Affirmative Action In The 90S Essay Example For Students

Affirmative Action In The 90S Essay The Failures of Affirmative ActionOnce upon a time, there were two people who went to an interview for only one job position at the same company. The first person attended a prestigious and highly academic university, had years of work experience in the field and, in the mind of the employer, had the potential to make a positive impact on the companys performance. The second person was just starting out in the field and seemed to lackthe ambition that was visible in his opponent. Who was chosen for the job? you ask. Well, if the story took place before 1964, the answer would be obvious. However, with the somewhat recent adoption of the social policy known as affirmative action, the answer becomes unclear. After the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964,it became apparent that certain business traditions, such as seniority status and aptitude tests, prevented total equality in employment. Then President, Lyndon B. Johnson, decided something needed to be done to re medy these flaws. On September 24, 1965, he issuedExecutive Order #11246 at Howard University that required federalcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed . . . without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin (Civil Rights). When Lyndon Banes Johnson signed that order, he enacted one of the most discriminating pieces of legislature since the Jim Crow Laws were passed. Affirmative action was created in an effort to help minorities leap the discriminative barriers that were ever so present when the bill was first enacted, in 1965. At this time, the country was in the wake of nationwide civil-rights demonstrations, and racial tension was at its peak. Most of the corporate executive and managerial positions were occupied by white males, who controlled the hiring and firing of employees. The U.S. government, in 1965, believed that these employers were discriminating against minorities and believed that there was no better time than the present to bring about change. When the Civil Rights Law passed, minorities, especiallyAfrican-Americans, believed that they should receive retribution for the years of discrimination they endured. The government responded by passing laws to aide them in attaining better employment as reprieve for the previous two hundred years of suffering their race endured at thehands of the white man. To many, this made sense. Suppor ters ofaffirmative action asked, why not let the government help them get better jobs? After all, the white man was responsible for their suffering. While this may all be true, there is another question tobe asked. Are we truly responsible for the years of persecution thatthe African Americans were submitted to?The answer to the question is yes and no. It is true that the white man is partly responsible for the suppression of the African-American race. However, the individual white male is not. It is just as unfair and suppressive to hold many white males responsible for past persecution now as it was to discriminate against many African-Americans in the generations before. Why should an honest, hard-working, openminded, white male be suppressed, today, for past injustice? Affirmative action accepts and condones the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Do two wrongs make a right? I think mother taught us better than that. Affirmative action supporters make one large as sumption when defending the policy. They assume that minority groups want help. This, however, may not always be the case. My experience with minorities has led me to believe that they fought to attain equality, not special treatment. To them, the acceptance of special treatment is an admittance of inferiority. They ask, Why cant I become successful on my own? Why do I need laws to help me get a job? These African Americans want to be treated as equals, not as incompetents. In a statement released in 1981 by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Jack P. Hartog, who directed the project, said:Only if discrimination were nothing more than the misguided acts of a few prejudiced individuals would affirmative action plans be reverse discrimination. Only if todays society were operating fairly toward minorities and women would measures that take race, sex, and national origin into account be preferential treatment. Only if discrimination were securely placed in a well-distant past would affirmative action be an unneeded and drastic remedy. Computer Viruses EssayWell, I believe that the problem has been identified; affirmativeaction is becoming a form of reverse discrimination. It is now time for the doctor to prescribe a potential remedy. Society should work towards broad based economic ine that the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government should be kept separate is characteristic of liberalism and is consistent with what Locke said. ? In all well designed governments, Locke says, the legislative and executive are separate. ? Locke said nothing about the judiciary. However, the supreme court of the US is the best example of an independent judiciary. ? The country where Lockes principle of the division of pweres has found its fullest application is the United States, where the President and Congress are wholly independent of each other, and the Supreme Court is independent of both. ? Lockes political philosophy was adequate and useful until the industrial revolution. ? The state of nature that Locke talked about still exists but now between countries instead of people, because people formed countries using a social contract. ? A new international Social Contract is necessary before we can enjoy the promised benefits ofa International Corporation. United States. Commission on Civil Rights. Affirmative Action in the1980s: Dismantling the Process of Discrimination. Washington: 1981. United States. Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights. Private Sector Affirmative Action: Omaha. Washington: 1979. Current Events Essays