Home » Affirmative Action » Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

The problem of discrimination has been around since the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The U. S. Constitution said nothing of equality; instead, it “legitimized the institution of slavery. ” The Emancipation Proclamation issued January 1, 1863, set slaves in the confederate states free. The Thirteenth Amendment permanently abolished slavery. The former confederate states, not wanting to let go of their control over blacks, established the restrictive “Black Codes. ” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 proposed by Andrew Johnson was the first Civil Rights act ever written. The act was turned down by congress.

The act would have given all blacks the same rights as whites. The issue of discrimination has been addressed in the court system many times. Beginning with the Dred Scott v. Sanford (1) case, in which the Supreme Court ruled, that blacks as “subordinate and inferior beings,” could not constitutionally be citizens of the United States. More recently, the Bakke case gave a look at the workings of affirmative action. A white student was denied admission to U. C. Davis because the school had already met its quotas for white students.

Affirmative action”(2) is a term coined by President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. In an executive order Johnson declared that federal contractors should take “affirmative action,” this was to guarantee that “applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. ” Executive Order #11246 would increase the number of minorities employed by federal contractors. This order would become a major policy issue for years after it was made. Many people view affirmative action as reverse iscrimination, or as reparations made by the government to minorities for past discrimination.

It has been left up to the states own government to decide whether or not affirmative action programs should be implemented. Most have decided not to allow these programs. These states now have to figure out how to make up for the unemployed minorities and loss of diversity in colleges. The arguments against affirmative action have many aspects. A major complaint in most arguments is the contradictions its policies support. Such as reverse discrimination. The policies have been constructed to give women and minorities qual opportunities in applying and being accepted in schools and jobs.

Others think that women and minorities did not earn their positions, but given a”gift,” from the affirmative action programs. Another view is that women and minorities can have their self-worth affected by these programs. They will feel that “special arrangements,” need to be made because women and minorities are “biologically inferior,” to white males. Another point against Affirmative action is that it is no longer needed. Affirmative action began to help women and minorities into the workforce, and higher education.

It is oncluded that the process will continue on it is own with out the help of any affirmative action programs. Besides reverse discrimination, affirmative action is claimed to be the cause of promoting, in many cases, the hiring of less skilled workers and less qualified individuals being accepted into college. Proposals have been made to make up for the lack of minority enrollment in higher education. One way to ensure minority representation would be to target high poverty schools. Texas legislature was seeking a way to preserve minority access to college.

The conclusion was that the top ten percent of students in very high school are eligible for admission to the University of Texas. In addition, an increased use of test scores and grades as entrance standards for everyone would help with the loss of diversity. Other proposals have been to give applications in different languages, to have jobs offered on campuses, and to have a list of all people that do not have jobs in the area. Affirmative action should be implemented for sheer promotion of diversity. Some of the greatest intellectual interactions a student experiences, are with other students in college.

If those interactions are not diverse or culturally nriching, then every person will have a narrow experience at college. Another reason affirmative action programs should be implemented is for the prevention of primarily “white,” dominated campuses. The affirmative action policies should be reinstated. Colleges and jobs should not look at race as the only factor in accepting an applicant. That is true, they should look at leadership qualities, experience, academics, and even athletics. To limit the hiring and admission of incompetent workers and students, those other factors should be looked at.

It is a good possibility that many women and minorities could be ired just for the simple fact that they have more experience, and is better qualified than a “white” male. People blame so many things on affirmative action. A white man did not get a job over a black or Hispanic man so he blames it on the affirmative action programs. The black or Hispanic man may have been better qualified for the job. Everyone deserves a chance to work and go to school; affirmative action programs should not have to exist. There should be an equal chance for everyone to get a job and go to school, until there is, there will be affirmative action.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Home » Affirmative Action » Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

The state shall not discriminate, or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The previous statement is the unedited text of the operative part of Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), that passed November fifth by a percentage of 54 to 46. Though the initiative does not actually mention affirmative action, Californians feel affirmative action may be coming to an end. Will the decision of

Proposition 209 have a great impact on colleges and universities? We will soon find out. We do know that affirmative action in colleges and universities has a long history of controversy sparked by the 1978 Bakke case and seems to be far from over with the recent vote on proposition 209. The Supreme Courts 1978 decision in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke has been the basis for most college affirmative action programs. The case involved a white man, Allen Bakke, who applied for admission to, and was rejected by California University at Davis Medical School in 1973 and 1974.

The university had an affirmative action program to accept sixteen Black, Hispanic, and Asian students for every 100 entering. Allen Bakke objected when he found out that he had been turned down while minorities students with lower college grades and MCAT scores had been admitted under the universitys affirmative action program. The court then had been divided between four justices in favor of admitting Bakke on the basis that the quota affirmative Maloney 2 action plan had violated Title Four of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, four Justices against admitting Bakke, and Justice Powell, the swing vote.

