Discrimination

The history of affirmative action has its roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provided the initial legal basis for affirmative action for women in the workplace. Affirmative action is a policy to encourage equal opportunity and to level the playing field for groups of people who have been and are discriminated against. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmative action, “Is considered essential to assuring that jobs are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified persons, without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics.

Over the past few decades” roles for women in the workplace have increased. Many of the predominately male occupations have increasingly become more diverse. Affirmative action helps to promote diversity in employment and equality between genders. The effectiveness of affirmative action and Equal Employment Opportunity legislation has been vigorously debated for years, with advocates citing gains made by women and people of color in pay, organizational representation, and organizational status.

Women, in general, have been the main beneficiaries of affirmative action and will be the biggest losers if it is overturned. The number of women entering the professions, including medicine, law and accounting, has increased substantially in 30 years. Women of all races have increased their share of professional positions in corporations. However, women have yet to achieve equality in the workplace as the gap in wages continues. Nationally, women earn 74 cents for every dollar earned by men.

A National Academy of Science Report found that a significant proportion of these wage gaps could not be explained by factors such as education or work experience. Affirmative Action promotes the hiring of qualified people. It does not mean people should be hired just because they are minorities. It helps to broaden the range of people to be considered for employment in hopes of creating a more diverse applicant pool from which to choose. Groups of people are often stereotyped. In the case of sex stereotypes, these are attributes that are imparted to individual men and women simply by virtue of their sex.

The impact of affirmative action on women may cause them to suffer the stigma of second-class citizenship as a result of preferential treatment, because they will be subjected to the presumption that they were hired not because of their qualifications but because of their gender. Affirmative action may therefore lead to the conclusion that the women hired under affirmative action are incompetent. If someone is thought to be hired or placed as a result of affirmative action efforts, then that supplies onlookers with a plausible and compelling explanation for the selection decision ndependent of the job incumbent”s qualifications for the position.

Then the individual may be assumed to have been hired only because of her sex, with qualifications irrelevant to the selection process. Sex bias also has been demonstrated in decisions about pay raises, promotions, and employee utilization and training opportunities. Although sex may only be taken into consideration after hiring a person for their qualifications, it may only be assumed that they received their position because of affirmative action.

Sometimes, affirmative action may create rather than alleviate problems for women by causing people to perceive them as possessing fewer of the characteristics deemed necessary for success in a traditionally male work context. If affirmative action promotes these negative conceptions, then there is a distinct possibility that rather than being a remedy for sex discrimination, it can be yet another contributor to the problem. Often, sex discrimination can be viewed through the “Glass Ceiling”.

The Glass Ceiling refers to invisible, artificial barriers that prevent qualified individuals from advancing within their organization and reaching full potential. The term describes the point beyond which women managers and executives are not promoted. Although the barriers exist, it is hard to imagine how anyone can believe that treating people differently, or not promoting someone based on their sex is morally acceptable or financially responsible. Affirmative action policies are instrumental in providing women and minorities with the tools to help break through the glass ceiling, and create a more diverse workforce.

Affirmative action policies provide equal opportunity to those groups who have been systematically denied it. Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. Affirmative Action plans do not discriminate against anyone competing for any position. They actually increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach techniques. The policies developed from the Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action legislation do make a difference and are still necessary to assure a more equitable workforce.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII is presumed to promote the hiring it is designed to protect. The logic underlying this presumption is simple: by making employers liable for failures to hire based on gender, the law raises the price of such discriminatory activity and produces less of it than would occur if employers were left completely free to hire whomever they wished.

Women are more likely to be promoted in organizations with human resource programs that have affirmative action policies that consider the demographics of employees. Affirmative action in employment encompasses a broad range of actions and programs intended to ensure a fair chance at job opportunities for all Americans. Although it is suppose to eliminate discrimination, affirmative action is sometimes thought to be a source of reverse discrimination. When affirmative action was first implemented it was designed to be temporary, and now more than 30 years later it is still being used.

The definition of it has grown and become far more intrusive than its designers could have imagined. Opponents of affirmative action believe no government law, program, or policy that makes distinctions based on race or gender can be beneficial. Government mandated reverse discrimination, under the politically correct guise of “affirmative action,” has failed to help minorities in a positive manner and has succeeded in continuing the trend of racially divisive policy. The majority group in an organization may sometimes feel threatened by diversity, because it means sharing their space with people who are different from them.

Many people, both men and women, are opposed to affirmative action standards. Often, men do not like it because they think it will take away from their opportunities for employment or advancement within the organization. Some men also feel that they are being discriminated against just because they are men. Although affirmative action has been successful in helping women, they may still be opposed to the stigma attached to it if they are thought to be promoted due to the affirmative action standards, regardless of their qualifications.

Some critics believe that affirmative action overcrowds the workforce with minorities or women with substantially lower qualifications. In the last several years cynical forces have tried to use race and ethnicity to divide America by claiming that affirmative action is detrimental and unfair to the majority because the programs contain “quotas” and “preferences” for people of color and women. After all, it is often assumed that if women were as qualified, as men were, they would not need help from affirmative action.

