Discrimination

Introduction I. As once stated by John Kasich, “Affirmative action has a negative effect on our society when it means counting us like so many beans and dividing us into separate piles. ” II. My partner and I stand against the resolution which states: “Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified. ” III. We will show you that Affirmative action to promote opportunity in the United States is justified because Affirmative Action Doesn’t Work, Affirmative Action Stigmatizes Beneficiaries, Affirmative Action is not needed.

Body I. Affirmative Action Doesn’t Work A. Affirmative action creates issues in college. Sander, Richard H. “Affirmative Action Hurts Those It’s Supposed to Help. ” Triblivenews. com. 2 Jan. 2005. Web. 02 Mar. 2010. . According to Richard Sander, (law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles) “Traditionally, critics of affirmative action have focused either on its unfairness to those groups that don’t receive preferences (usually whites and Asians) or on the inherent conflict between racial preferences and the legal ideal of colorblindness.

Over the last few years, however, a new and potentially even more damaging line of inquiry has emerged — the idea that racial preferences may materially harm the very people they intended to benefit… My research over the last two years, using recent data that track more than 30,000 law students and lawyers, has documented even more serious and pervasive mismatch effects in legal education.

Elite law schools offer very substantial racial preferences for blacks, Hipics and American Indians in order to create student bodies that are as racially diverse as their applicant pools. Because these elite schools admit the black students that second-tier law schools would normally admit, second-tier schools, to keep up their minority numbers, also offer big racial preferences.

The result is a cascade effect down the law school hierarchy, leaving 80 percent to 90 percent of black students at significantly more selective schools than they would get into strictly on their academic credentials. ” B. II. Affirmative Action Stigmatizes Beneficiaries. A. B. Affirmative Action programs stigmatize minorities – studies prove Michelle Wu, senior writer, April 2, 2009, “Affirmative Action stigmatizes minority students,” Daily Princetonian, http://www. dailyprincetonian. om/2009/04/02/23248/ According to Michelle Wu, senior writer “Affirmative action may increase academic pressure and stigmatize minority students, according to a study conducted by sociology professor Douglas Massey GS ’78, “If white students believe that many of their black peers would not be at a college were it not for affirmative action and, more important, if black students perceive whites to believe that, then affirmation action may indeed undermine minority-group members’ academic performance by heightening the social stigma they already experience because of race or ethnicity,” Massey and his three collaborators wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 27. The researchers also presented another detriment of the controversial policy: “that affirmative action exacerbates the psychological burdens that minority students must carry on campuses. ” III. Affirmative Action is not a need A. B. Obama proves affirmative action is no longer necessary Joseph Williams and Matt Negrin, March 18, 2008, “Affirmative Action foes point to Obama,” Boston Globe, http://www. boston. om/news/nation/articles/2008/03/18/affirmative_action_foes_point_to_obama/ According to Joseph Williams and Matt Negrin, March 18, 2008, staff writers of Boston Globe “Leading opponents of affirmative action are increasingly seizing on Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s historic run for the presidency as proof that race-based remedies for past discrimination are no longer necessary. Influential Republicans and a growing number of policy specialists at conservative organizations, including the Goldwater Institute, Project 21, and the Manhattan Institute, are citing the fact that large numbers of white voters are supporting Obama, who leads in the race for Democratic delegates, as evidence that affirmative action has run its course. Ward Connelly, a black conservative who is leading a national effort to ban racial preferences, vowed to use Obama’s

Affirmative Action programs do not reverse the discrimination of women and minorities because everyone must rise to the challenge to succeed. The effects of the Affirmative Actions laws should not focus on making a quota if a company believes that a certain woman or minority can contribute essential value to work teams. Companies who focus on remedying the discrimination develop ways to scope out the most talented, dedicated, and sincere candidates for their wanted positions.

This is very important in the business world because you may recruit or lose the next best addition to a team because of following Affirmative Action programs. It is important to find a balance between equal rights and effective work teams. If the team is semi-functional due to candidates’ lack of skills, a company may be in trouble of achieving success through traditional standards. The new programs and laws created a way to infiltrate the corporate world with everyone with the abilities to succeed in every industry.

