President Barack Obama said, “Race and class still intersect. [There are] a lot of African American kids who are still struggling. Even those who are in the middle class may be first generation, as opposed to fifth or sixth generation, college attendees.” He was right; minorities are struggling in the United States. What should be done? Affirmative Action is one answer to that question. Affirmative Action will help underprivileged people advance and makes strides for themselves and their communities. Not everyone, even in minority communities, agrees with affirmative action, but it is still a valuable tool, not only for the benefit of minorities, but for the benefit of everyone. There are measureable benefits to operating in a diverse environment. …show more content…
To say that diversity is not a benefit, especially in the United States, ignores the cultural diversity of a country that once prided itself on being a ‘melting pot.’ In a time when the United States is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, 43% of Millennials are not white, and the “religious landscape” of the U.S. is changing (Cohn), diversity should be valued rather than dismissed. These demographic changes bring a changing culture, a change that cannot be overlooked. This change will affect politics, education, religious institutions, and business. Already, It can be seen that companies with more diverse employees outperform other companies by 35% (Tulshyan). Ruchika Tulshyan, a writer for Forbes says that, “While correlation does not equal causation – greater diversity doesn’t automatically mean more profit – the link indicates that companies committed to diverse leadership are more successful.” Thomas Mason with the Huffington Post hypothesised that these diverse companies may be doing better, in part, because having a diverse group of people also brings a diverse skillset and cultural knowledge that would be neglected otherwise. A group of writers for the Harvard Business Review thought otherwise, and discussed their findings in an article entitled, “Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable - and That's Why They Perform Better.” The article suggests that …show more content…
Words have power, as seen in the case of Poison Ivy, a woman who targets vulnerable men, and persuades them to humiliate themselves on the internet for her. She asks them to shave their hair, write her name on their faces, asks them for explicit images, and promotes and grooms these men to be suicidal (Groom). Maybe someday that will be celebrated as free speech too. Speech codes on campus are meant to protect people, and hopefully, to minimize hate crimes, and prevent people from being inspired to assault or harass vulnerable groups. Being able to say, ‘I don’t like black people’ is protected, but fighting words and harassment are not and should not be protected. Saying, ‘I think Gays should kill themselves,’ should not be protected, calling out a specific transgender student in front of people that might be inspired to assault her, should not be protected. Given that, liberals, black people, feminists, and the LGBTQIA+ community should be held accountable when they do something unacceptable such as harass someone or incite violence. For example, the harassment and threatening of Ward Connerly, a “black California businessman who has campaigned across the nation to outlaw racial preferences,” should be unacceptable by anyone’s standards (Taylor). People can protest, disagree, and criticize, but threats of violence should be removed from any civil conversation. Anyone can be guilt of censorship,
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) made a statement “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes,” 1994, which states, “In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language some campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses…”
The questionable existence of affirmative action continues to create a pervasive tug of war between proponents and opponents of affirmative action. The cornerstone of affirmative action policies initiated from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unequal—ultimately forever changing the system of education in America. This groundbreaking decision served as a gateway, with the goal of “leveling the playing field” and remedying the grotesque American past rooted in harsh racial discrimination against non-white individuals, primarily of African American descent. As a result of swift implementation of affirmative action policies, cultural and racial diversity quickly diversified
Affirmative Action is one of the many social issues facing America today. Affirmative action was signed into place in 1961 by President Kennedy and allows minority groups or people who face discrimination to become employed or get an education that is equal to that of a white male. Groups that Affirmative Action aims to help are women, blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities. While these policies were signed to slowly rid the workforce and schools from discrimination, it hurts people who do not face discrimination, specifically whites. Many white men and women lose special opportunities to work or go to college because of certain standards that the Affirmative Action laws require. Universities and the military require a certain number of minorities in order to meet the standards and have a more diverse atmosphere. An example of this is the California V. Bakke supreme court case of 1978.
Turning to the realm of education, some opponents of affirmative action claim that its policies actually backfire, and that it harms the very groups it is intended to help. For example, Shelby Steele, a researcher who specializes in racial studies at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, claims that blacks “stand to lose more from [affirmative action] than they gain,” (Steele 113). Steele argues that affirmative action in higher education precludes the success of racial minorities to “achieve proportionate representation on their own” because, as presently implemented, it confuses representation with development (115). He also claims that affirmative action leads to black self-doubt because it often calls for less prepared black students to compete directly with well-prepped whites (116).
