By
definition, affirmative action is the encouragement of increased representation
of women and minority-group members, especially in employment. There are
different variations and gradations of affirmative action. For example:
- · Ensuring an adequate pool of historically oppressed applicants
- · Giving preferences to historically oppressed applicants
o
Tie Breaker – If equally qualified with other top
applicants
o
If slightly less qualified than the top
qualified
o
If they have at least the minimal qualifications
- · Quotas systems
Some
people may argue that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and
therefore immoral because it gives one group an advantage while putting another
group at an obvious disadvantage. They
may also go on to say that instead of focusing on minority groups, who may be
getting along just fine, we should focus our attention on poor families and
poor neighborhoods in order to minimize the disparity between the wealthy and
the poor.
Both arguments are weak; more so the
former than the latter. Affirmative action is far from reverse discrimination. Another
word for discrimination is judgment. If blacks and whites reversed the roles
that they had in the late 1700s up to the late 1900s, then there would be no
need for affirmative action because then true judgment would be passed and
whites will have endured what blacks had to endure. Since this is not what
affirmative action entails, it clearly cannot be true judgment and therefore
blacks aren’t receiving full
compensation. One might say that, the latter generations are reaping the
rewards that belong to their predecessors, which is immoral. I say, better them
than no one. Affirmative action is a
very light, painless, judgment that doesn’t give enough compensation to those who
were oppressed. But it is better than no compensation at all. To discontinue
affirmative action would be to say that blacks have received enough
compensation for their past sufferings, which is simply not true.
The second argument stating that we
should focus more of our attention on poor families rather than blacks is a
contradiction because statistics will show that many blacks are living in poverty so they still
deserve more assistance. Between 2010 and 2011, 35% of blacks lived below the
poverty line while only 13% of whites were in the same category (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/).
To give poor families an advantage would be to give many blacks an advantage.
In reality there are no plausible arguments against affirmative action.
However, I believe that affirmative
action can be detrimental to the progression of our society if it is not
well-regulated. By this, I mean that minorities should only be given preference
over other applicants if they are equally qualified by instituting a tie
breaker. This will insure that we continue moving forward as a society
regarding new ideas and innovations. It is more important to continue moving
forward than it is to dwell on the past. Tie breakers will give those who were
oppressed an incentive to work harder, diversity will increase within the
workplace, and society will continue to advance. I recognize that it is
important to make up for previous transgressions. But if we spend our time
trying to bandage our wounds from the past, we will miss opportunities to safeguard
our future. For example, there are many incurable diseases that are affecting
our families today, and if a less qualified researcher is chosen over one who
is more qualified, our chances of finding these pivotal cures will not be as
strong, and although our past may determine who we are right now, our present
will determine who we become. To illuminate my argument, consider the civil
rights movement. Arguments were not being made for whites to address issues of
the past; instead, blacks were fighting for rights regarding their futures and
their children’s futures. Where we are going is far more important than where we have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment