Race Discrimination and Kennedys Assassination - Essay Example

The Author’s Name] The Professor’s Name] [The Course title] [Date] Race Discrimination Introduction Racial discrimination has long been a problem in social history. The discrimination of ethnic minorities has been a controversial issue, existent in society, and workplaces for many years. The implementation of ethnic monitoring and positive discrimination in employment has increased the number of ethnic employees and gone a long way to mend the bridge of inequality which has burdened society for a long time. Another method introduced to try and counter the racial inequality in employment is that of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action calls for minorities and women to be given special consideration in employment, education and contracting decisions, to increase their number in the workplace. Affirmative action is a controversial issue which has been debated by many. Affirmative action was defined as an attempt to enlarge opportunity for everyone; it was designed to redress the imbalances caused by long-standing discrimination. Defenders of affirmative action argue that granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men. This implies that as blacks have previously suffered from detrimental racist discrimination and wrongdoings, including slavery and not having the right to vote, they now deserve extra benefits to compensate. This is known as "reverse racism". It argues that as whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others, now, on the basis of race, blacks are able to claim special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Employment Scenario The question then arises: Do two wrongs make a right? This is what affirmative action is condoning. It says that we are allowed to overlook suitable white candidates if a black candidate is available. This means that even if the white candidates were a better choice and more qualified for the job, the black person would be hired because of the past injustices his race has suffered. People say affirmative action is acceptable because it cures past discrimination (Sheryll, 139). However, discrimination was not acceptable when blacks were the ones discriminated against, therefore it's not ok when whites are discriminated against (Murphy, 70). The answer is that two wrongs do not make a right - affirmative action does not make discrimination acceptable, just because it is now against whites instead of blacks. It has been said that job discrimination is grounded in discrimination and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion; this is what affirmative action does. We can explain the theory behind affirmative action with this example; the logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance. The equal opportunities law was introduced into society due to the discrimination ethnic minorities had received in history. The policies were implemented to counter racial discrimination and bias. Thus, the equal opportunities law was not created to treat different races differently; its purpose was to treat all people as equals. Affirmative action, however, does not adhere to this principal as by dismissing perfectly capable white candidates for a role in order to employ a less qualified black person, we are not treating everyone as equals. (Patr1cia, 49) A major disadvantage of affirmative action in the workplace is the affect it has on the organisation and its employees. Affirmative action can be very detrimental to the organisation as hiring an under qualified worker puts others at risk if he or she doesn't have enough experience. It is also financially dangerous and a company should not pay inexperienced people to do work they're not qualified for. Affirmative action will only work short term because if you hire a minority who is under qualified they will eventually lose their job. Another problem arises as organisations can only hire so many people, and this may result in too many under qualified people working for you and will eventually have to abandon affirmative action all together. Affirmative action means that employees who benefit from it bear the mark of not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group (Hill, 54). It would be better for an employees self-esteem if they knew they got a job because they were the best person for the job, not because they were black and under-represented. It is also possible that because of affirmative action, racism within an organisation will increase. If a company hires a black person who is not as good as another white candidate, employees will begin to resent him/her. If they gained their job based on their skin colour, rather than because they were the most qualified, they may become disliked and resented because of their skin colour. (D'Souza, 49) This could also lead to lack of respect for a black boss which would be detrimental to the organisation and the happiness of employees. One of the arguments for affirmative action is that blacks should be compensated for injustices done to their ancestors by white people. This idea contradicts the human right of individuality. It implies that if a white person’s ancestor showed racist behaviour, they will be discriminated against because of this. The reality of this is completely unfair, why one person should be punished for something they had no control over, and similarly why should black people receive preferential treatment for behaviour they have not suffered from. That is to say, a black man will be treated in a better way than a white man, as his grandfather was the victim of slavery. The implementation of this is unrealistic and immoral, especially as we should aim to promote equality among all. This kind of preferential treatment will only cause resentment and ultimately the resentment of the black man, purely for being black. If the decisive factor is their skin colour and not their ability to work, then affirmative action is a flawed method. Businesses will only ever survive and be profitable if they employ the most suitable and qualified candidate for the job. (Blau, 119) For this to happen and for the organisation