Many colleges have enacted speech codes in which students are governed in what they say so that they don’t offend their peers. However, according to an expert by Lukianoff and Haidt, “ It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking...Don't teach students what to think; teach them how to think.” Students must learn to stand up for themselves. Nevertheless college campuses are a place for learning, students should be able to hear criticism, take criticism and learn how to deal with it in a peaceful way. In workplaces, in society and in rooms where hate speech is being used, students should be able to stand by what they believe in and fight for their claim with confidence. Lukianoff and Haidt point out that “Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control.” Again, offenses will be thrown out there all around you, you just have to learn how to deal with it. But where do you draw the line and say enough is
Among the citizens of America affirmative action is a sensitive subject with some seeing it as a necessity to help those who have been repressed and others seeing it as reverse racism. Many Americans may also be conflicted about affirmative action, because it is such a complex issue. People fervently debate affirmative action, because it is a complex issue revolving around one’s own race, experiences, and desires.
Two centuries of severe racial oppression cannot be remedied by four decades of governmental policy. Public opinion also seems to support the effectiveness of affirmative action policies. In a 1999 poll conducted by Newsweek, “both African Americans and whites say [that] affirmative action has improved conditions for blacks” (Race: Bills and Proposals). The effectiveness of affirmative action is also evident in employment demographics, as “there have been significant gains over the past 20 years in minority employment, even in traditionally segregated trades such as sheet metal and electrical work” (Race: Discussion Guides). Affirmative action programs have also played a major role in education, providing new opportunities that were once denied to minorities.
Many whites who opposed the Civil Rights movement as a whole also opposed affirmative action. Although affirmative action was designed to make up the difference for the position of America's minorities, many white conservative Americans believed that it was "reverse discrimination". Many colleges, students, and workers went to court to remove this action. How affirmative action worked was tweaked after a law suit by a white man, Allan Bakke, where he was suing the University of California at Davis Medical Medical School for rejecting him and in turn, accepting a less qualified minority-group student for the spot. Anti-affirmative action protests started to pop up on different University grounds, and the discussion spread. Although the court case, Bakke v. University of California, ruled in the favor of Affirmative Action, the conservative movement had put the system in widespread question.
A major controversy encompassing the country is the issue of affirmative action. Many believe that the abolition, or at least restructure, of affirmative action in the United States will benefit the nation for many logical reasons. Originally, affirmative action began as an attempt to eliminate discrimination and provide a source of opportunity; affirmative action did not begin as an attempt to support just minorities and women. In addition, affirmative action naturally creates resentment when the less qualified are preferred instead of the people actually deserve the admission or job. Another reason that has existed since the abolition of slavery is the myth that women and ?minorities? cannot compete
Affirmative Action needs to become a more widespread topic of conversation amongst the millennial generation so that the peer group can realize that Affirmative Action is not helpful, and is in fact, very hurtful to students and potential job applicants. Affirmative Action is when a decision is made by an employer, college/university, and other outlets to how and who will be hired for a specific job opening, admission to a college/university, etc. This is a hurtful process to people, specifically women and minorities, due to the key fact that acceptance of something should not be grounded in gender or race and should be grounded in skill level and
The first thing to acknowledge about diversity is that it can be difficult. In the U.S., where the dialogue of inclusion is relatively advanced, even the mention of the word “diversity” can lead to anxiety and conflict. Supreme Court justices disagree on the virtues of diversity and the means for achieving it. Corporations spend billions of dollars to attract and manage diversity both internally and externally, yet they still face discrimination lawsuits, and the leadership ranks of the business world remain predominantly white and male.
At the Affirmative Action debate at Irvine Valley College, there was positive and negative aspects of the event, but overall was a fantastic group of debaters and topic! The most prevalent issues I had were their pace and articulatory faults. Although the debater’s topic and speeches were effective and written well, it was difficult to hear them clearly at times. A common dilemma that occurred multiple times, would be that the speaker saw that they were running out of time and started to speed up their pace. It made the speech sound rushed and as they spoke faster, their words would combine. Leading to the problem with their articulatory faults of muffled month, as if their tongue could not keep up with their mind. (Ross and Leonard 219) I
The arguments I discussed as an opponent of affirmative action may be biased based on the self-perception theory. I was once included in majority while I was in my country. Since I came here, I have been treated as a minority. I could not stand for either proponents or opponents because both arguments seemed reasonable to me. In order to reduce this uncertainty, I simply observed my own behaviors. I experience discouragement, for instance, when professors give me advantages due to my status as an international student. I might try to explain that I must stand for the opponent’s side without any legitimate reason in order for consonance of my behaviors and attitudes towards affirmative action even though minorities may value this opportunity,
population. Companies need to focus on diversity and look for ways to become totally inclusive organizations because diversity has the potential of yielding greater productivity and competitive advantages (SHRM, 1995). Stephen G. Butler, co-chair of the Business-Higher Education Forum, believes that diversity is an invaluable competitive asset that America cannot afford to ignore (Robinson, 2002). Managing and valuing diversity is a key component of effective people management, which can improve workplace productivity (Black Enterprise, 2001).
For company’s or college admissions looking at applicants, to show affirmative action is no longer a useful tool and only merit should be considered during the process.