This is a very negative connotation describing the women”s work ethic and the reason women have the need for affirmative action policies in the first place. Affirmative action is only in place to allow the opportunity for a more diverse applicant pool; the qualifications needed to perform the jobs remain the same. Both men and women can be equally qualified for a job, but the one that receives the offer should have an edge over the other candidate. Although some people view affirmative action as a form of reverse discrimination, it was originally conceived with good intentions.

It has helped society to create a more diverse workforce. Affirmative action strengthens the nation by helping to provide equal opportunities to those who have been excluded unfairly. Affirmative action programs were never intended to last forever, however they are expected to remain in place so long as discrimination continues to deny equal opportunity to women and people of color. Affirmative action in employment encompasses a broad range of actions and programs intended to ensure a fair chance at job opportunities for all Americans.

Affirmative action programs seek to remedy past discrimination against women, minorities, and others by increasing the recruitment, promotion, retention, and on-the-job training opportunities in employment and by removing barriers to admission to educational institutions. Because of the long history of discrimination based on sex and race, most affirmative action programs have been directed towards improving employment and education opportunities for women and minorities. Race, ethnicity, or gender may be but one factor considered among many others in evaluating qualified candidates.

Discrimination continues to permeate American society and results in too many lost opportunities for everyone. The simple reality is that we have not reached the day where an individual”s gender, race or ethnicity is no more important than the color of their eyes or hair. As General Colin Powell noted when speaking about the current state of discrimination, “We”re not where we want to be- We are where we gotta be. ” Reducing the nation”s commitment to equal opportunity by eliminating affirmative action programs for women and other minorities does not move us in the right direction.

Until everyone is truly considered equal, affirmative action policies are needed to help ensure equality among genders. Affirmative action has been successful in promoting the advancements of minorities in the workplace. When affirmative action is used correctly, it is helpful by promoting equality for all. When it is abused, it has bad effects on society. Affirmative action may stigmatize or call into question the credentials of the qualified minorities. I believe that affirmative action was necessary to get where we are today in terms of equality.

We have come a long way since the 1960″s. Although, I think that if we were to do away with affirmative action, we would still continue to become a more diverse society. With women and minorities in the management positions of companies it is more likely that this diversification would continue even if we didn”t have affirmative action policies in place. This would probably eliminate some of the doubt people have when it comes to women being hired or promoted just because of affirmative action. It would totally be based on her qualifications.

As of now, we cannot dismantle affirmative action and other organizational initiatives aimed at promoting equality in the workplace, and assume that sex discrimination will not occur. Sex discrimination has a long history and has proved highly resistant to efforts to eliminate it. But it is equally clear that Affirmative action as it is currently constructed, creates its own set of problems for those it intends to help. I believe that affirmative action policies will soon not exist, and everyone will be considered equal regardless of race, origin, or gender.

Perhaps more than any other sentence in our rich written political heritage, these words from the Declaration of Independence embody the highest ideals of American democracy. We should remember these words and realize they are meant for every person in society. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Affirmative action was established to practice equal employment opportunity. Moreover, in general, it is a catchall phrase that refers to laws, customs, and social policies. It intends to ease the discrimination between majorities and minorities by giving more opportunities for diverse demographic groups in various social organizations. Also, it refers to both voluntary and mandatory efforts practiced by federal, state, local governments, private employers, and schools to overcome discrimination and to urge equal opportunity into the educational system and working environments (Stephanopoulos and Edley 1995).

On the other hand, it is criticized and discussed since it was established due to its has very broad influences in America society. It is not simply a legal issue, but also an issue that affects every American”s way of life. However, it”s just like other laws and regulations, none of them can please all kinds of people. I am a supporter of the affirmative action. Some may say that this is because I am a student, and I need affirmative action to protect my opportunity of finding jobs in the future; unfortunately, they have the wrong thought.

I am Taiwanese, and I will find my job in Taiwan where there is no regulation like affirmative action. Therefore, I am standing at a very objective position to discuss this topic with you. Of course, you can always keep you opinions in minds, but please open your minds to look at what I am going to tell you. I. The historical changes of affirmative action Affirmative action was first seen at 1961. President John F. Kennedy referred to his executive order that asked all federal contractors treat the applicants and their employees “without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin” (Pasour 1989).

In 1964, affirmative action expanded its scope to prohibit employment discrimination by large employers, having over 15 employees, whether they have government contracts or not. In addition, from 1965 to 1967, affirmative action was expanded to require all government contractors and subcontractors to take it to expand job opportunities for women and minorities. Then, from 1970 to 1973, legislators evaluated and compared the affirmative action this program and status quo and made this program have more flexible goals and timetables for every organization to achieve it. II.