to ensure they have hired the best person for the job, recruitment methods must be colour-blind. This means the people in charge of recruitment should assess each application based on its merits and qualifications, not on the ethnic background of the applicant. Discrimination can only be rooted out by enforcing strictly anti-discrimination rules, without engaging in reverse discrimination which would alienate good white male candidates for employment and promotion who, after all, are not to be blamed by past injustices. (Emma, 92) Moral and Legal Implications of Race Discrimination From a philosophical point of view affirmative action does not comply with deontological theory, which states that it is our duty to do what is right whatever its consequences, and what is right consists in treating all human beings with respect and due consideration for their rights and liberties. This shows us that racial discrimination goes against these deontological beliefs. However, as deontology shows us that racism is wrong, as it does not treat all human beings with respect, does this mean affirmative action is the right way to go? In my opinion, affirmative action is not a solution to the deontological problem of racism. (Farley, 140) That is because affirmative action does not treat all human beings with respect and due consideration. Affirmative action disregards the consideration of the white men applying for the jobs, as its aim is to employ black people. From a utilitarian point of view, affirmative action has some key flaws. Utilitarianism says in effect that the rightness of an action (or practical policy) consists in its tendency to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people than any alternative. Affirmative action would therefore only work if the people within a company were for the idea. Taking a more likely situation, based on historical facts, there are more likely to be a greater number of white males in an organisation. (Juan, 116) If this is the case and one of them is overlooked for promotion because of a less qualified black man, as the company is employing affirmative action, this goes against utilitarianism ideologies of promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The unfair treatment of ethnic minorities has been a harsh reality on society for a long time and it needs to be addressed. However, the method of affirmative action, which goes out of its way to hire a black man, purely because he is black, leads us to the same racial inequality that was a problem when blacks were not hired, for being black. Although the idea of affirmative action was implemented to give black people better opportunities it is still a form of discrimination. When an employer hires someone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else if more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. "Affirmative action legalizes discrimination". (Cotton, 808) The efforts of affirmative action are no different from the policies that created the disadvantages in the first place, although the idea is trying to redress the balance of inequality, I feel it is causing more harm than good in the work place. It is undemocratic to give one class of citizen's advantages at the expense of other citizens; the truly democratic way is to have a level playing field to which everyone has access and where everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed purely on the basis of his or her merit. (Harrison, 37) Hard work and merit, not race or religion or gender or birthright, should determine who prospers and who does not. Legal Case Studies Many cases of racial discrimination in the workplace are simply the case of uneducated employers. The Employment Law for Business textbook for this class has an example of an African-American man who sued his company because they discharged him for failure to comply with the employer's policy requiring employees to be clean-shaven (Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc., D/B/A Domino's). The issue at the heart is that Bradley is an African-American who suffers from pseudo-folliculitis barbae (PFB), a common skin disorder amongst African-Americans. Undoubtedly, Domino's was unaware of this condition or did not feel the severity of the condition warranted non-adherence to the policy. The lack of minorities in upper management decision-making positions begins a chain of ignorance to multicultural issues. Additionally, Domino's could not prove that the policy directly related to justifiable company goals, which is required under Title VII. If facial hair was an occupational health hazard or could be proven to directly relate to company goals, Domino's would have a basis for a non-discriminatory claim. Instead, its lack of knowledge cost them a settlement. Many claims of racial discrimination are causes of stereotypes or anxiety and/or fear of a certain racial group. In states with high Native American populations, many employers believe that Native American are late and lackadaisical, causing employers to watch them closer then other employees and quite predictably, fine or fire them more often. After September 11, the EEOC investigated 250 cases of backlash against Arab-Americans, or those perceived to be. (Montclaire, www.proquest.com) We know racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal and more money is being awarded in court than ever, yet it still exists. Many employees are unaware of the broad scope of racial discrimination, and are unfamiliar with state and federal laws and what they cover. Other employees are aware of discrimination but do not want to go through the exhaustive and complicated legal process it takes to go forward with a case. Perhaps most of all, many employees fear angering their employer or losing their job. They are unaware that Title VII includes anti-retaliation provisions that make it illegal to treat an employee adversely because the employee pursued his or her rights under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, p. 83, 2001). Employees who feel they are being harassed racially should keep of record of all possible violations, from racial slurs to lack of