Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous john smith john smith Blacks and other minority groups have been wrongfully persecuted and punished and have suffered the indignities of discrimination. As Martin Luther King stated so eloquently in his “I Have a Dream” speech, blacks should be judged “…not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Our American culture with its political, legal, and social considerations, is struggling with the idea of white redemption while offering minorities a more fair and proportionate representation in the working community. The result of this challenge is the policy of affirmative action and the many controversies it brings with it. The proponents of affirmative action argue that because of past injustices, minorities deserve special privileges. The critics of affirmative action emphasize that minorities should earn their status and not receive special entitlements. In my opinion, affirmative action is a policy that unjustifiably discriminates against the majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be eliminated or in the alternative, experience a massive restructuring. “Affirmative Action: The Price of Preference”, maintains that affirmative action has not achieved its goals, and that in some areas, it has even backfired. Steele acknowledges that blacks were wrongly persecuted, but stresses that as a result of affirmative action, “blacks now stand to lose more than they gain.” Although the intent of the policy is positive, the end result is a false effort at white redemption and an ill advised effort by the black mandate to gain power by accepting undeserved positions in society. Steele points out that instead of focusing on developing black primary education so that future jobs can be earned based on merit; affirmative action focuses on proportionate representation in higher education. It fails to address the real problem. Minorities have been denied equal educational opportunities, and a realistic policy needs to go to the root of the problem. In this case, it has been inferior education. As Steele states, “Racial representation is not the same as racial development…Representation can be manufactured, development is always hard-earned.” I completely agree with Martin Luther King. People should be judged by the “content of their character” and opportunities should be given to those who earn them. Unless it’s life threatening, handouts and special unearned status is not good for the person who receives it or for Affirmative is itself a discriminating policy, and the issue is whether the discrimination is justified. In my opinion, reverse discrimination is not an acceptable result. Is it fair to a highly qualified white applicant to law school is denied admission because a lesser qualified minority student was admitted under a quota system? Again I think of Dr. King and the simple truth of judging based on content and not color. Instead of placing minorities in positions where they may be unqualified, a more logical solution is to develop them through better education. There is another aspect of affirmative action that relates to power because the policy encouraged minorities to exploit their past victimization. This is wrong, and can instead lead to worse punishments and oppression. Steele cited an example at Stanford where students receiving as much as $15,000 in financial aid, took over the president’s office and demanded more. He called this new group the “super-victims” who were attempting to milk the system for everything it was worth. Did this demonstrate a sense of redemption? Instead of being grateful for what they had attained, the students attempted to exploit the University claiming even further discrimination. Steele’s final point brought up the idea of a glass ceiling limiting minorities’ advancement in society. Simply put, they are allowed to achieve to a certain point, but then are oppressed and fail to reach past that. The glass ceiling demonstrates the futility of a seemingly good idea. Now, instead of oppression from the less important jobs, blacks are now allowed to work, but simply can’t advance to a higher paying or more important position. Although it’s difficult to assess, there is a negative psychological aspect to receiving something that you didn’t earn. A quota places some minorities in a position where they aren’t prepared to succeed and the result is a blow to their self-esteem. In contrast to Steele’s beliefs, Tom Beauchamp’s article “The Justification of Reverse Discrimination” develops his point that perhaps affirmative action is the best solution for preventing discrimination against minority groups. Blacks have been persecuted throughout their lives, and Beauchamp argues that past injustices warrant the protection of an affirmative action policy. As a result, he concludes that affirmative action is the best solution for the aid and compensation of blacks. Beauchamp concedes that reverse discrimination can occur as a result of affirmative action, but he also feels I (Beauchamp) agree with those critics who maintain that some policies have created situations of injustice. However, I do not agree with the presumption that when policies with numerical goals create injustices they are necessarily unjustified. Equal opportunity is but one principle of justice, and justice is but one demand of ethics. We need also to take into account principles of just compensation and the public interest. Beauchamp’s logic above concedes that racial and gender discrimination is pervasive, and that simply because a policy is unjust for one group of individuals, it may be far more justifiable for another group. If the numerical goals are more beneficial for a larger portion of society, then the policy should be declared fair. Beauchamp argues that this is the case with affirmative action, and that the benefits of the other principles outweigh the idea of reverse discrimination. Most programs or policies require an analysis based upon a balancing test where you balance the interests of one group versus those of another. Beauchamp is correct in his statement that the United States has policies that do discriminate, and that the discrimination is not necessarily illegal or immoral or wrong. The key is weighing the interests of the protected group against the greater good (the interests of society). Affirmative action has created some positive opportunities for minorities who otherwise would have been denied the opportunity. As a result, the individual and society has benefited. However, that positive does not outweigh the denial of an opportunity to someone else who was equally or maybe, more qualified for the same position. All of us have to deal with discrimination daily for many different reasons. It could be our religion, the way we dress, the way we look, or our accent. We can expect it to happen, but what is unreasonable, is to expect the government of the United States to endorse a policy that discriminates in such a harmful way against Affirmative action tries to be the redeeming force for past discriminations and it also acts as the stimulus for reverse discrimination. It is the second half of that statement that serves as the impetus for my argument that affirmative action is not an appropriate means of redemption, and it causes more problems than it solves. Does it make sense to offer a solution to past injustices that will simply create new injustices and harsh feelings? No, it doesn’t, and there must be a new solution. A policy of preferential treatment would make more sense if it occurred at the source of the problem. Don’t deny an applicant a job or admission to law school simply because of his color. Rather, give the preferential treatment at the primary school or technical school level by allocating more resources (financial and staffing) to those in need of extra help. Public acceptance of this preferential treatment would be greater, less emotional, and more easily justified. It does not address the intermediate needs of some minorities, but maybe there could be federal or state programs for special training. It is not feasible to simply lower the standards. This is not as much of a government handout because it requires the individual to do something, to show a commitment, and to earn a position. Even if they don’t get the position they wanted, at least they have better tools and are more qualified for something else. Shelby Steele’s idea of development at an early age offers the best solution to a challenging and perhaps, unsolvable problem. Bibliography: " a question of fairness" Word Count: 1384
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.