Voluntary Affirmative Action Programs In Admissions example essay topic

Affirmative action is the term used to describe a variety of steps taken in employment, contracting and education to increase diversity or rectify discrimination. Affirmative Action in Employment: Affirmative action programs in employment can consist of posting and publicizing job notices in locations that are likely to be seen by a wide range of people; recruitment; eliminating discriminatory hiring and promotion practices; setting goals towards increasing opportunities for those that were previously discriminated against; and targeting dates by which to accomplish the goals. It is important to note that many affirmative action programs in employment take affirmative steps for many groups beyond women and minorities including the disabled, veterans, economically disadvantaged and others. These programs do not reach out to unqualified individuals but instead are designed to increase the number of qualified applicants for employment. Affirmative Action in Contracting: Affirmative action programs in the area of contracting are highly regulated by government agencies and by guidance from the courts. Affirmative action programs in contracting often are targeted for women-owned firms, minority- owned firms, or firms that can show a disadvantage.

Such programs can consist of requiring government to set aside a small percentage of contracts for the targeted firms, or requiring that the bidding process be open to include firms that are traditionally excluded. Affirmative Action in Education: Most institutions of higher education have various programs that may be considered "affirmative' actions on behalf of different groups of students including disabled students, women, minorities, economically disadvantaged students, veterans, etc. Affirmative action in education can consist of early outreach programs, recruitment and retention programs, efforts in admissions to diversify the student population, and specific financial aid opportunities. These affirmative steps are not limited to minorities. For example, athletes, children of alumni, California residents, and low-income students are a few of the categories of students that benefit from affirmative action considerations in education.

The origins of affirmative action are intricately linked to discrimination in the United States. The following is a brief outline of this history. 1940's: President Roosevelt signed an order making discrimination illegal in defense contracting. 1954: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that "separate but equal' facilities on the basis of race were unconstitutionally discriminatory.

1964: Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, national origin and religion in employment and education. 1965: President Lyndon Johnson signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to undertake affirmative action to increase the number of minorities they employed. 1969: Department of Labor hearings exposed continued widespread racial discrimination in the construction agency. In response, President Richard Nixon developed the concept of using "goals and timetables' to measure the progress federal construction companies were making in increasing the number of minorities on their payrolls. 1970: President Nixon extended the use of goals and timetables to all federal contractors. 1974: President Nixon declared that affirmative action programs should also include women.

1978: The U.S. Supreme Court held in Regents of California vs. Bakke that universities may take race into consideration as a factor in admissions when seeking to accomplish diversity in the student body. The court in Bakke also held that quotas cannot be used in voluntary affirmative action programs in admissions unless absolutely necessary. 1989: The U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Richmond vs. Croson that the standard to be used in evaluating affirmative action programs in contracting was one of "strict scrutiny. ' 1990: In 1990 Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodations. 1995: On June 12, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Adar and Constructors, Inc. vs. Pena that the strict judicial scrutiny standard articulated in the Croson case also applied to affirmative action programs mandated by Congress as well as those undertaken by government agencies 1995: On July 20, 1995, the University of California Regents voted to remove consideration of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, color or national origin in admissions, contracting and hiring.

1995: In August of 1995 Governor Wilson filed suit against many state agencies and commissions which he oversees and against minority and women professional and civil rights groups challenging affirmative action programs in the state of California. The affirmative action issues has been the subject of heated debate in many circles. The one particular circle which I have chosen to survey the differing reactions on the use of affirmative action in college admissions is the "corporate circle'. My definition of the corporate circle is men and women both black and white working together for the good of one company.

They are not in competition against one another so to speak. I interviewed two women one Caucasian and the other Black. Below, in their own words, they have expressed their differing views on affirmative action in college admissions. Affirmative Action in College Admissions It some ways this issue is, in itself, an oxymoron to me. On the one hand we are seeking to equalize opportunities in the future job forces by spreading the wealth of admissions to colleges on an equal basis in regard to race, gender and sex, when in fact, the fairness of who actually gets admitted is tampered with and therefore, no longer an affirmative action.

Affluent Caucasians with the background and credentials to make the college admissions "cut' are undoubtedly the largest represented group of college hopefuls and therefore, will take up a considerable amount of the available openings. In the same breath it is a frightening thought that there are many of less economic and social privilege falling outside the admissions group, whose contributions may have been far greater and more important to all of us had their opportunities for college admission been better. This issue itself of fairness and equality to race, gender and sex is far too reaching to be solved solely by altering college admissions policies. It ranges from the goal objective – fairness in hiring practices for jobs, all the way back to economic and social opportunities from the cradle. There are far too many levels of ills in America to be solved by college admissions programs. If some colleges had this policy and others didn't, and that could be worked out fairly geographically or by type of college, the equality of the "wealth' of the idea would help work out a solution to the problem.

This, however, will never happen in a free country. It's too restrictive of freedom and too open-minded of an idea. Another oxymoron. My View of Affirmative Action in College Admissions In terms of higher education, the elimination of affirmative action programs in parts of the country, California in particular, has already had a dramatic and detrimental affect on the percentage of minority applicants offered admission to many state colleges and universities. In some instances, there was as much as an 80% decrease in minority admissions. We as Black people must fight against the elimination of affirmative action by empowering ourselves with all of our political and economic resources.

If we do not cultivate our political power and increase our awareness, we will be lost as a people. We have strength just by our shear numbers. If we continue to be apathetic regarding the politics of this country, we will eventually be little more than the undereducated slaves our ancestors were in the 1800's. All progress has its price. I believe that Malcolm's response to affirmative action programs in college admissions would not have been positive.

It is my belief that Malcolm was one who did not believe in using race as a criterion on which to benefit African-Americans. To Malcolm, this would have been a senseless action. As an opponent of affirmative action programs, he would have felt that it would have been reverse discrimination. On that note, he would be right. Preference programs do in fact, discriminate against one race or another in order to achieve the end goal. They provide a benefit to one and not the other based on a value that government seeks to advance and embrace.

Affirmative action that benefit the elderly discriminate against the young. The programs that benefits the veterans of war discriminate against those who stayed home. The programs and policies created to respond to the systematized exclusion of minorities and women also discriminate against those who are not minority or a woman. But such discrimination is proper and legal as long as the program or policy is created narrowly and in response to proven bias. Malcolm would have wanted a color blind society. Surprisingly, Martin's opinion of affirmative action in college admissions would be similar.

When Martin delivered his "I Have a Dream Speech,' He dreamed that one day everyone would live in a nation where no one would be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Unfortunately, 35 or so years later, colleges and other programs around the country use race to give educational opportunities through quotas, preferences and set-aside programs. This use of race as the sole criterion for government benefits and privileges divides our country and King's dream. King's responses overall would be that – affirmative action, combined with preferential treatment no matter how well intended, breeds resentment among the nonpreferrential and demeans the achievements that minorities attain by their own efforts.

Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in American society, particularly in the area of college admission. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equality of opportunity against the equality of results. The debate has been more emotional than intellectual, and has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participants in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that affirmative action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the need for them. Too often, affirmative action is looked upon as the cure for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination. Affirmative action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society.

Working as it should, it affords groups greater equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities. In this essay I will expose what I see as the shortcomings of the current ethical attacks on affirmative action (1), the main one being, that these attacks are devoid of proper historical context and shrouded in white male hegemony and privilege. Then, I will discuss the moral and ethical issues raised by continuing to function within a system that systematically disadvantages historically marginalized groups. With that as a backdrop, I will make a positive case for continuing affirmative action programs and discuss the practical concerns that continuing such programs may raise.

Perhaps the biggest complaint that one hears about affirmative action policies aimed at helping Black Americans is that they violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Civil Rights laws. The claim is that these programs distort what is now a level playing field and bestow preferential treatment on undeserving minorities because of the color of their skin. While this view seems very logical on the surface, I contend that it lacks any historical support and is aimed more at preserving existing white (2) privilege than establishing equality of opportunity for all. Any cursory look at the history of this country should provide a serious critique to the idea of a level playing field. Since the birth of this nation, Blacks have been an enslaved, oppressed, and exploited people. Until 1954, when the Supreme Court handed down Brown vs. Board, Blacks were legally pushed to the margin of society where many were left to dwell in poverty and powerlessness.

