Press "Enter" to skip to content

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action Affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally become truly equal. The tension of the 1960’s civil rights movement had made it very clear, that the nation’s minority and female population were not receiving equal social and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America’s first honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chose to ignore. However, there are many people that don’t see affirmative action as a positive solution to this major societal problem of racial inequality. These people feel that Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination in the workplace.

The Enthymeme Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because Affirmative action makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best employee. A= Affirmative action v1= uses B= reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination Because A= Affirmative action v2= makes C= employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose the best available employee. Assumption: Anything that makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having to simply choosing the best available employee uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Assumption and Audience The assumption for this paper will appeal to employees who do not qualify for Affirmative action, as well as employers and minorities. Employees not qualifying for Affirmative action feel shortchanged due to the fact employers, for a lesser skilled employee, bypassed them. They feel tricked by the government or the minority therefore firing up racism among the bypassed group, while Affirmative action was introduced to decrease racism.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

Employers also feel as if they have ended up with a lesser skilled employee therefore increasing the amount of lesser quality work. Employees provided with equal opportunity jobs bear the mark of “not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group.” Organization Question at Issue: Does Affirmative action use reverse discrimination to solve discrimination? Definition of A: Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities for members minority groups and women. A -* C Relationship: Affirmative action causes federal contractors/employers to choose from the best available employee from the minorities instead of choosing the best available employee from the whole Definition of B: Reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination is using discerning treatment against a white male or female instead of a black male or female to solve a problem of racial inequality. A -* B Relationship: Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Definition of C: Employers ability to choose the best available employee from the whole instead of a select minority is the outcome of affirmative action.

It insures that minorities are recruited to have real opportunities to be hired in the workplace. C -* B Relationship: By employers having to choose from the best of a minority group for employment rather than just simply the best employee, reverse discrimination is used to solve the problem of discrimination. This is due to the fact that unequal opportunity is given to the minority. Research Encarta 1998 Encyclopedia http://www.purdue.edu/HUMANREL/tis aa.htm Conclusion This argument would be represented in an editorial form due to its appeal to the common everyday man trying to make an honest living. Affirmative Action Animosity Affirmative action is the U.S. program set forth in the early 1970’s to correct the effects of past discrimination by giving preferential treatment to women and ethnic minorities in the workplace.

At the time of affirmative action’s induction to society, proponents of affirmative action programs felt that the only way to increase the number of minorities in the workplace was to establish a system of quotas to be maintained by law. However, by forming and maintaining these laws over the past twenty-five years, a development of an entirely new set of problems arose; problems that would fuel controversy over affirmative action. A majority of people are dissatisfied with current affirmative action policies, but are opposed to eliminating them completely: “Americans hold doggedly to notions of family and liberty, but they also believe in a sort of rough equality of opportunity that gives the underdog a real chance in life” (Kahlenberg 209). Once necessary, affirmative action programs have outlived their usefulness, and promote discrimination by continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices. Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because it makes employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility of simply choosing the best available employee. The primary goal of affirmative action programs was to increase the number of minorities, including women, in the workplace.

The American Association for Affirmative Action states that they are “dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work,” (AAAA Sept. 1998). Most people would agree that goal has been realized. There was a definite need for action to enlighten individuals and corporations to the negative results of their prejudices. It is unlikely that corporations would have taken the initiative to hire from the minority groups had it not been for government intervention. Affirmative action has created numerous opportunities for women and minorities in this country.

It would be difficult to argue that these programs were not absolutely essential in making progress toward the semi-equality that we have today. However, affirmative action has always been a compromise, and with the progress made, a price has also been paid. Affirmative action must now be rethought and restructured. Laws created preference programs that “were based in the conscience of the American people and in their commitment to equal treatment,”(Roberts & Statton 67). “The racial quotas that we experience today are blatant perversions that are illegal under the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act” (Roberts & Stratton 67).

If the goal is true equal opportunity employment, removal of all advantages and allowing people to be hired for their skills and abilities only should occur. Continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices, affirmative action programs promote discrimination. Using reverse discrimination, defined as the discerning treatment against white males instead of black males or women of any race, to solve the problem of discrimination will always receive criticism for its hypocrisy. For example, in 1965, the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. buckled under the heavy hand of the EEOC, who had solicited complaints by knocking on the doors in black neighborhoods.

The company reluctantly agreed to promote 2,890 of its five thousand black workers, designating 100 blacks as supervisors, and agreed to a quota system. One shipyard worker stated that the EEOC had done its best to “set black against white, labor against management, and disconcert everybody.” (Roberts & Stratton 93). Another example of this reverse discrimination was in the education system; the public case of Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas W. Carvell, Kenneth R. Elliott, and David A.

Rogers. They filed discrimination charges again the State of Texas stating they were discriminated against and denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law. The college granted admission to less qualified African American and Mexican American applicants through the use of a quota system. This practice of preferential admissions for minorities furthers the practice of reverse discrimination, now not just in the workplace, but also in the school systems. This creates animosities between workers that lead to further segregation, defeating the intentions of the programs entirely.

Through the demise of race-dividing policies, underrepresented individuals shielded by affirmative action would be forced to compete, on a level playing field, for jobs and admission to colleges and universities. Competition has nothing but positive effects and is crucial in accelerating capitalism. The debilitating effects of affirmative action and quotas hinder an individual’s desire to compete in society. Destroying discrimination caused by past offenses may never have perfect solutions, therefore, creating valid arguments for maintaining the existence of equal opportunity programs. But, to continue to offer one group opportunity, due only to their minority status, at the expense of another is wrong. Non-minorities continue to feel that their rights have been violated and that they are being punished for crimes that they had no part in committing.

And when non-minorities are subject to the same discrimination, they have little recourse: “Under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, white males can have no grounds for discrimination lawsuits until they are statistically underrepresented in management and line positions. The 1991 Act, in effect, repealed the 1964 act by legalizing racial preferences as the core of civil rights law” (Roberts & Stratton). Regardless of good int …

Affirmative Action

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.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

(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. 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, a Hispanic tester was told that a “counter help” job at a lunch service company had been filled. Two hours later, an Anglo tester was offered the job. (35) The Urban Institute’s Employment and Housing Discrimination Studies (1991) matched equally qualified white and black testers who applied for the same jobs or visited the same real estate agents.

Twenty percent of the time, white applicants advanced further in the hiring process than equally qualified blacks. In one in eight tests, the white received a job offer when the black did not. In housing, both black and Hispanic testers faced discrimination in about half their dealings with rental agents. Similarly, researchers with the National Bureau of Economic Research sent comparably matched resumes of men and women to restaurants in Philadelphia. In high priced eateries, men were more than twice as likely to receive an interview and five times as likely to receive a job offer than the women testers.

(36) The Justice Department has conducted similar testing to uncover housing discrimination. Those tests also have revealed that whites are more likely than blacks to be shown apartment units, while blacks with equal credentials are told nothing is available. Since the testing began, the Justice Department has brought over 20 federal suits resulting in settlements totaling more than $1.5 million. A particularly graphic case of discrimination occurred during a fair housing test performed by the Civil Rights Division in Wisconsin, which sought to establish whether discrimination existed against the relatively large East-Asian population there. When the Asian tester approached the apartment building, the rental agent stood between the tester and the door to the rental office and refused to allow the tester to enter the building. The tester was told that there were no apartments available and there would not be any available for two months. When the white tester approached two hours later, the individual was immediately shown an apartment and was told he could move in that same day.

4.3 Exclusion from Mainstream Opportunities: Continuing Disparities in Economic Status Apart from the remediation of and bullwark against discrimination, a second justification offered for continuing affirmative action in education, employment and contracting is the need to repair the mechanisms for including all Americans in the economic mainstream. There is ample evidence to conclude that the problems to which affirmative action was initially addressed remain serious, both for members of disadvantaged groups and for America as a whole. A recent study by the Glass Ceiling Commission, a body established under President Bush and legislatively sponsored by Senator Dole, (37) recently reported that: – White males continue to hold 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management are African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. – African Americans hold only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earn only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males.

– Women hold 3 to 5 percent of senior level management positions — there are only two women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies. – The fears and prejudices of lower-rung white male executives were listed as a principal barrier to the advancement of women and minorities. The report also found that, across the board, men advance more rapidly than women. The unemployment rate for African Americans was more than twice that of whites in 1994. The median income for black males working full-time, full year in 1992 was 30 percent less than white males.

