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
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.
Affirmative Action began in 1965 when President Johnson signed the Executive Order 11246 in to law. The Executive Order prevents federal contractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The phrase “affirmative action” was first coined, when federal contractors were required to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants were not discriminated against in anyway. When affirmative action was created, it only included minorities. In 1967, Johnson decided to expand the program to include women because women were discriminated against much like minorities. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, affirmative action was a method used to stop
Race-based affirmative action has been challenged by a great deal of objection during the course of it duration. According to its opponents, Affirmative action proves to be inconsistent. Affirmative action based on race increases race consciousness instead of supporting color-blind justice. By giving people special consideration to ensure equality, it contributes to inequality. The constitution of the United States calls for equal treatment, therefore, allowing racial consideration poses a contradiction.
A person has just obtained their dream ACT score, 34, while maintaining outstanding extracurricular activities throughout high school. After applying to the university of their choice, they are informed that they have not been admitted. Crushed and confused, they go on the university’s website only to discover that the university is looking for people with a more diverse racial background. Standing in the way of their acceptance is a defective policy formally known as race-based affirmative action. Informally called affirmative action, it is a combination of adopted policies that construct an advantage to minority groups, giving them more possibilities to succeed in jobs, education, and other aspects of daily life. The whole concept came
Throughout America there are many different views on the effects of affirmative action. Many see it as a negative policy which gives an unnecessary advantage to minorities in America. In a 2009 Pew Poll, “58% of African Americans agree” and only “22% whites agree” that there should be “preferential treatment to improve the position of blacks and other minorities” ("Public Backs Affirmative Action”).
In the 1960s when minorities and whites were equal according to the constitution but unequal in reality, a program was needed to level the playing field. Thus the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created and prohibited discrimination. It marked the beginning of a debate that has been going on for nearly a half of a century. Affirmative action needs to be reevaluated in educational settings in light of current needs.
I think affirmative action was fair at its inception under Lynden B. Johnson, and throughout the remainder of the 20th century, but I don’t feel it’s fair in society today.
Diversity in the United States has been stymied due to the country’s legacy of slavery and subsequent successful efforts to legislate segregation of Blacks and Whites. At the beginning of the twentieth century, White legislative leaders sought laws to reflect the citizenry’s preference to discriminate, subordinate, and disenfranchise Black citizens. Segregation ordinances, poll taxes, and discriminatory practices of employers, educational institutions, and skill trade unions formed effective barriers to diversity proponents. This practice of exclusion reigned supreme. Fortunately, the nation has become more accepting of diversity in all phases of political and social life as the population grows increasingly more diverse.
Affirmative action has been one of the most effective tools to correct a history of inequalities in our nation’s history against people of color and women. The huge advances made during Civil Rights era still has not completely eradicated centuries of sexism and racism. Opportunities for advancement for those previously omitted remain few and far between in comparison to their counterparts. Race and gender are not, nor should they be, the only selection measure but they do warrant to be one of the many influences considered in college admissions, hiring, and awarding of grants and other forms of financial aid. Many prestigious and well regarded school universities such as Harvard and Stanford have been at the forefront of this ideal. Nonetheless, affirmative action remains a heavily contested social issue in the United States.
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.
Affirmative action is a social policy created to promote the welfare of minorities by supporting the idea that individuals are all created equal and should not be judged by race or gender. Therefore, in situations like job and university applications, we should consider minorities to be as feasible a choice for hire as a white male candidate, taking into consideration their background. In short, it tries to give minorities that have been at a disadvantage their whole life, an opportunity to equal the playing field ' by providing a broader context by which to measure an applicant or prospective employee. In the end, however, this goal is not realized. Instead, superficial quotas ' are established and the
Affirmative Action has been around for many decades from around the 1940s. Although it has not always been called affirmative action, the official title was not introduced until the 1960s. Back then affirmative action was more known as segregation or discrimination in the workplace or there lack of. The women and people of color were the targets of discrimination, which several presidents tried to correct for equality.
Student affairs and higher education professionals must be familiar with legal obligations in regards to their diversity efforts policies in order to be fully compliant and successful in their endeavors.
In response to being asked about the necessity of affirmative action Maynard Jackson replied “If you don 't like affirmative action, what is your plan to guarantee a level playing field of opportunity?” Affirmative action as seen in higher education has not always been around to the extent we see today, as it was originally used as a tool to prevent discrimination against women in the work force (Messerli). As time went on, though, and equality in the workforce came to a justifiable level with acts such as the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act and more safeguards preventing against discrimination while also helping the underrepresented, it seemed as if by the 1990s affirmative action had achieved its goal. The goal was fairly representing the unfairly represented groups present. However, this didn’t necessarily translate to other aspects of life and more specifically higher education, as up until recently and even today some underrepresented groups are not being given the same shot as majorities. After all was said and done, though, great strides have been made towards progress and even defended, as in the 1997 case of Grutter Vs. Bolinger where affirmative action was defended at the University of Michigan’s Law School in a 5-4 decision that showed that groups not affected by affirmative action are not harmed by it either ("Grutter v. Bollinger."). All things considered affirmative action has mended disparities
The idea of Affirmative action was first brought up by JFK to ensure equality in employment for all people regardless of their race, creed, color, or national origin. However, Many institutions such as college took advantage of “equality” as an excuse to admit students based on their race rather than their merits. AB 1726, also known as the Accounting for Health and Education in API Demographics (AHEAD) Act, was first proposed by California Assemblyman Rob Bonta (California Legislative Information). It is a data disaggregation bill that intends to help better address the disparity in public health and education among API(Asian Pacific Islander)group by adding additional major Asian groups, including Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian,