English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A. To provide legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants.

B. To give Congress supremacy over the states in regulating interstate commerce.

C. To reverse the effects of years of discrimination against racial minorities and women.

D.To place restrictions on the police when making arrests.

This is a very hard question. I really need help!

2007-05-12 13:41:46 · 20 answers · asked by bb761866 2 in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

C

2007-05-12 13:44:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

This may have been the intent, but it is not the reality. The effect has become one of replacing white employees with a minority in many instances. In the hiring of new employees, the most qualified does not always get the job because the new rules state that a minority person is needed. It has turned into reverse discrimination. I am not a racist person and I beleive the most qualified should have the position. This happens at the state level here in Michigan when applying for open state jobs. I don't know about the rest of the country.

2007-05-12 13:54:33 · answer #2 · answered by doctdon 7 · 3 0

That's a pretty deep question when you really evaluate it.

Pie in the sky idealists think it's to "give a hand-up" to minorities.

Jesse and Al think it's so they can stay in the lime-light.

But the real reason has been the same since the start of class struggle. It's a tool used by the upper classes (the "haves") to keep the lower class from recognizing that they are actually capable of being better than they have been.

In the US, it's used in conjunction with welfare programs to keep the poorest family lines poor. In places like Mexico, the government does it's best to make sure that the bravest of the poor leave the country instead of staging a revolution. They claim that they want to give opportunity to move up for their poor, when opportunity to move up is the very LAST thing Mexico wants for it's poor. It's the same thing in the US. The very LAST thing the upper class intelectuals want for minorities to do is think they're as good as upper or middle class whites.

2007-05-12 14:45:17 · answer #3 · answered by teran_realtor 7 · 0 0

Affirmative Action programs are designed to take away jobs from qualified people to unqualified people. The problem isn't discrimination against minorities in the workplace it's the fact the US public education system doesn't provide those minorities with a good education that would ultimately get them the better jobs.

2007-05-12 14:12:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It became into meant to grant human beings an equivalent risk in training, housing and employment. some human beings have nonetheless slipped for the time of the cracks, are disenfranchised and can't arise with the money for attorneys to combat for them. Affirmative action has not lifted the glass ceiling purely yet.

2016-12-11 07:49:21 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It is suppose to give the minorities, women, and handicapped people a chance to obtain employment. The problem is that it doesn't allow the employer to hire a qualified person who works under his own merit. Should you hire an African American with a 3.5 GPA or a Caucasian who's GPA was 4.0? If I was a minority I would be looking elsewhere anyway.

2007-05-12 13:53:00 · answer #6 · answered by Naughtynerd 5 · 1 0

C. That is the correct answer. Affirmative action was created to help combat discrimination in employment, and education for groups that have traditionally been considered "minorities".

2007-05-12 13:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

The program is designed to level; the playing Field, and force equality. It has failed to motivate workers, get qualified labor, and some feel entitled. I think the idea has some merit but even the minorities are disenchanted by the outcome.

2007-05-12 13:52:39 · answer #8 · answered by Pablo 6 · 2 0

Regardless of which answer is correct, let me recommend you read Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' biography by Andrew Peyton Thomas; Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2001, and his condemnation of Affirmative Action, of which he is very familiar since that's how he got his education and possibilities toward where he is today. He sheds great light on it, and you'll be much the wiser for having read it. God Bless you.

2007-05-12 13:51:01 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 2 0

Your teacher wants c. In reality, AA is a system of punishing the innocent & rewarding compensating people who have never faced discrimination.

2007-05-12 14:11:18 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1 0

The original intention was C, but now all it does is tell minorities that they need special treatment because they aren't good enough. What ever happened to MLK's dream of judging a person based on their merits and not the color of their skin?

2007-05-12 13:52:20 · answer #11 · answered by WhiteTrashConservative 2 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers