies and public opinion surveys suggest that such reactions are rare (Taylor, 1994). For instance, a 1995 Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995d). Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries (Graves & Powell, 1994).

Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at social engineering by liberal Democrats. In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.