Follow by Email

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Affirmative Action....or not?


Once again, the topic if affirmative action is being debated across the country.  Some claim that it is absolutely necessary, while others claim that it has outlived its time.
Proponents of affirmative action point out that the groups it currently favors are coming out of "negative" backgrounds, which made it nearly impossible for them to succeed; thus, they deserve a positive advantage when competing for jobs or positions against others who experienced no systemic barriers to success. Without a special opportunity to enter into the system, disadvantaged groups might never be able to overcome the handicap which was forced on them by the exclusive priorities of their culture. Eventually, all should be able to compete equally, but discrimination is too recent to expect underprivileged groups to do so now. In the end, the goal is a free and equal society in which nobody gets a head start to success. There are, however, many people who are skeptical about these claims. These critics of affirmative action point out that selecting someone purely based on their ethnicity or origin actually devalues the person's real accomplishments; they also say that this devaluation ends up hurting the wider ethnic or racial group from which a candidate comes.
Another common criticism is that as a form of reverse discrimination, affirmative action keeps societies aware of the barriers that divide it and actually perpetuates alienation and resentment between ethnically diverse groups, thus increasing rather than reducing racial tension. Another concern is that affirmative action may encourage individuals to misrepresent themselves as members of an underprivileged group so that they can get a job or appointment.
Finally, critics claim that racially-based hiring or appointment policies encourage everyone not to perform at their best - the underprivileged, because they may get the position anyway, and the privileged, because they cannot be hired no matter how well they perform. The affirmative action debate is heated; while most Americans favor affirmative action when it is focused on gender and seeks to make sure that enough women are hired, fewer of them claim to support racially-based affirmative action programs.

This week's Blog Topic:
Has affirmative action outlived its time or is it a policy that is still greatly needed?  Make sure you can defend your point-of-view.

50 comments:

  1. The whole concept of racial discrimination and affirmative action illustrates a rather vivid simulation to me, in which a balance scale is set up with different sized marbles coming in different quantities on both sides. On one side, there is a number of relatively big marbles (the “privileged”); while on the other side, there are the small marbles (the “underprivileged”). The big marbles may outnumber the small marbles in a case to demonstrate its sense of majority and its opposition the sense of minority…well let’s just say that the quantities of marbles on both sides may actually be around the same, since the big marbles weigh more than the small ones, the balance scale would undoubtedly incline to the heavier side. This forms the phenomenon of racial discrimination beginning around 1900s with its root traced way back to the late 17th century of the early molding of a shallow racism. As this social and ethnic imbalance progresses, more small marbles are added on to the lower side in order to gain a somewhat compromise showing the minority of necessary concern. And this is the affirmative action, a pursuit of equality considering an amount of factors like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Yet this unreserved as well excessive action of adding more marbles to the underprivileged can greatly alter the state of situation to an extent that a reverse discrimination is unconsciously achieved. Using the admission process among many colleges as an example, creating extra points for black students or simply enrolling more blacks in a way to gain a rigid ethnic diversity, has manufactured another kind of inequality unpredictably.
    Now we are just blindly throwing more marbles onto the once minorities, believing in the “exclusive priorities” that are gradually molded into their very identity as a person after generations of influence on a global perception and acknowledge. Ironically, in University of Michigan, two white students have resorted to the law in 2005, suing the school authorities for discrimination against white students.
    Yes, we do need the past affirmative action in order to restore this balance, or a so-called “equality” in all kinds of different aspects and fields. However, there is NO absoluteness whatsoever; and a hereditary impression fixed upon a certain race, culture or sex, is merely BIASED and antic. There is poverty among whites too, as well as Asians, Europeans…so then why do the blacks have a privilege to be underprivileged when they’re not the only ones in a pressing situation?!
    We’ve already obtained the safe range of a not fully balanced, but fair society after all these rebellion and bloodshed. The balance scale can be perceived as equally high and their mass may be approximately the same if you round up to the closest whole number. Thus we should be satisfied, and a modern day affirmative action is needed to be omitted---not in a full extent---from the society. It’s a time period inevitable to let the balance shaking and waving a little while, and after that, possibility of extremes would be contained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love how you mentioned that blacks aren't the only ones being discriminated against today. Various races, religions, genders, colors, etc. are being looked at as lower in this generation. Your statement brought the point that people being represented by affirmative action aren't the only ones being separated from society.

      Delete
    2. It's interesting how you said that people who would be the targets of affirmative action would have "a privilege to be underprivileged", almost as if people would actually be able to profit from being poor. One thing that I thought was a good analogy that you made was that today, our society is somewhat fair and balanced "if you round to the closest whole number." I would assume that the numbers before the rounding would be the small groups and individuals who still try to promote racist feelings, such as the Third Ku Klux Klan group.

      Delete
  2. Carrie, great analogy!!! Loved the concept of the marbles and scales.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The analogy of different sized marbles perfectly describes the groups we have been put in regarding our religion, sex, color etc. The biased thoughts that have been created caused affirmative actions which is no longer needed. As you stated " There is poverty among whites too, as well as Asians, Europeans…so then why do the blacks have a privilege to be underprivileged when they’re not the only ones in a pressing situation?!" This statement is the core argument againt affirmative action, which really beats the conflict.

      Delete
  3. Throughout history, one of mankind's greatest accidents was discrimination. This, as many people know, is the practice of treating someone as sub-human just because of their race or sex, something that was completely uncontrollable on their part. Racism can be compared to a lie - when you lie, you can either confess, or cover it up with another lie. Lately, many people try to cover up racism with a very similar idea, which is to make it up to people within a group by giving them a boost, such as hiring someone in that race or gender as opposed to someone who isn't: this practice is known as "affirmative action." However, in my opinion, affirmative action isn't a feasible option anymore - in fact, I'd go as far as to call it an extended form of discrimination, the very demon it tries to quell. Take this example: an African American woman and a Caucasian male both apply for the same job. The male is actually slightly more qualified than the woman, but since the employer doesn't want to be considered "racist" or "sexist," the woman gets the job instead. Set aside the fact that it once again deems someone unworthy to something just because of a factor determined by their genes, it can potentially eliminate the very initiative to actually try hard, in order to fairly and truly get the result by being qualified - it basically gets rid of any reason to try. When you do that, you then discourage the former discriminator group from even trying, when they know that the odds are stacked against them. You can go as far as to say that affirmative action literally undermines the very capitalist ideology that made this country the way it is today, by interfering with the law of competition: when you eliminate the amount of people who can actually compete, the economic product of a country begins to deteriorate, and the country begins to slowly suffocate itself. I'd also like to point out one last thing - affirmative action is too late. Today, African Americans aren't barred from using white only public facilities. Women can vote and hold office. The very reason for giving a minority, or certain gender or ethnic background a heads start doesn't help the African slaves shipped to America during the 1700's, nor the women Suffragists funnel fed raw eggs in prison. In short, affirmative action has long outlived its usefulness, and, contrary to what others think, it won't create an equal society: just another discriminate society, where the hunters have become the hunted, and social and cultural aid turns into revenge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a significant point that you brought up about Law of Competition. Undermining this capitalist ideology can even influence Darwin's key theory of the mechanism of evolution, the natural selection. If a specific group of people are designed to be better treated, whether economically or socially, they would have a better chance of survival and pass down their traits in a wide scale that would ultimately ruin the whole point of "survival the fittest", in which the functions of one's inherited traits play the major role rather than an "ingenious" discrimination. Our only way out to save our proceeding history without more decay, would be to gradually put the affirmative action and any other measures having to do with this situation to a complete stop.

      Delete
    2. Brandon, describing affirmative action is being a lie is a perfect description. We has humans have the instinct of judging people by their physical look. To cover this up affirmative action was created which obviously has caused more conflicts. Now the question is do we end this or use another lie to cover up for "affirmative action"

      Delete
    3. "Take this example: an African American woman and a Caucasian male both apply for the same job. The male is actually slightly more qualified than the woman, but since the employer doesn't want to be considered "racist" or "sexist," the woman gets the job instead."
      This isn't always the case; Not all employers are like that.
      Also, if the job is given to the female, couldn't the employer be considered "sexist" towards the male? Either way, both applicants could make the argument that the employer is 'sexist'. It's up to the employer to determine who is more qualified.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Abraham Lincoln stated “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” Equality is a key role played in our society today but is often not followed due to racism. As young children we were taught to treat everyone equal, yet racism stands. In order to balance this “equality” affirmative action was created. It is a deliberate act to provide full and equal opportunities on employment, education and other areas for women and minorities. The argument is, isn’t affirmative action just ending “equality” Affirmative Action ends the right of equal status, rights and opportunities. It has often criticized by those not eligible for its benefits as being unfair and giving preferential treatment. The primary reason for the affirmative action system needs change is the amount of resentment it has created.
    Looking at affirmative Action in the 21st century we can say we have come a long way. With a black president, right for women and the increase of Native Americans in the work field, affirmative action may not be necessary. In addition, Affirmative action also makes some individuals reliant on the government rather than their personal abilities. Many feel that those chosen for the action have been treated unfairly in the past and now deserve either a comeback or simply a shot at equality in terms of education and employment opportunities; but once again is the whole concept of “equality” being disregarded?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just the pursuit of an excessive regulation on this racism situation pushes the division line even further. The role of majority and minority would start to switch their place as history has already demonstrated...We are now having a somewhat ideal society with a black president, considerable amount of women's rights, and respect for all Native Americans just as you point out, then it would suffice.

      Delete
    2. One thing I realized while reading your comment is that one of humanity's main goals is actually to create a world where inequality and equality don't exist. There would only be equality, which would become the norm to the point that inequality as a concept wouldn't even exist. The more you think about it, affirmative action is just enforcing the racist feelings that we strive to destroy. In this way, it causes a type of temporary equality that is destroyed almost immediately after it is created - it creates more jobs for minorities, but at the same time creates the feeling that they don't have to do anything to get by, thus spawning resentment among groups that don't get such privileges, and thus ends up being sort of a pyrrhic victory.

      Delete
    3. Iqra,
      The comment is pretty well written but does need a little work. You should have added more supporting details and facts to back up the fact the affirmative action is no longer necessary in modern times. It was good how you mentioned how far minorities got though by mentioning the president, but more detail was needed to support your argument. The quote also correlates well to the concept of equality.

      Delete
    4. This was a good interpretation of affirmative action. I like how you described what it was before you went into more detail about what you believed. However, you should also elaborate on why you felt that people were not treated fairly by the affirmative action that is shown in today'ssociety.