Hispanics fared only modestly better in each category. In 1993, black and Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals. (38) In 1992, over 50 percent of African American children under 6 and 44 percent of Hispanic children lived under the poverty level, while only 14.4 percent of white children did so. The overall poverty rates were 33.3 percent for African Americans, 29.3 percent for Hispanics and 11.6 percent for whites. Black employment remains fragile — in an economic downturn, black unemployment leads the downward spiral.

For example, in the 1981-82 recession, black employment dropped by 9.1 percent while white employment fell by 1.6 percent. Hispanic unemployment is also much more cyclical than unemployment for white Americans. (39) Hispanic family income remains much lower, and increases at a slower rate, than white family income. (40) Unequal access to education plays an important role in creating and perpetuating economic disparities. In 1993, less than 3 percent of college graduates were unemployed; but whereas 22.6 percent of whites had college degrees, only 12.2 percent of African Americans and 9.0 percent of Hispanics did.

The 1990 census reflected that 2.4 percent of the nation’s businesses are owned by blacks. Almost 85 percent of those black owned businesses have no employees. (41) Even within educational categories, the economic status of minorities and women fall short. The average woman with a masters degree earns the same amount as the average man with an associate degree. (42) While college educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts.

(43) Hispanic women earn less than 65 percent of the income earned by white men with the same educational level. Hispanic men earn 81 percent of the wages earned by white men at the same educational level. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees. (44) A study of the graduating classes of the University of Michigan Law School from 1972-1975 revealed significant wage differentials between men and women lawyers after 15 years of practice. While women earned 93.5 percent of male salaries during the first year after school, that number dropped to 61 percent after 15 years of practice. Controlling for grades, hours of work, family responsibilities, labor market experience, and choice of careers (large firms versus small firms, academia, public interest, etc.), men are left with an unexplained 13 percent earnings advantage over women.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INTRODUCTION Affirmative action is the name of an American social practice through which members of historically disadvantaged racial and/or ethnic groups are given preferential treatment in an effort to compensate for past harm caused to their ancestors. For thirty years, affirmative action was carefully shielded from open, honest evaluation while it simultaneously grew more pervasive along with the federal bureaucracy and welfare state. The recent political upheaval caused by the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 has opened the door for opponents of affirmative action programs to successfully pursue their gradual elimination. If affirmative action is to continue as an American institution, its supporters must be willing to listen to frank criticisms of affirmative actions shortcomings. Nevertheless, affirmative action programs remain an endangered species. II.

HISTORICAL CONCEPT Affirmative action programs were initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 to correct past discrimination. Its purpose was to actively seek out black candidates for jobs, college, or promotions, without treating them differently in the decision to hire, admit, or promote. In the 1970s, however, affirmative action took on a new meaning as good-faith efforts to recruit blacks would not withstand a Title VII challenge of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers and admission committees had to actually hire or admit black applicants to withstand challenges of racial discrimination (Rodrigue, 1995).

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

The strategy most frequently employed was to select the best available black candidate even if the best was not good enough for the position. The rationale most frequently given for affirmative-action programs is the principal of compensatory justice This principle states that whenever an injustice has been committed, just compensation or reparation must be made to the injured party. It is this principle that is the rationale behind the tort laws compensating victims for infers for individual harms. This principle also explains why German paid Jews for the harms caused in World War II and why American Indians should be compensated for the past unjust deprivation of their trivial land. Indeed, affirmative action means taking measures that go beyond merely ceasing or avoiding discrimination; it means taking measures that attempt to undo or compensate for the effects of past discrimination.

The principle is encountered in several major categories of discrimination areas-most notably employment and education, but also such areas as housing and government contracting. In this way we can say that affirmative action programs help support the principle of equality of citizens that is a defining feature of democracy. III. THE ROLE OF HR IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS Equal Employment Opportunity means that an HR manager will; provide equal access to all available jobs, training, and promotional opportunities provide similar benefits and services to everyone apply all policies and practices consistently to applicants and staff do not differentiate among applicants or employees on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation In other words, EEO forbids employment discrimination. It requires the elimination of any bias in personnel activities.

However, if we take a look at the nature of affirmative action policies, they do not promote democracy. Indeed, in n employment, for example, two basic categories of affirmative action can be identified: (1) coercive and (2) voluntary. Coercive plans, in turn, fall into two groups: plans imposed as a condition of government contracts or grants; and court-imposed remedies under Title VII of the Civil Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A 2000e et sequ.). Voluntary plans are those adopted by an employer, university, or the like, when under no direct legal compulsion to do so. The earliest affirmative action plans were concerned with race, but plans now frequently extend to sex, national origin, and religion (Rodrigue, 1995). Over the past thirty years, affirmative action programs initiated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have grown into .

