Affirmative Action If one is to discuss and problem solve an issue, he or she must first know what the issue is truly about. Affirmative action is defined as the equal opportunities given to women, minorities, and small groups so they will have the same tools, education, and allotment to achieve their goals in life. Since affirmative action came about, debate arises daily about if it is truly equal and fair. Was it a word made as a cushion to the people so they will feel equal? Another interpretation is did this word actually make the white male group less important and unequal to the minority group, doing more harm to others than good. Affirmative action is not used unequally in the world, but in actuality if it was not for it these people would have nothing.
Julie A. Mertus supports the need for opportunities given to women in the work force. In the work force today many women are overlooked and pushed aside because of their gender. Many of the big wigs in businesses today feel that a woman is inferior to a mans intelligence of work skill trades. A woman can simply not handle the stress on the body or the mind thinking dilemmas in which a man can supposedly accomplish.
Affirmative action however has allowed the women a chance to display their skills but what the debate arises is, because of the gifts given by affirmative action is this good for the world of today. Mertus gives an example of a German landscaper that was excluded from his promotion due to his company’s quota requirements. The company’s quota requirements stated that if a man and a woman are applying for the same promotion and there is a tie, the woman will be given the job if less than half holding the job are women. Another example given is that of a male teacher who did not receive his promotions due to the same law. In both situations the quota requirement that affirmative action laws made for the work field, the woman was chosen.
The debate by most individuals is that I lost my job or pay increase because of affirmative action. They feel that this law is unfair, taking away more gifts that I can give to myself or my family. Also, in that women are not capable of doing this type of work. The true idea of affirmative action is giving the lesser people of the world what our country promotes. In the constitution everyone is equal and is to be given the proper chances in life. Affirmative action simply, allows this so that the people in charge cannot disregard someone, a woman, because they simply do not like it.
What is not seen by the people losing the extra money is that maybe she can actually do a better job than they can. She will give more to the world thus helping all of humanity and would not have had this chance if it was not for affirmative action. Also, the people who had nothing in life now feel a worth and are able to give more to the ones they love. This is the good that is unseen by most, that would not be possible if not for affirmative action being put into effect in the world. Ethan Watters shows his opinion on that affirmative action is providing an unfair advantage over one race to another. People throughout the world scream to be treated as the constitution states, ” To be treated as equals.” Watters proves his misconception of the right that having affirmative action play a part into the work force is giving unfair advantages.
He states that minorities say they need this to be seen as an equal in a interview for a job. This right although allows them to have lower scores than another employee but still be able to obtain the position. Isnt this hurting the company thus hurting the world. For the employee hired is not right for the job then how is this equal treatment when the worst person is chosen for the job is not the best, but only because of a right is hired. The author asks how could a law promote equal treatment for minorities but at the same time take away from majorities. Another situation in which affirmative action will play a part in is the physical work load, both body and mind.
Women cannot produce the same amount of body power for a job in which a man can. This point is scientifically proving and if they were hired would be hurting the company in that the job could not be done properly. An example of this would be a jackhammer, or caring heavy loads. So in many times bosses are not discriminating because of race or gender but of pure power. Jobs require strength and brains, not just brains.
John David Skrentny provides proof of the true need and equal treatment affirmative action provides. In a interview, a boss happens to like a certain race and that race is applying for his job opening. A white man also wants the job. What is weird is that the white man was chosen even though scores and experience went to the minority member, is this fair treatment? With affirmative action playing in the race is the same just a person and scores are looked at and the right person is chosen regardless of the bosss preference. Also how is to say a woman cannot do the same work load as a man? What it is, is the want inside the person. There are women of the world that work with steel and power.
But would not have the chance to prove their strength if not for affirmative action. It is also stated in polls taken that many people will not complain about something if they cannot perform the task equally well or better than their competition. So affirmative action just gives them the chance to prove it but the best person is still chosen to the race because affirmative action says so. Affirmative action only allows the opportunity to perform the job position, it must be obtained on its own. If it was not for affirmative action many people would have no chance to work and no work, means no money to live on. If you cannot have a goal in life to achieve why live, affirmative action allows you to have a chance not an actual job.
