Affirmative_Action

The Affirmative Action Debate President John Fitzgerald Kennedy first used the phrase “affirmative action” in his 1961 Executive Order 10925, which required federal contractors to ensure applicants are employed, not based upon their race, color, or gender. Almost 50 years later that phrase “affirmative action” is one of the country’s most talked of and debated topics, with two sides emerging, those for and those against affirmative action. Today, the public opinion polls are about even, with a slight edge of the population in favor of affirmative action, though there seems to be an overwhelming amount of opposition to this federal policy. To determine which side of the issue has a more valid case requires us to examine the two sides and evaluate the legitimacy of their arguments and beliefs. Affirmative action refers to a set of specific result-oriented procedures that are developed to insure that non-whites and women are not at a social disadvantage when pursuing education and employment opportunities. In the United States, affirmative action is enforced by the Government placing goals on both the public and private sector for specific socio-economic groups regarding education, employment, or contracting. The consensus of affirmative action was marked by three major pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Immigration Act of 1965. Following these issued policies, the federal government arbitrated definitely in the South to end the resistance of the “White South” to full political, civil, and social equality for blacks (Glazer 3). Much debate has been focused upon the past state of the country and the unfairness that non-whites and women were subject to when searching for jobs or applying for colleges. Nathan Glazer, author of Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy believes “The fact that many blacks are ill-equipped to compete for decent jobs in a technologically sophisticated society is understandable in terms of the American historical experience of racial exploitation” (Glazer 13). GIazer also states, “Government neutrality in the area of black employment is the moral equivalent of approving past racist crimes. The absence of overt discrimination in the present cannot compensate for the sins committed in the past” (Glazer 13).” This raises the point that past inequalities should influence with how you approach current and future situations, such as the discrimination and a result being affirmative action. This sounds appropriate however many do not believe this is the right approach, arguing that affirmative action hinders reconciliation, is replacing old wrongs with new ones, destabilizes the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. Those opposed to affirmative action also believe that affirmative action deflates the internal morale of blacks, lowering their expectations and makes them vulnerable to anxiety because they have not truly earned the position or honor attained. On the other hand many do not see their attainments as tainted or undeserving, but however a modest compensation for the long period of racial subordination (Mills 53). Mills also says “thus they do not feel that they have been merely given a preference; rather, they see affirmative discrimination as a form of social justice” (Mills 53). This brings us back to the point of; is affirmative action attempting to benefit the entire society, or an apology to those who were treated unfairly' Affirmative action has conspicuously benefited minorities by attaining occupational and educational advancement at a pace that would otherwise not have been possible. The education rate for minority children has been increasing steadily, and many higher occupational job positions and now being held by women and minority adults. When asked about affirmative action, Amy Musgrave, author of Affirmative Action in Jobs, believed, that the solution to poverty does not lie in affirmative action, but in the social development programs, in order to transform poor communities of all races into working economies (Musgrave). Government intervention, no matter how naively well-intentioned ultimately hurts those who are said to be benefiting, because as society grows poorer due to decreased productivity, the poor suffer most. Supporters of affirmative action believe that conventional wisdom says that employers rationally choose employees on the basis of productivity, and any other course would necessitate a loss in profit (Combs 12). However, in a memorandum from the Chairman of the English Department at the University of Massachusetts, on faculty recruitment, it read, “At present we are authorized, in accordance with the University’s strong commitment to Affirmative Action recruitment, to interview only candidates from ethnic minorities” (Glazer 61). Is there a point where affirmative action crosses the lines and becomes reverse discrimination' Reverse discrimination being the denial of equal protection by the laws and is viewed as discrimination on the basis of race by opponents of racial quota programs, such as affirmative action. Many people who oppose of having racial quota programs, mainly white males, feel as if they are being discriminated against like the minorities were treated. They believe that a fully qualified white male has a lesser chance to be accepted into a college, or be given a job opportunity over a minority male, or woman. Chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, Clarence Pendleton, acknowledged, “affirmative action with its goals and preference is a bankrupt policy because it often leads to an emphasis on statistical parity rather than equal opportunity” (Combs 166). Justice Bradley would agree saying that enough has been done through legislation that the racial barriers have been removed, and with traditional support from the Government to secure equal employment opportunities for minorities and women will encroach upon the constitutional rights of others, those being white males (Combs 2). Affirmative action is a policy the government put into effect so that all citizens would finally have equal opportunities and rights, just as it said in the Constitution. The numbers of minorities are increasing in the school systems as well as in the work force, which many attribute to affirmative action. However for those opposed, Glazer says it best, “When does imbalance, under which one can do nothing, become discrimination” (Glazer 49). Both sides of the argument cause you to wonder; does society have to have a set quota in order for the economy to thrive, but most importantly for society to be a whole'.