Category: Affirmative Action

Introduction to the Concept of Fairness and Equality

Fairness is based on what? Fairness is an impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination. I am a firm believer in this concept, and I believe a man, or a woman is free to choose a path in their life that is both challenging and fulfilling. These paths that each of us choose can be achieved through hard work and determination. We all want a chance to achieve a goal or a dream and an equal chance to do so. Equal chances for job opportunities, equal chances to be enrolled into schools, etc. The successes of people should not be based on race, gender, sex, ethnicity, but on individual achievement. These things that classify us as people are not negative things, unless they are treated as such. They are not qualifiers for success, disqualifiers, or roadblocks holding us back.

The Historical Context and Shortcomings of Affirmative Action

Many of the policies in society began as ways to bring diversity into higher education, opportunities for jobs and to achieve equality. They have fallen short of their intended purposes. Policies such as “Affirmative Action”, whose procedures were put in place in the 1960s during the civil right movement to give historically minority groups including women, equal opportunities in the workplace and in education. However, although this policy was great and perfect for its time to correct a long historical past of discrimination it is now out of date and miss-interpreted by colleges and universities who use quotas and points systems to close the gaps in enrollment. Is this fair? Accepting students based on skin color or gender rather than the grades, test scores, or other qualifiers? I think not. This system is outdated and needs to be re-formed so as to give equal opportunity to all students.

If you took a person not from this country and someone that had no idea of the Affirmative Action policy and introduced them to the basic values and processes of this policy, they would recognize that it is most definitely discrimination based on of race, sex, gender. Whatever the case may be for why this policy started I think that it is important for all people discussing the topic to think about who it benefits or more specifically what are we as a nation getting out of it? Some say it is to bring diversity into school systems. To bring members from all walks of life together to learn from one another. If this is the reason, then I don’t think a lot of people would be arguing.

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Minority Communities

Does Affirmative Action help the black community as far as reaching the disconnected class? Those who don’t have jobs or are not applying for schools? As far as I can tell it is helping those in the black community who are already excelling. Those in the black community that don’t necessarily need it, students that are at no disadvantage, but that are now held to a lower standard of excellence who are handed a great advantage over others. It has help students who are applying for med school, master’s programs etc.… wouldn’t you say these people are capable of getting in without the people helping their cause along? They have already been competitive enough and are among the top of their classes if that is the case. It has not helped the intended community that has fallen behind get better educations, better jobs or any amount of progression at all.

Evaluating Affirmative Action’s Effectiveness for Women

Have these policies helped the women in our communities? In recent studies women who now graduate at higher rates than men by more than two percent are still not being paid competitive wages compared to many males with similar or even lesser degrees. Does this seem like affirmative action has actually come up with a real solution? It seems these policies do not actually have the answers. This is why I don’t think Affirmative Action is helping our country, it sounds good when others advocate for it, but the numbers don’t match up. Women work the same jobs as men, yet they are not being promoted to leadership positions, they are not paid fairly, and they are more than qualified. Affirmative action may have helped them get through school, but if it hasn’t helped them significantly in the job market does it really matter at all?

Although the ideas of “Affirmative Action” began as a way to mend of society it has started what some are calling “reverse racism” both in higher education and in the work force. Those people who have work just as hard are now being punished because of their ethnicity or gender. Does this seem to be a fair system where the smartest and most qualified are accepted? Or is it a system where ‘fairness’ has become a twisted idea of punishing others for the cause of diversity?

The Need for Alternatives to Affirmative Action

Contrary to what advocates for Affirmative Action may say, it is time for a change. There are a few alternatives for Affirmative Action, alternatives that can help develop a system that answers the some of the questions surrounding the issues of equal opportunities in work, education and job promotions. Solutions like making changes in student admissions to allow more low-income students to attend. Another would be boosting financial aid. Finally, administering better recruiting and support systems for low income students to retain and help those struggling with tuition. These are just a few but certainly not all the alternatives that could possibly give students more equal chances to have success in education admissions, which will in turn increase job opportunities and promotions within those jobs. These alternatives have already been in use and have proved the race and gender-neutral systems can replace old the older policies that no longer deliver.

Student admissions that facilitate students from low income homes have been battle tested in schools and universities. Plans such as the Texas ten percent plan who examine the students in low income district and take the top ten percent of that graduating class and admit them into the school of their choice. (Citation) This is a system that could be a replacement for Affirmative Action, giving precedence to socioeconomics rather than race alone. Students that didn’t have equal opportunities in education, extracurricular activities out side of school, and home living situations but still had success despite these hardships a leg up to be admitted into college.

