Affirmative Action

[SIZE="5"]Discussion Topic [/SIZE]

[SIZE="2"]Does “Affirmative action” still remain the ideal standard for American Government to encourage public and private institutions to obey in order to promote nondiscrimination in the United States?[/SIZE]

[SIZE="5"]Intro [/SIZE]

It is important to introduce terms in this discussion to ensure that we are on common ground. I find the best approach to explain "affirmative action" to be through Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

[SIZE="5"]Historical Origin[/SIZE]

"Affirmative action" first appears in President John F. Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925 which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." It is the subject in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though it is not explicitely stated and later championed by President Lyndon B. Johnson during his presidency.

Since its inception, “affirmative action” took on a number of interpretations as arguments flared over its application in the work place and in American colleges. Critics stated that “affirmative action” was nothing more than reverse discrimination and that its own flawed means made it impossible to fulfill its purpose:

To count by race, to use the means of numerical equality to achieve the end of moral equality, is counterproductive, for to count by race is to deny the end by virtue of the means. The means of race counting will not, cannot, issue in an end where race does not matter (149).

These advocates contested that “affirmative action” should follow accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which stated, “[n]o person… shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VII went on to prohibit employment practices that discriminated based on race, gender, religion, or national origin (but permitted exceptions).

The administration of the Civil Rights Act by federal courts throughout the 1970s crafted "affirmative action" to not be the compensation for past wrongs, offset unfair advantage, rewards the deserving, or yield a variety of social goods but to administer change to resilient institutions in order comply with nondiscrimination.

[SIZE="5"]Conclusion[/SIZE]

Affirmative action is most frequently discussed in the context of school admissions as Universities have been discovered to use race as a contention for acceptance. Many students claim that this application of affirmative action is perverted as it no longer follows a policy to maintain nondiscrimination and instead limits seats according to race. Advocates of affirmative action cite the promotion of diversity whereas the opposition often voices their disdain over the compromise in meritocracy. Many individuals are left to ponder this: Does affirmative action best suit the needs of the American public and are issues of discrimination really remedied by its influence? Are there better evaluative standards other than affirmative action which offer a better assessment of social equality? After nearly half a century since its inception, it's time for some honest deliberation.

Will post a competent response tomorrow.

Before I post something constructive....

Isn't this supposed to be in the Rubik's Cube forum? Just wondering

Nah. I'm cool with any response. Be it personal anecdote or unjustified opinion. Affirmative action is a popular topic because a lot of students can relate to it on a personal level. Lends itself more to the social than to the intellectual. I just happen to enjoy making things complicated and finding accurate definitions so the conversation doesn't spiral out of control.

I can see though how it could seem like I misplaced it.

I just wanted to keep it here for a loose atmosphere. If you want to be serious, then I would appreciate that a lot. I definitely like something deep and witty. But really, it shouldn't be a burden.

Personally, I am against affirmative action. I feel that reserving seats for a certain group of people because they're a minority is discrimination of the majority. Discrimination is discriminiation. It is a bit hypocritical to say discriminating against one person is wrong, but it is ok to discriminate against another.

If I'm white, and you're say black, do you deserve to go to the school more than I do? No, we should have the same chances based on our grades. If I do not have better grades, then give the seat to the black person.

And in the end, this only fuels intolerance. The guy who loses his seat in college, even if he has better grades, just because the other person was aminority, is he going to have a better feeling towards that minority? Chances are, he won't.

The best solution, in my view is to protect the minorities by them being given the chance to prove that someone discriminated against them and that's why they didn't get in. If they had better grades, and didn't get in, then they deserve compensation. However, they don't if the person who did get in just was, well, more what they were looking for in terms of academics.

I used by schools as my example, but my opinion applies everywhere.

it doesn't matter. no one group is ever going to be satisfied. Affirmative action = racism cause it implies minorities can't get into college based on merit. Merit based = racism because certain races don't do as well academically as other races. I however, see merit based acceptance much more fair, even with a decrease in racial diversity. Merit base gives a chance to EVERY RACE that has the will to go to college rather than" oh you're black/latino/native american/asin(lol)? Here you in college now". Merit basis is almost completely fair, but funding for public schools may deter the quality of education (which should be the same regardless, but that doesn't happen). People may complain about not being able to compete with Asians or whites because "the system is racist towards X race" Which is complete BULL. If you aren't motivated to get ahead in the world trhu college, then you don't deserve to be in the system at all.

I was for Affirmative Action until I realized Chinese people took our jobs qualify for the same openings as other Asians and they outnumber us like 10 to 1. There should be Affirmative Action by nationality and ethnicity in addition to the general "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American" classification. Asians hate each other ._.

Without AA universities like Yale and Brown would be filled with WASPs

You guys are forgetting something. Racism happens every day and legally too! A actor recruiter can choose not to hire a black man simply because the role he's trying to fill requires a white person. For example, a black man will never, ever be hired to play the part of Captain America. Or a Korean girl will never be hired for Latina Backdoor Whores #6. If there is a justified reason why a certain race should be included or excluded, then by all means exclude them.

Also, affirmative action, like racism, can be a good thing if used in the right context. Consider Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg where a school county was forced to have white people on their bus to allow for desegregation of these schools. Affirmative action isn't just black people getting into universities. It's also done for the good of the country.

Of course, racism and affirmative action have their terrible sides. But I firmly believe that if a person has a sound, logical reason to hire only a black man or place spots for minority groups, let them do so. The problem is that not every reason that people use is sound today. "We want to be ethnically diverse, so we are reserving these spots for minority groups" is not sound logic. However, "This community is historically black. To reduce the amount of racism on our campus, we need those who would be considered a minority group in the context of our campus to achieve diversity", then that's fine. Using affirmative action to fight an already existing problem of racism is well worth it and should be done more often. But affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action is just racism in action.

The problem is that Title VI does not allow for reasonable cause to exclude a group of people. They are including everyone merely for the sake of including everyone, and that's sad.