October 14, at This same rhetoric was used in the descriptions of Native Americans, Mexicans, and African Americans from the s until the s. They are seen even now. Even until the 70s some schools and universities were segregated.
Government should NOT discontinue affirmative action. I will simply give you answers why. Affirmative Action decreases discrimination and provides opportunities for may minorities.
The minorities are just as qualified as the majorities, but they are passed over for jobs. They would be equally as qualified if they had equal opportunity and if they had the chance to go to the same colleges and further their education as the majorities and as white people have had since our nation began.
What if the minorities are qualified and there are no positions for them because the positions have already been filled by majorities? If quotas are the same as reverse discrimination, how can that equal change be provided with reasonable certainty?
We are not asking for unfair treatment, but we do want equality under the law. Prohibits the states from depriving any citizens of due process of law, equal protection of the law, for any other privilege guaranteed to United States citizens.
The qualified people should help the unqualified people, so they can get the same opportunities as everyone else. Pro I appreciate your response.
I would like to share my disappointment with your argument. Discrimination is "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. Also, "providing opportunities" is unclear. I will not address it. There is no finite amount of jobs to be "filled" in the world.
Also, can you define "quotas? However, if you believe that affirmative action ensures "equal protection of the law," then, logically, it should extend to majorities as well. However, you are making no arguable claim.
As for the second part, this is unrealistic and undermines the merit of professional qualifications, entirely. I would suggest you do some research if you plan to represent your position further.
Report this Argument Con There are thousands of examples of situations where people of color, white women, and working class women and men of all races who were previously excluded from jobs or educational opportunities, or were denied opportunities once admitted, have gained access through affirmative action.
When these policies received executive branch and judicial support, vast numbers of people of color, white women and men have gained access they would not otherwise have had.
These gains have led to very real changes. Affirmative action programs have not eliminated racism, nor have they always been implemented without problems. However, there would be no struggle to roll back the gains achieved if affirmative action policies were ineffective.
Debates about affirmative action are about more than legal issues. Taking action to end racism is the challenge and responsibility of every single person in our society, as well as of the institutions and organizations which have such a large impact on our lives.
Yet today there is a vocal minority who want to stop affirmative action not only as a legal remedy, but also as a social commitment.
Now that affirmative action has led to some social changes there are those who are saying our society has gone too far in correcting racial injustice. Of course, this vocal minority is not challenging traditional forms of preference and discrimination that favor the rich, the educated, white people and men.
Affirmative action is practiced in many areas of our society in addition to leveling the playing field for people of color. There are hiring and recruiting preferences for veterans, women, the children of alumni of many universities. There are special economic incentives for purchase of U.
Over many decades these practices have led to a huge over-representation of white people, men and people of middle, upper middle and upper class backgrounds in our universities, in well-paid jobs, and in the professions. One indication that attacks on affirmative action are part of a white backlash against equality is that affirmative action in the form of preferences that primarily benefit white people are not being questioned.
Affirmative action measures were established to fight racial discrimination. The federal government mandated affirmative action programs to redress racial inequality and injustice in a series of steps beginning with an executive order issued by President Kennedy in The Civil Rights Act of made discrimination illegal and established equal employment opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, cultural background, color or religion.
Subsequent executive orders, in particular Executive Order issued by President Johnson in Septembermandated affirmative action goals for all federally funded programs and moved monitoring and enforcement of affirmative action programs out of the White House and into the Labor Department.
These policies and the government action that followed were a response to the tremendous mobilization of African Americans and white supporters during the late s and early s pushing for integration and racial Justice.
Initially, affirmative action was a policy primarily aimed at correcting institutional discrimination where decisions, policies and procedures that are not necessarily explicitly discriminatory have had a negative impact on people of color.
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.
There is pervasive racism in all areas of U.In the United States, affirmative action in employment and education has been the subject of legal and political controversy; in , a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (Grutter v.
3 views on whether US still needs affirmative action three writers give their brief take on whether the United States still needs affirmative action. Texas discontinued the use of race as. Arguments FOR Affirmative Action: All people are equal under the laws of the United States of America and should be treated accordingly.
It destroys the idea of a meritocracy and instead puts race as the dominant factor in admissions and hiring procedures. The best people for the position should be put there, regardless of race.
Oct 10, · (CNN) - In , President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order , ordering that federally funded projects "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or .
Affirmative action in the United States has become a misused and misguided practice in modern times. In the current form of affirmative action, it is impossible to create a truly equal society. It was originally used as an equal opportunity measure to allow qualified minorities into positions they were denied because of race.
Affirmative Action: Contentious Ideas and Controversial Practices John Michael Eden and John Paul Ryan. From university admissions offices to the board rooms of corporate America, few questions are as subject to dissent and heated discussion as affirmative alphabetnyc.com contentious nature of the debate reflects the deep ideological and political divisions among its participants.