Affirmative Action

Affirmative action was a huge step for America back in the 1960's but is it still relevant now? After passing new anti racism laws america was on the right track to equality and a "level playing field" in the mid 1900's but after all this time are they still ethical? Honestly, I can play both sides of this argument. I can see why someone would say having these laws in 2013 is immoral because of the fact that racism shouldn't exist in america anymore, but unfortunately racism still exists and minorities are safer with this law. I believe these laws are moral and should stay in place until racism is completely abolished, which is something I don't see happening any time soon.
I believe in the level playing field argument, and the argument for compensation from those who innocently benefited from past injustice because minorities deserve equal rights and people who have harmed them in the past should compensate them. I do not believe in the Compensation argument for preferential affirmative action because i do not see the whole white society paying blacks for compensation being fair. The people directly involved should be the ones paying not people who had nothing to do with it. Certain people should be forced to compensate but not everyone.
without a doubt, affirmative action will continue being a part of American culture for many more years to come. Hopefully within the next few decades racism can be abolished and the memory of affirmative action goes with it. A society where color does not make a difference is what we should all aim for to not only better ourselves but to also benefit the planet.

Affirmative Action: is it still fair?

Tonishia Signore                                 Affirmative Action

I believe that affirmative action was a necessary and worthwhile cause when it was first implemented however in today’s society it is no longer applicable. I believe it is no longer moral or necessary because the people who were being oppressed (Blacks, women, etc.) are now offered (basically) the same opportunities as say, white men. I do not believe with my coming generation that gender or color will be as much as a dividend as economic classes. For example, just because a person is a woman does not mean that she cannot go to college, however if she is a woman with little money, raised in a poor neighborhood, her chances may be less. In further argument I believe very simply it is unethical to give a scholarship to a wealthy black student, over a poor white student, simply because the black student is a different color. Assistance should be provided based on need, no matter what color, gender, or religion a person is.

think it is fair to say that still applying affirmative action in today’s society is a serious form of reverse discrimination. According to certain forms affirmative action, if a person has fewer qualifications, but is a historically oppressed minority and is applying for a job alongside a non-minority, they will still receive the job. How is that fair? Even if the person in the majority has worked their absolute hardest and made huge sacrifices, it would not matter. Simply because they are white they will not be given the job. My personal standing is that people are people, color or religion should never be a factor. Whether the decision be a job, college, scholarship, advancement opportunities, or any other wide range of possibilities, it should not be based on physical characteristics but rather social and economic facts, which prove necessity. 

Affirmative Action

I believe that affirmative action can be considered to be moral to an extent and in a certain situation.  Situations that include two candidates for either a job, education or any other kind of position in which you compete for a role where both are equally qualified.  In this situation affirmative action should be taken place since those who are usually part of a group that is discriminated against don't usually get the position.  It should be given to them because the group that they belong to can easily be the minority of what they are applying for and if they are given the opportunity there might no longer be a minority.  

Although, in any given situation gender, race, religion or any other reasoning for discrimination should not be the deciding factor but when it comes down to it no matter what it usually does play some role.  In such situations where the first candidate of a minority group is more qualified then the second candidate who usually is not discriminated against and the second candidate gets the position then this is when affirmative action should come in place.  An example of this might be a black man who is more qualified then a white man although the white man gets the position because of the color of there skin.  This is when stereotypes come in, and when one is in a position of hiring someone the word stereotype should not be in there vocabulary.  The candidate who is more qualified in any given situation should be the one to get the position.  Just because one might be a different race, gender, poor or rich this should not give one a reason to belittle them.  One should not be bias to a person who might fall under a certain group, if one is qualified for something they deserve it more then anyone else.  Those who have jobs should have them for one reason only which is because they not only deserve it but because they are qualified not because they are the race and gender that the person hiring is looking for.  It is thought to be that when in a position of hiring they are usually looking for a white male however this is not always the case.  An example could be a nursing position a female is usually picked before a male is because females are usually raised to be more nurturing then males.  Again this is when affirmative action should come in place because no one should be discriminated against for the person that they are.

Affirmative action

I believe affirmative action to be immoral on all its levels. It doesn't make sense to try and solve perceived inequality with more inequality or seek compensation from those who had nothing to do slavery. On college applications bubbling in and identifying your race shouldn't qualify or disqualify you for anything, it should be based upon your accomplishments only.

One of America’s greatest and longest standing principles is meritocracy. It should always be the best man for the job, the most qualified; the one who has put in the time and work to achieve their goals should achieve them and not be disqualified because they are not meeting a quota or share a similar background with those already in the field. Not only is it a disservice to those qualified individuals who have to give up their spot because they are white, rewarding hard work with injustice, it is also a disservice to blacks. Affirmative action take the position that blacks aren't otherwise qualified or don’t merit jobs on their own and therefore must step  in, rewarding lazy behavior or reinforcing negative stereotypes. Affirmative action also serves as a detriment to society. If I or one of my family members was severely injured and the first responders have just the minimum qualifications and were given the job over more qualified applicants that can make a huge difference in somebody’s life.