Companies should utilize the programs to find the perfect balance of diversifying the work force and building a legacy through successful projects. Some companies lack the abilities to use the Affirmative Action programs effectively because they search for a number to fulfill the franchise’s requirements. There is a chance of failure to occur if the company is not sincere or careful of making the final cuts when necessary in a candidate’s trial period. Read more about Tanglewood Case

At most, the candidates (women or minorities) should understand what or why they did not make the final decision during the hiring process. When enforced, the Affirmative Action programs are essential tools to find some incredible talent to add to a company’s team. It all comes down to whether the candidates find the work acceptable or unacceptable after they have experienced a taste of their future positions.

American business is in dire straits and the blame is being heaped on its leadership or, more aptly, the lack thereof. There are probably no fewer business leaders today than there were . There is not a shortage of good people, but maybe a lack of the right kind of people. People with the skills necessary to drive companies forward in a thoroughly different and rapidly changing world. I feel a leader should have several essential attributes:

· Trust. Leaders must be trustworthy, and they must trust their people, also.

· Vision. The nuts and bolts of running a business. Leaders must know where they want the company to be in the future. Also, get the whole company to share that vision. Leaders have to set the direction and get the company headed that way.

· Commitment. There will always be disloyalty among employees, but leaders need to seen as caring and nurturing.

· Integrity. A leader can”t lack integrity and still have people follow. Leaders must have values. They must have dedication to do what is right. The values of an organization are manifested on what a leader does.

· Creative Ability. Leaders must be positive. Always looking for possibilities, not perfection. This means that they must be open to different ways of doing things.

· Communication. A good leader is in constant communication with his or her people. He or she makes the rounds and knows what”s going on. Telling his people everything he can about what he knows and doesn”t know.

· Risk Taking. It is essential to be open to possibilities, and to question assumptions. Always allow people to be innovative without the fear of failure.

AIDS is one of the most pervasive and difficult workplace issues. The community, not only for their life-style, rejects people with AIDS but also because the disease is incurable. AIDS is an acronym for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, a disease caused by a virus that attacks the body”s ability to fight off infection. It now comes to be called HIV, human immunodeficiency virus. If a person is tested positive with the antibodies they are designated HIV+. It is presumable they have been exposed or have acquired the AIDS virus.

The increase presence of AIDS in the workplace has crystallized a number of concerns for both employers and employees. However, Title I of the American with Disabilities Act covers those infected. The Act prohibits discriminating against individual with AIDS.

States have different employment laws that apply to those infected. An employer can terminate someone from a job only if they cannot perform the essential tasks required for with that job. The employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to the individual”s needs and requirements. Accommodation cannot be made if it will cause hardship to the business.

Affirmative action was created 30 years age as a remedy for the under use of minority and female human resources in the workplace and classroom. The term refers to active measures and passive nondiscrimination, as means of increasing the recruitment of minorities and ensuring equal opportunity. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most comprehensive statute on civil rights ever enacted in the United States, banning discrimination in employment, voting, public accommodation, public education and all federal assisted programs.

Executive Order 11246 requires that employers with federal contracts worth more than $50,000 and 50 or more employees have written affirmative action plans. Affirmative action was once a bright synonym for equality of opportunity. In recent years, it has been entered the political lexicon, as a sinister euphemism for reverse discrimination, a bitterly divisive issue.

In recent years, affirmative action has appeared in politics. Most politicians” support either eliminating or revising it, including President Clinton, who supports a reform version of affirmative action. Changes have already begun in some states and will spread across the nation. Some critics view affirmative action as a departure from the principles of meritocracy and individual striving. Also they feel as a policy it primarily hurts white men.

With all the demographic changes occurring in our nation, it may be time to change affirmative action. The achievements of it have been great, but the premises that underlie it have changed and may require revising. The focus on affirmative action may provide with an opportunity to shift to affirming diversity.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) a victim of age discrimination in entitled to be ” made whole”, being placed in the position that he or she would have been in but for the discrimination. The act protects workers between the ages 40 and 70 from arbitrary age discrimination in employment. The ADEA encompasses issues of hiring, firing, pay, promotion and fringe benefits. In recent years, more and more employees have been filing grievances under ADEA. Faced with expensive pensions and health costs, companies are trying to find ways to minimize their burden.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) is an act that prohibits discrimination based on age in connection with all employee benefits programs. Older workers get the same benefits as the younger workers. Companies can ask outgoing workers to sign a waiver, not to sue for age discrimination. A company faces an indefinite future of court-mandated payments and damages if they are found guilty of violating age discrimination regulations.