The Brown decision removed the legal impediments that had so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral. Despite this long awaited victory for Black Americans, the historic decision failed to provide adequate means for the deconstruction of white dominance and privilege. It merely allowed Blacks to enter the arena of competition. This recognized and established the status quo (white wealth and Black indigence, white employment and Black unemployment, white opportunity and Black disenfranchisement) as an acceptable and neutral baseline. Without the deconstruction of white power and privilege how can we legitimately claim that the playing field is level?

Does it not seem more logical, and indeed fairer and more just, to actively deconstruct white privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony? Another critique of affirmative action policies is that they stigmatize and call into question the credentials of the qualified minorities. And furthermore, that this doubt undermines their effectiveness. This has always been the most puzzling critique of affirmative action in my mind. The credentials, qualifications, character, and even the culture of minorities have always been in question and stigmatized in this country. When racial categories were created, simply being labeled a minority carried with it quite a slanderous stigma.

Even to this day Black Americans combat lingering racism and stereotypes about their intelligence, tendency toward violence, sexual prowess, etc. The idea that affirmative action policies introduce stigmas that did not already exist into the life of minorities seems nonsensical. To those who claim that this stigma undermines the effectiveness of Blacks because their coworkers will not be cooperative, or because the minority will always doubt that he or she deserves to be there, I propose that affirmative action gives minorities the opportunities to defy the pernicious stereotypes and stigmas cast upon them by others. In fact, I claim that not using affirmative action will only accomplish the continued exclusion of Black Americans from participation within American society and thus further ingrain stereotypes and stigmas. Another reason that the stigma critique of affirmative action confuses me, is because the discussion is always limited to race and gender based affirmative action policies.

Now that we have established sufficient justification for affirmative action, we must begin healthy dialogue about the best way to implement the policies. Some argue that affirmative action programs especially in college admissions incite racial tension. I must assume that this tension is created by the bitterness or scorn of whites that feel that the affirmative action recipients don't deserve to be where they are. It doesn't appear plausible to me that the minority recipient of affirmative action would be looking to incite or create racial tension. These people have jobs to do. This racial tension argument is very similar to the stigma argument against affirmative action and can be dismissed along the same lines.

Racial tension existed long before affirmative action, and to believe that these programs cause them lacks any sense of history. In fact, affirmative action may very well reduce racial tension, forcing people to interact together and work as a unit in a professional and intellectual level across racial lines. And even if I were to accept the idea that affirmative action arouses spite and scorn from whites, then their "right not to be made angry' (if it is a right at all) is easily trumped by Blacks' right of equal opportunity. Should affirmative action in college admissions be class based? I say no. The wrongs that affirmative action programs seek to address are of a racial nature and must be addressed accordingly.

While a class based program would certainly benefit Blacks (and other minorities because they are disproportionately represented in the lower class), it would not adequately deconstruct white racial privilege. Affirmative action policies based on race actively deconstruct the white stranglehold on power, by actively placing minorities in positions that have historically been only white. Should affirmative action programs force colleges to admit students who are unqualified minorities? No. But affirmative action programs should cause us as a society to re-evaluate how we assess qualifications and how we measure merit. In short, I recommend broad-based affirmative action policies ranging from the work place to the classroom to the clubhouse.

While they are not perfect and do raise some legitimate ethical concerns, they take us away from a system that is inherently unfair to some groups. The active deconstruction of the white privilege that grew out of virulent American racism affords Blacks a greater chance at equal opportunity and will have the side effect of forcing us to re-evaluate a society that unethically and immorally disadvantages minorities. These advantages outweigh the cost of the risks. I close by saying it is interesting that when the escaped slave and abolitionist, Fredrick Douglass was asked, "What shall we do with the Negro?' he replied, "Do nothing with us – your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. ' Douglass understood that the problem of racial bigotry in America was exacerbated, not solved, by government intervention along racial lines. That brings me to question my own opinion of affirmative action programs, whether in college admission or elsewhere.

SOURCES OF READING AND INFORMATION Guernsey, Joann, Affirmative Action: A Problem or a Remedy? , Learner Publications: New York, NY 1997 Kahlenbert, Richard, The Remedy: Class, Race and Affirmative Action, HarperCollins: New York, NY 1997 Mcwhorter, Darien A., The End of Affirmative Action: Where Do We Go from Here? , Birch Lane Pr. : Den