Affirmative Action Pros

There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring

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 and any race-positive policies should be dismantled; I disagree with affirmative action. Better stated from the debate question: like Jim Crow, affirmative action is invidious racial discrimination. Affirmative action should take the path similarly to that taken in California – become abolished. Affirmative action does discriminate on a racial level. Affirmative action implies that minorities cannot achieve a certain goal without the help of a race-positive policy, which is invidious racial discrimination. While policies developed to create diversity may (or may not) bring in diversity, the policies are damaging and create a “second-class ‘minority degree.’” (Scalia, 1979) Colleges and employers should look at substance and

America is known as the land of opportunity, where one could achieve anything they put their mind to, no matter who they are. Thousands of people from all over, migrate to the United States every year so that they can have access to opportunities they never had before. This is well known as, "the American dream”. Affirmative action has helped minorities to try and reach their American dream. Despite the fact that minorities and women have made a lot of headway in equality over the past decades, affirmative action should still be in place in the work place and education due to the hardship of minorities and women in the fight for equality. Minorities and as well as women has been oppressed for years while white men were moving forward and gaining more power in the country.

(Ncsl) Affirmative Action is also illegal in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Ncsl) The Affirmative Action program was made to help other groups of race and color to enter schools and not be discriminated, yet they are discriminating white citizens for not being “colored.”(Sacks & Thiel) Lastly, the Affirmative Action process of elimination is unlawful because it is racist to Whites due to the fact that they aren’t “colored” and have a less chance of getting into college than someone else which is reverse discrimination.

Imagine a world where no one notices the color of each other’s skin, a world where everyone was treated equally, fairly, and without prejudice. This is the ultimate goal for our generation. We want to see equal opportunities for everyone regardless of sex, race, or nationality. The term affirmative action has been the center of national debate in the recent history with liberals, both black and white, arguing that affirmative action levels the playing field and makes up for historical prejudice and discrimination. Affirmative action means minorities that are any underrepresented group defined by race, ethnicity, or gender are preferably admitted to universities or employed in government and businesses.

Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities among the minority groups, and woman in addition to promote the rights of the others who have the disadvantage. In 1964, Affirmative action arose as the way to fix racial discrimination and promote the rights that were established in the Civil Right Acts by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964, to prohibit public discrimination, however the movement was lead by the International figure Martin Luther King Jr. Ultimately, I strongly disagree with Robert Staples for believing that the policy of affirmative action should continue. Affirmative Action isn’t necessary to achieve racial equality in the United States. Everyone is born with the same advantages

Affirmative Action—the consideration of race in college admissions—allows colleges to admit students based on their race to increase campus diversity, even if their academic standing is not as high as other students applying to the university. It is widely regarded that minorities are underrepresented in higher education, and while this may be historically accurate, there is a new group that is losing the benefits of higher education—lower class students.

At times, guidelines were necessary in order to force businesses to even allow people of color to be hired or promoted, such as in the 1987 case of United States vs. Paradise wherein the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety was systematically discriminating against blacks to the point of never hiring them and despite over a decade of lawsuits, never promoting the ones they were forced to hire. However, there have been multiple instances of affirmative action denying qualified individuals from obtaining jobs and even causing people to be fired in order to hire minorities to keep up with necessary percentages of diversity. One of the most high profile cases is Wygant vs. Jackson Board of Education in which the board of education in Jackson, Mississippi implemented a policy that gave minorities preferential treatment when deciding who to get rid of in the event of layoffs. As a result of this policy, multiple teachers were laid off despite having greater seniority compared to their minority counterparts that were allowed to stay. As a result of this discriminatory decision, Wendy Wygant, one of the displaced non-minority teachers, challenged the layoff in the District Court. The District Court decided that the policy was permissible in order to make up for past

Affirmative action, the means to create an equal playing field for disadvantaged minorities in both employment and academic settings is often the subject of controversy for its role to persuade free markets to consider employing and accepting blacks and women amongst others, to qualify for government contracts and/or funding. According to Mink (1998), “Affirmative action foes believe that when numerical rankings are balanced against social factors, unqualified or less qualified individuals steal college admission from “the best” students, good jobs from deserving workers, and business contracts from the lowest bidder.” Conversely, while advocates agree that the potential exists for some of “the best” to become collateral-damage as a result of Affirmative Action measures, still,

When it comes to Affirmative Action this is necessary. This shows how much improvement minorities are receiving for opportunities in place of a better life. For example, it gives people an equal opportunity to appear not cause of their race, giving them a fairly equal chance at education and employment for the reason that many people base minorities on racial preference rather than academic achievement. Also, Affirmative Action helps give minorities the chance to achieve and start their future going to college and being successful in life. Another essential point is that many have graduated saying that getting the chance receiving the opportunity for the Affirmative Action program helped them start off so much that as a result, they now have a good paying job, are successful, and living an enormously better life.

Affirmative Action is meant to eliminate any barriers that prevents groups that are discriminated against from having equal opportunities within education or employment. Affirmative Action was used to enroll and hire African Americans and other minorities to ensure that they are increasingly becoming affiliated with institutions and different organizations/business. By doing so it allowed for there to be diversity and gives the impression of equal opportunities, but not necessarily equality. Affirmative Action in a sense lead to a domino effect which made it look more convincing that equality was in arms reach. First institutions started factoring in race to help increase the number of African Americans that were enrolled, then funding and

On the contrary, supports of affirmative action feel that this law is still needed in America to help places of higher education have more diversity which will benefit companies in the long run and it also helps companies be more diverse and it helps them thrive. In the past few decades the number of minorities and females in places of higher education and companies have been rising at a slow rate. During 2012, the health care industry was suffering from lack of medical personal in the medical field; however, “16% of the U.S. population is Latino and 14% is African American, these groups constituted only 9% and 7%, respectively, of the total U.S. medical school enrollment in 2012 “(Graces, paragraph 2). The rate of minorities enrolled in medical school has been slowly rising over the years. Having minorities and females in a company helps the company be more diverse while also giving the company employees that can help the company thrive and be successful. Supporters feel that this law benefits people who usually would not have a chance of attending a place of higher education or be a part of a company an equal and fair chance. Supporters of affirmative action feel that it is positive discrimination and that it benefits places of higher education and companies not discriminate against females and minorities.

Affirmative action is a question of morals, so I do believe the affirmative action programs should be based on race. Usually affirmative action defined the policy of giving opportunities to racial minority groups or women, not the economic weak.

Affirmative action started in the 1960’s as a way to end discrimination against African American and later all minorities - including women. By migrating people of all color into workplaces and colleges/universities seemed to be the suitable solution to diversify our nation. Although blacks had been freed for a 100 years, they continually struggled with segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the segregation of all sort in the United States, however that was not enough. Congress mandated the affirmative action program as a plan of desegregation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made reference to this plan, but it was not until September 1965 that it was enforced by President Lyndon Johnson. The program affected federal