The American ideology is base on capitalism. A capitalistic system is a system in which the means of production are privately owned. The market operates to guide production and distribute income. The terms free or private enterprise are used interchangeably with capitalism.

The theory of capitalism is founded on two fundamental assumptions. One, people are capable of understanding the natural order of the universe. Two, the role of government in economy can and should be limited. These two barriers led economist to believe that all artificial barriers affect our economic behavior. If government or monopolists who enjoyed unnatural powers in the marketplace did not interfere, the market would benefit everyone in society.

All activities in a free enterprise must return a profit. However, free enterprise is never totally pure. Every nation has values and goals that place it on a continuum between free enterprise and a planned economy. Each determines where it lays on the continuum by the priority it gives to specific values and goals.

It is never too early or too late to start planning for retirement. Definitely, early is better. Starting any time is better than not starting at all. A large number of people are not saving and investing, as they should. The more a person saves now, the more options they will have later. Maybe a person won”t be able to stop working completely, but they will not have to work as hard later. The dream of having a financially secure future is attainable, but there are a lot of sacrifices. To begin building a realistic financial plan that will allow you to retire with enough money, start with five basic dynamics:

1. Where do I stand now? That includes your personal savings and investments, your pension plans and your income prospects until retirement, as well as your debts and spending patterns.

2. How much money you”ll need to retire? Figure that you”ll need about eighty percent of your income to maintain your lifestyle after your regular paychecks stop.

3. Where will that money come from? Your regular paychecks.

4. How much time remains until retirement? Your strategy to achieve a worry-free retirement will depend on the target date you”ve set and how much progress you”ve made so far. A person can also shoot for an early retirement with the right planning.

5. How much risk you”re willing to take? When it comes to investing retirement money, risk is a balancing act. If you take too little, your investment will not grow. But if you take too much, there will be a crack in your investment that will be too difficult to repair. The more time you have until retirement; the more risk you maybe able to take. The less time you have, the more risk you may need to take.

The message here is that is can be done. You can take control and plan for a financially secure future regardless of where you stand right now.

A 401(k) is a tremendous two-fold tax shelter. Tax advantages number one: Money you contribute to the plan, up to a yearly maximum, is subtracted from your taxable income.

Tax advantages number two: Funds inside you account grow tax-deferred until withdrawn. The IRS can”t tax the earnings each year and you can keep more in the plan for long term compounding.

I recommend a person start to invest in at least a 401(k) plan. It is the hottest retirement savings deal. It eases a tax shelter power and wealth building potential. A 401(k) may be the single most important ingredient you can add to your retirement plan. With a 401(k), you can set aside a percentage of your salary, which your employer may match, in a retirement account you control. Money in the plan grows untaxed until you tap the account in retirement. If your investments do well, they win. If they don”t, the nest egg will be smaller. In either case, you bear the risk.

People find it difficult to make decisions about ethical issues. Ethical principles and standards vary widely among individuals, organizations and cultures. Business ethics are based on individual and collective moral decision making at every lever in the corporation. Standards for moral behavior are sometimes informal, but more often they explicit and embodied in a written document. Managers must decide which issues are important to them and how to identify and manage them. Here are some questions I think are important to ask one-self.

1. Have I Defined the Problem Accurately? Make sure you have an understanding of the problem.

2. How Would I Define the Problem From the Other Side? You must look at the issue from the perspective of those questioning your ethics.

3. How Did This Situation Occur? Look into the history of the situation. Make sure there is a real problem and not symptoms.

4. How Does My Intention Compare with the Likely Results? Despite the goodness of your intentions, the results may be harmful. Think about the probable outcome.

5. Whom Could My Decision or Action Injure? This issue is particularly difficult. Even a product for good use could fall into the wrong hands.

These questions could help managers sort out their own perceptions of ethical problems. The asking of questions could create discussions about subjects left to one individual. If management do not implement clear policies to instill ethical behavior through the firm, managers are likely to come cynical.

There has been a steady increase in the number of sexual harassment cases since the 1991 Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearing. A recent Supreme Court ruling that an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment, even if the employer is unaware of the incident. This should serve as a warning to business owners to develop or refine company policies.

The ruling falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which also protects non-victims form working in a “sexual hostile” environment. In essence, an employee can sue a company if he or she witnesses others being harassed, reports and nothing is done.

Follow these steps to protect your company:

· Develop and establish a policy. Your company policy should clearly define sexual harassment, list several examples and explain procedures for filing complaints and follow-ups.

· Investigate every complaint. Take immediate action when informed of an incident. Carefully research the allegations and respond with the appropriate actions. Seek outside counsel if necessary.

· Many managers aren”t sure how to handle a claim of sexual harassment. Provide training for management and staff so they clearly understand what harassment is, how to prevent it and how to handle it.

· Have a clear procedure for filing complaints. Employees should have a non-threatening process in place to report an incident, discuss any behavior they feel is unprofessional. Stress confidentially and that you, the employer, will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for coming forward. Give all the employees the names and phone numbers of human resources and other staff to contact. Provide sexual harassment training.

There are countless words to describe stress. The fact remains that stress is an essential part of life. It is inescapable and in moderation, a good thing. I think stress makes people feel vital and interested. The crucial difference between stress that clobbers and stress that invigorates is usually no more than an individual”s reaction. There are myriad ways to deflect the damages such as meditation, drug therapy or changes in lifestyle.

Stress often undermines physical, emotional and intellectual energies exactly when strength in these areas is most needed, periods of heightened pressure. The body mobilizes energy to deal with the crisis by releasing the hormone adrenaline, which causes a racing pulse, accelerated breathing, in a sense of feeling keyed up.

The next stage is less obvious but more dangerous if allowed to go unmonitored. Sugar and fats are reserved for emergencies then released into the bloodstream, creating pressure and fatigue. This when people start to self medicate with coffee, cigarettes and alcohol. Generalized anxiety, poor concentration and memory loss become common, as with minor illnesses.

Finally, as energy reserves are drained, bodily systems begin to malfunction. Sleeplessness, disruption in eating patterns and personality changes often occurs. This stage is exhaustion, which leads depression.

Employee assistance programs (EAPs) are very useful in reducing stress. Companies can develop EAPs themselves or outsource them. Experts advise companies to help workers find a way out of their stressful situations through counseling, friendship and communication.

Most people have used a brain altering substance at some time, be it alcohol, an anti-anxiety medication, or a stimulant. Such substance can be helpful in removing our inhibitions, enabling us to relax, or making us feel better about things. While most can take them or leave them, an increasing number of people are finding that using these substances is no longer a choice, but necessity. They need them to function normally and will suffer physical symptoms of withdrawal without them. In medical term, they are substance dependent or addicted.

There are myriad treatments and approaches to substance abuse. As with most mental illness, a combination of medical treatment and psychological counseling is usually most effective.

Medical treatments may alter the body”s reaction to a substance, reducing cravings, or change a substance”s effect. There is usually a mental disorder that coexists with substance abuse, depression or anxiety. For the disorder psychoactive medications are often prescribed.

First a person must want or ask for help. They may want to talk to a clinician if they feel comfortable doing so. If you have access go to mental-health clinics to speak with someone who specializes in treatment. Whomever you talk with, the issue must addressed in depth. If not seek out another healthcare professional.

Diversity means visible and non-visible that exist between people. diversity is even though people have things in common with each other, they are still different and unique in many ways, diversity is recognizing and valuing those diffrences . Equality means treating people equaly and in a way that is appropriate for there needs,equality isnt about treating everyone the same way, but it recognises that their needs are met in a different way. Inclusion is about equal opportnities for everybody of diffrent ages, gender, ethnicity,or background.

Discrimination is leaving somebody feeling left out beacouse of there colour,height,background,ethinicity,disability or there beliefs. Describe ways in which discrimination may delibreatley or inadvertently occur in the work setting? discrimination may delibreatly occur in a work palce beacouse a mamber of staff could be treated less favourable, or treated diffrently bacouse of there gender,age,race,disbility,sexuality or theire religion. discrimination may inadvertently take place when job policies are only given to you in english instead of diffrent languages . Explain how practices that support equality and inclusion reduce the likelihood of discrimination by supporting a persons equality you are treating them equaly and including them in the activities, this way you will reduce the likelihood of discrimination.

Identify wich legislation and codes of practice relating to equality, diversity and discrimination apply to own role. Describe how to challenge discrimination in a way that encourages change challenging discrimination is about providing for everybodys needs such as vegetarian meals/ information in diffrent languages e. polices and procedures,information packets. if discrimination has been taken place even if it is indirect or direct you should log it down and report it straight away this way it will be attended to much faster. explain why discrimination is wrong and link it to your polices and procedures on equality and rights . Identify a range of sources of inforamation, advice and support about diversity, equality and inclusion. There are a range of sources available about diversity,equality and inclusion

The Bane of Progress Delimitation Is something any rational member of society would Like to dispel. Discrimination is something that has stunted the growth of the great country of America for a number of years. A policy called affirmative action was introduced to prioritize the Inclusion of minorities in a number of aspects. Affirmative action in university admissions started in the late asses as an effort to Jump-start racial integration. Affirmative action In college admissions decisions has certainly made an Impact, some would argue an Impact for the worst.

Through numerous studies and endings, It has been shown that affirmative action does not Increase enrollment of minority students on a large scale or benefit them while in essence it actually hurts members of well represented ethnicities and races. Affirmative action in the college admissions process can be looked at in two ways. Supporters of affirmative action claim that affirmative action is the perfect policy to make up for the racism and discrimination of the past. Dissenters of affirmative action believe that affirmative action actually counteracts what It’s trying to do.

Affirmative action gives minorities priority over well represented races and ethnicities, despite similar standing. So, it could be understood how this controversial policy could be disliked. Affirmative action bans can and have been enacted by certain states in the US. Affirmative action bans can be perceived in two different ways by minority affiliated prospects. These minority students may decide not to apply to colleges with affirmative action bans because they feel as though they aren’t wanted or that the school Is racist and discriminating.

The situation can also be looked at In the fact that their admission to the school had nothing to do with their race or ethnicity. This viewpoint allows for a rational understanding as to why one did or did not get into a certain college. The effects of affirmative action are incredibly long withstanding. Affirmative action calls upon one’s race in an admissions decision to be a tie-breaker, but racial preferences are far more than tie-breakers. As referred to In “Mismatch” by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, colleges use a sort of “academic Index” when It comes to determining which students to admit or not.

It is a points system based on act/sat scores as well as GAP. These universities that value affirmative action instruct their admissions officers to roughly mirror the racial makeup of the applicants, which is typically 9% black. (Mismatch) So it is in adherence with this policy that the admissions officer will take a minority student with a significantly lower academic index score and add a certain amount of points so that he or she qualifies over a significant white candidate. Almost all colleges that Implement racial preferences have either an explicit or an implicit weight assigned to race.

These schools believe that they have to have a certain percentage of the student body be represented by each minority. Thus in theory throwing out any competitive white students who weren’t top tier but were academically more successful than their minority peers. These racial preferences lead too “cascade effect”. The top institutions get their pick better matched at a lower-tier school. The second tier of schools then loses out on students that would have been good matches there thus making them reach for worse matches to compose their student body and so forth.

The racial preferences when enacted create a domino effect, causing each school on the chain to have worse and worse student matches. The cascade effect is multiplied by the number of schools using racial preferences. It Just gets worse and worse for every institution as long as affirmative action is enacted. In simplest terms, students chosen by top-tier institutions that weren’t exactly qualified begin to fail and suffer. They have been stripped of their opportunities to prosper in that they have been accepted into top- tier institutions which actually aren’t best for them.

In the vicious cycle of affirmative action, the racial preferences create the mismatch effect. The mismatch effect being that minority students with lower qualifications who get into top-tier schools because f racial preference struggling at the top-tier schools thus creating a mismatch between the student and the institution. All the while that student could have prospered at a lower-tier school where their skills would blossom better. The mismatch effect has many components. A significant study was conducted by Dartmouth College psychologists Rogers Elliot and A.

C. Streets. These two psychologists noticed something was wrong with one facet of racial integration. Dartmouth was not producing very many black or Indian scientists. For the study the psychologists gathered the admissions and transcripts data on some five thousand dents form four of the nation’s most elite schools. The researchers found out that in high school blacks were actually more likely to major in science, math, engineering, or technology (known as STEM) than whites. The thing that was peculiar about this though, was the students’ academic preparation.

Students who entered the top higher education institutions with a math SAT score under 550 were only about one- fifth as likely to graduate with a STEM degree as students with a math SAT score over 700. (Mismatch) These minority students who were admitted into the top academic institutions came in with generally less knowledge. This caused these students to become weeded out of the STEM majors group because they simply couldn’t handle the course material that they were given that the whites admitted were handling well.