Another alternative that has been applied to certain colleges in Nebraska calls for a boost in financial aid for students. This program has help many students who find themselves balancing having to much family income to be considered for Pell Grants or other financial aid while at the same time not being able to have college tuition as an affordable option. The president of Nebraska university told the student residents of Nebraska that if they could meet all the requirement for the college admission system that they would be eligible for financial aid and pay no tuition for the undergrad programs. By requiring students to meet certain requirements whether that be GPA while attending they can monitor those that still qualify for these grants and those who do not. Universities of Nebraska is attempting to close the gap for those that think that college is out of reach because of financial circumstances. In the 2008-2009 year 4300 students were admitted into Nebraska University and received more that 3.5 million dollars to assist those students through the Collegebound Nebraska program. A policy like this could help bring equality to a certain extent into the Education system. Although there are some flaws in this system it is a step in the right direction. (Citation)

Implementing Socioeconomic-Based Solutions for Equality

One more alternative that has shown a lot of promise in the quest for equal opportunity is low income student recruiting and support systems such as the “American Talent Initiative” which spend a lot of the efforts reaching out to first generation and students who come from low income families. Thirty colleges and universities decided that they would make a greater effort in recruiting and admitting students with financial needs into their schools. They stated that one of the goals of the ATI was to “enroll an additional 50,000 such students at 270 selective colleges and universities by 2025.” Students that are talented and capable across the country are going to be given opportunities, otherwise lost to them, to go to college all across the country because of this group of people who will give them support. This will not only help these communities but also bring about a great change for diversity in race, gender, culture to the universities and colleges that join the “American Talent Initiative”.(citation)

Work Cited

1. “Americans with a College Degree 1940-2017, by Gender.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/.
2. “Applicants and Matriculants Data – FACTS: Applicants, Matriculants, Enrollment, Graduates, MD/PhD, and Residency Applicants Data – Data and Analysis – AAMC.” Association of American Medical Colleges, www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/.
3. Anderson, Nick. “Selective Colleges Pledge to Recruit More Low-Income Students.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Dec. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/12/13/selective-colleges-pledge-to-recruit-more-low-income-students/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.63706cba5da5.
4. Bautsch, Brenda, and Suzanne Hultin. Affirmative Action | Overview, www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview.aspx.
5. Collegebound Nebraska Makes College More Affordable for More Nebraskans. 2008, www.nebraska.edu/docs/students/CollegeboundNebraska.pdf.
6. Daughtery, Lindsay, et al. “The Texas Ten Percent Plan’s Impact on College Enrollment.” Education Next, 3 Mar. 2016, www.educationnext.org/texas-ten-percent-plans-impact-college-enrollment/.
7. Intern. “The Future of Affirmative Action.” Boston Review, 11 Apr. 2019, bostonreview.net/forum/susan-sturm-lani-guinier-future-affirmative-action.
8. Potter, Halley. “Affirmative Action Alternatives.” The Century Foundation, 5 Oct. 2016, tcf.org/content/commentary/affirmative-action-alternatives/?agreed=1.
9. “Texas Medical School Will No Longer Consider Race In Admissions Decisions As Part Of Deal With Education Department.” Kaiser Health News, 10 Apr. 2019, khn.org/morning-breakout/texas-medical-school-will-no-longer-consider-race-in-admissions-decisions-as-part-of-deal-with-education-department/.
10. “The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions (National Center for Education Statistics).” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72.

Anti-discrimination law is a highly debated topic in today’s society. With non-governmental organizations lobbying for equality and the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by most nations, there has been a concerted effort to eliminate all forms of discrimination. However, this eradication of discrimination does not come without a cost. In recent years, the polarising concept of ‘affirmative action’ has garnered much attention. This essay will analyze a common argument made against affirmative action – that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination, and assert that this argument is weak. The essay will then conclude by arguing that affirmative action policies should still be practiced alongside the use of safeguards.

Compared to the history of anti-discrimination law that spans 130 years, the history of affirmative action is much shorter. Developed and conceived in the United States in 1961 by President John F Kennedy, the first-ever policy on affirmative action required all employers to ensure that ‘applicants are employed . . . without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin’.