      Delete
  6. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to improve the lives of persons deemed to be disadvantaged in society. Some go so far as to describe it as a positive sort of discrimination. Is it really a positive movement though?
    Proponents argue that it encourages racial and sexual diversity in the workplace. While one must acknowledge affirmative action's role in breaking the color barrier during the 1960s one must also remember the age we now live in. Are we not already a salad bowl of sorts, with natural increase coupled with high immigration rates making minorities flourish to the point where they have started to outnumber the whites?
    Affirmative action also apparently highlights the minorities' capabilities, that is, it levels the playing field for all; however, it's already been proven to our society time and time again that potential and brilliance can stem from minority races. Affirmative action would only serve as a condescending gesture that implies the belief that the minorities are stupid peoples that need a push from the more able classes in order to even function in society.
    Affirmative action has also been interpreted as a necessary compensation for all the horrible experiences minority races suffered through while under white rule. Yes, some type of compensation must be done and we must never forget the dark misery that has so riddled our past. I fail, however, to see the logic in making the younger generations pay for the sins of the old. Why must all these whites, having met all the requirements, be passed over and Native Americans or blacks be chosen instead solely because of this social guilt that still grips the nation?
    Finally, a special case must be considered for affirmative action, one that is often glossed over: the disabled. A good majority don't even bat an eye to the race, sex, religion, or even sexual preference of their fellow workers, yet many immediately stop and stare when the disabled come into play. Sadly, many employers seem to see and remember only the disability and how it could affect a worker's performance. They forget that these people, especially those born with it, have found ingenious ways of overcoming their disabilities. This notion that the able-bodied are the norm is a much deeper and more difficult rut to get out of; only somewhat recently does the federal government even begin to discourage it.
    With all that said, though small doses of it are needed, particularly in regards to the disabled, affirmative action is still a policy that has overstayed its welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I have to admit that you are absolutely right that the affirmative action can be interpreted as a "condescending gesture" toward the minorities who are "stupid" and cannot even sustain themselves in the society. Rule#1 of history!! The negative interpretation to it is indispensable and is undoubtedly what ambiguously and secretly promoting this whole situation. Or even...it can be somewhat a temptation for the majorities to apply a "rueful" or "compassionate" sense of CONTROL over the minorities, while using this so-called affirmative action to JUSTIFY its action. Also the point you brought about the disabled is really comprehensive that you considered; however, according to today's community, the disabled people are actually treated fairly if you really think about it. Since more and more people are getting aware of the phenomenon and everyone is trying to be nice!(At least in general? or maybe just a utopian view...)Therefore the I guess that it would be also better to "leave it alone".

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I found it interesting that you called the period where many minorities were discriminated against as a "white rule." For many years, white supremacy had been going strong in several countries. We often automatically think of America, but it had also taken root as the South African policy of "apartheid." The Apartheid policy, created by the National Party of South Africa, was very similar to America's "Separate But Equal" policy. It does seem that, for hundreds, even thousands of years, the Europeans and European descendants had created their own little empire, with them at the top of the social class, and just about everyone else all the way at the bottom.

      Delete
    5. In your post you ask "Why must all these whites, having met all the requirements, be passed over and Native Americans or blacks be chosen instead solely because of this social guilt that still grips the nation?" and in a comment on Vinit's post "Many much more qualified applicants are often turned down simply because the employers needed someone from another race to 'encourage diversity in the workplace.'" But are you aware that Federal law makes it illegal to hire a less qualified person based solely on their race or gender, even if they are a "disadvantaged minority?

      Delete
    6. In response to what Nirali had said, even though Federal Law decrees such a thing, it does not mean job decisions are not based on race in some part. For example, Asians are statistically more likely to get a job dealing with technology than any other race. Also, how is it possible to prove if someone was hired based on race or not? A company can simply say they had hired their people based on their qualifications, and do not mention race at all, but may be based partially on race anyway.

      Delete
  7. Due to racism minorities are indeed considered "stupid people that need a push from the more able classes in order to fucnction in society." This is a key concept in affirmative action. We are once again grouping people which is causing this conflict. Everyone is different but should be treated equally leaving their "race, sex, and religion" aside.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Equality. What is equality? A majority of us will interpret it to be that everyone has the same thing. Others may deny that definition and say equality is to have what you deserve. In reality, its actually impossible to answer a question with a fact when it only has an opinion to justify your reasoning.
    In the United States and in many other countries around the world, the debate of affirmative action is very much argued. I personally believe that at one point it was required, however, now as we have entered a new century and we abide by new social standards, affirmative action has become unnecessary. The fact that it is still ongoing today is causing a social and moral problem amongst us all.
    Originally affirmative action was used as a way to compensate for the irreversible damage we as a society have caused to others from a racial and political point of view. It allowed for certain lose ends to be sealed. Although, do not think of these “ends” as being properly closed. Picture that you have a deep cut on your knee. It will heal right away if you seek medical attention. On the other hand, if you allow “nature to take its course” the cut will heal rather awkwardly, by first having scabs clot the opening. Next, the scabs will slowly fall off, but most likely a scar will remain there to forever remind you of the accident which gave it to you. This is very similar to the people who fall under the category of which who need affirmative action. The social injustice(s) have caused them much emotional and sometimes even physical pain, equaling to the improperly healed scar.
    Affirmative action was a crude compensation for mistakes that could have been prevented. Nevertheless, it was needed in order to restore balance on the social scale. It is simultaneously morally incorrect and politically correct. For example, if we did not allow a certain race to go to a certain type of school, or for a woman to become a doctor, then these socially discriminated groups would feel as if the law is not on their side. In other words, affirmative action gave results that people wanted to see.
    Although, now it is no longer needed due to the fact that the mindset that once dominated the people of the 20th century, is long gone. Social equality has been recognized, now the only things dividing the people apart is the interpretation of the word equal(ity).


