While they were given some rights as time progressed, equality among all men and women had not been achieved. Even with affirmative action it did not seem as if the individuals were receiving the chance to better their education or obtain a better job because they belonged to a minority group. This unequal treatment is they key argument for the affirmative action. The argument against affirmative action is reverse discrimination. A school that requires its attendants to pass a test is charged with discrimination when it does not meet the quota for its admittance.
Losing Sight of Affirmative Action Terry Eastland’s essay, Ending Affirmative Action, makes a compelling yet distasteful argument about the proposal of putting an end to affirmative action due to the negative experiences encountered. In a positive effort to support this proposal, he explains how preferential treatment is now being given to minorities and because of this preference and how generalizations are made about minority achievement based on the misconception that affirmative action allows “lower standards” with the accompaniment of underrepresented ethnicity in order to fill a race appropriate quota. Thus, harming the image of today’s minority community by the mere suggestion that a person received a
However, if it is proven their current practices are not an issue, they want to keep them in place. Disparate impact is defined as a theory of liability that prohibits an employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. Based on this definition and the statistical evidence shown through flow and concentration analysis, Tanlgewood’s hiring practices clearly have an adverse impact. Using the 4/5th ratio, there is a clear underutilization of minorities. The applicant flow sheet was very revealing.
If another student or applicant for a job is more capable and eligible for the spot but is given to someone in the “minority group,” doesn’t this create resentment from the more capable applicant? Although government is trying to reverse years of discrimination it actually may be nurturing it without even seeing the serious side effects it may be evoking. To be completely free of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and all the above we need to take away the labels. There shouldn’t be a “minority group,” everyone is equal and that is how we should move forward. If we say one person is weaker than the other, than our own government is instilling in us what we have tried to eradicate for years.
He states that law enforcers think that they would be more accurate in targeting a suspicious group, but in reality, what happens is the total opposite wherein officials have inaccurate results in targeting the suspect—Race Relations. He stated in one of his books evidence proving that the success rate of racial profiling is lower than behavioral
In the cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of Affirmative action in school admission is constitutional if it treats race as one factor among many, its purpose is to achieve a "diverse" class, and it does not substitute for individualized review of applicant, but is unconstitutional if it automatically increases an applicant's chances over others simply because of his or her race. The Grutter case involved a lawsuit against the admission process at the University of Michigan's Law School. The mission of the law school's intensely competitive admission process was to achieve "a mix of students with varying backgrounds and experiences who will respect and learn from one another." While test scores and undergraduate performance were the most important criteria in selecting applicants for admission, they were not determinative. The school also examined a host of subjective factors in making its admissions decisions, including the race and ethnicity of the candidates.
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
While that might be the case in many instances, freedom of speech is a more positive advantage than a negative threat and abridging it is against the First Amendment. In his essay "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus", Charles Lawrence writes "I am troubled that we have not listened to the real victims, that we have shown so little understanding of their injury, and that we have abandoned those whose, race, gender, or sexual preference countinues to make them second- class citizens." He implies that freedom of speech thretens minorities because it allows racial insults and offensive speech. However, the same took that is used against minorities can be used to fight back. Freedom of speech can be used for them to defend themselves.
The supporters of affirmative action admitted that it does discrimination in the technical term but it for social justice for the past minorities that have been deprived of social opportunity. Putting minorities in better positions to get into better schools and better jobs in the future is why affirmative action should continue to promote equality is society. One of the reasons it shouldn’t continue according to white males is that it causes reverse discrimination against white males at the work place. Affirmative action should continue because it helps the less advantage in society increase their chances of a better
Many people during the 1980’s argued that since affirmative action gave possibilities to under-qualified minorities, that it would take away the career possibilities from the more than well-qualified applicants of certain jobs. In Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, he states, "We must not allow the noble concept of equal opportunity to be distorted into federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or sex—rather than ability and qualifications—to be the principal factor in hiring or education." During his time in office, he sought to end affirmative action, and his perseverance paid off substantially along with other Supreme Court rulings during the 80’s wanting to repeal Affirmative Action. There were many things that factored into race relations in the 1980’s, but the repealing of affirmative action was a main issue. It created more racial tensions and ultimately worsened racial