Comparing and Contrasting Clinton and Connerly's Speeches on Affirmative Action

The academic debate over affirmative action has become a bitter stalemate. Opponents consider affirmative action to be reverse discrimination, while supporters say that the relationship between blacks and whites is hardly symmetrical. The sterility of this debate suggests that it is time for a fresh perspective, and an analysis considers affirmative action in light of critical race theory (CRT). One of CRT’s tenets is that conventional civil rights scholarship has limited application to current racial problems. Because of the practical and political limits on affirmative action, disputes about its legitimacy are likely to fade as attention shifts to other problems and remedies.

William E. Pemberton describes Reagan as a president that was against affirmative action by stating, “He attacked affirmative action on the grounds that it violated American principles of equal treatment of individuals” (Pemberton 85). While many believed that affirmative action was created to provide opportunities for the less fortunate, Reagan proved it to be an idea that caused more inequality. Affirmative action denies the right to those who actually deserve and have the qualifications for a position in the work place, entrance into higher learning institutions, and other merit based positions. Reagan believed that meeting specific criteria should allow a person a better position rather than basing it on religion, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Reagan’s stance against affirmative action clearly indicates his vision of equality for all and not for a select minority. This mentality of equality and willingness to address it, regardless of how controversial of an issue it is, was one of the characteristics that made him an outstanding president in history. Similarly, to further explain Reagan’s views on equality, Pemberton states, “He made racial justice his highest priority and changed the focus of civil rights programs from establishing equal opportunity to insuring equal outcomes” (Pemberton 54). Reagan had a more profound view on equality than that of the American people.

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 topic of “When Affirmative Action Was White” is racial inequalities in the 1900’s around the time of the new deal. The book covers four different topics, social security, union membership, the military and the G.I Bill. The author of When Affirmative Action was White” is Ira Katznelson. Ira Katznelson is Ruggle Professor of Political Science and History at Columbia University. When Affirmative Action was White is Katznelson’s 11th book and has several other works about race, class and politics. He has been or is the president of several social science organizations like The Social Science Research Council, The American Political Science Association, and The Social Science History Association. All of which are largely respected in the

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.

Published by the New York Times under the Opinion section, the audience for this article is any interested reader. At the time it was released, November 18th, 2016, this article arrived during last year’s elections, in which a large, but surprising number of Americans voted for candidate Donald Trump, shocking many forecasters who had predicted otherwise. Therefore, after the election, many people may have been researching the demographics of the election, and this article, which briefly shared Brooks’ opinion on the nature of the election and how viewing others through the lens of a dominant identity influenced how the votes fell where they did, may have caught a keen reader’s eye. Also, this article came at a time where racism and prejudice caused many problems, leading some to view others as one-dimensional, represented only by a skin color or religion. Since prejudice and hate is still a large issue today, tackling this problem helps make this article relevant, nearly a year after its release.

Affirmative Action has become of the most controversial social policy issues to be discussed in recent years. It is controversial because it challenges fundamental American beliefs. As Seymour Martin Lipset put it: "Affirmative Action policies have forced a sharp confrontation between two core American values: equality and individualism."(Dudley7) This values oriented approach, which pervades popular discussion and derives from functionalist sociology, fails to explain why similar challenges to our core values did not in the past result in the kind of spite surrounding Affirmative Action today. As the popular lore and written history of urban politics in America

Areas of segregation included the fact that free black men and women could not attend court white men and women. (DOC B) They were also not allowed to vote. (DOC A) Document C says, “Shall I be a mechanic? No one will employ me; white boys won't work with me.”and this shows that just because they

Throughout its earlier beginnings, Affirmative action was created by Universities who were obliged to improve the educational opportunities of groups who have experienced prejudice in the past, however defies the basis of American civilization. The leading figures in American Independence battled adversity to create an equal chance for all people. “Martin Luther King, Jr., said in 1963, ‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold those truths to be self evident’, that all men are created equal” (Pearson). In the effect of these leading figures in the revolution of independence, there were dreams to create a different nation, where freedom and were the basis for right and wrong. Throughout time, leaders of change have worked to give equal opportunity to young adults everywhere. “Affirmative Action in the United States dates from the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the early 1960s. After signing the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin, President Johnson went one step further” (Stokely).

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.

Borstelmann provides insight on the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. The author provides an overview of how each administration viewed the racial inequality in the United States as well as internationally. Each administration faced racial challenges at a government level; however each administration also had their own personal views, dilemmas, and thoughts on human rights. He shows how the thinking of some American leaders was discriminatory and how that type of thinking was powerful when they fought for equality and decolonization. The author also shows how some leaders were sympathetic to the troubles of non-whites and were instrumental in the push for change and equality. Borstelmann was instrumental in his claim that the region in which each president grew up in had a bigger impact on their stance then the political party they belonged

Today, we define affirmative action as “an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minatory groups and women.” However, this have not always held true throughout the American history. During the New Deal and Fair Deal eras, affirmative action was created to improve the standards of the American people; the white American people. These eras focused on expanding the welfare, labor, and military programs to boost the economy from the Great Depression. Through implementing these programs, the Democratic Party would make the “Faustian bargain” with its southern members in order to pass the legislation. Ira Katznelson’s novel, “When Affirmative Action was White”, reveals the truth about the key programs

However, Affirmative Action was initially created to tackle the discrimination of blacks. Over the years, random testing has been conducted to analyze America’s social structure and the level of racial divide. The Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington Inc. did some testing between 1992 and 1994. The studies discovered that blacks were treated worse than whites 24 percent of the time when interviewing for jobs. In fact, when a car dealership conducted interviews, the black candidate was offered a car washing position while the white candidate, with identical qualifications, was offered a sales position. White males maintain 97 percent of the senior management positions in Fortune 1000 companies. The unemployment rate of whites is less than half that of blacks. The poverty rate in the black community hovers around 26 percent. The poverty rate for whites is 9 percent. The inequality between white and black America is alarming and Affirmative Action is desperately needed to establish some sense of equality. The fight for equal opportunity begins with the government, and all government agencies have made a concerted effort to establish Affirmative Action programs. The United States Department of Labor offers this statement on its website:

A major controversy encompassing the country is the issue of affirmative action. Many believe that the abolition, or at least restructure, of affirmative action in the United States will benefit the nation for many logical reasons. Originally, affirmative action began as an attempt to eliminate discrimination and provide a source of opportunity; affirmative action did not begin as an attempt to support just minorities and women. In addition, affirmative action naturally creates resentment when the less qualified are preferred instead of the people actually deserve the admission or job. Another reason that has existed since the abolition of slavery is the myth that women and ?minorities? cannot compete