Affirmative Action Is The Current Method For Combating Systematic Racism

In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

Affirmative Action has become one of the most controversial issues regarding college admissions. It is an issue that exposes profiling to its highest extent. Race, gender and income now become vital factors in education opportunities. Affirmative Action is the procedure that is used as a criteria in admissions that will increase the points a college applicant receives on their application evaluation based on the previous factors. Whether race should be considered in the admission of a college applicant, is without a doubt a must in all states. Affirmative Action definitely will improve the opportunities of a minority student applying at a university but it will not be the deciding factor. When

The revered civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, don’t discriminate people because of their race. This should hold true in all aspects of life. Every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, which is why affirmative action is inherently racist. Affirmative action refers to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of minorities and women in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities. It is responsible for colleges discriminating against Eastern Asians and whites and for employers hiring workers based off of skin color rather than skills or experience. People can’t change their race (except for former president of the Spokane N.A.A.C.P. chapter, Rachel Dolezal, apparently), yet many colleges and employers favor certain races over others by using quotas, or a fixed number of people of each race.

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.

Not only does Affirmative action prevent discrimination, but also this legislation implemented by the national government can diversify and improve the overall well being of businesses and schools. Sometimes individuals of a minority group are rejected for a position or declined acceptance to a university not because they are inept, but due to outdated stereotypical assumptions that cause an employer or official to reconsider that person. The ideas behind affirmative action prevent unfair labeling from those whose

Affirmative action in higher education should be abolished. College admissions should be based on what the admissions board is looking for, not what the government says should be required. In this paper, I will present evidence to support that position.

Every year, millions of students apply to colleges and universities in the United States. The status of their application, whether they get accepted to or rejected by the school of their dreams, may ultimately be determined by two words: affirmative action. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to correct past injustices, means to right the wrongs of the past, positive steps to correct past discrimination (Affirmative 1). However, for those exceedingly qualified members of a majority group who do not get accepted while less qualified minority members do, affirmative action begins to insinuate reverse discrimination, the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Reverse 1). Affirmative action is a topic of contention that has been disputed in the court systems for roughly four decades. It is now time that affirmative action in college admissions be abolished because it erroneously implies that diversity is more imperative than merit and unjustifiably discriminates

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.

     Affirmative action is an attempt by the United States to amend a long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, not ease, the nations internal divisions. Opponents of affirmative action say that the battle for equal rights is over, and that requiring quotas that favor one group over another is un-American. The people that defend it say that the playing field is not level, and that providing advantages for minorities and women is fair considering the discrimination those groups tolerated for years. This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, how it is implemented in society today, and evaluate the arguments that it presents.

As affirmative action has become a simplistic strategy to decrease racial bigotry, it has developed into undermining the minority while producing favoritism. Additionally, the flawed policy has created preference within career fields and an academic mismatch among races. To eliminate this outdated system, financial-based affirmative action would serve as a revolutionary law that would help those suffering in poverty without highlighting the color of an individual 's skin.

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

The utilization of race in affirmative action policies in higher education has been a topic of contention for several decades now. Since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have seen some of the most heated debates over the fairness of affirmative action and the impacts on society the utilization of race creates. With such pending questions on fairness and of the constitutionality of affirmative action policies two major Supreme Court cases have arisen, University of California Regents v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, both impacting university admissions policies throughout the country and setting precedent in following rulings. Following the two rulings of these cases, I argue that affirmative action and the utilization of

On a personal level, society needs a shift in its approach to race. Instead of creating divisions, Americans should try to understand their biases. Recently, initiatives with this goal have sprung up in universities. Soon after the Civil Rights Act, many universities in America implemented affirmative action initiatives, which sought to level the playing field between white and minority applicants, the latter traditionally having a disproportionately low acceptance rate. Doing so increased the minority population on campuses and brought the issue of discrimination to the forefront of national attention. By acknowledging historical patterns of discrimination and taking explicit action to reverse that trend, a peaceful method to decrease racial inequality emerged. However, white applicants have protested affirmative action, labeling it “reverse discrimination.” Yet this only emphasizes the faults in racial understanding – members of traditionally privileged groups recoil at the notion of elevating minorities, not realizing that their lower starting place necessitates a boost later. For unity, both groups must reach a mutual understanding about race’s role in modern society.

Affirmative action supporters make one large assumption when defending the policy. They assume that minority groups want help. This, however, may not always be the case. They fought to attain equality, not special treatment. To some of them, the acceptance of special treatment is an admittance of inferiority. Some would include me. I believe I can become successful on my own. I don’t need laws to help me get a great job. I along with many others who are against affirmative action want to be treated as equals, not as incompetent. Although discrimination is not placed in a well-distant past, affirmative action is an unneeded and drastic remedy for today’s world (Farron, Steven, 2005)

In recent years, the strongest failings of affirmative action have been revealed: the inability of minority students -- accepted on an affirmative action basis -- to graduate college (Ravitch, par. 7). While the United States and similar governments are trying to quell the ripples of racist and slavery-based pasts, the effectiveness of the strategies employed is being looked over. The ?social promotion? policies of affirmative action end up pushing students with inadequate grades into college where, when faced with having to make a return to remedial teaching, find that graduation is almost impossible (Ravitch, par. 11). The soul of the matter, suggested by Ravitch, exists at an adolescent level where a student?s social and/or family status affects how he or she learns. The end results of this inefficient system of balance, based on liberal society?s collective desire to have minorities catch up with the crowd, can be seen as