Debate over affirmative action in the government is reviewed as unequal treatment of the race, a misconception. The government indeed did make the law of affirmative action for the people; but do the high office holders truly believe in what they promote? Do they believe affirmative action does bring the joy of opportunity to people or the gift of pain to others? John Skrentry goes into the real feeling of some people by quoting books from others who also have debated this. In the “Politics of Preference: Democratic Institutions and affirmative action in the United States and India” by Sunita Parikh and “Affirmative Action: The Pros and Cons of Policy Practice” by Richard F. Tomusson, Faye J. Crosby and Sharon D.
Herzberger, the debate is whether the government truly believes in their laws or if they are simply using it as campaign fuel. These books give examples of officials not believing in what affirmative action promotes. Although the good can be seen in their actions they may not believe in it and their morals of self worth come out. Just because one does not believe in something does not mean they do not respect it. The officials know that this is needed for people to succeed and they would not have if it was not for this. They know affirmative action does provide good not bad and that the country does practice what it preaches and will take the proper actions to see that it is carried out.
Just like other laws, affirmative action has to see it is followed and not overlooked to have the best person for the job and the equal opportunities this country offers to all kinds of people. Stephan Thernsrom sees affirmative action as a right that is reversed in the actions that it gives. Affirmative action is a right that is to make equalness among the races. In actuality it is putting a race above the other. Companies, schools and courts are forced to make exceptions to the minority members in the decisions that they make. This law sets quotas that puts a race above the other. As though this race needed an extra chance. Many issues that minority members must deal with in race and gender do not play apart anymore. These two discriminations are stricken form the issue.
Affirmative action puts the two discriminations back into play as if they were a problem. This is putting a race above the other as it has to be race-sensitive to them. Why should a right be used in society that does not promote equalness among the races. Curry shows the need for the use of affirmative action in the government. People are viewed differently in life because of skin color.
Some races are seen as not being as smart asothers or committing more crimes simply because of color. Studies show that more blacks or Mexicans are pulled over simply for not doing anything wrong but on they simply looked suspicious. There are people that see a race to be lesser than themselves and in turn make them pay in a way for being different. Affirmative action was created by the government to counter act these harmful accusations. The government uses it to enforce people to view another as equal in all they do.
By making companies use certain quotas on workers, by having to have so many people of a race in their work. Schools that must allow certain students to enroll though their grades may no be as high as others. Affirmative action makes these chances to minorities an achievable goal. There are people in the world in which will do almost anything to have a chance for their dreams to become a reality, but because of their race or gender this is an unachievable task. Affirmative action allows the task to happen. It does not give them the dream itself, but the chance to be put in the spot where it can come true.
Without this use of affirmative action this could not be done. This makes everyone seem as an equal, as they should be. To have the same goals and opportunities as everyone else but now the chance to fulfill them is on their own. Joanne Barkan admits that affirmative action has its flows but would hesitate to give it up. The true reasons for the arguing of affirmative action for so long between people was not the unfairness or edge it might give to someone, but the value of color blindness. Affirmative action does not promote an edge to one race, but that of equalizes between the races. Barkan gives an example of a man who states, ” It is okay to be race-sensitive to blacks but not to others simple because it is doing better.” This is were the flaw is, but without these people too could not go to college.
Yes, there are changes that need to be made in some cases, but many others benefit from its perfections. Affirmative action provides so much for so many. The government runs this country and it is it the responsibility to practice what they preach. By affirmative action playing apart and giving its rights to people through their daily lives the government is doing the job. The government is making everyone equal and if one situation is compromised affirmative action neutralizes it.
The reason behind affirmative action used in the allotment of higher education for minorities is also wondered to be fair or unfair. Ronald Dworkin explains that may people view affirmative action as unconstitutional, violating the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Others will disagree with this statement. They believe that if it was not for affirmative action they would never receive the rights which we as a country promote. This thinking of fair and unfairness, ties into the seeking of higher education in that many students are pushed away because of their gender or skin color.
Thus making their goals unachievable and the American Dream a mire myth. It is because of affirmative action that many minorities reach their so called American Dream, because their skin is not viewed not their sex or test scores. Debate flies back and forth every day on the problem, is this right or wrong to the majority members. The right decision can only be made by that person in which it is affecting. So, some people may not receive any choice.
Affirmative action is necessary in the farther pursuit of mino …