Most races have scholarships offered just to them, so having one for white people should not cause a problem. If an Asian person can get a scholarship for the sole purpose of being Asian, or a Hispanic person get one for being Hispanic, than white people should be given the opportunity to receive scholarships for being white. It would be prejudice not to make white-only scholarships. Daniels explains that certain groups of people deserve scholarships for what they have been through, as said in, “Earmarking scholarships for them is simply a means of restoring some measure of equality”. In the past women, African Americans, and others were treated unequally and deserved special treatment, but times have changed immensely and that excuse is no longer valid.
Many people claim that this distinction in race is necessary because the society in which we live is still racist and only parents of the same ethnic group would be able to give enough cultural support to the children. On the other hand this distinction on races can be considered racist for some people and it could contribute to create a racist society. In the section called “Room for Debate” of the New York Times website, we can find a debate showing different arguments about this issue. In the depate there are three participants with very clear and strong positions. One of the participants is Kevin Noble, author of the article “Not a Deciding Factor but not to be ignored”.
Evaluate a claim against American Dream The American Dream promises equality between races and religion; as well as a job and a good income of wealth. Yet despite this promise, immigrant minorities travel to America only to find injustice to their people. They are oppressed and discriminated against in the streets they live on. Also live in poverty and having no control over these things was nowhere in the promise the American Dream makes. That’s why I agree with the prosecuting argument of the American dream that Minorities, and women, were discriminated against.
In that respect they were better off after the war than before it and they have more rights. However in the north there was evidence of private discrimination and prejudice. This is the down side of a black person going to the north. The reason of a black person going to the north is to escape the racism, but they could be going straight to it and they would not know until they have experienced it. All over the south racism was still going on.
Today, these quotas have long since been banned, but some argue that special considerations toward minorities are still apparent and disrupt their rights for equal opportunity. On the one hand, they argue that qualifications should be based on merit rather than race or gender, and that it implements reverse discrimination. One the other hand, those who support the concept of Affirmative Action insist that equal opportunity is reached by helping those races faced with disadvantages and that it compensates for discrimination in the past. My own view is that special consideration should not be given to minorities because it is contradictory in their intent to create equal opportunity, therefore increasing racial tensions instead of promoting it. By protecting and giving preference to minorities, Affirmative Action unwarily discriminates against the majority, therefore contradicting its own intent for equal opportunity.
But in reality Privileges makes a gender or ethnicity superior and dominate among other. Privileges exist with in our society but they are meant to make one ethnicity or gender superior to others. Many people think of a privilege as a ticket to do things that others can’t. In the Reading “White Privilege and Male Privilege” by Peggy McIntosh, she explain that a privilege is a certain right that a race or gender is given and not earned. McIntosh goes as far as to say that “one’s life is not what one makes it; many doors are open for certain people through no virtues of their own” (McIntosh, 9).
Political Correctness hasn’t gone far enough Today im here to talk to you about whether or not political correctness has gone far enough. There are a number of reasons why political correctness hasn’t gone far enough and it is because political correctness protects people that are from a different race, people who are seen different by society, such as disabled people and people’s religious beliefs. Political correctness breaks the barrier of putting people in different categories and instead people become one and they can respect each other’s differences without controversy. Firstly, I would like to argue the fact that people do not have the right to question and judge the identity others have created for themselves. Andrew Bolt, a writer to the Herald Sun writes, ‘Her father was Swiss, and her mother only part aboriginal.
Affirmative Action: Both Sides The Question: Is it constitutional to make up for past discrimination by setting quotas for allowing minorities into certain programs over non-minorities, or does it violate the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause by refusing to allow a certain person into that program due to their nationality and heritage. Side A: Opposition to Affirmative Action programs. Those that are in opposition to affirmative action programs around the country believe that it is unconstitutional to refuse to allow someone into a program or institution because they are not a minority. They believe that although those institutions and programs should be given the right to choose who to
I thought this was a very interesting article. I don’t really know much about our economy or the technical workings of the government sponsored diversity programs Webb is talking about, but my gut reaction is to think that he is pretty off base. Webb writes that he is dedicated to bringing fairness to America’s economy and work force, but how can he do this if he is against the programs that are working towards that fairness? My basic understanding of his point of view is that he believes that today, government-directed diversity programs that favor people of color are unfair because they give an unnecessary and unfair advantage to certain groups, while ignoring whites who might need just as much help. I disagree; I think that these programs are necessary to balance out the unfair advantage whites automatically get just by being white.
Walter Benn Michaels' argument makes more sense than Giroux's, because the idea of keeping diversity apart of our lives keeps America from becoming truly "united." Benn Michaels says that focusing on race as the thing keeping America seperate is entirely wrong. The main problem comes down money and class. Class differences are the sole reason why America is diverse and not united. When focusing on race and ethnicity the real problem of social class differences gets brushed under the rug.