The Idea of Affirmative Action - Term Paper Example

? Affirmative Action Introduction Affirmative action is defined by the NAACP as action whose purpose is to provide opportunities for minorities and women. Affirmative action was first established in 1961 by President Kennedy whose goal was to relieve the discrimination in place in employment, business and education that was easily evident. Since that time it has been argued over and amended and frequently a topic of some debate. This paper will provide background information on affirmative action; history of and introduction of, why this was needed and immediate effects of this. Those impacted originally and also today will be discussed with research provided in the area of related ideas and theories to affirmative action. Finally I will mention any new or recent developments in affirmative action or upcoming related acts or actions and how it is possible for the United States to continue to move forward and away from discrimination in its many forms. Body Affirmative action has been described as many things over the course of time. The environment in which it is being used, the people who are using it and the situation in which it is being used are all contributors to what it is being defined as. It has consistently been one of the most controversial issues within the United States, being redefined by government, added to and revised. Because there has been constant debate it is obvious that affirmative action is indeed very significant. Many policies are in place that uses the label of affirmative action (R Kellough, p5) and different approaches for affirmative action have much different implications such as for non-discrimination and equal opportunity. Regardless of how affirmative action is being used it should be considered a policy whose primary purpose is to promote the redistribution of opportunity. This is the best description, applying in nearly every situation where affirmative action is the goal. Understanding affirmative action in its entirety is difficult and must be understood on a case by case basis. President Kennedy issued executive order 10925 in 1961; this order stated that individuals were to be hired not on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. This meant that employers, including federal employers, were not only to avoid discrimination, they were to encourage employment of these minority groups. The issue was later reaffirmed by President Johnson with executive order 11246 in 1965. More specific goals were started in private sectors, with percentages being used as to how many individuals from a minority group a company should have and be considered one who had taken affirmative action steps. As you can imagine these numbers and percentages themselves became controversial. Affirmative action was originally described as one that would ensure equal opportunity, yet if organizations are using percentages and numerical ways of diversifying their workforce is that a policy providing an equal opportunity to each individual? Should the company be heavily employing white individuals and decide that to reach their projected quota that demonstrates affirmative action they must now hire only minority individuals, is that a practice in keeping with the original sentiment of affirmative action? The goal of non-discrimination is strongly supported, the public as a whole supports outreach programs yet the debate and dissatisfaction is strongest against preferential treatment on the basis of being a minority group, claiming this then becomes reverse discrimination and does not follow the intentions of affirmative action. In the University of California vs. Bakke the Supreme Court suggested the idea that race could be used as a factor in admissions to the institute but to do so would imply that all other factors were equal (R Kellough, p 16). This case became quite famous as it was usual for the court before this time for the court to rule against Universities and colleges who used numerical data as a means of deciding on admissions. Bakke filed suit on the grounds that he was not admitted to the University’s program on the basis of race, the fact the was a white individual, and in this case the court agreed, finding Bakke equal to other applicants in all aspects except race (Dillion). In 1978 it was decided that Colleges and Universities could not reserve a number of places for minority groups in its’ admission process. Affirmative action in higher education institutions has since been banned in California, Florida, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, and Nebraska (Anderson). These States use a policy of diversity versus affirmative action, leading to a multicultural student body diverse in race, color, creed and nationality. Diversity itself calls for cultural sensitivity (Sanner, p56) with diversity focusing on awareness, education, and recognition of the differences among people. Diversity itself has recently replaced the term of affirmative action in many organizations and described by some as a much better concept for allowing equal opportunity without preferential treatment. Guidelines issued by President Obama in 2011 urged colleges and universities to be creative in improving racial diversity in their campuses (Dillon). The department of justice and education warned institutions against considering race a factor whatsoever when determining admissions. It suggested that schools use other factors such as socioeconomic condition, residential instability and hardships that students have overcome in deciding on admission, noting these factors are many times minority related. The American Civil Liberties Union stance on affirmative action is that it is still needed. In an ACLU positions paper it is stated that it is a myth that we no longer need affirmative action, needing it now as much as ever, that is also not true that affirmative action favors people of color and that affirmative action does not mean quotas. Opponents deliberately misinterpret or skew the meaning if affirmative action which is unfair and leads to reverse discrimination in hiring practices. The ACLU contends that this may be true in some instances but that preferences almost always favor whites and that preference has been shown for veterans, children of alumnae, and for the offspring of managers and their peers (ACLU). Conclusion Affirmative action originally came into public view as a stance against discrimination under circumstances such as employment, education and opportunities valued by an individual and important for socioeconomic standing. The idea of the affirmative action orders’ originally were not to exclude groups based on any factor or but to include groups that may be otherwise discriminated against. Cases and arguments have continued to argue the policy based on wording or various definitions. Policy has been reexamined many times and by many different groups seeking to better define what would evidence non-discrimination within educational institutes and organizations. Affirmative action, due to arguments has become an order affecting all people in some way be it through promotion of redistribution of opportunity or preferential treatment. Designed originally to help minority groups it has become an action that all groups have argued against because of the ‘preferential treatment’ that numerical percentages can indicate, Diversity seems to be a better direction in ensuring that equal opportunity is provided to all individuals. Diversity is broadened to consider factors about an individual outside of race, color, creed, nationality or sex. Other factors that can be considered are profession, socioeconomic status, education, parental status, background and location. Whereas affirmative action encourages non-discrimination by viewing race, color, creed or nationality as a factor, using these other factors we can better evaluate an individual or group of individuals and make decisions. Diversity is considered to include everyone and its initiatives complement nondiscrimination policies already in place through federal law and guidelines. References ACLU. (2000, October). ACLU Position Paper. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved December 17, 2011, from http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/affirmative_action99.pdf Anderson, E. (2011). Affirmative Action Is About Helping All of Us. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 57(38), B11.Retrieved from Dillon, S. (2011, December 17). Affirmative Action - News. Times Topics - The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2011, from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/index.html R Kellough, J. (2006). Understanding Affirmative Action : Politics, Discrimination, and the Search for Justice. Georgetown University Press. Retrieved from Sanner, S., Baldwin, D., Cannella, K., Charles, J., & Parker, L. (2010). The impact of cultural diversity forum on students' openness to diversity. Journal Of Cultural Diversity, 17(2), 56-61.Retrieved from Read More