I-200 & Proposition 209 V. S. Affirmative Action When I heard that Washington and California have passed Initiative 200 (I-200) and Proposition 209, which are regulations that against affirmative action, I think the residents of these two states may not clearly realize what the affirmative action really is. These regulations were passed because the supporters believe affirmative action has gone too far to protect minorities and women. Furthermore, the affirmative action causes reverse discriminations, preferential treatments, and privileges at not only work places but also schools.

Proponents of I-200 and California”s proposition 209 also argue that affirmative action has led American colleges and universities to use racial and ethnic as criteria to select a significant fraction of their entering classes. They also argue that because of affirmative action, companies may hire less qualified minorities or women instead of best-qualified white males. I cannot agree! If those are true, why are most of the top level managers white males? Besides, why are women getting lesser pay than men have when taking charge of the same duties?

According to the report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission in March 1995, “a large proportion of minorities and women are locked into low-wage, low-prestige, and dead-end jobs” (Murrell and Jones). The Glass Ceiling Commission reported that “97 percent of senior managers at the Fortune 1,000 corporations were white males”(Morin and Warden A01). Also, in 1998, women were earning 75% of men”s salaries base on the same kind of job, said by Jim Hose, a Human Resource Professor of Eastern Washington University. The general pattern of male-female relations continues in modern societies.

An example like Home Depot Inc. , “it was suited by EEOC in 1997 because it hired women into low-level jobs, such as cashier, with little chance for advancement into sales or management positions” (Lerner D3). The evidence shows that affirmative action is still needed due to society”s unequal status. Most importantly, opponents argue that affirmative action causes reverse discrimination, and that is not true. A statistic shows that “fewer than 100 out of 3000 discrimination cases filed actually involved reverse discrimination and only six out of 100 cases were true” (Wilson 1995).

When the U. S. overnment stars to practice affirmative action, it creates broader opportunities for all populations instead of only for white men. At this point, white males may have some impact on them, but the affirmative action is still needed when you consider society as a whole. Another issue has been brought out by advocators of I-200 and Proposition 209, that affirmative action leads schools to select candidates unfairly. However, universities do not just look for racial and ethnic diversity when composing a class. Universities may reject some white students, but the reasons are absolutely not simply about racial and ethnic issues.

According to the date, which is based on 1996 applications for ten public Virginia universities, “show those universities selected applicants would consider about race, sex, SAT scores, class rank, and high school grade point averages” (Mcqueen A13). Affirmative action is the regulation that ensures everyone in America has fair chances in every organization. Why did legislators established affirmative action? Is it because of historical discrimination of white people against African Americans? This notion gives those opponents a very big chance to criticize affirmative action.

They argue that discrimination between blacks and whites has become history; therefore, we should not have affirmative action to deepen prejudice or recall everybody”s attention to racialism. Has our society become equal without discrimination? I don”t believe that someone is so naive to think so. Perhaps those critics just don”t want to face the truth of the status quo. There was an example on ABC news, which filmed two men that have the same education, age, appearance, and other qualities, However, one is African American and another is white.

While the white got full service in shoes store, got a lower price and better financing plan for buying a car, the African American got opposite treatments. Thus, when you think that affirmative action is enough, please consider what the real world is. The truth is that there is pervasive racism in all areas of U. S. society. IV. Four-fifth rule/Quota and Affirmative action The most common argument about the affirmative action is that many people believe that affirmative action leads organizations to not hire the best-qualified people due to some quota restrictions, such as the four-fifth rule.

The four-fifth rule means “adverse impact exists if the selection ration for the discriminated-against group is less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the selection ration for the majority group” (Ledvinka and Scarpello 143). These opponents of affirmative action argue that some affirmative action practices have involved the use of preferential treatment and privilege to achieve workforce diversity that destroyed the purity of assessing candidates. At this point, I am not going to say that there is no company that likes what they have described, but the problems occurred due to misunderstanding of those regulations.

What we say about the Four-fifth rule, or simply say quota restriction, is a goal set by government for every organization to follow. So far, there is no company which hires employees base on BFOQ (Bona fide occupational qualification), that has been charged because of not reaching the goal of the Four-fifth rule. “True affirmative action does not enshrine preferences or mandate quotas. Nor has any effective affirmative-action program ever been structured to allow unqualified candidates to take jobs over the qualified” (Redwood 136).

Everyone can have goal. By setting a good goal for yourself, even you can”t reach it, you are still going toward right direction. The affirmative action and Four-fifth rule as like. V. How do you identify the term “Best-qualified”? Can you give the “best-qualified” a definition? No, I can”t. Actually, by using “best-qualified,” this phrase is usually very subjective. Different employers have different considerations under their “best-qualified” catalogs.

Tom may be the best-qualified candidate for company A, but may not be eligible for company B. Also, “Employers have traditionally hired people not only on test scores, but on personal appearance, family and personal connections, school tiles and on race and gender preferences, demonstrating that talent or desirability can be defined in many ways” (Kivel 1996). As we know, many job opportunities are heard from informal networks, like friends, family, and neighbors. If there is no affirmative action to ensure that everyone has a fair chance at what is available, the segregation between different groups, such as black and white, men and women, will become more and more serious.