promotions. Workers should look for co-workers who notice the same problems and address the issues together. A local human rights bureau can look over the case before it is brought to the EEOC and evaluate the case and suggest a course of action. If the case if filed with the EEOC, the employee should prepare for a long fight. They should also prepare themselves for a small reward or none at all, as racial discrimination cases can be hard to prove. In the end employees should remember to act. Every action may keep employers biases and stereotypes from hindering someone from making a decent living. Discrimination is an inherent component of human thought and behaviour. The term designates the tendency to judge a person or situation based on certain preconceptions; and despite the fact that since the Enlightenment people have tried to assert the absolute dominance of reason, false opinions in different domains have not ceased to circulate. This situation is due to the fact that we are not and never will be omniscient. Even at the level of science, which is supposed to be exact and flawless, errors are permanently found in theories which had been considered fundamental. Discrimination is a mark of human imperfection. What we do not know we don't understand. And what we do not understand we either reject, or accept the existing theories regarding that subject, no matter how unreasonable these may seem. This may be also seen as a possible source of racial discrimination. People perceive the representatives of other races as different and have an instinctive reservation in interacting with them. What derives from this situation is the following- white people mostly speak to white people, blacks "stick" with their own etc, and the opinions of each group regarding the other is mostly based on preconceptions and stereotypes.(Melvin, 99) Race Discrimination and Social Justice Preconceptions represent the informational heritage passed from one generation to another, consisting mainly in ideas unfiltered by reason and which are not up-to-date with the latest realities. This damaging inheritance determines all sorts of anachronisms and it holds collective consciousness one step behind the latest scientific discoveries or social realities. This is what determines black people, for example, to sometimes over-amplify incidents when they involve white persons. The white man is still seen as an oppressor, which is undoubtedly a cultural reminiscence from the period when Negroes were subjected to humiliation. As a result, when a black person fails at a job interview, if the interviewer is white, there is a strong probability that the rejected candidate will automatically see himself as a victim of discrimination. Accusing the others of racism is one of the unconstructive tendencies of racial minorities, which helps such individuals overcome their personal failures. Yet, this does not mean that there aren't any situations when abuses are committed due to racial discrimination. Such situations are usually the results of our tendencies of being influenced by stereotypes in our judgement. Our mind assimilates each individual to a group (be it religious, racial or ethnic), each group having its own identity and being labelled according to defining traits with which we sometimes arbitrarily attribute it. (Florence 665) Therefore, when judging someone we may be even unconsciously influenced by our perception of the group to which that person belongs. Human subjectivity makes us be more lenient towards the ones belonging to our own group. This is what may generate discrimination. However, despite the above-mentioned difficulties, which will be hard to overcome even on a long term, as they are components of human nature, it is undeniable that huge progress has been made in this field. The promotion of tolerance as chief post-modern value and the fact that we can no longer afford to act on our racist impulses have improved the situation. Races are no longer openly at conflict, though tensions do still exist. It is probable that, since discriminating on racial criteria is no longer a legitimate option, over time; people will interiorize the new values of acceptance. But it is not likely that the subconscious tendency of rather liking someone of your own race will be wiped out. While all racial groups differ greatly through cultural disparities, they also relate to one another through the common theme of racial discrimination and struggle. This trend is strongly present in comparing and contrasting the positions of Native Americans and Asian/Pacific Americans. The similarities between these groups mostly consist of their shared experience with the American government and the "whites." Obviously, the most apparent similarity between these two groups is the racial discrimination they received in becoming a part of America. Both have been referred to as "savage," "barbarians," "primitive" and obviously, inferior. "The status of racial inferiority assigned to the Chinese had been prefigured in the black and Indian past" (Takaki 204). They were also both adept in the agriculture and helped Americans with this field occasionally (the Chinese more so). Native Americans and Asian/Pacific Americans also relate in that both groups are collapsed groups in which incredible differences are overlooked for the purposes of categorization and sometimes racism. Furthermore, Asian/Pacific Americans and Native Americans also placed trust in the lies about America and were consequently greatly disappointed later in learning of their fallacy. Chinese immigrants first came for "Gold Mountain," where America was rich and generous. However, they ended up being forced to work for minimum wages and prevented from striking by racist tactics where plantation or factory owners played race pride and jealousy off one another. Asian Americans also trusted in America's equality and fairness until they experienced the extremity of America's racism and almost xenophobia, even within the government. Many Native Americans trusted in the treaties of protection set up by the government, until they were repeatedly broken or forgotten. After this struggle and