In the first chapter of Beverly Tatum’s, “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”, And Other Conversations About Race, the author immediately clarifies that racism is not a thing of the past. People in today’s society are merely raised with racial concepts at such a young age that they do not realize the injustice going on around them. She reinforces her statement by showing an example of a group of preschoolers who were told to draw a picture of a Native American. Most of the children didn’t even know what a Native American was, but after being told to draw an Indian, complied. Recurring elements in all of their drawings were feathers, along with a violent weapon, such as a knife.
Though Tatum criticizes this theory as “ineffective”, I find that it can still lead to improvements. Taking the process-oriented theory and applying it to mindsets, people are more likely to learn if they are focused on how to get the answer, rather than goals of simply what the answer is. So, if process-oriented mindsets are ideal in classrooms, process-oriented programs can be beneficial in affirmative action also. To explain this reasoning, if a workplace is focused on making standards the same for everyone through a fair process, the outcome will lead to candidates hired based on their qualifications and not on meeting a “goal”. Tatum critiques this by saying not everyone is given a fair chance because those in minority groups are not awarded the same opportunities, therefor leaving them disadvantaged from the start.
In Ira Katznelson’s book, When Affirmative Action Was White, he establishes a clear, understood meaning of affirmative action. In this text, affirmative action is best described as policies enacted around the mid-1900s that required traditionally marginalized minorities to be in spaces (such as classrooms, workplaces, and sports teams) to help level the playing field. Essentially, affirmative action policies sought to give benefits to minorities as compensation to alleviate past ills. The book’s title, however, seems to flip this definition on its head, describing a time where affirmative action policies were arranged to favor white people. Katznelson argues that New Deal era policies were created to continue legal segregation without truly
The New Deal, World War II, and post-World War II marked significant periods in American history as the federal government created various programs to relieve the nation from the Great Depression and spur economic growth. However, as Ira Katznelson points out in his book, “When Affirmative Action Was White,” these programs held disparities that disproportionately benefited white Americans. This essay will examine how New Deal, World War II, and post-World War II programs represented affirmative action for white Americans. In “When Affirmative Action Was White,” Katznelson explores how New Deal programs represented affirmative action for white Americans.
Grutter V. Bollinger Research Paper 2 Abstract Barbara Grutter (plaintiff) which is a resident of Michigan who was denied admissions into the University of Michigan Law School. Lee Bollinger (defendant) was president of the University of Michigan. Grutter filed this suit because the University had discriminated against the basis of race. Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admissions is constitutional if it treats race as some factor.
Herbert Hill strongly believes we should adopt a strong affirmative active action policies that mandate quotes and/or timetables. He also argues there must be some benchmark, and some tangible measures of change. Hill states a system based on race existed for many generations under the U.S. Constitution. This system defined black people as property not as human beings. In the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Chief Justice Taylor declares that black people have not rights and they are just articles of merchandise.
The ruling thus lent high judicial support to racial and ethnic discrimination and led to wider spread of the segregation between Whites and Blacks in the Southern United States. The great oppressive consequence from this was discrimination against African American minority from the socio-political opportunity to share the same facilities with the mainstream Whites, which in most of the cases the separate facilities for African Americans were inferior to those for Whites in actuality. The doctrine of “separate but equal” hence encourages two-tiered pluralism in U.S. as it privileged the non-Hispanic Whites over other racial and ethnic minority
er Awad Professor Muse SCMA 323: Business Law November 16, 2016 Brown vs. Board of Education: School Desegregation Brown vs Board of Education was one of the biggest cases ever brought upon the Supreme Court and on May 17, 1954, it was unanimously ruled that the segregation of races within public schools was unconstitutional. In fact, at the time of the case, over thirty three percent of public schools were lawfully segregated by race and the court had to decide between the racism within the United States. Dating back to the Civil War time, the United States declared its independence from England with a document known as the Deceleration of Independence; in this document it is stated “all men are created equal,” and this was definitely not
As current time and social status are being challenged and pushed, the Jim Crow Laws were implemented. These state and local laws were just legislated this year, 1877. New implemented laws mandate segregation in all public facilities, with a “separate but equal” status for African Americans. This may lead to treatment and accommodations that are inferior to those provided to white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational, and social disadvantages.
“Affirmative Action may not be a perfect system, but there should be no doubt that it has endangered many successes. It has opened the doors of America’s most elite educational institutions to minority students, granting them unprecedented opportunities” (Ogletree 12). Thanks to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson a policy that prohibits employment and education discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex is offered today to those who suffer from said discriminations (A Brief History). Affirmative action has opened abundant openings for minorities, allowing the cycle of going to college to be passed down generations and provided job opportunities that otherwise would not be considered by most. Affirmative
And who were are socially unequal…thus the affirmative action to disrupt giving preferences in hiring to white men and hiring people from underrepresented groups/ minorities if they are equally qualified for the same job. Affirmative action was supposed to mean equal opportunity under equal protection of the 14th of a segment of society that needed that protection due to racism in hiring. The THz individual is now recognized as different and treated differently. Differentiation of the individual based on race now mattered. People are now no longer abstract.
Affirmative action has become obsolete in today’s society. Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons (Merriam-Webster, 2011). Today’s affirmative action will demoralize the very concepts that the policy was implemented to uphold: those of equality for all people regardless of color and discrimination. This policy supports racial multiplicity at the price of distinction, impartiality and experience; it also follows the line of reverse discrimination and sexual bias against white men (Reyna, Tucker, Korfmacher, & Henry, 2005).
Only 75 percent of blacks have received post-high school education, compared to 85 percent of whites. Not surprisingly, blacks on average also make less money than whites” (Philip M. Deutsch). It’s unjust that people of color are treated as inferior to white people, and it is that kind of social issue that interferes with the liberties of all Americans of
As far as morality and justice are concerned, if a school or business or government declines to practice affirmative action, that’s okay” – says the
Throughout many of the affirmative action legal cases, one of the main arguments from proponents is that it is necessary in order to right the wrongs of past racial discrimination. Some say that affirmative action is justified because even though white applicants may be more qualified, this is only because they did not face the same hardships as their minority counterparts (Rachels, Ethics, 1973). Many argue if we do not integrate disadvantaged minorities into mainstream social institutions, they will continue to suffer the discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries and that this is detrimental to not only the minorities but also society as a whole (Anderson, 2002, 1270–71). However, the debate has recently shifted to the benefits of diversity in the classroom which the Supreme Court has affirmed as being a positive thing
