Affirmative_Action

Tanner Wallace RHT 101-002 Essay 2: Explaining a Concept Mr. Miller Affirmative Action The United States is not as united as it would like to think. One such program in place that is dividing the nation is Affirmative Action. Ever since it’s original introduction into American public policy, Affirmative Action has stirred up fierce debate. Offering up preferential treatment to those minority groups that have had social oppression in the past seems like the ethically correct thing to do but in fact it causes a sense of resentment for the party that does not benefit. The concept of benefiting groups of people based on their ancestry and not their personal merit is an unfair practice. Throughout American history, there have always been groups of people that have been socially discriminated against for a variety of reasons including race, religion and gender. In an attempt to right the wrongs of the past, Affirmative Action programs were put into place within businesses and universities in the US. The aim of these programs is to promote diversity in government and private organizations, inclusion and representation in occupations, and improve the economic standing of minorities and women (Rosenfeld 124). Many people would likely agree that these goals would be the least we could do for the oppression of women and minorities but tipping the scale in the favor of any particular group leaves those left out of the equation with a sense of bitterness. Those who do not benefit are left with no advantages that are based purely on racial or gender criteria and are then automatically put into a state of disadvantage when it comes to getting jobs or being accepted into colleges. While the intended purposes of Affirmative Action are admirable, the effective implementation of affirmative action requires the identification of people based on their race and sex. Thus we have a paradox—a program aimed at the elimination of making decisions based on race and sex requires making decisions based on race and sex and further identifies these groups of people. “When the employers and the schools favor women and blacks,” objects Lisa Newton, (Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Program in Applied Ethics, and Director of the Program in Environmental Studies at Fairfield University)“they commit the same injustice perpetrated by Jim Crow discrimination. Just as the previous discrimination did, this reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship” (Fullinwider). The implementing of such programs in public policy does not eliminate the problem of discrimination; it distinguishes these groups further and practically labels them for further discrimination. With those who benefit from these programs being based on race and/or gender, it sets them up to be targets of resentment by the non-beneficiaries on those facts alone which defeats the purpose of instilling the sense of equality the nation strives for. An unexpected side effect of the affirmative action program is that it can potentially hurt more than help the intended beneficiaries. In a study by Dr. Dennis Doverspike, who has earned his Ph.D. in the field of psychology, says that affirmative action “can result in psychological harm to the intended beneficiaries due to the effect of affirmative action on self-assessments and evaluations by others” (18). Psychological studies indicated that affirmative action “leads to anger, hostility and resistance on the part of the non-beneficiaries (i.e., primarily White males)” (Doverspike 4). This unintended result of what would appear to be an otherwise policy of good will would benefit the party in question more if it were nonexistent because it further labels that group of people and distinguishes them apart from the masses and practically makes them even more vulnerable to discrimination. Another aspect of the issue is the question of what people deserve. Do people deserve to be treated differently and preferred over others on the basis of their race and gender or rather their character and work ethic' Even though the discrimination of women and minorities occurred in the past, should the descendents of the oppressors be punished while the descendents of the oppressed be compensated' Neither seems to deserve either, as the descendents themselves have not committed the wrongs nor was victimized by it. Social standing as one would think might be more of a key component for social programs rather than just racial or gender denotation. Those who might not have the financial means to send their child to college might need the money from a social program that truly would benefit them. In a nation that prides itself for being equal opportunity and accepting of all people, it seems very hypocritical to have such a program as affirmative action in place. Also in a society that is striving to be color blind with regard to race, the policy mandates to make distinctions between the various races and perpetuates the problem further. Something must be done to solve this issue but the solutions are difficult to discern. Works Cited Beckwick, Francis J. Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination' Prometheus Books. Amherst, NY. 1997 Doverspike, Dennis, Mary Anne Taylor, Winfred Arthur Jr. Affirmative Action: A Psychological Perspective. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Hunington, NY. 2000. Rosenfeld, Michel. Affirmative Action and Justice: A Philosophical and Constitutional Inquiry. Yale University Press. New Haven and London. 1991. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Robert Fullwider. 2005. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 5 March 2005.