Afirmative action!!!

This blog is about equal rights for all minorities in corporate america. america is already hard for minorities and corporate america is even harder . it was bilt by and for white males. there has been alot of atention on affirmative action for the last part of the twentieth century and and the twentieth century. so for my first entry im going to post the wikipedia article for afirmative action . i know wikipedia isnt the most credible source but it is a jumping off point

The term affirmative action describes many policies intended to promote access to education or employment for historically and socio-politically non-dominant groups (most often racial minorities or women). Motivation for affirmative action is to redress negative effects of actual or perceived, past or current discrimination that is regarded as unjust by relevant legislative bodies. It also serves to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the populations they serve [1].

This is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs aimed at applicants from socio-politically disadvantaged groups. In some cases affirmative action involves giving preferential treatment to these underrepresented groups.[2] Opponents of affirmative action policies argue that they are based on collectivism and merely another equal form of discrimination because they can result in qualified applicants being denied entry to higher education or employment because they belong to a particular social group (usually the historically socio-politically dominant group; typically majority races and men, regardless of social standing or financial need.)[3] Opponents also argue that preferential treatment should not be based upon the social and economical standing of one’s ancestors, therefore arguing against the residual ramifications of past injustices. Some opponents say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group they belong to rather than their qualifications.[4] Both advocates and opponents of affirmative action agree that aim of public policy should be to achieve justice for both advantaged & disadvantaged

can be found in a paper written for the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights by one of its members, Marc Bossuyt.[5]

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that have ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs “shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.” The United Nations Human Rights Committee states, “the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant.”[6]

[edit] Controversy

The controversy surrounding affirmative action’s effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality.[citation needed] Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class minorities at the expense of lower class Caucasians .[citation needed] This argument supports the idea of solely class based affirmative action.[citation needed] America’s poor is disproportionately made up of minorities[citation needed], so class-based affirmative action would disproportionately help minorities.[citation needed] This would eliminate the need for race based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle and upper class minorities.[7]

Proponents of affirmative action[who?] generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance representation of racial, ethnic, gender, or another diverse group.[8] They[who?] may argue that the end result—a more diversified and representative student body, police force or other group—justifies the means. Proponents[who?] also argue that affirmative action is needed since institutions are inherently biased towards Caucasians.[9]

Some opponents of affirmative action like Ward Connerly call it reverse discrimination because affirmative action requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate. According to these opponents, this contradiction makes affirmative action counter-productive because it promotes prejudice by increasing resentment toward those who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action from those who have been adversely affected by the policy. [10] Other opponents[who?] say affirmative action causes unprepared applicants to be accepted in highly demanding educational institutions or jobs which result in eventual failure. (See, for example, Richard Sander’s study of affirmative action in Law School, bar exam and eventual performance at law firms). Other opponents say that by lowering the bar, affirmative action denies those who strive for excellence on their own merit the sense of real achievement. (See, for example, Clarence Thomas‘ “My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir”.) Some[who?] argue that affirmative action itself has some merit when it is targeted to true cause of social deprivation such as poverty while race, ethnicity or gender based affirmative action is misguided. [11] The underlying assumption in these arguments being that race, ethnicity or gender cannot contribute to social deprivation.[original research?]

Proponents of affirmative action[who?] argue that by nature the system is not only race based, but also class and gender based. To eliminate two of its key components would undermine the purpose of the entire system. The African American Policy Forum believes that the class based argument is based on the idea that non-poor minorities do not experience racial and gender based discrimination. The AAPF believes that “Race-conscious affirmative action remains necessary to address race-based obstacles that block the path to success of countless people of color of all classes”. The groups goes on to say that affirmative action is responsible for creating the African American middle class, so it does not make sense to say that the system only benefits the middle and upper classes.[12]

Opponents[13] further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages groups to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).[14] In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favored minority areas. There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations.[15] Some research has indicated that as many as 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at some of America’s most selective colleges are wealthy white teens who failed to meet their institutions’ minimum admissions standards, furthermore these wealthy white teens outnumber students who benefit from affirmative action.[16]

How the media portray affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims[who?] that the practice is racist or sexist, or both, depending on how one defines those concepts (for instance, the offering of extra college scholarships to black students and Hispanic students (regardless of race, thus including White Hispanics) as opposed to European American or Asian American students appears overtly racist). Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations.

Some states[who?] aim to implement ballot measures Fall of 2008 that would eliminate affirmative action. Many of these anti-affirmative action campaigns are spearheaded by the founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, Ward Connerly

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being “color blind“, in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as “positive action” or “positive discrimination”.

[edit] America

  • Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are already quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for the disabled in the civil public services.[19]
  • Canada. The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type polices. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and disabled people. Men receive the lowest priority, P3.[2
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s