Essay about Affirmative Action Should Not Be Continued

In the reading “At the Elite Colleges” by Peter Schmidt the nature of admissions in top colleges was discussed in relation to class and race status. Schmidt states that affirmative action is often serving white populations of upper middle class females rather than those in minority races and ethnicities. This was a great relevant point, especially when considering why affirmative action was proposed and enacted in the first place. Affirmative action was created to serve those who are part of groups who had been quashed in some way by oppression. This stands in stark contrast. Colleges often make excuses for these undeserved admissions because, they are looking for future donors or are aiding an athlete. However, this is still inexcusable. On

Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. When the emphasis is placed on aiding people with certain skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, affirmative action sets the races further apart than before. Could this be just another form of segregation? The attempts at boosting minorities to the level of the others have grotesquely failed. To raise minorities the government has pushed down the majority group, fueling racial conflicts. In addition, lowering the bar for minorities for admission into jobs or schools has created a harmful atmosphere for them. Because some of them could not originally qualify on merit and skills, many face failure or extra hardship when they get ushered into their job or school. As Charles T. Canady said in his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., "Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged" (43). Meanwhile the majorities receive punishment because of their lack of a specific skin tone or origin. "Entitlements by race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation-categories that in no way reflect merit-" Shelby Steele described, "are at the root of the great social evils in American life" (175). It is unfair to reward or turn away applicants because of something that is only theirs by ascribed means. When prospective college students or job applicants are considered, the competition should be solely based

Affirmative action is a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination of minorities through active measures in order to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. In other words, it is policy that was established to hopefully eliminate racial preference and equalize the United States. The fight against discrimination has been a long lasting one that started with the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, which ended in the desegregation of all schools (Ficker). Affirmative action was put into place in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Executive Order that mandated government contractors to “take affirmative action” in all aspects of hiring and employing minorities (Brunner). Upon its arrival, the policy

Some people argue that affirmative action is a program of opportunity, and not a program of discrimination. Although affirmative action might be a program of opportunity it only gives opportunity to a select few. If it would give everyone the same opportunity affirmative action would be a good program, but it does not. Minorities are given the upper hand with affirmative action.

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

Affirmative action policies have been in place since 1957 (Rubio 144). Presidents Kennedy and Johnson signed executive orders in 1961 and 1964, respectively, requiring government agencies and their contractors to take 'affirmative' steps to ensure minority participation. Johnson's order was modified two years later to include women. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discriminatory hiring, promotion, and retention practices in both the private and public sectors, and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

According to Newman, affirmative action is a “program designed to seek out members of minority groups for positions from which they had previously been excluded, thereby seeking to overcome some institutional racism” (Newman, 536). Affirmative action made its debut with a piece of legislature passed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and continues to this day. However, the concept of affirmative action is a controversial issue that continues to be hotly debated.

Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and

In Professor William Shaw’s The Organization and the People In It, Shaw delves into the debate that is affirmative action. According to Shaw, “affirmative action means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, either in the company itself or in the larger society”(Shaw, p. 437). Affirmative action promotes the diversity of job opportunities for both genders and all races. Some of the opportunities can cause an unfair advantage to minorities when paired against equal or sometimes better-qualified white counterparts. This can become a moral issue by causing unfair advantages to some people. By attempting to level the playing field, affirmative action actually over compensates for potential discrimination and can place white males at a disadvantage. Affirmative action attempts to balance the application system for college or postgraduate work, however at the expense of some qualified students.

On a beautiful day in 1965, June 4th, President Lyndon B Johnson spoke at the commencement at the prestigious Howard University commencement. He can be quoted saying “ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying ‘ you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.”(ECS1) Shortly after giving this address President Johnson, “Put his money where his mouth was” and signed executive orders mandating that all government contractors take “affirmative action” to hire minority groups (Brunner 2002). In responses to this many professional schools, colleges and university’s followed the governments

     Affirmative action is also taking the focus off the individual. That is why Florida governor, Jeb Bush, has banned race and gender preference with his “One Florida” plan which will end affirmative action. The plan also guarantees that every student within the top 20% is guaranteed admission into college.

As a testament to the next discussion point of opportunities, especially within the realm of college admission, I have experienced firsthand the opportunities presented by affirmative action. As a low-income, first-generation college student, Virginia Tech had offered me a full scholarship based solely on merit and financial need. As a “minority” according to Virginia Tech, I had an

Affirmative action is actually dividing the country into two different racial categories: all minorities against the majority. This causes severe resentment towards those minorities who are less qualified yet are preferred because they feel sympathy or pity towards them. When trying to apply and qualify for scholarships an applicant will find that the majority of the scholarships are for minority or specific race only descendants. This disqualifies everyone who needs the scholarship, but was not born under a certain type of ancestry.

Take for example the story of Allan Bakke. The white student who possessed higher grades and test scores than a great percentage of other applicants. Bakke was denied admission into University of California's medical school simply because the board set aside sixteen positions out of 100, strictly for minorities. After taking the university to court the ruling was that Bakke be admitted into the University, regardless of ethnicity, which brings forth another idea. The programs that have been initiated throughout the United States within

The history of affirmative Action in the United States has been an extremely turbulent one, with views for and against swaying every decade. (Swaying tho?) The Civil Rights Movement (Caps?) of the 1960s pressured many politicians to pass anti-discrimination