We can never put racism truly in the past while we still have institutions such as affirmative actions that flaunt favoritism and reverse discrimination.  Affirmative action is guilty of the very thing it was it was created to address, racism.

                

Affirmative Action

I believe that Affirmative Action was once helpful to society. Since the U.S. has changed majorly from when it was created there needs to be provisions to the law. I believe that it is important to help people that need to be helped but it does not necessarily apply to the group of people that it has in the past. Affirmative Action is immoral and should no longer exist.

There is no need to help people get a public job or into a public university. Those people admitted should be qualified based on their abilities not what race or gender they are. Allowing people that are less qualified to get the position is not efficient to society it is immoral. It would make most sense to give it to the most qualified applicant based on ability not race or gender.

Affirmative Action may have helped some individuals in the past but also could have hurt people through reverse discrimination. It is immoral to have to deny someone a position because the company needs a female or a person of a different race. People may argue that people of a certain race deserve the position because they are qualified but a white male may be more qualified for the position and therefore should have the job. It is immoral giving the job to a person less qualified. Not only does it hurt the company it also hurts the person being denied.

Times have changed and people that need assistance get it through other means. Affirmative Action is not helping society thrive it is hurting society. There might still be discrimination but Affirmative Action is not helping the cause it might actually be making it worse.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

 

Aaron Edwards

I don’t believe affirmative action is moral. Being that to accept an individual by offering them a job or be accepted in college because they are a minority or women.  Due to the fact that you’re a minority or women you’re not qualified to work or go to college.  I believe that whether or not you are minority or women you should meet some type of requirements to get a job. If you don’t meet them then you should not be consider for job. But you can argue that affirmative action has helped a lot of individuals in a good or bad way with school and work. Discrimination is still alive in America so that affirmative action will not work everywhere because people will not allow women or minority an opportunity.  Since I am black man and considered a minority I don’t want to get a job just because of that I want to work for what I got so at the end of the day I can say I was taught the right way to make a dollar. The way to make a dollar is buy hard work of course as a human you want things giving to you that are a natural characteristic but you don’t want everything given to you. Then you will not want to work for anything. Which will make you become lazy and think you have the right to everything. So there is good and bad in affirmative action you just have to be the judge of it.

 

Affirmative Action

Although some may make the point that affirmative action encourages the continuation of prejudice, the ugly truth is that they would still exist without it.  Humankind has not reached a point of total acceptance of all beings and getting rid of affirmative action is not the solution to that.  However, in the combat against prejudice affirmative action is merely a band-aid.  It is truly shameful to think that in the year 2013 superficial features still play a role in how people are judged in general aspects of life, as well as career and educational processes that have nothing to do with one’s ability to do their job.  Without affirmative action employers with an agenda against a certain group would easily discriminate. 

In the case of affirmative action, the person applying for the job or for admission to a school must meet AT LEAST the minimum requirements.  So it is not the case that many critics of affirmative action argue that employers are hiring incompetent people just so they can fill a legally required percentage. 
  It is also important that veterans be included in affirmative action.  Whether they saw combat or sat in an office, veterans made a sacrifice in honor of our country.  To discriminate against this group because of disagreements with military, or fear of post-war problems such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be dishonorable.  It is important that after serving their time veterans receive no discrimination and the same opportunities as non-veterans.  Additionally, blatant and accepted discrimination of military members could possibly discourage potential members from joining, thus weakening the United States military as well as weakening the honor and appreciation that it deserves.  Until it can be proven that prejudice no longer exist affirmative action is a 100% necessary system of containment. 

Affirmative Action

Jackie Faugno

Individual Blog Post #4

I do not think affirmative action is moral. To accept an individual into a college, or to offer them a job based on the fact that they are a woman or a minority is wrong, just as it is wrong to deny the individual acceptance into a college or a job offer based on their gender or race. I think college admissions and job acceptance should be based on merit. If you are not qualified for a job position, then you should not receive it. It is unfair to both the employee and the company, and I believe the same goes for college admissions. If the candidate in both scenarios cannot handle the workload expected of them, they will suffer by getting bad grades, being stressed out, or, worst case, getting fired or put on academic probation. The same is true for the college or employer; their reputation will suffer if they have individuals attending/employed that are not capable of performing up to their standards. I also think affirmative action is just another form of discrimination, just, in the case of affirmative action, the discrimination is against a majority group in favor of a minority group. I believe all forms of discrimination are wrong and immoral, and this situation is no different. As a female, I would not want to receive a job offer/college admission just because of my gender. I want to get one because I worked hard to prove myself as the best possible candidate. I do not need any favors. As I said before, it is unfair to both parties involved, and could have unwanted consequences. I think job offers and college acceptances should be based on merit, not gender or race.     