    Do keep in mind that many people today are all on the same page, no matter if they are on welfare or born into money, both are receiving money they are not working for. In the end affirmative action can be summarized to be a full of good intentions, but is a bad decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find that what stood out the most in your post was your analogy about affirmative action being a cut in society. In our almost narcissistic society where the absence of blemish is perfection, the hiding or removal of scars is usually met with much gusto. Some scars, however, are intentionally left behind by those who wish to remember important milestones, events or promises. The scar left behind by the much darker aspect of America's past must fall into this category, a reminder of a past we must not forget lest we doom ourselves to repeat it.

      Delete
    2. A portion that stood out most to me was when you mentioned the fact that we may have needed affirmative action when certain forms of discrimination existed, but today, our society as a whole, is generally more equal and accepting. We don't need many of the things that we needed back then. We live in a completely different world.

      Delete
  9. Affirmative action may give certain people who feel they are "underprivileged" a reason to not work as hard to succeed in what they want. Affirmative action gives those people an advantage over those that are considered "privileged". For example, if a person of one of the backgrounds that affirmative action supports is trying to get a job, affirmative action will make them feel that they will get that job just because of where they come from. Therefore, that person won't push themselves to their fullest potential to get that job. Affirmative action shows people that, just because you're a woman, or a member of a minority-group, you don't have to push yourself to be the best that you can possibly be. This can result in a harmful effect on that person. Not having to work for what they want may be helpful or less stressful at one point, but eventually, in the long run, it comes back to bite you. For instance, while in high school, not working hard and not involving yourself in as much as you possibly can may make your high school days worthwhile and easy. However, once you get into college, or eventually get a job in the real world, you won't know what hard work is. You will not know how to handle yourself since you didn't train yourself to do so. This and the entire concept of affirmative action go hand in hand. Affirmative action hands jobs to those who are considered "underprivileged" without even knowing if they are prepared enough to handle that certain job.
    Affirmative action does not only effect those people supported by it, but those not supported by it as well. Say a person comes from a upper class family or comes from a background that is considered "privileged". That certain someone may be the most hardworking person known to mankind, however, may not get the job of their dreams because someone who is considered "underprivileged" got it over them due to affirmative action. People should be acknowledged due to their hard work, discipline, and achievements and not because they're a certain race. Also, people should not be punished simply because he or she isn't a certain race.
    Affirmative action can be condescending and insulting because it implies that minorities cannot achieve their goals without being helped. We must remember that those that affirmative action represents aren't the only ones being discriminated against today. It's only common sense that if a person works hard enough and shows the world that they truly are worth it, they shouldn't be judged. We do not need affirmative action protecting certain people. If you deserve a position, you should get that position. Perhaps the reason a woman, for example, didn't get a job was because she wasn't qualified for that job, and not because of her gender. If you have the a ability to do something, it shouldn't matter what race, gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, etc. you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct in stating that affirmative action promotes a sort of laziness and a willingness to exploit supposed 'handicaps' in minorities. Why bother straining yourself, after all, if you're most likely going to get in the college/work you wanted anyway? It reminds me of a news article I read once about how families used their relatives' disabilities so they could get away with cutting in lines at Disney World. If people out there already use such strategies for petty issues, then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to use the same tactics to their college searches and job hunts.

      Delete
    2. i certainly agree with you fedah, people that may be in the lower class or may be treated not as well as others, will work harder to achieve their goals. While people that are very royal and the superiority in that certain community, may not work as hard or may not have the same potential as the people that are working hard to get from the bottom to the top. It just makes the people feel that they are less equal which is bad on our part, especially in today's society where we 'should' be equal and diverse.

      Delete
    3. I agree, if you can do your job correctly and help a company you should have the job, simple. One name that comes to mind is Warren Moon. He played football and had all the capabilities of a starting quarterback in the NFL. However, the position of quarterback was considered to be a white man's position so he wasn't drafted by any teams. After playing some games in the CFL (Canadian Football League) he was finally given a contract as a Houston Oiler after proving numerous times that he was a great quarterback. He was later inducted into the Hall of Fame. However, what if Warren was drafted because he IS black and not talented. What ever team picked him would have been a waste.

      Delete
  10. Humans intrinsically have the ability to discriminate between one another, which creates the need for measures like affirmative action. Affirmative action promotes or at least tries to promote parity for all people regardless of race or gender likewise. The need for this racial fairness has not diminished since the action began in 1961, so it is still greatly needed in modern society. If employers did not follow the affirmative action guidelines certain races could be doomed. Approximately 25% of the United States populous consists of minorities and that percentage is rising mainly due to the large number of Hispanic immigrants in recent years. As a country we have the duty of protecting our diversity. Skilled and intelligent people come from every single race regardless of what stereotypes claim, and we need to give these intelligent people from different races a chance. Without affirmative action, employers might only look at a certain race for a job, but having affirmative action helps employers expand to see different people for the job. Affirmative action is not detrimental from an economic standpoint either. It evens the playing field for all races and genders, creating a balance which should be maintained. This balance helps keep the middle class steadier because without affirmative action, hypothetically speaking, Hispanics and African Americans might see large employment spikes, creating a greater economic stratification between the poor and rich.
    Critics argue that affirmative action makes minorities more dependent on the government, but in certain cases it is justified. If there are skilled and intelligent people that come from minorities, colleges or employers shouldn't turn them down just because of race or gender. This dependence on the government is justified because some people that do deserve the opportunity and would otherwise be declined, are accepted because of affirmative action. We would be basically allow everyone the opportunity to succeed, rather than one cherry-picked group specifically. Affirmative action is still greatly needed to preserve this equality because we are supposed to be the land of hope and fair opportunities. Without affirmative action, not trying to be stereotypical, but we would probably have a male dominated work force that is predominately Asian and white. More racism could also result from no affirmative action because of the increasing unemployment rate in minorities. In order to keep a proper distribution of wealth and social parity, affirmative action should still be implemented in the modern system,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But affirmative action doesn't level the playing field in contemporary society. Sure it might have done that in the 1960's, but it's actually detrimental to us nowadays. Many much more qualified applicants are often turned down simply because the employers needed someone from another race to 'encourage diversity in the workplace.' As Brandon pointed out in his previous post, this breaks down the law of competition: why bother even trying if you know that you're not going to get picked because social guilt has deemed you to be part of the 'privileged.'
      You also imply that it is only the Hispanics and African Americans that are poor in our society, especially when you said that without affirmative action, there would be "greater economic stratification between the poor and rich." News flash buddy, they're not the only ones with problems.
      Plus, you said so yourself that colleges and employers shouldn't turn people down just because of race or gender. Is it not, then, a double standard to turn down qualified whites, Asians or people of other races because affirmative action dictates that the Hispanics and African Americans should have greater priority?

      Delete
    2. This blog is fatally flawed in several ways. Even if you make the argument that affirmative action helped create equality between various races in the 1900s, all it does today is making some people scorn others due to race (read my blog for further details). Secondly, what your view insinuates is that minorities cannot have the same opportunities as whites solely because of race, and thus need affirmative action which contrary to what you state, is a major stereotype that borders on racism and I hope was unintentional. Thirdly, as Hannah already stated, our society is not broken up into whites on top as the first class and minorities follow. There are problems abounding everywhere, and you fail to understand this. There are rich African-Americans who benefit greatly from affirmative action, and poor whites that are hugely affected by this action. In fact, 42% of people considered "poor ' are Caucasians. You fail to incorporate the unfairness imposed on these people in your argument, and this makes your argument almost invalidated. All-in-all, there are many mistakes, flaws, and overlooked details in your argument.

      Delete
  11. Affirmative action has been one of the most effective tools for equalizing the injustices caused by national discrimination against women and people of color. It was envisioned to endorse the opportunities of the minority within a society to give them equality to that of the “privileged” majority. As times goes on, we still have, though to a lesser extent, discrimination amongst race, religion, gender, disability, and etc. Affirmative action could still be used to eradicate the remaining extent of discrimination, however, if this policy is put away, the “equality” we have today will fade. The policy is needed to keep and derive more opportunities for the minority. Ever since affirmative action was implemented, females gained rights somewhat equal to men; African Americans were given similar opportunities to that of a white man, and we even elected our first African American president! Are we really willing to risk all these accomplishments just because the people say the policy is “Reversing the discrimination”? Affirmative action doesn't reverse the discrimination. It, instead, allows for an equal opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although you present a good case, it seems as if your blog post insinuates that minorities would not be able to succeed if there isn't affirmative action, which seems counter-intuitive to what you are supporting. ("equal opportunity") Also, a point of clarification is that women had technically had the same rights as men since 1913, and since affirmative action was introduced in 1961, affirmative action did not directly correspond with women's rights, but rather their capability to achieve success.

      Delete
    2. Granted, we should all have the right to a fair shot. However, should that fair shot be a winner as well? Yes, Obama was our first African American president, but is he good at his job? It needs to be equal and not overextend it's boundaries. It should matter on the talent that is showed by the worker and their responsibility aspect. If a toy train had a broken wheel would you still play with it just because it was blue? Race should override a decision on opportunity.

      Delete
    3. SHOULD NOT OVERRIDE A DECISION! SORRY!

      Delete
    4. Dylan, the majority of people voted for Obama. It was OUR choice as "the people" to elect him. We didn't elect him because of the color of his skin. We elected him because we felt that he was better qualified, etc.

      Delete
  12. The concept of affirmative action should be a closing gap to what was and still is racism in today's society. When you base the privileged and underprivileged people on their color, race, or ethnicity it's hard to interpret who has better skills then others, and degrades the skills that certain people may have because of the restrictions that are put on certain jobs or activities.
    It should no longer be something that is needed in our community. We have to take into consideration that people no matter what color, race, or ethnicity they are they still have the exact same potential and goals that they strive to achieve as they learn more and more about this world. Whether they choose to grow and succeed in what they want to do is their choice, but everyone should be equal and should have the same opportunity as anyone else in our society. A job should be given by their qualifications and what could strive to make this country better, not by what they may look like.
    From the beginning of time when England first arrived in the New World, we strived for independence and equality, and we still do today. If we continue to set rules and boundaries for ethnic groups to inter mingle, it just makes us less diverse and less equal in our own rights. As the government and people that should have a say, we should set an example. We should be the ones that are allowing FULL intermingling with people from different ethnicities and race that are willing to put a foot forward and strive for diversity in our economy, so that it may benefit not only certain people but all races as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you point, "A job should be given by their qualifications and what could strive to make this country better, not by what they may look like." In the end, it is not the color of your skin, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc that makes you better applicant, it is the skills you have acquired and how you use them. Race, gender, and so on should not even be considered.

