Modern American society advocates for equality among all people, but these are just all talk and no true action taken upon word. Reporter Robert Barnes addresses this in his op-ed article titled “Supreme Court won’t check Maryland’s law banning sales of ‘assault weapons’”. By utilizing rhetorical strategies, Barnes conveys his message that even as we fight for equality, the dream will never occur with the prideful existence of class in the federal government. He appeals to the ethos-centered feeling in his audience, stating, “That court went further than other appellate courts that have reviewed similar laws [...]” (Barnes 5). His compromise between the central court and the state courts reflect the inferred views of the Supreme Court, that
Katznelson’s argument that affirmative action policies were enacted with purposeful, deliberate discrimination is convincing. Namely, he considers the historical context that would have shaped Americans at the time and swayed their opinions. For example, Katznelson references the Civil War and the end of slavery, and how these events shaped the attitudes of key players like the Southern Democrats, which would then result in the faulty policies that perpetuated affirmative action’s favoritism of whites. His evidence is sufficient as well. Katznelson highlights the trend of Southern Democrats interfering in affirmative action policies and the footholds they had in specific acts.
Erica Beckman Duran English 1A 28 October 2015 Affirmative Action In Chapter Seven of Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? , Beverly Tatum discusses affirmative action, an action that guarantees equal opportunity to all individuals, regardless of any circumstances (117). Tatum remarks on the history of affirmative action, in which it was introduced to language and our legal system by executive order 11246 by President Lyndon B. Johnson (1965), and obligated federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, or national origin” (116-117).
“A series of legislative initiatives and decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States defined the possibilities of affirmative action policy” (Finkelman, 2004). Affirmative action is such a controversial topic which has been brought up in many Supreme Court cases. In Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971, the court argued “Title VII” bans “not only overt discrimination but also practices which are fair in form but discriminatory in operation.” (Finkelman, 2004). To eliminate discrimination processes under Title VII, all employers began to hire and recruit more minorities.
Although both parties of colour are provided “equal” services under the law, this idea of separate but equal is problematic. By Federal law, African America’s were provided the same services as their white counterparts, although they could be segregated. Where this idea of separate but equal become problematic is regarding the quality of the “equal” service
Shelby Steele’s perspective about affirmative action is that it’s didn’t help African Americans achieve equality. Continuously, he believes that affirmative action only reinforces the misconception that people should be treated differently according to their outward appearance. Affirmative action is created to improve opportunities for minorities in employment and education. Like any legalization, affirmative action has positive and negative sides, however I disagree with Shelby Steele that negative effect on minorities. In our country, we have decades of racial, economical, and social inequality for minorities, and affirmative action tries to address that disparity.
Finally, it’s worth repeating a point from the Economic Policy Institute’s Richard Rothstein, who notes—correctly—that “black families and their children suffer from compounded and inherited disadvantages that are unique, not like those of white or immigrant families who happen to be from lower social classes or who happen to live in low-income neighborhoods.” Race disadvantage is different than its class counterpart, and one affirmative action isn’t a substitute for the other. But even if it were, it’s important to note that if the court ends race-based affirmative action, there’s no guarantee that we’ll see an alternative. Opponents of race-conscious policy in education are often opponents of “diversity” writ large and won’t be fooled into
Thus, often without realizing it, the United States has practiced what, in effect, was white affirmative action on a highly generous and widespread basis, followed by a much more modest program of black affirmative action. By understanding this history, we can come to terms with the widening gap between blacks and whites noted by Lyndon Johnson and with the incapacity of many blacks to be able to make good this gap in the following four decades (Katznelson,
Affirmative Action Reader pg. 244 “ those many in our society that are darker, poorer, more identifiably foreign will continue to suffer the poverty, marginalization, immersion and incarceration.” Statistics are staggering Racial Disparities in Incarceration African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population, they are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites, what’s shocking is that one in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001 and if the trends continues one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. I am for affirmative action, as I believe that when the late President John F Kennedy signed the affirmative action on March 6th 1961,
In the past twelve months various incidents have sparked a contentious debate amongst American citizens concerning the issue of race and its place in society today. A poll conducted by PewResearch after the grand jury decisions in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases exhibited the fact that a large majority of African-Americans believed race was a factor in the verdict not to indict, whereas the majority of white individuals did not believe race to be a factor at all (PewResearch). This divide speaks to a much larger social issue in this country. Currently, there are systems of social, political and economic significance that perpetuate inequality based upon race. A major problem is that the people who benefit most from these systems,
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
The issue of racism continued to thrive well into the 1960s, where numerous underrepresented groups were denied privileges that the citizens of today take for granted, notably in education. These groups were often turned down or not considered when applying for colleges based on the color of their skin. Consequently, everything changed in 1961 when former president J.F.K issued an executive order to prevent this type discrimination in the workplace as well as in education. Fast forward to today, countless of these issues have been resolved, as well as laws except for one. Affirmative Action continues to be the defining factor for college applicants.
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
In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education began to link equitable treatment to the results of the education a child received. In other words, giving the same to every child was not sufficient to determine equality without considering how the child benefited from the opportunity (Coleman,1968;Deshnes et