Over the years, the application of affirmative action policies has become rife in the education and employment sectors. Affirmative action seeks to address the ‘phenomenon of historical and present disadvantage for groups including racial minorities and women within societies around the world’. For the purposes of this essay, affirmative action is defined as the practice of favoring individuals based on their possession of a protected attribute, as compared to another without that attribute. In Victoria, a list of protected attributes can be found under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and includes amongst others, sex, race, and age.

Legislating for affirmative action in Australia was highly controversial. Affirmative action, also known as ‘special measures’, is implemented both at the Federal and State levels. To list, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) is but one of many institutional levers advocating for a change in the labor force participation of women in Australia. Under this Act, special measures are permitted for the purposes of achieving substantive equality between men and women.

A common argument made against affirmative action is that it is a form of reverse discrimination. When a benefit is conferred on a group of people on the basis of the protected attribute, persons without the protected attribute are discriminated against as a distinction is made on the basis of that difference. Such a premise may be illustrated through the following example – similar to how blacks and women have been historically discriminated against by white males, white males would also, by virtue of affirmation action policies, be discriminated against on the basis of not possessing the protected attribute. By treating similarly situated people differently, a breach of procedural justice is also observed. Therefore, discrimination against white males (people who do not possess the protected attribute) should be classified as being of the same evil from which traditional discrimination of women and blacks (people possessing the protected attributes) have evolved. This was further substantiated by Thomas J who held that ‘discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice’.

Under such a premise, proponents against affirmative action will construe such policies as being a license to discriminate. Furthermore, the argument that affirmative action exists to redress historic disadvantages carries little weight. If it were the case that the disadvantage (possession of a protected attribute) was the real concern, this disadvantage should be the sole criterion for the benefit to be conferred. However, given that such disadvantages are but one of the indicia under affirmative action policies, it is innocuous to award a person with the benefit simply based on that disadvantage – doing so would simplify the continuing debate with the simple proposition that two wrongs make it right.

Affirmative Action is a policy that was developed in the 1960s to address inequality in education by taking race and gender into consideration in order to benefit a historically underrepresented group.

Affirmative Action is the practice of taking race, gender, sexual orientation, and more into consideration in order to benefit a historically underrepresented group. Affirmative Action was a program based on ending discrimination, but it has only made discrimination worse. It has caused segregated dorms and many minorities to be compromised. Instead, grades, test scores, and extra-curricular involvements are being pushed aside in lieu of a person’s race.

Colleges are claiming that through the use of affirmative action; their campuses can be diverse campuses. However, affirmative action does not lead to true diversity. Diversity of opinion is important in an academic community, not racial diversity. Affirmative action provides an advantage to some people because of the color of their skin. This is not an attribute that is relevant to the academic mission of a college. Affirmative action gives preferential treatment based exclusively on race, which is a purely external characteristic. Affirmative action causes deserving students to not be accepted into a college that they applied for and were very qualified for entrance to this particular school. Sure, if someone doesn’t get into their first college, then they still have a chance at getting into another. Should that rejection be based on their achievements or skin color? The student who goes to a college preparatory high school, earns exceptional grades and who is involved should be admitted into college, with affirmative action, the less qualified student gets accepted in his or her place even though they are not equipped for the level of studies the university requires. Why should the underqualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Japanese boat refugee? Debates like these have led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote ‘diversity.’ This same push for ‘diversity’ also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies, and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies. But if ‘diversity’ were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption, that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives, is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way. In many cases, affirmative action does not achieve its goal of helping disadvantaged minority groups. What it does is perpetuates socioeconomic inequalities by making it easy for members of racial minorities from privileged backgrounds to get into prestigious colleges while not helping members of the lower classes. Affirmative action not only causes segregation, but it also has caused minorities to become compromised. At one time, it may have lessened the severity of discrimination, but now there is no need for it because affirmative action is making discrimination worse. It is unfair to judge applicants on anything other than their merits. There are numerous factors that a college should take into account when considering applicants’ grades, test scores, and extra-curricular activities. An applicant’s race is not a legitimate factor to take into consideration because it is outside of the student’s control. It is impossible for a college to consider every aspect of a student’s background when making decisions on whom to admit. Why focus on race when there are so many other things that differentiate students from one another?