VI. Affirmative Action creates diversity for our environment Affirmative action helps organizations to find diverse and talented employees. America is a diverse country; therefore, if your company has more diverse employees, your company can get various ideas, information, and knowledge to enhance your competition. Many companies, such as Mountain Bell, have commented that “by instituting affirmative action, they not only made their employee population look like American, which is a diverse country, but also found more talented and skilled workers” (Pendleton and Douglas 1991).

Another example for supporting affirmative action is the Aire Sheet Metal, which its president, Bobby Bramlett, said that “affirmative action creates opportunities with contractors who otherwise wouldn”t know us, or give us a chance… The work comes through relationships, but that first opportunity to build a relationship comes from affirmative action” (Spencer 151). Therefore, affirmative action can let companies have various personnel to enrich companies” overall human resource and enhance companies competitive capacities. In conclusion, I just want you to recognize what affirmative action really is.

Affirmative action ensures that everyone in America has an equal chance to compete with others. It is a law to minimize the gap between blacks and whites, men and women. Although affirmative action may have some impact to white males, we still need this law to balance our society by considering the society as a whole. Affirmative action is good for overall U. S. society, especially, when people can combine those diverse powers together. Affirmative action is a long-term benefit for the U. S. society. I believe every American should support this regulation.

Affirmative action, by definition, is a program designed to favor minorities and remedy past discrimination (Cummings, p. 192). It started in 1961 with President John F. Kennedy, by instructing the federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all people are treated equally regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Ever since it started, for more than thirty years now, it has been a controversial issue regarding employment practices (Anniston).

This research paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, the pro’s and con’s of affirmative action in the workplace and in the educational system, and proposition 209. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy was the first to use affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination by universities or others that received federal assistance (Cummings, p. 192).

After it came the Voting Act of 1965, Immigration Act of 1965, The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Nieli, p. ). In 1978, President Carter created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) to ensure compliance with the affirmative action policies by the department of labor (Brown). Also in 1978 was the Bakke v. Reagents of the University of California, where Supreme Court upheld that use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission and reserving certain seats in each entering class of students for disadvantaged minorities were unlawful.

Affirmative action began to go downhill and fading away during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and later George Bush. The republicans in the White House and in congress ignored the affirmative action. Finally to the presidency of Bill Clinton, the republicans were attempting to scare people into changing their party lines by saying that affirmative action is nothing more than a quota or reverse discrimination (Brown). Just by watching the history of this issue, one can come to a conclusion that we’ve come a long way in regards to racial and gender discrimination.

Affirmative action programs offer individuals such as women and minorities a chance at equal employment opportunities and representation through positive, results-oriented practices that purposely take race and gender into account (Anniston). In the work force, minorities and women are source of cheap labor. The employers higher them to work with very little pay and little or no benefits. Higher paying jobs were always filled with white males. Even when women wanted to be as successful as that of men, they had a limit hanging over their head called the “glass-ceiling”.

But through affirmative action, women and minorities were able to get higher paying jobs and even promotions and some even going up to the professional jobs. For example, women have made significant progress in recent year; in 1963, women earned fifty-nine cents for every dollar earned by men. Today, women earn on average seventy-one cents for every dollar earned by men (Curry, p. 179). Affirmative action may reduce racial tension forcing people to interact together and work as a unit in a professional and intellectual level across racial lines (Lewis).

This program gives the minorities the opportunity to join the competition in the “white” American society and to defy the stigmas and stereotypes cast upon them by others. Some people believe that affirmative action is wrong because it discriminates. For example, and employer hires anyone because he/she is a minority, even if someone else is more qualified for the job. In this case, the employer is not discriminating against the minorities but against the majorities.

Some also argue that affirmative action programs incite racial tension (Lewis). Since employers are very sensitive about affirmative action programs and if a white male is more qualified for the job than the minority, it may stir up some tension between those people involved. And because of the tension, the employers are more likely to higher a minority, who is less qualified for the job. By doing so, the employers may have a feeling that they are left with the short end of the stick and a lesser quality worker (Wit).

If a workplace made decisions on hiring and promoting on the basis of ethnicity, such a workplace would go under. Decisions make in workplace should be merit-base; the eligibility and quality of the employee, not race-base. The outcome of the case of Allen Bakke v. Reagents of the University of California in 1974, helped many minorities to go into college. Allan Bakke had applied for medical school in University of California at Davis in 1973 and in 1974 and was rejected because they only set aside 16 seats for minorities each year.

He sued contending that he had been excluded on the basis of his race in violation of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cummings, p. 193). The California Supreme Court called the act of the university unconstitutional and Bakke won along with other minorities who could not get into college. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that although the physical factors and tangible factors may be equal in public school systems, the children of the minority group were deprived of the equal education.

Therefore they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment (Cummings, p. 182). Even though the compliance of this law was very slow, eventually all states complied with the law and made public school available to the minorities. By 1969, all the public schools in the country were trying to comply with the law. The history of the campaign against racial injustice since 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, is a history in a large part of failure (Nieli p. 79).

