Why was Affirmative action created and who has it benefited?

Question

The argument against AA seems to be the same.. reverse discrimination, yet why aren't people fighting just as hard to make sure that there are no injustices in America at all or is it the old staple "if it don't affect me then its not my problem? Why not try to change it to insure that all American's are truly treated fair? better yet lets do away with nepotism, grandfathering, legacy admission and "The hook up" all these things possibly reward the less qualified. Then we can truly have a even playing field, the fact that these are not official laws don't make them any less unfair and every one knows about them and at some point benefited. AA has helped not only people of color but women as well, they were and still is classified as an minority. I'm not a bleeding liberal and i'm not trying to save the world but I do feel that this argument of reverse discrimination is an excuse, because no where does it say give peference to to the least qualified and most of the time there not.

Answer 1

For once a sensible question about affirmmitive action! :)

Keep in mind that we don't live in a perfect world. When the laws banning exclusion of African-Americans and women were passed, the reality was that that was only the start to creating equal opportunity for everyone. There were two very real problems to contend with (and they are still with us, unfortunately). The first is that passing the law didn't suddenly make all the racists quit being racists-teh second is that you had a large population (blacks, mainly) who on the average didn't have the education, the quality schools to get education, or the resources of the white community.

So a number of proposals (some of which were not implemented) emerged on how to try to "level the playing field." Those ideas, collectively, are known as affirmitive action. Some are more aggressive than others--and I would suggest that any "AA" program should be evaluated on its merits and costs. Here's a few examples (with my opinion attached, of course!):

Quotas--this is the most obvious approach:: if 12% of the population is black, hire/let into college that many. The courts have dumped this one time and time again--and rightly so, I think. That does not constitute "equality" its government dictating its notion of a solution.

Busing: This is well-known. Personally, having grown up in the South, I can see why this strategy was tried--the extent to which white supremecists were ignoring the law was unbelievable. But ultimately, I think it was a mistake--and its rarely worked well in achieving real integration.

"Points" or other ways of weighting applications (usually to college) to offset disadvantages. The idea here is that all applicants have to meet minimum standards--but apoints system is used beyond that to counter disadvantages accruing from the fact that African-Americans have fewer resources and many are stuck in poorer high schools, etc. I'm not crazy about this--but from experience I have to say it has worked moderately well in increasing the number of students on our campuses--and there is little or no difference in the quality of the work these students do.

Recruitment strategies. This is personally the one I'm most comfortable with--and have worked with directly. At a university it works this way: various outreach programs that are used to connect to local high schools and other "youth-related" organizations incorporate a conscious effort to reach out to disadvantaged groups. This can include a number of things--for example, the university might have summer internship rograms and set them up on a "ability to pay" basis. In that way disadvantaged youth--regardless of color, etc. can participate. But it in effect gives African-American yuths a break, since that group is disproportionately poor. The nice thing about this kind of approach is hat it really does help "level the playing field" without excluding ANYONE. Other aspects of this can include having a program to reach out to such groups (and its not just blacks--I'm using them as an example) by deliberately focusing some recruitment efforts in that community--often simply by making parents and young people aware that there are real possibilities, even if they live in a ghetto. That awareness alone is a powerful counter to generations of inequality--because it brings hope.

So--"affirmative action" isn't a simple, cut-and-dried thing. It covers a variety of approaches. Some work--some don't--and some have aspects a lot of people aren't sure are fair. The idea of reverse discrimination is real enough--the trick is to have programs that avoid that and that actually work.

Answer 2

It creates misunderstanding because people assume that the hired are less qualified. AA is written as a way for companies to rid themselves of their unseen prejudices, as people in the past may have assumed that a minority or a woman could not handle the job and therefore would overlook the employee. Yes this did happen in the past, and if it happens today I am not sure as I have not seen or conducted any experiments to prove so. Many people misunderstand AA thinking it will hire underqualified people based on their race or gender, however the law states that among a pool of EQUALLY qualified people, the employer may choose the minority or woman. Any employer that chooses and underqualified minority over a qualified majority is breaking the law. Even when AA is used, it may be used for 10 people in a company of 1000. So I hardly think it's anything to worry about or that it is really as bad as people assume right now. I would question a person if they always assume an employee is there because of AA. It's not AA's fault, but their own misunderstandings of the law and misconceptions about others.

Answer 3

Affirmative action was created to provide equal and fair treatment for minorities. This includes people of color and females alike. This has benefited everyone because it closed the gap between minorities and majorities.

Its use fullness is coming to an end however. We have to find ways to adjust the programs moving closer to abilities and not sex or color. This is because the separation between the two is much closer. If there are two poor families one white and one black, in the same neighborhood same school, why should one get preference over the other based on affirmative action as it stands. The Supreme court has already ruled that it has to be changed and I am sure it will be to benefit all mankind, Men and Women.

Answer 4

Affirmative action was started to give minorities a helping hand in education and the workplace. The idea was to address discrimination in the past. Quotas are a bad idea in general, but putting focus at looking at minorities for some things helps. Diversity in the workforce and education is a good thing.

Like anything of this sort, there are pros and cons.

Who has it benefited? Well, the minorities who got jobs or into college based on their "affected class". One could argue that society has also benefited-- the theory being that those who did get ahead conceivalby did better than if they had not gotten that job or education. I think those successes have a multiplier effect. Think of it-- if you're black and see that more blacks, can get an education, get good jobs, it gives one "hope" that one can get ahead too.

Answer 5

Affirmative Action is a disaster. Always has been always will be. What happened to getting ahead based on hard work and merit? Affirmative Action is an insult to those it is allegedly supposed to help. Why should a business hire someone less qualified for a job because of the threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU? It's insane.

Answer 6

If I own Rick's Widgets, I should be able to hire, not hire, fire, not fire, promote, or not promote anyone I choose for any reason or lack thereof I choose. If an employee is free to sever the work relationship with his employer with no questions asked, why does that freedom only extend in one direction?

I'm not saying it's a smart business decision to exclude African Americans from the hiring pool...obviously it is not. What I AM saying is that I should have every right to do so. There are no laws stating I have to be a smart businessman.

Answer 7

White people are seen as racists if they speak out against AA.

Answer 8

interesting point. hope we Americans can work together and work out our problems