Affirmative action debate
When they were first initiated, affirmative action policies wereneeded to address the discrimination faced by women and members of minorityethnic groups. These policies have enabled many people to secure betteremployment and educational opportunities. In their wake, however,affirmative action policies have also spawned criticisms of reversediscrimination, and given rise to charges that in the long run, thesepolicies harm the people they were intended to help. This paper argues that while affirmative action policies werenecessary in 1965, they are no longer appropriate in 2003. In fact, thispaper presents arguments why affirmative action policies are ineffective inaddressing the discrimination problems faced by African Americans, Latinos1. Race is not a sharply-defined category. Many critics of affirmative action point to the problem of "racialboxing" that these policies inherently promote. Linda Chavez, for example,argues that race categories are arbitrary concepts, which are fluid and This problem is best illustrated in the arbitrary definitions of what
During this time, the University had reserved 16out of the 100 available slots for "qualified" minority candidates. Kinghimself argued that people should be judged on their individual merit andcharacter. Given their failure to foster a true equality and their ultimatetendency to be divisive rather than cohesive, affirmative action policiesshould therefore be repealed. These policies havetainted the achievements of black and Latino individuals who have gainedeconomic and professional success through their own merit. Even Caucasian people of Eastern Europeandescent are asserting their distinctness from other Caucasians. Instead of fostering diversity andinteraction, the result is often distrust. Theimplication that many deserving Latino and African American students needaffirmative action to gain admission to prestigious universities is also aninsult to the many students work hard for their educational andprofessional advancement. The deleterious effects of such affirmative action policies alsoextend beyond the university. After all, civil rights leaders like Dr. Furthermore, Mexican-Americans are already earning up to 93percent of their Caucasian counterparts, a trend that is expected tocontinue as more Chicanos pursue higher education. This taint extends to students who genuinelyexcel, like the aforementioned University of Virginia law student. They enforce "ethnic chauvinism" and promote a falsekinship based solely on skin color. Furthermore, professors like Carl Cohen of the University of Michiganpoints out that race-based admission policies that favor candidates basedonly on minority status place an undue burden -- on the student body as awhole and ultimately, and on the minority students themselves (Cohen 145). This way, the system of racialpreferences can have long-term harmful effects when these students begintheir professional careers. Furthermore, students who could be helped by the remedial classes andintermediate courses offered in institutions such as community colleges donot get the programs they need.
Common topics in this essay:
Conclusion Affirmative,
University Virginia,
Building Chavez's,
Conti Stetson,
,
University Michigan,
Furthermore Mexican-Americans,
Law School,
Hispanic Argentinean,
Errol Smith,
affirmative action,
action policies,
affirmative action policies,
conti stetson,
civil rights,
discrimination faced,
african americans,
true equality,
ethnic chauvinism,
civil rights act,
law review,
foster true,
conti stetson 1998,
foster true equality,
14th amendment civil,
|
Acceptance Essays