. . a web of racial and gender preferences touch[ing] all federal departments, according to a recent congressional report. When Senator Robert Dole asked for a list of race-related federal policies, He got back a 32-page report listing roughly 160 laws, regulations or executive orders. (Rodrigue, 1995).

This issue has been viewed as not being a true champion of democracy, as Democrats use it against Republicans. It does take race and gender into consideration but becomes reverse discrimination for those who are qualified but cannot be accepted because quotas have to be filled. Therefore, they too are discriminated and equal employment or admission are moral rights which undermine the basic principles of democracy. Although the issue has been exploited for partisan gain, the Democrats are not blameless for some of the current attacks on affirmative action. Because affirmative action was zealously shielded by the Democratic leaders of Congress from criticism for thirty years, some of its very real problems and flaws have festered and gone uncorrected. Some affirmative action programs clearly are perceived by the majority of Americans as having gone too far.

Excessively activist affirmative action laws jeopardize the very existence of affirmative action. Affirmative action should not put pressure on employers or schools to have a quota of minorities because this goes against the principle of freedom and equality that should prevail in this democratic country. Every citizen should compete based on its competence and on its ability to prove that he or she is a valuable member of this society (Horner, 1995). The legitimacy of affirmative action is harmed in other ways as well. Colleges and universities have come under increasing pressure to increase the number of minority students whom they accept.

In some cases, academic institutions have lowered their standards for minority applicants to ensure that enough minority students enroll. This practice has an unfortunate side effect. The widespread application of lower standards for academic admissions, for example has drawn ill-prepared students in over their heads and created, by this artificially contrived mismatch of student and school, the impression of black intellectual inferiority, a reactivation of the racial stereotype most dangerous to black advancement (Rodrigue, 1995). Colleges have increased recruitment of black freshmen, but only one-third of them ultimately graduate (Rodrigue, 1995). Affirmative action programs at the Federal and local levels have sometimes brought out negative actions. When Allan Bakke sued the Regents of the University of California because he was denied admission to the Universitys medical school due to its affirmative action program, the case prompted serious discussion of the possibility of reverse discrimination resulting from the type of plan the university employed.

A year after the Supreme Court decided the Bakke case in his favor, the Court rejected a suit brought by Brian Weber against the Kaiser Aluminum Company and the United Steelworkers of America that claimed he had also suffered reverse discrimination in a company job-training program in which blacks were given preference (Crpcl. 1995). A similar effect is therefore seen in the workplace. If a company is forced to excessively lower its standards for the sake of hiring more minority applicants, many of them will not be prepared to effectively compete against their more-qualified peers. Similar policies have led municipal police and fire departments to hire, in the 1980s, underqualified recruits who were not able to achieve promotion in the 1990s, thereby creating for blacks the appearance of racist promotion policies and for whites the appearance of black incapacity (Rodrigue, 1995).

Zealousness is an effective way to get attention, but it is not effective in the long run. In the long term, the silent majority may be more alienated than convinced (Rodrigue, 1995). Affirmative action programs are in danger for ideological reasons as well. Beginning in the eighties with the election of President Reagan, Americans have increasingly come to reject Big Government. Constance Horner reports that Almost 70 percent responding to one national poll indicated a belief that the federal government controls too much of our daily lives, (Rodrigue, 1995) and Another poll had two-thirds of Americans choosing big government as the countrys gravest peril (Rodrigue, 1995).

For the past thirty years, affirmative action programs have been initiated, enforced, and enlarged by an ever-expanding government bureaucracy. Today, Americans are increasingly critical of the pervasive presence of government regulation and intrusion into nearly every aspect of their lives. Americas current incarnation of affirmative action was formally established by an executive order during the sixties. Affirmative action was established with noble motives and the support of most Americans, but extensive changes have taken place in both American society and affirmative action programs themselves since the 1960s, and the legitimacy and desirability of affirmative action has come under steadily-increasing scrutiny and criticism. Todays democracy must give everyone the same opportunity and chances, and let people work harder to get where they want to be.

