Name

Course

Course Instructor

Date

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, which was introduced by President Kennedy, has raised hot debate from various individuals ranging from provocative researchers, scholars, politicians as well as the judiciary. Affirmative action plays an integral part in eliminating the numerous discriminations and unfairness experienced almost everywhere across the world in various set ups. It acts as the best tool of fighting racial, ethnic and gender inequalities and was first used in 1960s (Debate.org Web). It is undeniable that affirmative action has proved to be a very effective tool in redressing several injustices  experienced in the past and even currently against the disadvantaged group.

The federal government, state governments and other relevant institutions have strongly step forward in improving the opportunities for the minorities and even women have now been given preference than before. According to “Debate.org” special consideration for the disadvantaged group and levelling the playing ground for the groups in various factors including public service composition and government contracting decisions (Web).

Giving preferential treatment to minorities is not an easy task and its success has not been achieved in as much as policies were put in place several decades ago to give the disadvantaged a boost. However, the diversity of the current society attempts to indicate some elements of success making some people argue that the policies are no longer needed as they trigger many problems. One of the outstanding examples was the issue regarding the University of Michigan admissions criteria of rating potential applicants on a point system. Minority students got double points in achieving a perfect SAT score as the school official argued that diversity was significant and affirmative action was the best thing to do (Brownstein Web). There are indeed various other court decisions and events regarding affirmative action experienced by almost everyone across America and globally.

Although various countries describe affirmative action in numerous terms, the concept still remains unchanged which is of ensuring that the minority groups are fully represented in various institutions, employment decisions, admission to educational organizations and many other vital arenas where affirmative action is deemed effective.  There is likeliness in that even the disadvantaged group have equal opportunity to succeed just like the so called advantaged group though not fully confirmed because of the affirmative action.

Looking at the institution of affirmative action, it is undeniable that it arose due to particular assessment of past injustices in a nation. According to American Civil Liberties Union affirmative action has always been meant to provide a vital compensatory measure in cultures and groups, which have experienced a past discrimination or denying them opportunities based on their economic disadvantage brought about by their race and or national origin (Web).  Restoration of complete equality amongst various races has been widely practiced in numerous countries although it has received almost equal criticism. The lines of argument have continuously been changing since its conception and the social and demographic demography context has been transformed into a more complex and consequential manner.

According to Brunner and Rowen, affirmative action has had major milestones that involved allocation of resources and jobs to disadvantaged groups since 1960s to the latest cases witnessed in the courts (Web). In March 6, 1961,the executive order 10925 made the initial reference to affirmative action which was issued by President JF Kennedy to create the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that all the government funded projects take affirmative action. Executive Order 10925 was to eliminate discrimination against hiring and employment practices based on race. In July 2 1964, Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson prohibiting biasness based on race, colour, religion, or even national origin. This marked as the most effective and sweeping civil rights bill after the Reconstruction and was believed to greatly eliminate discrimination of various kinds.

UClIrvine explains that President Johnson further gave a defining concept of affirmative action on June 4, 1965 to the graduating class at Howard University where he posits that civil rights alone could not be enough to eliminate biasness (Web). He later issued Order 11246, which was meant to reinforce affirmative action for the first time where contractors were required to take responsible and non-discriminatory measures while hiring. Additionally, there was the 1969 Philadelphia Order that was initiated by President Richard Nixon to guarantee fairness in construction jobs since construction constituted several offenders against equal opportunity laws.

The regents of the University of California v. Bakke in June 28, 1978 were a landmark Supreme Court case that enforced restraint on affirmative action. It was argued that offering opportunity to the disadvantaged groups was not supposed to be enacted at the expense of the majority and that affirmative action triggered reverse discrimination. The University of California, Davis and Medical School had different admission pools including the pool for standard applicants and the other for minority as well as the economically disadvantaged groups. It was noted that Allan Bakke who was a white applicant was twice rejected despite some minority groups being.............

Name

Course

Course Instructor

Date

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, which was introduced by President Kennedy, has raised hot debate from various individuals ranging from provocative researchers, scholars, politicians as well as the judiciary. Affirmative action plays an integral part in eliminating the numerous discriminations and unfairness experienced almost everywhere across the world in various set ups. It acts as the best tool of fighting racial, ethnic and gender inequalities and was first used in 1960s (Debate.org Web). It is undeniable that affirmative action has proved to be a very effective tool in redressing several injustices  experienced in the past and even currently against the disadvantaged group.

The federal government, state governments and other relevant institutions have strongly step forward in improving the opportunities for the minorities and even women have now been given preference than before. According to “Debate.org” special consideration for the disadvantaged group and levelling the playing ground for the groups in various factors including public service composition and government contracting decisions (Web).

Giving preferential treatment to minorities is not an easy task and its success has not been achieved in as much as policies were put in place several decades ago to give the disadvantaged a boost. However, the diversity of the current society attempts to indicate some elements of success making some people argue that the policies are no longer needed as they trigger many problems. One of the outstanding examples was the issue regarding the University of Michigan admissions criteria of rating potential applicants on a point system. Minority students got double points in achieving a perfect SAT score as the school official argued that diversity was significant and affirmative action was the best thing to do (Brownstein Web). There are indeed various other court decisions and events regarding affirmative action experienced by almost everyone across America and globally.

Although various countries describe affirmative action in numerous terms, the concept still remains unchanged which is of ensuring that the minority groups are fully represented in various institutions, employment decisions, admission to educational organizations and many other vital arenas where affirmative action is deemed effective.  There is likeliness in that even the disadvantaged group have equal opportunity to succeed just like the so called advantaged group though not fully confirmed because of the affirmative action.

Looking at the institution of affirmative action, it is undeniable that it arose due to particular assessment of past injustices in a nation. According to American Civil Liberties Union affirmative action has always been meant to provide a vital compensatory measure in cultures and groups, which have experienced a past discrimination or denying them opportunities based on their economic disadvantage brought about by their race and or national origin (Web).  Restoration of complete equality amongst various races has been widely practiced in numerous countries although it has received almost equal criticism. The lines of argument have continuously been changing since its conception and the social and demographic demography context has been transformed into a more complex and consequential manner.

According to Brunner and Rowen, affirmative action has had major milestones that involved allocation of resources and jobs to disadvantaged groups since 1960s to the latest cases witnessed in the courts (Web). In March 6, 1961,the executive order 10925 made the initial reference to affirmative action which was issued by President JF Kennedy to create the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that all the government funded projects take affirmative action. Executive Order 10925 was to eliminate discrimination against hiring and employment practices based on race. In July 2 1964, Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson prohibiting biasness based on race, colour, religion, or even national origin. This marked as the most effective and sweeping civil rights bill after the Reconstruction and was believed to greatly eliminate discrimination of various kinds.

UClIrvine explains that President Johnson further gave a defining concept of affirmative action on June 4, 1965 to the graduating class at Howard University where he posits that civil rights alone could not be enough to eliminate biasness (Web). He later issued Order 11246, which was meant to reinforce affirmative action for the first time where contractors were required to take responsible and non-discriminatory measures while hiring. Additionally, there was the 1969 Philadelphia Order that was initiated by President Richard Nixon to guarantee fairness in construction jobs since construction constituted several offenders against equal opportunity laws.

The regents of the University of California v. Bakke in June 28, 1978 were a landmark Supreme Court case that enforced restraint on affirmative action. It was argued that offering opportunity to the disadvantaged groups was not supposed to be enacted at the expense of the majority and that affirmative action triggered reverse discrimination. The University of California, Davis and Medical School had different admission pools including the pool for standard applicants and the other for minority as well as the economically disadvantaged groups. It was noted that Allan Bakke who was a white applicant was twice rejected despite some minority groups being.............

Name:

Course Name:

Course Instructor:

Date of Submission:

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is termed to be a subject that has an extensive public debate.  Different people think that affirmative action is one of the policies not understood and characterized properly. This is not thought by the people opposing affirmative action, but also the defenders of affirmative action. This essay will try to define these delusions, expound why people consider them to be delusions and put greater defense of policies in affirmative action. Prevalent misrepresentations of policies in affirmative actions are challenged and examined in this paper (Edley, Pp 65).

These are both delusions about the various groups that these policies are created to benefit and the benefits to be achieved. In addition, misunderstandings on policies in affirmative action rationales are addressed.  There are arguments that policies in affirmative actions are supposed to be understood as there are attempts to make equal various opportunities for different peoples’ groups confronting lack of equality in opportunities and institutional discrimination (MacKinnon, Pp. 50).

Arguments that surround affirmative action distort the scope of policies in affirmative action in various ways. One of the most disturbing misrepresentations is the prevalent tendency to understand policies in affirmative action as based on race alone and talk more about the African Americans as the group anticipated to benefit. The policies in affirmative actions are to put these talks as false ones. When the policies in affirmative actions were first put into effect, they were created to help members of other racial groups that had disadvantages rather than the African Americans. An example is that nearly two thirds of the learners admitted in Davis Medical School program of affirmative action challenged by the Bakke’s landmark case in 1978, were Asian Americans or latinos (Harris and Narayan, 2007).

The opinions made by the justices of the Supreme Court who considered this incident, discussed the affirmative action as if the African Americans were the main people to benefit. This was an unfortunate misrepresentation because in the United States racial history, such misrepresentations are dangerous. This is because it is easy to create stereotypes that are negative concerning these programs when the groups of African Americans are regarded as their main beneficiaries (Edley, pp. 115). It is vital for everyone to know that even if the policies in affirmative actions were primarily based racially, they were created to prepare the institutional exclusion of different groups that were racially disadvantaged.

In various institutional perspectives, policies in affirmative action have been extended so that they may cover areas concerning unequal opportunities and discrimination. Policies in affirmative action in various institutions like professional schools, have tried to promote the access of applicants who were working (MacKinnon, Pp. 98).  A world whereby policies in affirmative actions are initiated is a world where quite a number of prestigious professions and institutions are enclaves of white people of the upper classes.

The dominant catastrophe to contemplate the number of people that policies in affirmative action have had benefits raises different objections to these affirmative action policies. For example, a big number of people argue that policies in affirmative actions are supposed to be class based as an alternative of race. This is because the people believe that African Americans in the middle class are not worthy of these affirmative action. This argument has various problems. The first one is that a large number of people supporting this argument position the matter as a choice amidst class and race, taking no notice that policies in affirmative actions are both race and class based (MacKinnon, pp. 121).

The second one is that the people supporting this argument believe that Blacks from the middle class are not suffering from the discrimination effects despite significant proof to the opposing.  During 1980’s, studies made independently by Urban League and Grier partnership showed striking disparities in Whites and Blacks level of employment in Washington, one of the areas deemed as Blacks “best markets” (Harris and Narayan, 2007). The two studies made reveal that racial discrimination is one of the factors that leads to this difference.

A study conducted by the Urban Institute in 1990’s surveyed practices of employment in Washington and Chicago by sending Black and White applicants dressed identically and equally qualified to advertised positions in the newspapers (Harris and Narayan, 2007). In addition, the applicants were matched for age, work personal characteristics and experience. This study found that there was a repeated discrimination according to the advertised position level. On the other hand, the study exposed that White people are the ones who receive more job offers than the Blacks who are qualified. There are no suggestions that discrimination based on gender and sexism faced by the people in institutions is an end product of their status either middle or low class. Moreover, there have been defends that affirmative action provide special treatment to certain people of groups that are marginalized as reimbursements for the injustices they went through (MacKinnon, Pp. 157).

According to Harris and Narayan (2007), different people argue that a party paying a price for affirmative action has no responsibility for the injuries its beneficiaries have suffered. Other people argue on the specific payments involved. These critics strengthen the arguments made by showing that the policies in affirmative action may not be the equitable forms of compensations. This is because; the injured people are not the getting compensations as their injuries are due to them lacking the qualifications considered. Various attempts have been made to secure compensation rationale contrary to these objections. There are believes that this still remains as one of the .............