Affirmative Action Pros and Cons Essay Example

Given that the legislation of the 1960s became a viable participant in seeking social justice and equality. Decades passed after the end of slavery, and yet segregation remained legal among the American society. Given that discrimination exists President Johnson argued harder for affirmative action thus his “equality of result” came under fire by the American public workforce.

Yet he takes positive steps in affirmative action, Hence affirmative action problems are not easily solved by the absence of segregation laws. Many of President Johnson’s opponents to affirmative action considered his plans a quota system that requires a particular number of hires of minority if the European male is more qualified. Because affirmative action addressed issues of women in the workplace, change is pending. The roles of women in traditionally known as “women’s jobs” – secretaries, nurses, elementary schoolteachers, etc.

Raymond, Nate.

Corporate Counsel, (2008) "Crackdown on diversity: the Department of Education took aim at affirmative action. " “What effect all of this may have had on the actual demographics of the law student population is uncertain. The ABA says minority students last year made up 22.

4 percent of first-year enrollment, up from 21. 5 percent when Bush was elected in 2000. Yet the proportion of blacks enrolled in their first year slid from 7. 8 percent to 7. 1 percent, and the presence of Hispanics grew only slightly during that time. Only Asian American populations increased substantially, from 6.

7 percent to 7. 9 percent.

While it's impossible to say exactly how anti-affirmative action efforts affected those numbers, they probably didn't help. “ Says Johnson: "If students of color can't get into law school, they can't become lawyers.

" Therefore opponents of Affirmative action believed giving a job to a woman over a qualified male compares to taking the job from the man.

One can concluded Gloria Steinem’s essay in 1979 “The Importance of Work,” goes against the idea women should not work if they do not “have to. " Hence Gloria Steinem idea of a double standard of employers who question men about children at home and the need to the job they applied for.

One can conclude women do need their jobs and work considered a “human right,” not just for males. Some new and developing controversies What are the effects of affirmative action? Controversy over the effects of affirmative action and government hiring and equal opportunities surfaced in the 1970s. Huppi, (2007) “The following chart shows the leading economic indicators for women since 1959. Because affirmative action for women did not start until the late 60s; it was most vigorously enforced in the 70s, and less enforced in the 80s.

” Huppi, (2007) “ Two major types of jobs in this economy.

The first group, which shows the best paying jobs; managerial and professional jobs. In 1994, women occupied 27. 5 % of all jobs in the U.

S. (9) The second group consists of all other jobs that consist of three fourths of all lower paying jobs. Therefore, women must qualify first for managerial, professional jobs, before hired, which means attending college. College’s admission practices were discriminatory; hence affirmative action programs fought this fight as well. Greater number of women began graduating, which required time to “rise up through the ranks” to managerial, professional jobs.

Hence a long lag between the application

of affirmative action and its results.

” Guinier, Lani. Law. Harvard, (2009) "The pigment perplex: the complexity of race reveals the inefficacy of conventional admissions criteria and demonstrates the vital importance of diversity. " Law, (2005) “To illustrate his view that race is an illusory concept that should be irrelevant to admissions, dissenting Sixth Circuit judge Danny Boggs wrote that he'd shown "a sample of people" in and out of his chambers a Christmas card, "containing a lovely picture of a friend and his spouse, their two children and their] spouses, and four grandchildren.

The physical appearance and, thus, the ancestry of at least one photo subject were apparently open to interpretation. "How many of the ten people in the picture should receive racial preference under Michigan's policy? " asked the judge. Answers ranged from one to ten, from which he concluded that race cannot be a surrogate for qualities that a law school should value. ” Sixth Circuit judge Danny Boggs The effects of Affirmative action went from the workplace, women and jobs, to admission decisions in colleges and race.

Affirmative Action Pros and Cons Sample 2

The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action Detroit Adapted from The North Star Network, (2003) “People marched outside the federal courthouse in Detroit on March 1 in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action programs. The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the university’s policies.