Supporters of affirmative action may argue that it helps the economically disadvantaged. Students who are too poor to even consider college can now have a chance for admittance into some competitive colleges. However, studies have shown that “…preferences primarily benefit applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds” (Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution 1). It is a noble thought to desire in assisting the poor. If this is truly the goal of affirmative action, then the color of one’s skin should not even be a consideration. Income and lifestyles, such as single parenting or large families, should be. If we do eliminate racial and ethnic preferences in college admission, however, we should not ignore the underlying problems that leave many more black and Hispanic students ill-prepared to compete at our best universities. Instead of insisting on racial and ethnic double standards in college admissions, civil-rights groups ought to be more focused on what goes on in elementary and secondary schools across the country. The quality of education in our inner cities is appalling and shows little sign of improvement. Yet the same groups that advocate preferential admission policies at universities and colleges oppose all efforts to provide poor black and Hispanic students the opportunity to attend private or religious schools through vouchers or tax credits.

Colleges should not continue using Affirmative Action. Affirmative action may have been implemented over twenty-five years ago to promote diversity but instead has actually kept discrimination going strong. Affirmative action denies a person who deserves to go to their first pick college and allows a less qualified person to go because of their race, and not their accomplishments.

Affirmative action laws began when in the early 1960s judicial rulings believed it to be a duty of local school boards to desegregate areas that were formerly in dual school systems under the Jim Crow laws and to eliminate the remnants of institutional racism in schools. The next step in the process came a few years later when the legislative and executive branches of the US government decided to implement laws and regulations that authorized pro-diversity hiring and admissions processes for jobs and schooling. The desired effect of these laws, coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its equal employment and Education Title VI, was to remedy the years of institutional discrimination that had disadvantaged minorities for so long. The way Title VI was interpreted by the Department of Education meant that it required schools and colleges to take “affirmative action” to restitute the injustices of formerly racist laws, thereby giving advantages to minorities in the college admittance process. Having been in practice for more than 40 years, this policy has long been a source of debate from the home to the hill, with proponents of both sides citing moral injustice and fairness as the reasons behind their opinion.

There are a few very clear advantages to affirmative action. Firstly, affirmative action aids diversity in areas that are likely to lead to socioeconomic mobility. If admittance to colleges and hiring were totally race-blind, then it is likely that the demographics for their students would be heavily skewed towards Asian and white Americans. It may not seem that diversity is an inherently desirable thing, but diversity itself exposes people to more cultures, ideas, and points of view besides those that are most similar to their own, and normalizes cross-cultural interaction. This is essential to not only cultural transactions but also the diffusion of ideas and the development of society. When disadvantaged people are given this boost, they are being offered an opportunity to attend schools or be hired for jobs that they would not otherwise be frontrunners for, which comes with an obvious advantage for them and a more subtle advantage for society: social mobility. If people are more able to move from lower status to higher status, then a country is better off. Furthering education is not always attainable for minorities, who have higher rates of impoverishment, and therefore affirmative action is needed to balance this. In addition to this, affirmative action promotes work and study among those that it helps. Not only are those that are beneficiaries of affirmative action more incentivized to participate in these actions after admissions but making education and work more attainable to an entire subsection of the population also incentivizes them to work to achieve these things that are now reasonably within their reach. If people have an attainable and concrete goal in mind it stands to reason that they will try harder to achieve it than something that was historically held from them, especially if they see that people that are very similar to them who come from similar backgrounds are beneficiaries.

Although there are many good externalities of affirmative action, there are a few potential costs to society. The first of these is that affirmative action is very race-conscious, and in this way, is a form of reverse discrimination that can further widen the rift between groups in society. Within the last 10 years, it seems that there has been a great increase in cases of police brutality, race-conscious reporting, and anti-minority political rhetoric. While this pales in comparison to the era before the civil rights act that started affirmative action, it appears putting race at the forefront of policy and political thought has a negative effect on perceptions of minorities. Many people disagree with affirmative action because it is essentially a form of reverse racism, where minorities are favored over the majority. This brings me to my next point, which is that affirmative action may not remedy stereotypes and racism because of the idea that admissions for minorities are not based on merit, but rather race. Giving a comparative advantage to some races over others means that the reality of admissions is that the bar is simply higher for one group than it is for another. With any admission or hiring process comes rejection for some, and the emotions involved with you or someone you know not getting into a college or university of their choice can be intense. It would be easy to take the blame out on the group that is favored over you, especially given the fact that these colleges and universities are not very transparent in their admissions, opening the door for speculation and feelings of being cheated simply because of your race, much like those same minorities were prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is important to note that this feeling can go both ways as well, as people of color can often feel as if they have cheated the system and only were admitted to schools because of their race, increasing feelings of alienation and resentment. Although there are many other pros and cons I will end with this one: it is not clear whether affirmative action even achieves one of its goals of creating diversity of opinion and viewpoint, because it operates on the assumption that people of color have different viewpoints from others and that they are similar in their backgrounds. There are plenty of affluent people of color that benefit from this policy, and I would argue that wealth is often a better indicator of diversity of viewpoint and opinion than color can be. I would also argue, however, that people of color are disproportionately underrepresented in the upper echelon of wealth in the United States.

I think that affirmative action policies address the issue of racial reconciliation to a certain extent, but that they are not sufficient on their own to facilitate the process. Affirmative action can only do so much, as college admittance is very important and increases the likelihood of things such as social mobility, cultural interaction, and affluence among people of color, but it does not impact all of their lives equally. Many people of color are still disproportionately high victims of poverty, institutional racism, discrimination, and violent crime. This is because of things like gerrymandering, race politics and rhetoric, and a general continued perception of racial differences. Recently the Chicago Tribune did an opinion piece on Dr. Dale Gloria Blackstock. One of the earliest beneficiaries of affirmative action who graduated from both Harvard College and Med School in the 1970s. The piece is written by her son, Uche, who argues that affirmative action has helped him and his family in tangible and unforeseen ways. His mother being given this opportunity gave him the chance to succeed as the son of a college graduate, especially when compared to his maternal cousins. He talks about the lawsuit against Harvard for its race-conscious admissions process, saying that the steps to racial reconciliation should not be torn down. Many people of color benefit greatly from the policy, and it truly changes lives, as in his case.

Affirmative action refers to taking positive action so that women can represent women and minorities in the fields of employment, education, and culture, which have been excluded throughout history. Affirmative action is a tool used to ensure that all sectors of society are represented in specific areas. In the field of science, women have always been a minority. From elementary school to college, it is common to see more men in science-related courses, contests, and classrooms, as if science is exclusive to men.

One of the reasons is that girls are not smart enough to learn the stereotypes of science. Another reason is that the goal of most institutions is to exclude girls from science-related courses. However, affirmative action can bring some benefits to college admissions, especially in the admissions process for science students. First, it helps create a diverse learning environment. Enrolling more women in science courses helps ensure that students learn in a healthy and competitive environment. Women make up half the population and their talents are vital in meeting challenges and solving scientific and social problems. In addition, there must be comprehensive diversity.

The important thing is to be creative, develop a selfless innovation, or show the knowledge of many women in the field of science and technology. In addition, getting more girls to participate in science courses helps promote economic development. Women make up a large proportion of the country’s population and diversifying women’s sources of income will help reduce poverty and improve the country’s economy.

A European Commission study confirmed that involving women in digital work will raise the region’s annual GDP to 9 billion euros. Given that the proportion of graduates in ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) is very low, it is necessary to change the policy in this field, since currently only 29 out of every thousand women have a university degree related to information technology. In terms of information, only four people can directly participate in ICT work. Finally, encouraging girls to study science can help improve the quality of life in society. From making the right family planning decisions in the future to improving problem-solving skills, girls will make a great contribution to the development of the country.

There are several ways to take affirmative action during the admissions process. First, science courses should provide a certain percentage of places for female students. These spaces should represent the minimum number of girls that each class should have. Another way is to create school opportunities for girls who have not completed their studies on time. This can be done for people from disadvantaged communities and backgrounds. Interviews can be added to the admissions process to ensure that girls have the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and ensure that they are admitted to science courses.

People might perceive the situation in this example above to be unfair to white students since they believe that admission should be based solely on grades. Others may perceive it as a step to lessen the minority groups’ disadvantages. While affirmative action’s purpose is more involved than the example provided above, it gives an idea of how it’s usually perceived by different individuals. In my opinion, affirmative action is necessary to reduce the prevalence of discrimination and racism in our society. This can be done by promoting integrity and enforcing effective policies. On the other hand, affirmative action can be ineffective as it can promote more racist attitudes toward minorities.

The better argument is the one in support of affirmative action since it aims to solve a problem that affected societies for many years. Positions against affirmative action only prove to provide a ground for inequality to continue, and as we have seen in recent centuries, racism had and still has negative impacts, especially on the victims. particularly in the US, the Black community has suffered from the Europeans’ racist attitudes, which then lead to slavery, colonization, and discrimination that lasted for hundreds of years. therefore, affirmative action is needed to solve this problem and avoid a repeat of the same neither for the black community nor other minority groups.

Affirmative action shouldn’t be perceived as reverse discrimination. “The usage of reverse racism and reverse discrimination arose in direct response to affirmative and race-based policies in the 1970s. Even as outright quotas and more open attempts to equalize the numbers of minority enrollees were defeated, the term stuck”. Newkirk then mentioned that “Fifty-seven percent of white people believe that discrimination against whites is as big a problem in America as discrimination against blacks” (Newkirk, 2017). The argument is based on the idea that policies that promote more opportunities for Black students are discriminating against White individuals. This is what reverse discrimination is about but we are not considering affirmative action in its context. Instead, we argue that affirmative action is about ensuring equal opportunities for all students regardless of their racial backgrounds. Due to the enactment and implementation of affirmative action to promote diversity in the US education sector, many people in the country now believe that it is a problem. The better argument is in support of affirmative action that it is effective enough to ensure equality.

Affirmative action is necessary to deal with inequality and racism, and many people accept that it is a global problem. Race-based affirmative action contributes positively towards eliminating racist tendencies in countries where it is a big issue, such as the US. Nonetheless, many people continue to argue against affirmative action and interpret it as reverse racism, including President Trump who recently pushed efforts to suppress it (Strauss, 2018). His administration is working towards reversing the Obama-era policies that worked towards ensuring diversity in education. In this sense, we can state that the president is working against affirmative action. by eliminating these policies, there will be many consequences including the disadvantaging of Black students. The Attorney General under Trump passed legislation that allowed for the investigation of institutions that were suspected to be discriminating against White applicants by providing more opportunities for students from minorities especially those from the Black community.

Racism has always been an issue in our societies for many centuries and is still viewed to be an obstacle to our development and prosperity. Whether it is against the Black community or concealed under reverse discrimination, it is still considered to be racism and actions must be taken to correct it. This is why effective action is needed to ensure all people gain equal access to prospects.

America Torn Apart By Affirmative Action

“​Who​ is accepted into the finest professional programs and colleges? What candidate should be employed or promoted? After all, affirmative action is about fairness: What is fair in America?” Terry H. Anderson questions said issues in his book “The Pursuit of Fairness,” where he speaks on the core issues of everyday citizens: equality, choice, and fairness. He argues that affirmative action holds the keys to prosperity in the U.S., this being higher education, housing, and profession. Affirmative Action is a policy that provides assistance to members of a disadvantaged group that used to or continues to suffer discrimination in areas such as education, employment, or housing. While affirmative action can bring along reverse discrimination, it should continue to be implemented throughout the nation by the U.S. Department of Labor because it ensures diversity and provides equal opportunity for minority groups.

“​Do​ not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color or national origin.” (Kennedy, John F. “Establishing The President’s Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity.” ​Executive Order 10925, EEOC, ​www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/ history/35th​/thelaw/eo-10925.html. 13 January 2020.) It has been almost four decades since President John F. Kennedy implemented the affirmative action policy in 1961. It was and continues to be a way to guarantee that all employers are held responsible to practice a fair-hiring process when deciding between applicants. ​An​ alternative to affirmative action was implemented during President Barack Obama’s presidency that required universities to consider an applicant’s race when reviewing their application. though last July, President Donald Trump reversed this policy, saying his administration would not support an application process that takes race into consideration, and that he would only support “race-blind” ​admission​ standards. This could be detrimental not only to educational institutions and students but the potential applicants for these schools. This not only puts academic institutions and students at a disadvantage but the schools’ potential applicants as well. (Sanchez, Korryn. “Affirmative Action Combats Biases.” Daily Titan, 25 Apr. 2019, ​https://issuu.com/dailytitan/​ docs/thursday_april_25__2019.) ​Race​ in admissions is considered by only the most prestigious schools nowadays. In 2015 the ACE, American Council on Education, conducted a study on 338 nonprofit four-year institutions. The results showed that 6 in 10 colleges that admit fewer than 40% of their applicants take race into account as a factor in admittance. For now, however, eight states have banned policies of affirmative action that include both state colleges and universities.