abuse, however, both groups resisted the injustices done to them. "[...] Contrary to the stereotype of Chinese passivity, the Chinese fought discrimination" (Takaki 207). By taking their struggle to the courts, the Chinese chipped away at their discrimination slowly. Meanwhile, the Japanese in Hawaii joined forces with other racial groups to form strikes. The Native Americans also took their frustrations to court, although they won what was owed to them: the return of all their land. The Choctaws, for example, sued in court and won $2,981,247.39 (Takaki 93) although this was hardly the amount owed them from their relinquished lands. In trying to relocate the Cherokees, they "[...] refused to abandon their homes and lands" (Takaki 96). Thus, these main similarities between Native Americans and Asian/Pacific Americans tie them together as the victims of America's wrongs. Besides obvious differences of culture, the positions of Native Americans and Asian/Pacific Americans also differ in the history of their assimilation into America. Asian/Pacific Americans were considered to be "invaders" of America as they came to America. Resentment began to grow as their numbers increased and white labourers were forced out of jobs because of the cheaper and more efficient Asian labourers. The 'present Chinese invasion' [...] was 'pernicious and should be discouraged. Our experience in dealing with the weaker races - the Negroes and the Indians - is not encouraging....I would consider with favour any suitable measures to discourage the Chinese from coming to our shores. (Takaki 206) Japanese, Korean, and Philipino Americans were also treated similarly. Thus Americans did not want these Chinese invaders in their country. Native Americans were perceived to be more easily assimilated into the American culture. Furthermore, Americans generally wanted this assimilation to occur, probably out of feelings of guilt. Native Americans had lived spread throughout the continent that is now partly America, for thousands of years. In contrast to Asian/Pacific Americans, they had more of a "right" to be there. They were also seen as less "simple" (after the bitterness many Indian wars had been forgotten anyways). Thus, Americans were more readily willing to accept Native Americans into their culture. 'Look at your Chinamen; are they not specifically exempted from the naturalization laws?' But Indians, unlike the Chinese, were generally seen as capable of assimilation [...] by the belief that Indians did not have the 'deficiencies' or other groups: they were fewer in number, the beneficiaries of a public sympathy and pity, and capable of advancement. (Takaki 234) Thus, while Native Americans did not want to be American citizens and wanted to keep their old ways, Asian/Pacific Americans wanted to be American citizens and be accepted (about 50% of immigrants) and came to America on the basis of leaving their old ways in search of a new world. However, Native Americans were the ones that ended up finding acceptance (as Americans, however, not as their indigenous tribe) and Asian Americans were (at first) rejected as American. (Angela, 1932) Immigrants’ Experience and Cases In the early 19th century, Koreans came to the United States seeking freedom from Japanese rule and to maintain their Korean cultural identity. Like many other minorities, Korean immigrants experienced racial discrimination in the past and they also experience discrimination today. The Alien Land Act of 1913 was passed to prevent non-naturalized Koreans from owning property and limited leases in California. They were often turned away by Caucasian landlords when they were attempting to find housing. The action of the Alien Land Act proves that Korean immigrants were discriminated against by the United States government and the white American home owners. In America, if someone has money, no one can prevent him/her from owning property unless they discriminate against them based on their race, sex, religion or age. Myself, being of Vietnamese descent, as an immigrant living in the United States, I do have the right to become a naturalized citizen as long as I abide by the laws. The experience of Korean immigrants shows that they are struggling to be part of this country. In the year of 1910, Korean workers were attacked by American counterparts and were told to leave or they would be killed. This left many Koreans feeling intimidated and like they had nowhere to go. Koreans were not allowed to sit next to the white Americans anywhere in public but were permitted to sit in the corners in recreational places alongside the Mexicans. Moreover, Koreans were attacked and intimidated by white farm workers and if they did not defend themselves with deadly force against the white rioters, their minority group would have been endangered. Life is to this day still tough for Korean immigrants when they first arrive in the United States. Koreans are discriminated everywhere in the work place, public recreational facilities, and restaurants. Conclusion The United States is a free and democratic nation - this means that people have to respect the laws and not just to do whatever they want. We, as a society, need to learn how to live together peacefully because it's more beneficial to be a complete unit rather than just be segregated parts. It is important for the people of the United States to understand that laws do not only protect the citizens, but every individual living in this country, no matter what race they are. Religion, beliefs, behaviours, foods, and language are essential parts of Korean identity and therefore it is important for Korean immigrants to keep their culture alive even while living in the United States. Attending Korean language schools in addition to American schools is important for the next generation of Koreans to understand cultural identity, aside from making their parents proud. Children need to be taught from infancy that people of other races and nationalities are human too. They think like the rest of us. They have feelings, hopes, and aspirations. They are intelligent. Sometimes they forget to put the cap on the toothpaste or they might leave the toilet seat up. We are all human and we are lucky to have such diversity in the world. Diversity does not exist to enable us to learn tolerance. It exists for the same reason we have such a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. If the only thing you eat is apples, you will get tired of them. Try pears they are just as good. If our world consisted of white-skinned, blond- haired, blue-eyed people, our eyes would get bored. Differences are inviting and intriguing - a spice of life. It is a tragedy that so many people are too ignorant to experience these finer fruits in life. We learn so much from each other. Yes, we are now making progress but at such an insubstantial pace, the damage is done and will take decades to repair. We can only hope and pray that we will rise up and overcome all discrimination, and the only instrument we can use is that of love. Without love, we are divided. Love is a perfect bond of union. With it, we can accomplish all things, but - we must be willing to give up the hate before we can cultivate the love. Racial discrimination has been a major topic of discussion for ages. We study it in history, government, and even in everyday life. We may not be aware of the discrimination around us, but if we stop and pay attention we would be able to recognize it. The Civil War may have abolished slavery, but African Americans were still perceived as less important than those born of European blood. Whites were given the privilege to better schools and public facilities. Everywhere people went there were signs for the Whites and then another for Coloured. The Coloured side was always far more demeaning. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960 during the Eisenhower Administration didn't do much to change that because Eisenhower didn't care much for the Civil Rights Movement. He felt that it was not the federal government's job to solve the problem. The problem was local communities’ responsibility. In 1960, Kennedy stole the election when he was able to win the Negro vote in the large Northern states. He did this by helping Dr. King get out of jail after being arrested for a sit-in an Atlanta department store. After he was elected, he began his attack on racial discrimination. Although he didn't need the Southern vote to win the election, he needed it to pass a bill through Congress. He was very careful not to offend any key Southerners through his crusade. Kennedy saw the right to vote for African Americans as a path to other rights that they were entitled to. Since Kennedy was assassinated he was never able to see his civil rights bill all the way through. Johnson was left with all this weight due to Kennedy's assassination. If Johnson wanted to keep the Negro vote to win the election in 1964, he needed not to offend them. He saw civil rights for African Americans one of the last pieces in making America known as a Great Society. Johnson wanted to be known as the President that made this possible, therefore, he was determined to pass the civil rights act during his presidency. He wanted to be known as the greatest domestic President in American history. After many, sometimes peaceful and sometimes violent, demonstrations and debates, the American people finally started to open their minds, or at least some did. President Johnson finally got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. This was a new beginning for Americans and their lifestyles. The Civil Rights Act contained ten titles altogether. It was the foundation for equality for people of all races. The idea of a superior race was null and void. Racial discrimination may not have disappeared altogether, but this is a lot better than it was before 1964. It is up to us to make it even better. President Johnson laid the groundwork for it. Now it is up to us to incorporate these ideas against discrimination into our lives. Works Cited Angela P. Harris, Equality Trouble: Sameness and Difference in Twentieth- Century Race Law, 88 CAL. L. REV. 1923, 1931-33 (2000). Bennett-Alexander, D. D., Hartman, L. P. (2001): Employment Law for Business: New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. p89 Blau Francine, and Marianne Ferber. 2001. Economics of Women, Men and Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. p119 Cotton Jeremiah: 1989. "Opening the Gap: Decline in Black Economic Indicators in the 1980s". Social Science Quarterly 70: 803-810. D'Souza, Dinesh. 1995. End of Racism: Prospects for a Multiracial Society. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. Emma C. Jordan & Angela p. Harris, Economic" Justice: Race, Gender, Identity and Economics (2005) Farley John. 1997. "Disproportionate Black and Hispanic Unemployment in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Roles of Racial Inequality, Segregation and Discrimination in Male Joblessness." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 46:129-150. Florence Wagman Roisman, Teaching Important Property Concepts: Teaching About Inequality, Race, and Property, 46 ST. Louis U. L.J. 665 (2002). Harrison Bennett. 2004. "Discrimination and Space: Suburbanization and Black Employment in Cities." Pp. 21-53 in George Von Furstenburg et al. eds., Patterns of Racial Discrimination, Volume I, Housing. Lexington: Lexington. Hill Herbert: 1994. "Race and Ethnicity. Organized Labour: Historical Sources of Resistance to Affirmative Action." Journal of Inter-group Relations 12:54 Juan Perea, Richard Delgado, Angela p. Harris & Stephanie M. Wildman, Race and Races: Cases and Resources for a Diverse America (2d ed. 2007). Melvin I. Oliver & Thomas M. Shapiro, Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality (1995) Montclaire, C., Racism in the Workplace, www.proquest.com, retrieved from the World Wide Web on January 23, 2008 Murphy, D., Race Matters. San Francisco Chronicle (January 6, 2002). Patr1cia j. Williams, The Alchemy Of Race And Rights 49. in Derrick Bell, Race, Racism and American Law (5th ed. 2004) Sheryll Cashin, The Failures Of Integration: How Race And Class Are Undermining The American Dream (2004) Takaki, Ronald. A Different Mirror. New York: Back Bay Books, 1993. Read More