The law may have said to put an end to segregation and racism in public schools, but even now, the racism and the segregation still live in the hearts of American people. In 1979, the case was reopened because even twenty-five years later, schools were still segregated. Affirmative action is supposed to treat everyone as equals. But actually and in reality, it does not treat everyone with equality. When admitting a person to a college, in the registration form, it asks what race the person is.

If it were to treat everyone equally, it wouldn’t ask that question. And because of the affirmative action law and trying to comply with it, the colleges will pick a minority, who may not be as qualified, to attend the school, therefore lowering the standard of the school to match that person’s standard. The standards for all the people should be the same no matter what. Proposition 209 was proposed by Californians that wanted to outlaw programs based on affirmative action. It was passed by a narrow margin in the November 5,1996.

Proposition abolished all public sector affirmative action programs in the state in employment, education and contracting. It also permits gender discrimination that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public education, employment and contracting. This proposition means that people should not have special privileges on the basis of their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in any kind of public services where it’s funded by the government. In regards to the affirmative action issue, this proposition makes it hard for people to get hired just because they are a minority.

The proposition tries to bring balance between all the people not on the basis of their minority or majority but on their merits. When I first started this research, I only did it because the subject was well known and easy to find. After finishing the research, my opinion towards affirmative action was swayed a little. I first thought that affirmative action was an absolute good that helps the minorities of the community to have the equal opportunity as that of others. But now, I feel that affirmative action itself was contributing to discrimination.

It was discrimination against those who were more qualified in a job or in a college who couldn”t’ get in because there was a minority and the rule had to be bent a little to accept those minorities. I believe that the standards should be the same for all people and the law shouldn’t be bent just because a minority couldn’t keep u with the standards of the society. If the person is not qualified for the field, then they shouldn’t be hired, because if they were, they’re robbing another wee qualified person their job and the opportunity to achieve their goal and do their best.

It may be the case that a minority, picked over the more qualified person, might quit or get fired because they were way in over their heads. Affirmative action should not be something that the society would have to abide to. It should be a reference to when there are conflicts among controversial issues that is related to discrimination on workplace or in educational system. I believe that in the society that we live in, discrimination should be something that of the past. To believe in racism and discrimination against minorities, just wouldn”t be America.

To what extent do you think racism can be prevented in society? Racism has long been a critical issue in our society and while many measures have been taken to prevent racism, it is a controversial issue as to whether racism can really be eliminated. Many are confident that racism can be prevented, while others are not as convinced. Hence, my topic for this essay is to discuss the extent to which racism can be prevented. Perception is the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through our senses. It’s a way of regarding, understanding and interpreting something.

However while perception is an unavoidable part of our life, it has also been said to encourage racism. It is said to encourage racism through two aspects; visual and auditory perception. Firstly, visual perception is our ability to see while auditory perception is our ability to hear. Both are natural abilities that we are born with and we use them on a daily basis but yet, it can be a dangerous tool. For example, when people see a “black” person, they may immediately respond by thinking that they are inferior, because society has influenced them to think that way.

Similarly, when people hear someone with an African accent, that person can be subjected to racism because we have been influenced to think that Africans are an inferior race. In both cases, visual and auditory perception has aided in us to be racist! Another issue is that to stop racism, we first must identify what is classified to be racist and what isn’t but how do we even begin to measure the severity of racist comments? For example, in the article, John Terry was accused for racist abuse against Ferdinand.

While many believes that Terry is guilty of being racist, there also others that argues that Terry did not mean what he said as an insult but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him. The chief magistrate believed that Terry was only repeating the words that he believed Ferdinand had accused him of saying. How do we judge what is considered to be racist and what isn’t? How do we begin to measure what is a “severe” racist comment and what can be let off? If someone only said racist comments to defend themselves because another erson is attacking them verbally, should they be let off? Lastly, who has the “power” to decide whether something is classified as racist or not? However, on another note, there is a number of ways that racism can be eliminated in our society. A lot of measures have been taken to prevent racism and many campaigns and petitions have been set up to challenge racism. This has resulted in increased awareness on the important issue of racism and society has really opened their eyes and started to think before they speak.

Many people have become more careful when choosing their words to ensure that they do not offend anyone. Racist comments are so regarded with contempt that people who engage in racism are often criticized severely by society and these people can even be imprisoned. Thus, this measure has also resulted in a decrease in racist cases in our society. However, in my opinion, while racist cases have decreased dramatically, I do not think that racism can ever be eliminated completely in society.

Firstly, even though people who engage in racism can be imprisoned, this does not necessarily stop people from engaging in racism when they are alone or when they are with their close friends who share the same views as them. Furthermore, children who grow up in families that engage in racism will influence them to think that racism is okay and it is extremely difficult to change their way of thinking as its our word against their family’s. Due to the increased advancement of technology, it is also very easy for people to post racist comments anonymously, resulting in a whole new way of engaging in racism that is difficult to stop.

Thus, I do not believe that racism can be eliminated entirely, but I do believe that racism is a very serious issue and we should all play a part to try and decrease the number of racist cases in society. We should always do what we want others to do unto us, and I am sure that none of us would want to be judged based on our race. Most importantly, we should all play our individual role and to think twice before we speak and to understand that our tongue is a sharp tool, and what we say can affect someone’s life in ways that we do not understand.

For twenty-five years, positive efforts have been made to qualified women and color of people to equal educational opportunities. As a result, the participation of the underrepresented groups of our society has increased significantly. The past and the present history of discrimination against women and people of color in education have extremely limited the current generation’s educational opportunities. Until we can eliminate these inequities, positive measures would remain critical for women and color of people.

Affirmative action programs have made a significant difference to a number of qualified individuals whose talents would not have watched over without such programs. It has improved the heterogeneity and the quality of education in our schools. In education, affirmative action provides the following to make educational opportunities accessible to all Americans:

– Review of other merit factors besides grades and test scores by admission committees

– Recruit for undergraduate, graduate admissions, and special educational programs

– Provide mentoring, counseling, and other support programs.

Affirmative Action In Education Has Expanded Opportunities For Women And People Of Color But The Need Remains

If we take a closer look, many of the nations finest educational institutions had the doors firmly closed to women and people of color. Although the Civil Right Act and the Education Amendments prohibited racial and ethnic discriminations, educational opportunities for women and people of color are still limited by discrimination and stereotyping. As a result, women and people of color continue to fell behind by many educational measures. For example:

Eliminating Educational Barriers For Women And People Of Color Through Affirmative Action Has Produced Broader Benefits To Society As A Whole

Affirmative action programs have helped to increase the number of women completing law and medical school. The presence of women in justice and health care systems has given consumers more choices. The greater availability of female doctors and lawyers are the direct results of affirmative action programs at medical and law schools.

“Affirmative action programs in medical schools have increased the number of physicians of color. Data suggests these physicians fill an important role in caring for poor people and members of minority groups. Black and Hipic physicians locate their practices in areas with higher proportions of residents from underserved minority groups. In addition, they care for higher proportions of patients of their own race or ethnic groups and patients who are uninsured or are covered by Medicaid”.

Source: Komaromy et al., “The Role of Black and Hipic Physicians in Providing Health Care for Undeserved Populations,” The New England Journal of Medicine, May 16, 1996, Vol. 332, No. 20, p. 1305.

What Would Happen If Affirmative Action Were Eliminated?

The elimination of affirmative action will have devastating effects and it has already being felt in two of the nation’s largest public universities. In 1995, the University of California system’s Board of Regents voted to drop affirmative action in admissions beginning with next year’s entering class. In Texas, a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit barred public colleges in that state from considering the race of prospective students. The Washington Post (5-19-97) noted that 21 black students have been selected for next fall’s class at UCLA’s law school-an 80 percent drop from last year and the lowest number of African Americans offered admission since about 1970.

In Texas, nearly 400 fewer black and Hipic students have been offered admission as undergraduates-a 20 percent decline. The Fall ’97 entering class at the University of Texas Law School will include no African American students. Based on this data each and every civic in the nation should be alarmed. Not only that but also everyone should oppose to the policies denying entire segments of our society the full range of opportunities that our country has to offer.

Why Admissions Policies Consider More Than Grades and Test Scores

Antagonist of affirmative action is in favor to rank all applicants on the basis of quantitative measures alone. College admissions counselors and committees do understands that merit consists of just more than grades and test scores. Family income and parental academic attainment can also correlate to a student’s ability to succeed. So the college counselors and committees understands if they limit the qualifications selection by only grades and test scores that might lead to the exclusion of talented musicians, artists, athletes, and other able individuals. Schools have a legitimate reason to strive for a mixed learning environment for students that will enable them to live in a pluralistic nation and compete in a global marketplace. A practical education encourages students to interact and work with people of diverse backgrounds.

What the Courts Have Said About Affirmative Action in the Education Context

“In Hopwood V. University of Texas School of Law (1996), the U.S. COURT of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the University of Texas’s Law School’s affirmative action program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At issue was an admission’s policy that compared ‘minority’ and ‘non-minority’ applicants separately. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bakke (that race could be used as one of several factors in admission) was no longer valid. While the Supreme Court allowed the Hopwood ruling to stand, it did not affirm the decisive language of the ruling”.

Education is a fundamental virtue in every aspect of social and economic opportunity in the United States of America. More than ever before, educational achievement is connected to the economic security and the advancement for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. Schools carry a strong responsibility of preparing the future leaders of our country to effectively live and lead in a diverse society. America’s competitiveness lies in its ability to support the innovative talents of its people. In an era where educated nation is a stronger nation economically and otherwise. As we approach the 21st Century, our commitment as a moral citizen to these programs is more vital than ever.