If affirmative action as an institution is to survive into the next century, its supporters must re-establish its legitimacy in the minds of the American people. At its foundation, American culture has a sense of fairness, a belief in racial integration, and a presumption that a civically activist polity will voluntarily (if slowly) make positive social change. True democracy must ensure that affirmative action programs are eliminated because racial quotas dont promote democracy but only encourage favoritism. Bibliography Bibliography Crock, Stan. A Thunderous Impact on Equal Opportunity.

Business Week June 26, 1995: 37. Davis, Cinda-Sue. The Equity Education. Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences. Mathematics, and Engineering. 1996. New York: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Cross, Theodore. What If There Was No Affirmative Action in College Admissions? A Further Refinement of Our Earlier Calculation. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, n5 p52-55 Fall 1994. Horner, Constance. Reclaiming the Vision: What should we do after affirmative action? The Brookings Review Summer 1995: 6-11. Knight, Al. Affirmative-Action Flaws Persist. Denver Post May 14, 1989: 1H, 2H.

Reprinted from SIRS 1989 Work, Volume 4, Article 49. Religion.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a growing argument among our society. It is multifaceted and very often defined vaguely. Some can define affirmative action as the ability to strive for equality and inclusiveness. Others might see it as a quota-based system for different minority groups. Is affirmative action fair? Are minority groups on equal footing? Is gaining employment for minorities difficult? Is education easily obtained for the minority groups of people? Affirmative action endeavors to answer all these questions, while allowing society to believe harmony exists.

Affirmative action has definitely helped women and minorities in their careers, but it has yet to succeed in the goal of equality in the business world for women and minorities. As more and more women are faced with discrimination in large firms, more have decided to strike out on their own. Today employers both private and public require individuals to take a test before entering their place of employment. For example, if one were to apply for a job in a supermarket a test for your basic educational skill is required. To become a fireman, policeman, teacher, or Kentucky Fried Chicken employee you are required to take a test before being hired. To further your education you need to take a test to enter a University. Jobs for today are in the technological, computer, and Internet areas. The need to be educated is a part of life. In our society there are difficulties with basic education. Affirmative action gives minorities the right to equal education.

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.


Get your price

Is affirmative action fair? Affirmative action has become a tool for minorities to use for equality in the business world. Women, African Americans, Hispanics and the like now have a level tool that would support their rights as individuals in the business world. Yes, affirmative action demonstrates fairness. Are minority groups on equal footing? Today, affirmative action is recognized however, the ‘glass ceiling’ is still there. The glass ceiling refers to “you can see it, but you can’t get it”. Minorities can reach for the ceiling but still have difficulty actually trying to touch it. Unfortunately affirmative action cannot tell society to behave in a way that would place every individual, every minority group on equal footing. Affirmative action is a great tool for minorities. It encourages equality in humanity. I agree and support affirmative action in that individual’s should be treated equally.
Affirmative action is still needed. Although women and people of color have come a long way in the decades since the Civil Rights Act was passed, discrimination still exists. In 1991, President Bush and Congress appointed a 21-member Federal Glass Ceiling Commission to identify barriers that block the advancement of women and people of color into decision making positions. In March, the commission reported back: “Today’s American labor force is gender and race segregated — white men fill most top management positions in corporations.” (ACLU). This clearly states that glass ceilings still exist within our society, which preaches freedom and non-discrimination towards all races, but yet there are none of these same minorities at the decision making levels of major businesses and corporations.

Affirmative action is not the most important issue for black progress in America, but it is part of a redistributive chain that must be strengthened if we are to confront and eliminate black poverty (West, pg 47) If these programs are taken away, what will happen to the largest population of those who are on the affirmative action plan right now, the black community. Affirmative action must be looked at as what t really is. A stepping-stone for those individuals who never had the opportunity to get a great education, a chance to prove that if they were not one particular skin color, that they would be allowed into that position of power no matter what they were. The hope is that the long-term effects of this plan will ensure minorities into positions of power where a larger majority of the population can be truly represented, instead of white males.
Affirmative action works, and most Americans, when questioned carefully, support the principles, as long as quotas are not included. (Acenet) Interesting statement made about affirmative action, quotas are usually a misconception, its not a real guideline set by the government or the firm which is hiring but rather a relative number set up so that the government does not get curious as if the company is being discriminatory so that they dont get fined by the government etc
Words
/ Pages : 740 / 24

x

Hi!
I'm Lily

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

Check it out