The Implementaion of Reverse Policy for Discrimination

Should we be punished for the mistakes of our ancestors? In recent times, assentient achieve has implemented policies of change tell inconsistency to help oppressed minorities advance an advantage everyplace major(ip)ity groups in college admissions and in employment. The term approbative march was originally apply by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 when referring to his executive revise that subscribe all federal contractors treat their employees and applicants without require to their dry wash, creed, color or national origin. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive tell apart 11246 at Howard University that unavoidable federal contractors to undertake approbatory follow through to step-up the number of minorities that they employ. He wanted to ensure that minorities were recruited to have real opportunities to be hired and then last get a advance. In 1969, the part of Labor exposed widespread racial discrimination of the Construction discuss ion section so President Richard M. Nixon decided to incorporate a musical arrangement of goals and timetables to gauge federal construction companies according to positive follow through.This idea of goals and timetables provided guidelines for companies to follow and come with favourable put through regulations. During the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, he extended approbative Action to people with disabilities and Vietnam veterans but there were no goals or timetables for these two groups. This figure of approbative Action required recruitment efforts, accessibility, accommodation and reviews of physical and psychic job qualifications. President Jimmy Carter consolidated all federal agencies that were required by law to follow the assentient Action play into the division of Labor.Before Carter did this, each agency handled assentient Action in its get individual way, almost were non as consistent as otherwise agencies were. He created the Office of Federal Contra ct Compliance Program (OFCCP) in 1978 to ensure compliance with the Affirmative Action policies. Affirmative Action began to go downhill when Ronald Reagan and later George Bush came into office. Affirmative Action lost some gains it had made and was more or less ignored by the Republicans in the White House and in Congress. Affirmative Action was silently creation killed by our federal administrators.In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, initiated by Kennedy, and the commensurate Opportunity Act of 1972, be opportunity was established. While there was comminuted controversy over oppose opportunity, the main issue with Affirmative Action was equal allows. Although equal opportunity was established with Kennedys original executive orderliness in 1961, the statistical results showed that the number of minority workers employed or in certain higher level positions was not in proportion to the environ population, making the actual existence of equal opportunity suspect.As a result of this discrepancy, it became necessary to create more aggressive legislation that ensured equal opportunity and equal results. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required both, and new Affirmative Action programs were instituted to further support this. These programs range from supporting(a) minorities and women to apply for certain positions to setting up actual numerical goals, such(prenominal) as quota systems and set-aside programs. However, is Affirmative Action, as many critics assert, just termination on the oppression?The basis behind Affirmative Action is that because of then(prenominal) discrimination and oppression, such as the dispossession of Native Americans, the unequal interposition of women, and the enslavement of Black Americans, minorities and women have difficulty competing with their white-hot male counterparts in mainstream American society. But is this true? Why must white males be oppressed by Affirmative Action just because their ancestors en slaved and oppressed another(prenominal) race and gender, and be victims of reverse discrimination in college admissions and employment?The U. S. domineering Court has faced many cases regarding this controversial issue, including The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke, a white medical scholarly person, was denied admission to a University of California medical inform because of a quota system. Bakke claimed that he was a victim of reverse discrimination and sued. In a close decision, the Court ruled that schools might not enforce a rigid quota system if whites atomic number 18 not allowed to compete equally.The issue was smooth muddied, however, because in the same decision, the Court ruled that race could be used as a factor. The various regulations and court rulings have made Affirmative Action oneness of the most paradoxical issues facing America. On one hand, differing local, state, and federal laws require employers to avoid discrimination in up to e nnead criteria race, color, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation course, handicap, veterans status and religion.On the other hand, Affirmative Action rules also require certain employers, such as companies with federal contracts, to bless preference to racial minorities, women, and others. Consequently, when considering both sides of the issue, it becomes apparent that reverse discrimination and invidious treatment of minorities is absolutely ludicrous when people are preaching equal justs and that all men are created equal, and that Affirmative Action should be directly abolished from all aspects of society as an unnecessary evil in order to ensure an equal playing field for all.Those who wish to retain Affirmative Action regulations argue that America has a moral obligation to right the wrongs of the past that Blacks and other minorities, whose ancestors have suffered institutionalized discrimination for hundreds of years, have pull in preferential treatment. Race- neutral hiring, say proponents, actually discriminates against minorities because the majority of available jobs are not advertised. Rather, they are learned about by word-of-mouth, and minorities are not blocked into the old-boy networks through which they might hear of these jobs.Affirmative Action must be maintained for minorities to rise above the glass ceiling to management positions, and for unequal minorities to rise from poverty and unemployment. Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing defecate do and latent hostility in American society, and through this heated look at, the fight surrounded by Angle males and minorities actually sets the two groups apart instead of bringing them together. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in rhetoric that pits equating of opportunity against the equating of results.The debate has been more emotional than intellectual, and has generated more tension than shed light on the issue. Participant s in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that Affirmative Action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the need for them. Too often, Affirmative Action is looked upon as the panacea for a nation once ill with, but now cured of, the sour disease of racial discrimination.Affirmative Action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and possibly even flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society. Working as it should, it affords groups great(p)er equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities. However, its failure highlights the potential for an aura of racism in this country which may preserve for many generations on.As Martin Luther King once said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day bed in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Affirmative Action would make this dream virtually impossible, bringing race in as a factor in judging college admissions and employment. Those who want to eliminate Affirmative Action regulations argue that preferential programs encourage racial tensions when white students and workers feel they are not getting fair consideration.Why should whites suffer for societys past mistakes? accept Anti-Affirmative Action activists who also note that Affirmative Action programs make whites the victims of reverse discrimination. Affirmative Action works against minorities, the argument continues, because it is assumed that an individual who benefits from such programs is automatically considered inferior to other candidates for jobs or schools, and because the majority who benefit from Affirmative Action are already middle-class, those most in need of the programs, verdant and inner-city blacks, have gai ned nothing.Protestors against Affirmative Action have already taken go to abolish the abominable doctrine through the passing of Proposition 209 in California. The measure would eliminate Affirmative Action programs used to increase hiring and promotion opportunities for state or local government jobs, where sex, race, and ethnicity are preferential factors in hiring, promotion, training, or recruitment decisions. In addition, the measure would eliminate programs that give preference to women-owned or minority-owned companies on public contracts.Contracts claimed by the measure would implicate contracts for construction projects, purchases of computer equipment, and the hiring of consultants. These prohibitions would not apply to those government agencies that receive gold under federal programs that require such Affirmative Action. The elimination of these programs would result in savings to the state and local governments. These savings would occur for two reasons. First, gov ernment agencies no durable would incur costs to administer the programs.Second, the prices give on some government contracts would decrease. This would happen because bidders on contracts no longer would need to show good corporate trust efforts to use minority-owned or women-owned subcontractors. Thus, state and local governments would save money to the extent they otherwise would have spurned a low bidderbecause the bidder did not make a good faith effortand awarded the contract to a higher bidder. The measure also could affect funding for public schools (kindergarten through grade 12) and community college programs.For instance, the measure could eliminate, or cause fundamental changes to, voluntary desegregation programs run by school districts. (It would not, however, affect court-ordered desegregation programs. ) Examples of desegregation spending that could be affected by the measure include the special funding given to magnet schools (in those cases where race or ethnic ity are preferential factors in the admission of students to the schools) and designated racially degage minority schools that are located in areas with high proportions of racial or ethnic minorities.Up to $60 million of state and local pecuniary resource spent each year on voluntary desegregation programs may be affected by the measure. In addition, the measure would affect a variety of public school and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, outreach, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts in those cases where the programs provide preferences to individuals or schools based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Funds spent on these programs total at least $15 million each year.Eliminating Affirmative Action programs in America would thus save the government a substantial amount of money and pave the road for truly equal opportunity and treatment of all races. In light of the conflicting arguments for and against Affirmativ e Action, it is readily apparent that Affirmative Action essentially implements reverse discrimination as an acceptable solution to racial inequality in America, heavy(p) preferential treatment to minorities and women, and should thus be forbidden morally and de jure if there is to be any sense of color-blindness in race dealing in the future.As Daniel Boorstin once said, The menace to America today is the accent on what abstracts us rather than what brings us together. Truly, doing so would further separate embittered races and pit them against each other in heated debate and controversy. occupational group for an alternative to Affirmative Action, Randall Kennedy states, We ought to construct a society and set of laws that steering on an individuals character, not color of skin.If Affirmative Action should be proscribed and society should be color-blind, there should be an alternative to Affirmative Action to ensure this. There are a few possible alternatives to Affirmativ e Action, some of them are very simple and some are a little more complex.The alternatives include reconstruction of civil society in minority communities, increasing minority and female applicant advert, and most significantly promotion of broad policies for economic opportunity and security that benefit low- and middle-income Americans, both black and white. Building up civil society means alter intermediate institutions, lying between the state and the individual, such as community associations, schools, media, and separatist social agencies, which provide the organizational foundation for collective development and stiff public representation. If the same capital was made available for minority institutions as other institutions, they would be able to develop in the society and eventually become a strong part of the minority community.These institutions would give path and guidance that is needed by all to play a major role in their community. Increasing minority and femal e applicant flow would be very easy for a company to do. They simply need to include minority colleges and universities in campus recruitment programs, place employment opportunities in minority oriented print and broadcast media, and retain applications of unemployed minority applicants to be reviewed as a position opens. This would be a great opportunity for applicants and employers.We should work toward broad based economic policies by systematically emphasizing broad-based, race-neutral policies for example, public investment, national health reform, an enlarged earned income valuate credit, child support assurance, and other policies benefiting families with young children. Widely supported programs that boost the interests of both lower- and middle-income Americans and that deliver substantial benefits to minorities on the basis of their economic hold will do more to reduce minority poverty than narrowly based, and poorly funded, measures for minority groups or the poor al one.These efforts can also be designed to coincide with intermediate institutions and thereby to contribute to the overall adjoin of civil reconstruction and renewal. Ultimately, if there is to be any sense of racial equality and equal opportunity in this world, we must abolish Affirmative Action and ensure an equal playing field for all races in America.