The writer ZZ Packer’s short story, “Brownies,” is about a troop of African-American Girl Scouts from south Atlanta that takes a camping trip; unfortunately, almost instantly, imaginary tensions build up between them and Troop 909, a group of white girls; struggle that later in this story develops as the main external conflict. Arnetta and Octavia, appear as the leaders of the group, and insist that the 909 girls called one of their group a derogatory word which is the starting point of the conflict.

Consequently, a confrontation rapidly takes place between the teams, but this uarrel turns awry when the African-American girls realize the white members of Troop 909 are developmentally disabled and it becomes clear to the reader that Octavia and Arnetta probably make the accusation up. Nevertheless, the short narrative by Packer goes further than a simple camping conflict between rival teams. This story argues that when individuals have seen or experienced suffering for so long, in this case the African-American girls, they unintentionally react by becoming the agent of despair to others regardless guilt of innocence.

To begin with, it is suitable to state that the encounter of the two Brownie Troops, black and white, early in the story is mainly based on skin color differences. At the start of this narrative, Lauren, the narrator of this account says: By our second day at Camp at Cresencio, the girls in my Brownie Troops had decided to kick the asses of each and every girl at Brownie Troop 909. Troop 909 was doomed from the first day of camp; they were the white girls, their complexions a blend of ice-cream: strawberry, vanilla.

The girls n the two groups had never spoken to each other, yet the desire to fight the “Wet Chihuahuas” as the African-American girls once called the girls in Troop 909, was evident. Furthermore, later in the story, Packer reveals that the African-American girls’ prejudice, bitterness, and mistreat towards the white group is a consequence of their parents’ deep antipathy shown to the white community. “Shot” the narrator describes on page 187 “We have all been taught that adulthood is full of sorrow and pain, and taxes and bills, dreaded work and dealing with whites, sickness and death”.

In this excerpt ZZ Packer clearly points out that the aversion the girls feel towards the whites is not based on their own experiences, but rather their families. According to their parents, dealing with “whites” was a problem every adult had to face. Lauren’s statement clearly exposes the young African-American girls’ lack of reasoning on racism, and thus portrays the parents as the responsible for the children’s behavior. Resentment on behalf of the parents did indeed have a huge impact in the brownies.

Pursuing this situation further, racial segregation the African American brownies xperienced in their communities, is the major cause of affliction in the young children. Lauren affirms: When you live in the suburbs of Atlanta, it was easy to forget about whites. Whites were like those pigeons: real and existing, but rarely seen or thought about… everyone had seen white girls and their mother coo-coing over dresses; everyone had gone to downtown library and seen white businessmen swish by importantly, wrists flexed in front of them to check the time as though they would change from Clark Kent into Superman… ose images were a fleeing as cards shuffled in a deck, where as the ten white girls behind us were real and memorable community. Everything about them somehow seems to exude a kind of reigning beauty that results in an “enw and hatred” the blacks have against the whites. Even little things like hair could produce these hostile feelings, according to the fourth grader. “Their long, shampoo-commercial hair, straight as spaghetti from the box”, as Lauren describes, nutrients the prejudices that finally help bring about racism.

The orced separation that troop experienced in addition to exposure of only glimpses of White people, can explain the white girls as “invaders’ and hence, the enemy. It is not concretely clear that the White girls used a racial slur, but if they had it seemed because of their disabilities it would not have been intentional. However, the White girls may have indeed repeated what they had heard. This would point directly to prejudice that still exists in Modern day times. In society, racial conflict might be understandable among adults; nevertheless, resentment is young children must not e tolerated.

Packer deliberately sets the characters as children dealing with adult issues in order to convey a higher impact with her argument. The author intentionally presents two historically rival groups in America, blacks and whites, to prove the argument that when individuals, have experienced discrimination, prejudice, and inequality for so long, it is understandable if unintended retaliation takes place. Some of the girls in the African-American group did not even want to encounter the girls from Troop 909, yet Octavia carried so much hatred inside, that he forced all the other girls to comply with her suffering.

Octavia not only experienced the segregation everyone else did, but she also had to deal with her parents’ divorce. The reality is that when an individual is resentful, he or she may involuntarily yearn for people to suffer the same as he or she does, or did. . In the final analysis of the short narrative by ZZ Packer, “Brownies”, the most compelling evidence of the author’s argument can clearly be seen as the end of the story. The narrator retells an account she had with her father, when they were at the mall and

Laurel’s father deliberately asked a religious white group to paint their porch. Shockingly, the Mennonites could not refuse to do so because it is part of their religion to “help others”. However, it is not until Laurel retells the story when she finally understands, and explains the cause of resentment in his father. She recalls her father’s words as she was speaking: “it was the only time he’d have a white mad on his knees doing something for a black man for free”. Laurel’s father railed against whites because of the historically rivalry in the United States.

African Americans were considered slaves for more than a hundred years until 1865, and have been discriminated ever since. They worked for the white for free, suffering the worst treatment a human being can receive. They were considered property. Consequently, on Packer’s point of view, resentment towards the white community is expected even in contemporary days. Because as Laurel pointed out at the end of this narrative “When youVe been made to feel badly for so long, you Jump at the chance to do it to others”.

