Anti Affirmative Action Argument

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 It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

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.

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.

Another kind of employment opportunity seeks the best possible applicant for the job. This category includes engineering jobs, management and professorships. In order to keep away from the appearance of racism, consultancy groups may unwillingly employ an analyst who they know will not produce as many good ideas, hospitals may grudgingly employ a surgeon who they know will not be as effective in the ER, and universities will admit students who they know will not be as hard-working. (Daniel Golden, from the Wall Street Journal pg 1)

Systematic exclusion directly relates to affirmative action in a multitude of ways. Affirmative action addresses systematic exclusion of certain individuals based on several different elements including talent, gender or race, all in an attempt to promote each individual to develop, perform and contribute to the best of their ability ("AAAA" 2). This includes abilities in a myriad of fields, including the job market, education, and community. Affirmative action addresses systematic exclusion by opening opportunities to individuals with limited experience and talented backgrounds who have endured constant and persistent discrimination from members of other races and genders ("AAAA" 2). Directly opposite of systematic exclusion is the idea of social utility. This concept says that an increased population of specific minorities or genders would certainly create a balance, resulting in better communities. In addition, members of that minority will be inspired to succeed, for they will see how people of their own race have excelled. One example of social utility is when communities of racial diversity require a diverse police force, for it aids in acquiring trust and dedication of an entire communities populace ("Affirmative Action" 5). Even though equal opportunity and systematic exclusion are, without a doubt, important to the understanding of affirmative action, the most important principle is yet to be discussed.

Imagine a student named Billy is applying for a scholarship. Along with Billy, his friend Juan is applying for the same scholarship. Billy and Juan are equally qualified. The only difference between the two is that Billy is white, and Juan is Mexican-American. When the two find out who got the scholarship, they discover that Juan got it, but Billy didn’t. Billy wonders why Juan got it but he didn’t. The answer is affirmative action. Affirmative action is an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, and it is an outdated program that is creating unequal opportunities for non-diverse people.

The lifelong dream of a virtuous student, acceptance into a prestigious college of choice, crushed by the prejudice of a single law. Hopes upon hopes of attaining one’s dream job, demolished due to the same impassive law. Affirmative action, a national dilemma, continues to crush the dreams of many across the country; although meant with noble intentions, affirmative action offers an ineffective, impractical, and useless rectification to correct a historical social evil, the growing imbalance of different ethnicities. Instead of augmenting this common problem, affirmative action plays a critical role in reverse discrimination, equating race to diversity in opinion, and destroying the idea of meritocracy.

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a

One of the controversial topics and philosophical questions that really sparked my interest was affirmative action. The author of text that I will be drawing connections from is Tom L. Beauchamp and his publication is titled “In Defense of Affirmative Action”. The theme behind his work is self-explanatory from the title. Beauchamp states the strong arguments as to why people want to abandon affirmative action, but also gives his own insight and support to defend its existence and continued implementation. He understands that there is flaws with affirmative action, but the policy does more good than bad, thus it should be continued.

A topic like Affirmative Action is one that I usually try to avoid during casual conversation because in can quickly turn a conversation hostile. One of the reasons that these conversations turn hostile is due to the fact that I am a white male, which, many would see as two facts that automatically make my opinion on the matter inadmissible. With that being said, just because I would rather not discuss it on a regular basis does not mean that I do not have an opinion on the matter. Also, just because my skin tone and gender would have landed me on the better side of the fence in the past, does not mean that I do not have educated and sympathetic opinions on the matter. Ultimately, I see Affirmative Action as a positive thing which is meant to help out groups of people who are struggling to accomplish what many would call the "American dream". However, I do have several quarrels with how Affirmative Action is carried out.

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.

Today, it is shown how affirmative action has negatively effects jobs, academics, politics, business, and society. ”(Mario B. Rojas,

There are three applicants for the job offering. One applicant is a white male age 35 who has six years of on the job experience. The other three are an Asian female, black male, and white female. Two of these minority applicants have no practical experience and the other only a few years. In order for the company to meet the quota, the company must automatically reject the white male and only look at the other three applicants. The company now is no longer looking for good experienced employees; instead, they are trying to appear fair. This so called ?equal opportunity? is not what it says. This means that they provide ?equal opportunity for minorities.? They are now discriminating against majorities, which goes against the original initiative for civil rights.

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

One day, there were two people who went to a company for a job interview for only one job position. The first candidate graduated from a prestigious and highly academic university, had years of work experience in the field, and in the mind of the employer, had the potential to make a positive impact on the company's performance. The second candidate does not have a college degree and is just starting out in the field and seemed to lack the ambition that was visible in his opponent. Who do you think was hired for the position? If this story took place before 1964, the answer would be obvious. However, with the adoption of the social policy known as affirmative action, the answer becomes unclear. Affirmative action is a product of the civil