Justice Powell declared that Allen Bakke would be admitted to the medical school because the University of Californias affirmative action plan had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Justice Powells opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment must be interpreted to protect everyone (McWhirter). The Bakke decision has sparked many anti-affirmative action movements, the latest being Proposition 209. Backing the California Civil Rights Initiative, proponents feel it is time to end race and sex-based quotas, preferences and et-asides now governing state employment, contracts and education.

Launching a two million dollar television campaign to support the ballot measure, Robert Dole and the Republican Party made proposition 209 the centerpiece in their push for Californias 54 electoral votes (Lesher). Bob Dole states, If affirmative action means quotas, set- asides and other preferences that favor individuals simply because they happen to belong to certain groups, thats were I draw the line (qtd. in What Theyre Saying About Quotas and the California Civil Rights Initiative).

Agreeing with Dole, Governor Pete Wilson states that Mandating and practicing inequality cannot bring equality (qtd. n What Theyre Saying About Quotas and the California Civil Rights ! Initiative). Another defender of proposition 209 and affirmative action is House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In a interview with Gingrich, he boldly states that people who want some kind of quota based on racial background should be forced to debate in public their version of America. I would make clear that I oppose Maloney 3 quotas explicitly because I favor an integrated America (qtd. in What Theyre Saying About Quotas and the California Civil Rights Initiative).

United States Senator, Phil Gramm, also opposes affirmative action resolutely declaring that if I become President, quotas and set-asides are finished in America (qtd. in What Theyre Saying About Quotas and the California Civil Rights Initiative). Opposing the measure, California college students and other affirmative action supporters protest to sustain variety and diversity. The first incident occurred when 500 students from University of California Berkeley met on Sprous Hall steps, the evening after the election and seized the Campanile clock tower. Some students chained themselves inside.

The same day as the as the Berkeley incident, 300 students from the University of California Santa Cruz surrounded and picketed the Student Service Building, effectively closing the financial aid and registrars office. Police made no arrests. On November seventh, 100 students from San Francisco State caused a commotion by blocking 19th Avenue, a main thoroughfare (WALLACE and MARCUM ). A few weeks after proposition 209 was passed students from the University of California took over UC Riverside’s administration building, chaining the oors from the inside and interrupting university business for six hours.

Police soon ca! me and arrested twenty. When asked why she was protesting, Zarina Zanipatini, 21, a senior majoring in sociology and ethnic studies claims she was protesting on behalf of “a lot of our kids who are waiting for their chances,” (qtd. in WALLACE and MARCUM) Also fighting the measure, the Clinton Maloney 4 Administration is considering taking legal action or filing a lawsuit challenging Proposition 209. This was confirmed after Reverend Jesse Jackson met with Clintons top ids requesting administration help to block the implementation of Proposition 209. I want Justice to intervene with a lawsuit,” Jackson stated (qtd. in FULWOOD and BRODER). Jackson said he is unwilling to wait for the law to pass through the courts and he wants the federal government to throw its influence behind supporters of affirmative action now. Jackson emphatically complimented Clinton for repeatedly citing his opposition to Proposition 209 during his campaign. But now, Jackson believes Clinton must do more than just speak up against the measure (FULWOOD and BRODER).

After Californias answer of yes to proposition 209, affirmative action opponents across the country plan to bring the issue back to the table. Anti-affirmative action supporters now believe the vote on 209 will spur movement toward their goal of terminating the policy in their states. Now holding the momentum, Republicans feel the passing the of proposition 209 puts them back in the middle of the picture. According to David Jaye, a Republican State Representative in Michigan, We can point to California now and weve got liberals on the defensive now, where heyve got to defend sexist and racist programs.

His bill to end affirmative action in Michigan died last year, where he now plans to reintroduce it (Verhovek). Californias decision on 209 has sparked controversy as enemies against the measure plan to fight back and prevent it from affecting their own state. Different from Maloney 5 California, where Governor Pete Wilson strongly promoted proposition 209, the political dynamics (Verhovek A1) in other states may vary. For example, New York Governor George A. Pataki has refused any calls that relate to affirmative action.

Across the border in New Jersey, Governor Christine Todd Whitman, also vows to defend the policy. She claims that government should set an example of inclusiveness for others to follow (qtd. in Verhovek ). Governor Whitman also argues that affirmative action programs that take race and sex in to account have been a great benefit to New Jersey. Proponents of affirmative action claim that that proposition 209 violates the United States Constitution, under Amendment fourteen which contains the equal-protection clause.

The general eeling is that the same measure in other states may be too drastic. In listening to the different ideas and opinions expressed concerning affirmative action and understanding the pros and cons of the issue, I believe there is no loser in this debate. Its an issue that will be debated for a long time without a compromise. Each side since each side seems to be morally right, but I believe that before we can get over the race barrier which still exists, we must eliminate special grants, preferences, or handouts that separate and make us different.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.