” Defending affirmative action. (On the Line). Affirmative Action pros and cons will platform the awareness that affirmative action connotes reverse discrimination.

Affirmative action statistically viewed as controversial positive steps in improving the diversity specific groups of people, in most cases to cure the collective effects

covert nd overt actions of prejudices against these groups. Affirmative action in practice gives positive opportunities to minorities or women during employment, promotions, and admittance into major colleges and universities.

Affirmative action came about because of the demand to allow minorities into institutions of higher leaning and arose out of a desire to bring minority groups into institutions and businesses automatically held by European males.

Insight Center for Community Economic Development states Affirmative action is more a “political term” than legal or business term. Affirmative action boosted by he Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was an attempt to go along with the new “legal equality gains” of minorities and women for social economic equality and fair treatment. The origin of affirmative action Former United States President John F.

Kennedy mentioned affirmative action in his speech in 1961 . n an executive order, Former President Kennedy made it mandatory for federal contractors to accept affirmative action and make sure those who would apply for employment received employment regardless of the national origin, race, creed, and color of the individual. In October 13, 1965 Former United Stated President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered affirmative action as a plea to government for nondiscrimination in government employment.

He clarified the issues of discrimination on the bases of sex, which assisted equal opportunity programs such as the EEOC concerning sex discrimination.

The necessity of Affirmative Action Given that the legislation of the 1960s became a viable participant in seeking social justice and equality. Decades passed after the end of slavery, and yet segregation remained legal among the American society. Given that discrimination exists President Johnson argued harder for affirmative action thus his “equality of result”

ame under fire by the American public workforce. Yet he takes positive steps in affirmative action, Hence affirmative action problems are not easily solved by the absence of segregation laws.

Many of President Johnson’s opponents to affirmative action considered his plans a quota system that requires a particular number of hires of minority if the European male is more qualified.

Because affirmative action addressed issues of women in the workplace, change is pending. The roles of women in traditionally known as “women’s Jobs” – secretaries, nurses, elementary schoolteachers, etc. Raymond, Nate. Corporate Counsel, (2008) “Crackdown on diversity: the Department of Education took aim at affirmative action. ” “What effect all of this may have had on the>The ABA says minority students last year made up 22.

4 percent of first-year enrollment, up from 21. 5 percent when Bush was elected in 2000. Yet the proportion of blacks enrolled in their first year slid from 7. 8 percent to 7.

1 percent, and the presence of Hispanics grew only slightly during that time. Only Asian American populations increased substantially, from 6. 7 percent to 7. 9 percent. While it’s mpossible to say exactly how anti-affirmative action efforts affected those numbers, they probably didn’t help. ” Says Johnson: “If students of color can’t get into law school, they can’t become lawyers.

Therefore opponents of Affirmative action believed giving a Job to a woman over a qualitied male compares to taking the Job trom the man. One can conclud ed Gloria Steinem’s essay in 1979 “The Importance of Work,” goes against the idea women should not work if they do not “have to. ” Hence Gloria Steinem idea of a double standard of

employers who question men about children at home and the need to the Job they applied for. One can conclude women do need their Jobs and work considered a “human right,” not just for males.

Some new and developing controversies What are the effects of affirmative action?

Controversy over the effects of affirmative action and government hiring and equal opportunities surfaced in the 1970s. Huppi, (2007) “The following chart shows the leading economic indicators for women since 1959. Because affirmative action for women did not start until the late 60s; it was most vigorously enforced in the 70s, and less enforced in the 80s. ” Huppi, (2007) ” Two major types of Jobs in this economy. The first group, which shows the best paying Jobs; managerial and professional Jobs. In 1994, women occupied 27.

5 % of all Jobs in the U.

S. (9) The second group consists of all other Jobs that consist of three fourths of all lower paying Jobs. Therefore, women must qualify first for managerial, professional Jobs, before hired, which means attending college. College’s admission practices were discriminatory; hence affirmative action programs fought this fight as well. Greater number of women began graduating, which required time to “rise up through the ranks” to managerial, professional Jobs.

Hence a long lag etween the application of affirmative action and its results. Guinier, Lani. Law. Harvard, (2009) “The pigment perplex: the complexity of race reveals the inefficacy of conventional admissions criteria and demonstrates the vital importance of diversity. ” Law, (2005) “To illustrate his view that race is an illusory concept that should be irrelevant to admissions, dissenting Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs wrote that he’d shown “a sample

of people” in and out of his chambers a Christmas card, “containing a lovely picture of a friend and his spouse, their two children and their] spouses, and four grandchildren.

The physical appearance and, thus, the ancestry of at least one photo subject were apparently open to interpretation.

“How many of the ten people in the picture should receive racial preference under Michigan’s policy? ” asked the Judge. Answers ranged from one to ten, from which he concluded that race cannot be a surrogate for qualities that a law school should value. ” Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs The effects of Affirmative action went from the workplace, women and Jobs, to admission decisions in colleges and race. Equal amount of women and men admitted to higher education programs.

In the selection of diverse student groups, university admissions committees may use minority status as a factor. The North Star Network, (2003) “Examples are the University of California and the University of Michigan; the tates Supreme Court” examined their policies against competitive state schools.

this subject has become increasingly intense, two discourses sprung from it. One took the legal action while the other was voiced out in public debate. In the case of legal action, discourses happened in courts, legislations, and executive departments. Based on public arguments, it is often anchored to the practice of preferential treatment.

This includes literature, both on the pros and cons of affirmative action. Consequently, the two discourses have not coincided with each other, as public arguments did not rely on legal foundations (Affirmative Action, 2005, para 2).

Following these discourses are the two popular controversies on affirmative action. One took place in 1972, where it heated a debate lasting until the 1990’s. However, people were still not convinced of the discourses that led up to 2003 at the Supreme Court, which brought up certain kinds of affirmative action. Significantly, these debates were focused on gender and racial preferences.

The reason behind this is the affirmative action much prevalent in the factory, firehouse, and corporate suite rather than the university campus. The second form of debate looked more into race and ethnicity. This issue started at the turn of the 21st century, emphasizing situations on college admissions. In this case, most women did not worry, as the preferential selection happened more among Blacks and Hispanics (Affirmative Action, 2005, para 3).

Sex Discrimination and Affirmative Action

A particular incident similar to what affirmative action suggests is the case of Johnson versus Transportation agency in Santa Clara County, California, et al. Primarily, this agency has set goals according to the affirmative action, emphasizing more on promoting employees. In addition, this policy

advocated employee promotion based on sex and saw that women were often underrepresented in the “traditional” job categories.

The goal of the plan is to achieve an annual improvement on hiring, training, and promotion of minority women throughout the agency, most importantly in the job categories where they were underrepresented.

Its vision was to give a proportioned number of employees concerning minorities and women in the agency Nonetheless, the agency thought that some of its goals may be impossible to achieve and that the company should enforce more on the short-term goals then change them annually for better classification.

Hence, when a vacancy arose in the agency for a promotional activity, 9 of the 12 applicants passed the qualification and interview.

After these examinations, seven of the 9 applicants passed, two tied at the second position, both male and the third rank was a female. Scores of the second ranks was 75 and the third rank, 73.

As the director of the agency, he decided to choose which one of the two male applicants vied for promotion, but instead selected the third ranked applicant, who is a female. Seeing this situation, one of the two tied male applicants filed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accusing that he had been deprived of promotion in violation upon the basis of sex.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California had first decided of the agency unlawfully relying on the sexual preference rather than the qualification. However, this decision has been reversed at United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit saying that the agency’s stance was

lawful (Supreme Court of the United States, 1987, para 1).

References

Affirmative Action. (2005). Retrieved on February 13, 2008 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/.

Supreme Court of the United States. (1998). Excerpt: Johnson v. Santa Clara County, California, Et al. Retrieved on February 13, 2008 from http://bss.sfsu.edu/naff/PA760/Johnson_v_Santa_Clara_excerpt.htm.