I am writing this letter because I want to recommend the book –“The Unwanted” by Kien Nguyen to 11th graders in high school. “The Unwanted” is a work of nonfiction and it is about the Vietnam War. This is the true story about Kien’s childhood life after the communist takeover Vietnam in 1975. In my opinion, war is cruel for people, and it causes many different social issues. The students in 11th grade are studying history, and history is a requirement subject in high school. The major theme in this book for 11th graders is the effect of war. Since teens need to study history at school, they only learn from the book.

However, they never imagine a war is always related to our life. The reason for 11th graders to learn from war is discrimination. Discrimination happens in every country and discrimination still exists in our life, especially in the United States. The United States is a multi-ethnic country, and there are many different races’ people live in the same community. Discrimination not only happens during the war, but it is also happens in school. At school, teens are studying with different races of classmates, and they have different cultures and backgrounds. So teens should learn how to get alone with each other.

For example, Kien is a mix-raced and he is a good student whom his teachers are proud of his accomplishments. His teacher recommends him to be a leader in front of parade. He is very proud and it is a good challenge for him to do his best. He wants his mother to be proud of him too. However, his dean cancels his qualification before the parade begins because of his mix-raced. His mother is ashamed about Kien’s mix-raced and she is very worry about him. When the police go to check their family status after the fall of Saigon; his mother worries about his identity.

If the police know about Kien’s identity, they might take him to jail. So his mother dyes his hair to make him looks like a Vietnamese. To dye Kien’s hair and hide his identity shows Kien is discriminated by social community. Although racial discrimination exists in our society, people take pride in mix-raced. Most people nowadays consider mix-raced kids as beautiful or handsome. However, mix-raced kids are discriminated during the Vietnam War; their fates are terrible because the communist take over Vietnam and American help their opposite side. Therefore, the communist consider American as enemies. So the discrimination nfluences teens 11th graders because they need to know more about the social problem in the war. Also, teens should learn the racial discrimination from Kien’s experience. It could always remind teens to get alone with others when they have discrimination at school or in community. Besides, learning more discrimination information also helps them to improve their historical knowledge. Another reason for me to recommend this book to 11th grader is appreciation of Kien’s hard life after the war. Now, our living standard is better than the life in war; however, some families are still facing financial problem.

Also, Kien’s life is affected by Vietnam War which he must work hard to support his family’s financial problem. Moreover, 11th graders can learn from Kien’s experience, begin to live independently. So, this is a good chance for the teens to learn a lesson from Kien’s experience. For example, Kien was living in a wealthy family, and he doesn’t need to worry about his life. However, his life has changed after Vietnam War. He works hard to less his mother’s burden. Sometimes he feels helpless because no one can help him; everyone is worrying about their life at the same time.

He finally learns how to take care of his family and earn money for his family. He is matured by his life and he acts like an adult. No matter how bad the living environment Kien has, he still accepts it. As teenagers, we should learn from Kien’s life experience to handle our difficulties. Also, this is the useful and helpful message for 11th grader; they can learn a lesson from Kien’s hard life and learn how to handle the difficulties if they have family financial problem. On the other hand, survival and hope are the most important factors in our life.

Everyone has a hope when they live in the world and works hard to find a living way. If people do not have a hope to survive, they might live like a person without soul. Also, some of people never give up when they lose their hope; they try to find their hope to survive. But some teens do not think so, sometimes they feel hopeless when they are facing difficulties without any helps. In this book, Kien is hopeless just after the fall of Vietnam. He is too little to handle all of his difficulties in his life. Because he is the oldest son for his mother, he has to take all of the responsibilities.

Kien never gives up when he is facing his difficulties. He tries his best to help his family out of Vietnam. His father is an American and he is looking for his father; he needs his father’s help, and he wants his father takes him out of his misfortune. From his difficulties to a way out of Vietnam, it gives him a hope in his life. When 11th graders study many different wars around the world, some of them might feel people in the war are hopeless and helpless; they don’t want to accept their misfortune. It also helps teens to understand even the environment is terrible, they still can find their way to live.

As a result, survival is very important in everyone’s life. I like this book very much after I finish it. I am so excited and nervous by Kien’s life changes in this book. I really want to recommend this book to 11th graders who are interest in history and want to study history, because students in 11th grade begin to study history and it is the requirement subject in high school. So, this book can helps them to know more details of historical events in Vietnam War. From Kien’s life, hope and discrimination in the war, they can get the different point of view in the book.

Also, they will learn how Kien helps his family and handles his hardship in his life. Now, the teenagers don’t understand the difficulties after the war, because they live under their parents’ protection. For some teens are mix-raced like Kien, they can compare the different situation about the discrimination with Kien’s experience. Before, I had heard some histories from my parents about the Vietnam War and I had learned a little bit at school, and I don’t know how people live during the war. Now, I can image how Kien’s life in Vietnam and how hard he lives under the community society.