Blog Post #4-- Affirmative Action

Jeff Latimer
I think that affirmative action is moral so long as it is given to someone when there is a tie and both candidates are equally qualified.

Just because someone is a certain color skin or gender does not necessarily mean that that person is at a disadvantage in society. There are many women and black people who are more well off than white man. Just because someone is black does not mean they are poor, just because someone is white does not mean that they are rich. To assume that someone is poor just because of their skin color only underlines the stereotype. However, it think that most stereotypes have some truth to them. So if candidates for a job are at a tie than it would be the moral thing to do to give the job to whoever is assumed to be at a disadvantage. If people hire people just because of their race or gander than it is reverse discrimination. If we hire a person just because they are a minority or female then we are just putting white people at a disadvantage. People should work jobs that they are qualified for. If people hire with a bias towards people of a certain race/gander than it will cause people of that race to tell themselves that they don't need to do as good in school or college because they are a minority. It will kill peoples motivation. People will also say that a person got hired because they are a certain race rather than their qualifications. If people who aren't fit for a certain job are hired the work will not be done correctly. There might be more casualties at the work place, customers will get mad, and more money will be spent.

Even thought some groups of people are at a disadvantage in society, it doesn't mean that they should get a job over someone that id more qualified. However, if there is a tie between two candidates it essentially dose not matter which person the employer chooses, in that case, the employer should pick the person who is at a disadvantage.

Gun Rights

Cody Fitelson Jose Collado Geoffrey Kiarie Gabriella Sampaio

 

The debate on gun control is a very complex issue. Everyone has their own opinions and many of these people are extremely passionate on this issue. Right now in the United States there are an estimated 310 million guns circulating this country (GunPolicy.org). That is a crazy number when you think of it. There is a little more than 300 million people in America, which means that there are more guns in this country than there are citizens. As disturbing as a fact that may be, it’s nothing compared to this next fact. Every year, over 30,000 people die from gun related deaths (GunPolicy.org). This incorporates suicides, accidental deaths, and murder with any type of gun.

It is the opinion of our group that guns should be legal, but regulated. It is clear that the right to bear arms is in the 2^nd amendment of our constitution and that the government should not infringe upon this. In a perfect world, we would have no guns, but that will never happen. Although guns are legal, there should only be certain guns and bullets that the public can purchase. The guns we would allow the public to buy are handguns, shotguns, and certain types of rifles (like bolt action rifles which are primarily used in hunting and shooting for sport). When the constitution was made, there was only a single loading musket that took about 40 seconds to reload. Weapons have changed and assault rifles are used for one purpose, killing. Guns like the AR-15 should only be used by police officers and military personnel. In addition to banning certain types of guns to the general public, there should be magazine limits as well as restrictions on armor piercing bullets. A typical handgun holds anywhere from 9 to 12 bullets. There is no need to have a clip size of 24 bullets in a handgun, nor should it be legal. The shooter in Tucson had extended magazines which enabled him to continue shooting without reloading for a longer period of time.  Armor piercing bullets as well as extended magazines should both be illegal.

We believe that if the government regulates gun sales, enforces gun laws, and strictly punishes those who disobey the law, then gun-violence will decrease significantly. After thorough discussion and re-visiting certain disputes, we agreed that gun violence is a major issue, and while it is a right to own a gun, it should be heavily regulated in order to prevent catastrophes that are not only becoming more frequent, but also more severe.

Lastly, gun regulation has become a necessity, simply because technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that guns are becoming more lethal with each passing decade. At the time that the constitution was drawn up, the deadliest weapon available was a musket which fired one bullet and took 40 seconds to reload. In modern society, people have access to weapons that can let off hundreds upon hundreds of rounds in the time it takes to shoot and reload that old musket. Gun regulation was not a debate in the 18th century because people couldn't do much damage with the weapons they had, even if they wanted to. Today, all it takes is a kid who is having a bad day and has access to his dads AR-15 to yield a mass killing.

We are not saying, “Eliminate the second amendment.” We are not saying, “Americans do not deserve the right to own guns.” And we certainly aren't saying, “If you own a gun, you will become a mass killer.” But what we are saying, is that if government doesn't take affirmative action, and they continue to allow any 18 year old to walk into a near-by Cabela's and by hunting rifle's at his own whim, these tragedies will continue to get more severe and we will lose our sense of safety in a country where too much freedom has clearly become poisonous to its' citizens.