These minority students simply weren’t a match for the top academic institutions, not because they weren’t as gifted but they weren’t given a structurally sound previous education in high school like most well represented races were. The mismatch effect has entirely led students who have all the potential to prosper and succeed to end up failing or falling behind Just because they weren’t previously given he best opportunities. It is by no flaw of their own that minority students seemed to fail in higher academic institutions.

Affirmative action and its racial preferences actually diminished their chances of success through its counterproductive methods of implementation. Many began to realize that affirmative action was actually hurting higher education. Once this began getting realized, affirmative action bans began coming into play. Call to play the University of California. In 1995 there was a vote by the board of regents of the university to end racial and gender preferences across the nine-campus system.

In 1996 there was a vote by California voters to adopt an initiative called Proposition 209, which affirmed and extended the viewpoints on Prop 209. Those who were against affirmative action took it quite well and were quite content with the proposition. Those who were for affirmative action went to great lengths to deter the proposition. Prop 209 was incredibly hated by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (UCLA), The National Organization for Women (NOW), the NAACP, and the feminist majority.

Minorities and women alike took Proposition 209 as an assault to them. Proposition 209 outshoot the test though, and it came with many common fears. Many believed the race-blind admissions process would dramatically reduce minority enrollment. (Mismatch) It could obviously be inferred that less minority students would be admitted to the top-tier institutions, but there was also the idea of the “chilling effect”. Many feared that black and Hipic students would find institutions with Prop. 209 in effect would be hostile environments for them.

They believed the minority students wouldn’t choose these schools because they felt unwanted there. This proposition created what would become the “warming effect”. The announced ending of racial preferences at University of California schools coincided with a Jump in the rate in which blacks and Hipics accepted offers of admissions from US schools. This warming effect was particularly large at the most elite US schools, which had previously used the largest racial preferences. Minority enrollment seemed largely unaffected at the three elite campuses.

The implementation of Prop. 209 actually made the top-tier blacks and Hipics want to try and attend the elite US schools. This proposition led to an increase in the most elite schools, not Just the lower tier schools. It can easily be inferred that the aura of race neutral admission policies attracted many more minority students than it repelled. Studies ended up showing that Prop. 209 had the effect of raising five-year minority graduation rates from 3 to 7 percent points. (Mismatch) The results on effects of affirmative action bans are quite consistent across the board.

A study conducted by Peter Henries, done on the effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and the demographic composition of universities has provided immense proof against affirmative action’s claimed benefits. Henries’ study found that affirmative action bans had no effect on the common college or the common student. Although the study did find that affirmative action bans decreased underrepresented minorities enrollment and increased Caucasian enrollment slightly over time.

A finding of Winch’s study even found that “Alternatively, an affirmative action ban may increase minority graduation rates if it reduces a mismatch between minorities and the type of college they attend. ” (Henries) The study goes on to show that though affirmative action bans decrease minority enrollment in selective schools it may actually help them. As a result of Henries’ study one can infer quite a few things. First, affirmative action bans do have an impact. Not so much of an impact at major public universities, but impacts on minority enrollment at selective universities.

These bans have been shown to help, and also to hurt. Affirmative action bans are truly a case by case scenario. The grand outlook though, is one that presents bans as promoting fairness. A study by Ben Backed titled, “Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower Minority College Enrollment and Attainment? Evidence from Statewide Bans” finds quite similar results as the study done by Henries. Backed’ Henries. The most important statement from Backed’ study comes in his conclusion/ summary of findings.

Backed’ ends his study with the line, “However, the effects of affirmative action?both at top-tier schools and the university system generally?are small relative to the total population of minority students. ” (Backed) These studies leave the subject of affirmative action at a moral standpoint. Both studies show that yes, affirmative actions do effect minority enrollment at selective colleges but the effect is quite small relative to the total population of minority students. It imposes the moral question of whether race should matter when the effects are so relatively small.

The evidence shows that statewide affirmative action bans do little to harm minority enrollment or graduation, so in essence race shouldn’t be an issue. Affirmative action time and time again has harmed society. Even when numerous studies have been done and been proven to show that affirmative action is indeed unnecessary many argue that it is essential for societal progress. It is essential that countrywide affirmative action bans have to take place. Bans on affirmative action do o harm to minority enrollment and they actually help minority graduation rates.

For example, Michigan Just recently banned affirmative action, and this is something which could tremendously help create equality in admissions decisions in the state. More and more states continue to adopt affirmative action bans, as it becomes more and more prevalent that affirmative action policies are actually against what they are for. These policies create racial segregation and create a divide that is unnecessary. A person’s ethnicity or race should have no role in whether or not they get into a college. In today’s 21st century society all members are valued equally.

In years past, Americas of every race, color, and nationality have been pushing for equal rights and equal representation in everything from politics, to professional sports coaches, to jobs, and colleges. In American colleges there is a little thing called affirmative action. This means that colleges give greater higher educational acceptances to minorities than they do the average Joe. For example, one college accepts people if they score above 140 points on their point scale. However, minority groups receive 20 free points just for being themselves! Now is this fair? In a country that is trying to abolish racism, this little thing called affirmative action is fueling it.

On college campuses around the nation, the admissions office is not doing their job. They are not granting admissions to the most qualified or the most talented candidates, instead they want to make their education center culturally diverse. To do so, these education centers are granting “gifts” or giving “tokens” to these minority groups so is doesn”t look like the average Joe is all the college is made up of. Isn”t this racism at its finest? Statistically, white students have a better chance of getting into college because of their cultural background and emphasis their ancestors put on education.

The same thing is happening in work forces across America. Employers have hired the less qualified minority to make a certain quota or to have their company look more diverse. However, a new law in California government prohibits this from happening. Their new law requires the most qualified person to have the job, regardless of race, color, and nationality.

More employers and college admission offices throughout the country should abolish affirmative action. It is destroying higher education institutions, and workforces. This same affirmative action is tearing apart the greatest nation on earth, which was built on the words. “All men are created equal”, and obviously with affirmative action in place, all men are not created equal.

Poverty is a major problem in the United States today. This mind map includes the categories of individual behavior, social factors, economic factors, political factors, and cultural factors are all contributing forces that causes poverty.

For economic factors, low wages would be the variable that would lead to poverty. Families that receive low wages would barely support their living expenses. Thus they would not have enough money for programs that would aid their children”s education. Some families think that crime has better incentives than working a low paying job and thus crime could be put in as an economic factor that leads to poverty.

Not having enough money for programs like education leads to the individual behavior of illiteracy and lower education, since the parents cannot afford to send their children to upper level education. And if these children know that they have no future in higher education, they will not have the motivation to do well in school and thus dropping out of school. In turn this will lead to having low self-esteem because they know that they will basically be stuck in poverty for the rest of their lives. This will eventually lead to substance abuse because they need something to overcome their high levels of stress that is produced by low self-esteem. In turn substance abuse could lead to sickness and disease, and then could possibly lead to mental illness. Once this happens, individual behavior will cause families to be in poverty.

For social factors, discrimination would be the variable that causes poverty. Racial discrimination from an employer could lead for that person to not receive a higher paying job, in which could lead to violence from the potential employee towards the employer. In turn a crime could be committed in revolt of the employer. Thus the social factor of violence interconnects with the economic factor of crime. Also racial discrimination could lead to institutional discrimination. Thus this will lead to substandard schools in which teachers are told to split up a class and place each student in a designated group depending on their race and the teacher”s assumptions of the student”s learning ability from their social classifications.

For cultural factors, biased IQ test would be interconnected to substandard schools. These tests measure a student”s school achievement. And if there are substandard schools, the students who are placed into the higher groups, the will do better than those who are placed in a lower group. And thus these IQ tests would lead to the deficiency theory, which suggests that ‘the poor are poor because they do not measure up to the more well to do in intellectual endowment.” Also the social factor of racial discrimination is interconnected to the cultural factor of minority race. Those who are the minority, the main culture will produce basic assumptions about minority”s abilities to be successful or well to do.

For political factors, meritocracy would be interconnected to minority race. Meritocracy basically is the social classification by ability. Thus the assumptions produced will the levels of ability. The power elite produces meritocracy. These are the people who believe that ‘the fundamental assumption of capitalism is individual gain without regard for what the resulting behaviors may mean for other people”, especially those in poverty. Also the poor are not significantly counted in the US Census, so the government is misinformed on the levels of poverty.