      Delete
    2. Juliet,
      First of all, the comment seems choppy in general because of how it is worded, especially in the 1st paragraph. This made the 1st paragraph a bit unclear and strangely worded. I also have a point of clarification for you. You stated "from the beginning of time," which is incorrect because time didn't begin with England's arrival in the new world. You should have also used more supporting details and facts to back up why affirmative action is no longer relevant in society, even though you already stated that everyone regardless of their race could have the same potential goals.

      Delete
  13. Affirmative action doesn't seem like a policy, more of a factor of ignorance. Basing a book on it's cover if you will. If a white guy with incredible job capabilities wanted to apply, would you hire the other guy who just HAPPENS to be Native American and does an even worse job? An image of diversity won't matter if you can't keep your company from collapsing. If they can do the job then they should have it, it shouldn't matter if your red, black, white, yellow or even blue. Too long we keep ourselves diverse from one another yet were all human. There will always be a small factor of cultural background yet it shouldn't determine the person's abilities. An example of history would be the American Revolution. America was assisted by the French in order to defeat Britain and finally become an independent nation. During World War 2 both sides had very diverse cultures. The Allies consisted of 16 nations working together to defeat the axis who were also diverse. Would it have been possible for some of the accomplishments of history if people stood there bickering on their lifestyle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although you had started off very well, and had instantly hooked me into reading more of your blog post, I do not see the relevance of your examples to the actual blog topic, as it does not have any details that would support your claim at all. I feel as if you had strayed off the topic of affirmative action, and had started to delve into the importance of diversity. While both have a correlation to one another, they are not even close to being the same thing.

      Delete
    2. I was giving an example of diverse people working with others without divulging cultural background accomplishing numerous goals.

      Delete
    3. Dylan,
      Although based on your argument I can assume that you are against affirmative action, next time you should explicitly state it in your topic sentence. This will create a nice thesis and correlate more directly to the prompt. You should probably also support the argument with facts as well because this will strengthen your argument. It was good though that you related this to a historical event rather than only analyzing, which did help you argument.

      Delete
  14. In an era where 21 minorities and 21 women are CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies, and our own president is from a minority race, affirmative action has outlived its usefulness. While affirmative action was once a great idea when overcoming racial barriers was a true challenge, in today's relatively discrimination-free society, such drastic measures should not be taken. Affirmative action is a plan that actually causes discrimination among different people because it can provide the mentality "so-and-so got into a certain college due to his/her race." This mentality is detrimental to society as it breeds the image that minorities do not need to work as hard to get into a good college. Society also does not benefit through affirmative action because such a plan actually views people as a certain race, and bases decisions off of race. Society cannot be colour-blind until it stops viewing people by race and not ability, and affirmative action is detrimental to society's advancements in this field. In a time where minorities and women can be very successful, affirmative action is not necessarily needed.
    An alternative to the current affirmative action could be the type of affirmative action they have in India, where only if two candidates have the same grades and meet the same requirements, the one from the lower social class would get a job or accepted into the college. This could slowly bridge social class barriers and allow people who did not have enough money, but are talented enough to go to college to be able to be accepted into a college.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree it seems like were taking a complete 180 of a turn. Last month we were given forms to fill out on what college would best be suited for the student. One of the questions ask for our race which makes me cautious that colleges care more for image than the actual students who attend. If a man who is French goes to college it should be because of his credentials and not nationality. What do you say to a person who has tried hard all there life to get into somewhere like Harvard? "Sorry your not diverse enough,"?

      Delete
    2. Pranav, I will definitely agree with the fact that, " This mentality is detrimental to society as it breeds the image that minorities do not need to work as hard to get into a good college." Certain races or ethnicities don't have to work as hard to achieve the goals that everyone in our society are trying to achieve in order to have a successful life. In order for us to finally have equality in the world, we want to be able to strive towards diversity and not exclude certain people out or limit them to a certain job. It just discourages people and will show that our country are being hypocrites when they say that they treat everyone equal but at the same time are choosing certain minorities to work for them because of their race or color.

      Delete