Affirmative Action - the Supply Side

Affirmative Action - The Supply Side

Affirmative Action - The Supply Side Affirmative action, is it still needed in this day and age? Has it accomplished what it was supposed to? Many people say that if America concentrated on programs that provided assistance to the most needy then they would have the opportunities that affirmative action is trying to provide. By going into the ghettos of our cities and stimulating business, thereby, promoting economic growth, the disenfranchised will reap the benefits. Have they been reaping the benefits of affirmation action? As a nation devoted to equality, the United States must do away with unproductive race-dividing policies. By eliminating them, Americans can take major steps in promoting competition and overcoming the color barrier. In his famous march in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. longed for a society where "people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Moreover, skin-color and social status should be irrelevant in hiring employees. Whereas, judging people by the "content of their character" and their capabilities will create a thriving country. The emergence of Louis Farrakhan and the O.J. Simpson verdict have aroused American awareness regarding the extent to which race relations in this country have deteriorated. While Martin Luther King Jr. preached unity and equality in America, Farakahan supports segregation. Any organization or individual promoting a particular race diminishes uniformity. The existence of affirmative action and quotas further segregates American society by characterizing people by race and distinguishing between skin color. In order to bring people together, these classifications must yield. In employment situations, when the employer is bound to affirmative action policies, an individual of race A will receive a job before a better qualified individual of race B. These results are unfortunate. It's discouraging to think that a company may not reach its greatest economic Affirmative Action 3 potential because it is forced to hire the less qualified of two individuals. How can we, as Americans, possibly promote policies that give preferential treatment to one person over another, based on something as irrelevant as the color of their skin? We can't. Maintaining the role of one of the most competitive countries in the world, I would like to think that, as Americans, we have more pride in our country than that which is hampered by affirmative action. Furthermore, affirmative action and quotas play a very similar role in education. Unfortunately, many exceptional young students may not reap the benefits a well-respected college has to offer because someone with a possible, lesser degree of potential may be granted admission on the basis of their skin color. Through the demise of race-dividing policies, underrepresented individuals shielded by affirmative action would be forced to compete, on a level playing field, for jobs and admission to colleges and universities. Competition has nothing but positive effects and is crucial in accelerating capitalism. The debilitating effects of affirmative action and quotas hinder an individual's desire to compete in society. In order to promote a competitive society, employers need to be free to hire those who are the best qualified not those who are underrepresented. Affirmative action should be considered offensive to the very people it is trying to assist, because it is lowering their standards of quality. In addition, white liberals and feminists may support affirmative action, for example, but only because they still believe that African Americans (and other minorities) are inferior. Affirmative Action is supposed to be a program designed to end racism, but isn't it really justifying racism by it's own actions? Its policies totally judge people solely on skin color and gender. That is discrimination in itself. Is discrimination the solution to resolving past discrimination? No, it's not. No program can be considered good when it hurts others. Affirmative Action 4 Affirmative Action tried to help minorities and women, but in the process, reverse discrimination has taken place. Now, white males are discriminated against. This cannot be an affirmative program if there is a form of discrimination involved. Instead of choosing a candidate for a job or for school admission, because of one's color or gender, it should be because of their talents and abilities. The best any colored male or female should be selected for the job, or to be accepted into school. Why should some people get special preferences over others? It just isn't correct. There should be no special treatments, and no special preferences given to people. Everyone has the opportunity to advance in this country; you just have to take the initiative. President John F Kennedy first used Affirmative Action in a racial discrimination context in Executive order NO 10,925 issued in 1961. This executive order indicated that federal contractors should take affirmative action to make sure that job applicants and employees are treated without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Affirmative action also causes reverse discrimination. Discrimination against white males is just as bad as discrimination against minorities. Many consider Affirmative action an injustice and it is true that it is not totally fair, but what we argue is that a society owes itself to redeem the actions of its former views that were wrong and caused many people to suffer. Affirmative action is not the cure that people want it to be. Newt Gingrich proclaimed recently that because Affirmative action has had thirty years to work, and supposedly it has not, then it is time to end its institution. However, two hundred and twenty years of racism is not going to go away in thirty years. The best solution is that racism be erased from our society in a steady, state-supported way. Racism must be cut out of American society by the root and branch. Affirmative Action 5 Another question behind affirmative action, is this piece of legislature designed to empower the minorities or promote balkanization? Douglas J. Amy from Mount Holyoke College (1995) in regards to politics states that, "proportional representation would also help revitalize elections and make voting a more meaningful and effective political act. Our current two-party system would likely be replaced by a multi-party system" (1). The thinking behind this is it would allow more choices at the election polls and more opportunities for minorities to be heard. Unfortunately what would be created is an increase in segregation and an increase of competition between races. Amy (1995) goes on to say, "in a multi-party system, we would finally have city, state, and federal legislatures that truly represented the