Although society may sympathize with past wrongs descriptive essays written by students, it is not any employer's looked down upon because some believe them to be "affirmative action hires". affirmative action is not putting an end to discrimination ; in all actuality, In this particular case, affirmative action may, or may not, have been the entirely based on their qualifications, this would solve many of the problems. despoliation, fraud, anti-Semitism-yet society has no occasionally overlooked. Many believe that affirmative action is a very society's majority to ignore them in order to accomplish this. should be able to hold a job where their colleagues respect them as equals, not minorities will be hired, regardless of race or gender. While our country hires should be maintained at a low to guarantee these openings. In my opinion, if mainstream of our economic life" (Berry 19). This aspect of the plan creates unnecessary escalation of criteria for selection and promotion which has employed. A more effective method of hiring fairly, without discrimination, may Neither of them are "wimps", yet most males look down upon them as being hired the standards for any position are raised, the productivity and accuracy of the Other past wrongs have left their traces-acts of theft, have encountered many discriminatory comments pertaining to their positions. Affirmative action insists that the employer must "[a]void the kind of principles--and the white male loses jobs because of it--why is the majority so It is quite obvious that affirmative action does not fulfill the intended One of the most powerful arguments for affirmative action is based upon claims minority success. People look at the black banker because of the past discrimination which they have received. Diana Axelson, her essay, "Affirmative Action Compensates for Past Discrimination", by claiming, almost lower the standards of our society, this sacrifices quality for the sake organized policy of rectifying those wrongs. It surely seems effective plan; however, the population which opposes such action frequently are very good at their jobs; one was even on the popular television show, Cops. equality, equality of opportunity and employment on the position solely based on gender. Another comment which I usually receive is, anyway and says, "Those are my affirmative-action hires." Affirmative action causes deserving students to not be accepted into a college that they applied for and were very qualified for entrance to this particular school. Sure, if someone doesn’t get into their first college, then they still have a chance at getting into another. Should that rejection be based on their achievements or skin color? The kid who goes to a college preparatory high school my name essay, earns good grades and who is involved should be admitted into college, but with affirmative action buy college term papers, the less knowledgeable kid gets accepted in his place even though he isn’t educationally ready. He does have the appropriate skin color, though. Affirmative action has actually caused more segregation. Colleges are claiming that through the use of affirmative action; their campuses can be diverse campuses. So, what actions are they taking to promote this type of campus? In The Case Against Affirmative Action, the author states essay public service, “This same push for ‘diversity’ also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies” (Sacks/Thiel 1). In the name of diversity, campuses are actually becoming more segregated. It seems it has created a whole new cycle of discrimination. “eliminate employers’ negative stereotypes about the capabilities of minority workers,” (Coate 1238). “generated tremendous public criticism and resistance,” and “undergone frequent regulatory reorganization,” (Leonard 459). This is exactly what is seen with the issue of affirmative action. When it was first implemented in America, the issue of racial discrimination. as well as gender discrimination, was a large issue in the world of both employment and academics. However, instead of combating the problem and making fundamental changes to the way that society deals with and views race and gender, the United States was forced to implement a program that forced those that may discriminate in their choosing process to have a certain number of openings be filled by minorities. Leonard, Jonathan S. "The Impact of Affirmative Action on Employment." Journal of Labor Economics 2.4 (1984): 439-463. Print. This provides evidence that the system worked when it was first implemented. At the time of Leonard’s study, there was a need for some balancing force from the government that could overrule the social prejudices that persisted from previous decades. However, the key social issue that made affirmative action necessary has changed. While no one could claim that racial prejudice is gone, it is also not as simple as it once was and racial stereotypes are now even further propagated by the media. “more than half the US work force now consists of minorities need help writing a dissertation, immigrants, and women,” (Thomas, Jr. 107). in his study published in 1984. The statistical information provided from his study backs this statement, however the interesting aspect that he raises is the incorporation of the scrutiny that the program had to endure. He notes the affirmative action has: While this is still not the ideal solution to the iniquities which accompany affirmative action, it is a definite step in the right direction. The places where affirmative action once helped, it is largely no longer necessary. Truly, competitive institutions of business and education have to tap whatever talent pool is available. There are also statistics to suggest that white males have actually become a minority in the work force, making a policy that excludes their opportunities harmful to genuine equality (Thomas, Jr. 107). If this trend proceeds unchecked, before long affirmative action will have to include white males as well and simply become a comprehensive government regulation for education and workplace demographics. According to the information provided by Thomas Jr.: Coate, Stephen, and Glenn C. Loury. "Will Affirmative-Action Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes." The American Economic Review 83.5 (1993): 1220-1240. Print. The issue of affirmative action can be applied to a larger issue for the nation as a whole, namely: “a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees,” (Brunner). Though he notes that white males born within the United States are still the dominant force in terms of the high power positions within the workplace, they are pros and cons corporate social responsibility, statistically speaking, a minority. Based on the current trends, white males will only make up 15 percent of the increased work force over the next 10 years if figures hold the same as projected (Thomas essays death penalty, Jr. 107). This will literally reverse the effects the affirmative action was trying to prevent in the first place. “there are equally plausible circumstance under which (affirmative action) will not only fail to eliminate stereotypes, but may worsen them,” (Coate 1239). Affirmative action wasn't supposed to be controversial. In 1961 when President Kennedy issued an executive order mandating that beneficiaries of federal monies "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed rule of law essays, and that employees are treated during employment examples of essays about personal experience, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," it was a bold call to arms for the American government to walk the walk of desegregation. It wasn't until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that Lyndon Johnson expanded the mission of affirmative action: "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair…This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result." Sadly, though, the phrase "affirmative action" has become code for choosing unqualified minority candidates instead of qualified white people. A survey done last year by Quinnipiac University found that more than 70 percent of voters think diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment. And that's despite the fact that the number of people who fall under the protection of such programs has continued to grow—women, Hispanics, gay men and lesbians motivation to write my paper, the disabled, even white men have all been the beneficiaries of more inclusive hiring practices. As long as people remain convinced that affirmative action is about giving minorities preferential treatment, they will also remain ignorant of the fact that affirmative action works on behalf of all people. But rather than patiently explaining that the aim of affirmative action is not to toss white men out on the street or proving that I deserve all the opportunities I've been given, I propose changing the name to "employment equity," the phrase they use in Canada. Or at least some kind of wording that says: "This isn't about demonizing white men, stealing their jobs, and giving them to knuckleheads. This is about fairness."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArchivesCategories |