|
STUDYWORLD STUDYNOTES:
CLASSIC LITERATURE ANALYSIS
STUDYWORLD REPORTS & ESSAYS
RESEARCH AND IDEA DATABASE
Oakwood Publishing Company:
SAT; ACT; GRE
Study Material
xx
|
Affirmative Action And Its Effects
The roots of affirmative action can be traced back to the passage of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act where legislation redefined public and private behavior. The act states that to
discriminate in private is legal, but anything regarding business or public discrimination
is illegal ("Affirmative" 13). There are two instances when opposing affirmative
action might seem the wrong thing to do. Even these two cases don't justify the use of
affirmative action. First is the nobility of the cause to help others. Second, affirmative
action was a great starter for equality in the work place. The most prominant variable in
deciding affirmative action as right or wrong, is whether or not society is going to treat
people as groups or individuals. Affirmative action is a question of morals. The
simplicity to form two morals that are both correct but conflicting is the reason for the
division of our nation on affirmative action.
Affirmative action is very noble when looking at who benefits from the outcome. Take a
closer look at affirmative action. The people that are involved and the damage it takes on
our society surfaces many doubts. Taking a closer look also stirs up a question of
nobility that needs to be answered before making a decision on affirmative action. Does
affirmative action simply change who is discriminated against and makes it legal for the
new discriminators?
Coming from my point of view, the view of a white male, this is a serious question. One
example of this came to my attention from Dave Shiflett who once worked at Rocky Mountain
News wrote "Rocky Mountain Hire". In this article he tells about a new hiring
strategy used at the Denver news paper Rocky Mountain News. A memo was sent out stating,
"The job reviews of supervisors and others involved in hiring should address race and
sex. Each review should have a hiring goal of at least half of our hires being women and
at least half non-white" (Shiflett 45). Lets put this strategy to work. We have ten
positions to fill, these positions can be filled following the above guidelines by hiring
five black women. It can also be met by hiring five white women and five non-white men.
Obviously to meet this goal successfully would mean to not hire a white male (Shiflett
45). I strongly disagree with my white fore fathers and society today who both address
race and sex when hiring. Using a persons skin color in hiring is discrimination no matter
how society looks at it.
At St. Bonaventure University the potential for reverse discrimination became a
reality. In May 1994, 22 faculty members were fired, all were male. The president of the
university was very blunt about his motive, to protect the small number of women on the
university staff (Magner 18). This was purely a discussion based on gender not
qualification. No matter how efficient these men were some were fired for not being part
of a certain minority. Gary A. Abraham, who was fired as a tenured associate professor
stated, "It seems ludicrous that the university can rectify its failure to engage in
affirmative action on the backs of its male faculty." Twelve of the men took their
complaints to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission sided with
the men and are even planning to bring the university up on charges themselves (Magner
18). Giving an employer the power to discriminate only towards minorities is unfair and
unethical.
Now the question is who will the government protect? Society can not consider its self
fair when we are still forming decisions based upon gender or race. It is not noble to
protect the jobs of women at Bonaventure University simply there are not enough women on
the roster. We should protect the jobs of the experienced. We can not form a new society
from affirmative action and believe the rights of all United States citizens will be
upheld.
The whole idea behind affirmative action is to right the wrongs of the past. Well, what
about the individuals that were not even born when this atrocity of discrimination was
going on. Society should not punish the youth for the crimes of their white male
forefathers. Thomas Sowell gave an interesting story in his article "Free Markets vs.
Discrimination" about Albert Greuner. He had graduated from Pensacola Naval
photography school and was refused a job he was more than qualified for. The reason Albert
was denied the position was based on the conduct of the other cadets graduating from
Pensacola(Sowell 69). These are the battles that need to be fought. Stop employers from
hiring in a discriminatory fashion Not to just favor the group that has been discriminated
against in the past.
Not only does it affect white males, but the recipients of affirmative action suffer
from negative side effects also. There is an angry backlash that women and minorities feel
from affirmative action. There is also the effect of pampering. It can make any individual
lazy and unmotivated. Affirmative action does nothing but build walls to separate us more,
and pollute our work atmosphere with tension.
An angry backlash towards the recipients of affirmative action appears prominently in
the work place. An example of affirmative action backlash comes from the article
"When an Advantage is Not an Advantage." "I recently got a large chunk of
government funding in a program that didn't even have any sort of affirmative action
ranking. Yet, almost all men I talk to including my father, assume there was at least some
component of consideration given to me for being female" (Cohen 18). Affirmative
action weakens the spirit of the individual by making them think the reason they got the
job or grant was because someone felt sorry for them. Some women believe affirmative
action will benefit them in the beginning because there is an incentive to hire women.
This will do more to hinder than to help in the long run. Here is a quote from an article
opposing affirmative action. "I think affirmative action helps to get a female an
interview but once on the interview and once on the job, it gives males a basis for their
resentment and skepticism of females..." (Cohen 18). This can cause additional
tension between men and women that was not there before affirmative action.
Another side effect is how pampering can make a person lazy and unmotivated to excel.
This is exactly what affirmative action does. It makes sure that women and minorities are
pampered to make up for lost time. Well, lets take a look at what all the pampering in the
past has done for the white male. Look at the college graduation numbers of today. Eighty
percent of blacks attending college graduate, while only 55% of white college students
graduate. These numbers alone show what discrimination did to help the white male to
achieve a lazy attitude of "I don't need good grades, I am white I'll get a god
job." This is a dangerous attitude in 1996, because in some situations a white male
needs to be over qualified to compensate for small "bonus points" some
minorities receive. By pampering any single group the long-term disaster will outweigh the
short term relief.
Discrimination is not the problem that plagues society. This is shown with the increase
of women in the work force. The number of women in the computer industry has increased
93%, in auto industry 89%, and in pharmaceuticals 78% (Dunkle 44). Thirty years ago this
was not the case, and affirmative action forced American employers to open their eyes to
the benefits of diversity. "Affirmative action in 1995 is beginning to resemble
Soviet Communism in 1969. Outside the sheltered elites, the majority of people loathe it.
The circumstances in which it was dreamed up no longer exist" (Sullivan E15). Now it
is time to end affirmative action and focus on what is holding down minorities today. Let
us turn our sites on poverty, poor family life, poor schooling, for these problems are
colorblind, and can hinder an individuals chances for success more than anything else. To
equal the opportunity of minorities for employment we should educate and prepare them, not
force them into the work force or universities.
Guadalupe Quintanilla, the assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs for the
University of Houston, stated, "Affirmative action has been distorted and abused. We
need to take a second look at it. I think affirmative action has opened a lot of doors,
but it has been misrepresented. I'm for opportunity, not special treatment. The majority
of people in this country are open-minded and willing to work with people without
considering their sex or color. So I think we could do away with set asides" (Dunkel
42).
Problems with equality in our work force and universities can not be blamed completely
on discrimination. The problem today is colorblind poverty. Affirmative action actually
hurts the lower income individual of any minority group. Thomas Sowell, in his 1990 book,
Preferential Policies, used an international survey of affirmative action programs to show
the consequences. "The benefits of affirmative action went overwhelmingly to people
who were already better off., while the poorer members of the same groups either did not
gain ground or actually fell further behind" (Richardson 4C). The wealthier
neighborhoods have better school systems, which in turn offer greater resources. If we
bring equality to our school systems, a rise in minorities in the work force will soon
follow.
Some universities here in the United States have based enrollment on College Board's
and SAT's or ACT's, none of which show intelligence levels. These tests rather show the
standards of education that the individual has encountered. The gap between mean SAT
scores for black and whites is 938 for whites and 740 for blacks(Shipler 16) These test
scores sometimes become the discrimination against minorities. Another form of evaluating
students is where the Universities and government need to focus, to establish a standard
in education that spans across all levels of income. Affirmative action is definitely not
the answer for equality in this day in time.
Affirmative action has balanced for thirty years on a moral threat. It is now time to
apply new moral threats, not towards the employers and colleges but towards the
government. For it is the government that needs to change its polices. The government
needs to take action towards the real problems of equality: poverty, not the bad white man
from the past. Affirmative action is simply the same old discrimination in reverse.
Send e-mail to lisa@studyworld.com
with questions or comments about this web site.
|
Teacher Ratings: See what
others think
of your teachers
|