Advocates​ of the policy believe that achieving racial diversity on campus is easier with affirmative action and that it’s actually more straightforward and effective than any other alternative. In fact, supporters think of themselves to be the heroes of racial justice and preservers of Martin Luther King’s Dream. ​Diversity may be ideal, but higher education institutions would not be very diverse without a focused effort to encourage students to show an interest in different racial groups. Because once students are exposed to a multicultural community, they are able to emerge themselves into complex cultures and perspectives by connecting with people from a mixture of backgrounds. Furthermore, when there is a variety of identity groups within a classroom, students are able to learn from each other’s experiences. No with affirmative action, access to higher educational opportunities is possible for families who have been challenged in their lives by economic hardship and gives them a chance to prove that it is, in fact, effective for minority groups. There still are racial and sexual inequalities in our society, but with affirmative action, a new opportunity is created to help people tackle the matter.

In fact, people of color are exceptional assets for classrooms and workplaces, considering their involvement contributes to making a company more successful. “​Opposers​ of affirmative action see themselves as defenders of merit (when someone is deserving of or is worthy of something), of colorblind equal protection enshrined in the U.S. constitution” (Anderson, Terry H. ​The Pursuit of Fairness a History of Affirmative Action​. Oxford University Press, 2005.) ​Instead of combating discrimination, affirmative action is simply doing the opposite. Critics argue the consideration of race as a factor in accepting applicants to a college or university is unjust and that many of the incoming students are not worthy of even enrolling in Ivy League schools since “their chances of succeeding are slim.”

Objectors support their argument with the claim that affirmative action will only discourage students of color from reaching their full potential because “there is no motivation to aim for a GPA of 4.0 if you know an average of 3.2 is all you need to get accepted.” (Kirmmse, Judy, and Yalidy Yalidy Mercedes Matos. “Support & Opposition.” Support & Opposition, Connecticut College, 2009, 14 January 2020.) Several say that giving ‘special treatment’ to minorities is basically saying they’re too incompetent to excel at school or even find a decent job on their own.

The arguments in support of strong affirmative action that talks about diversity are that it brings more people to the table and with this more ideas. With more people that are included in a group, community, jobs, or involved it means that there are more ideas and more tolerance to new upcoming and different points of view. Like I have said previously in my other works, it was a woman that came up with the equation that took us to the moon. It creates new opportunities, it shows people that there are others out there with the same qualities, new ideas, and or hidden talents. Having diversity exposes you to new cultures, and it allows you to understand others better, “mutual understanding,” helps you see things differently and from other perspectives. It can help us in the long run, and in the future, it creates new roles, and new opportunities, and gives everyone a chance. The jobs that were once only for the white will be open for new faces and races. New people will be in the work field, the frustration and injustice would decrease

But as a utilitarian, there are objections about diversity, that even if diversity exists does not necessarily means that it will create new ideas, or be more prone to acceptance. Just because you are exposed to a new culture does not mean that you will be okay with some of their customs. Exposing people to a new culture can damage the original idea since cultures tend to merge when they are exposed to others. Some people are against their Asian culture being Americanized and hate the idea that their culture could be lost. That their kid or future generation will forget about the real value. There is also no scientific background that supports diversity, and that fact that even if it is there does not mean that there would not be competency, or that it will be efficiency. The ones against also argue that even if there are new ideas it does not necessarily means that they can be good or the ones we need as role models. It is also discussed that it can have the opposite effect, and since it can create a stigma of race, and can reinforce stereotypes. These are the augments I would make as a utilitarian, that it is not always good to have strong affirmative action, that in some cases it can eradicate and lead to a more racist society.

In this essay, I will argue that, though I agree with Harris and Scully (2015), and Ferguson (2015) that the project toward new forms of social welfare systems should emerge, I still insist that this project can only be attained when the South African state introduces new and upcoming graduates to the historically established affirmative action policy. In the first section, I will present this by providing a summary of Silver’s (2003) and Arrighi, Aschoff, and Scully’s (2010) understanding of cheap labor as a necessary course of action to drive the capitalist machine and capital mobility is destructive for workers’ growth; although they focus on different acts of labor. This provides the basis for my argument. I will do so by describing Silver’s (2003) engagement with the race-to-the-bottom and labor internationalism debates. Furthermore, I will present Silver’s argument that working-class resistance emerges wherever capital is located. Moreover, I will outline Arrighi et al. (2010)’s argument of accumulation by dispossession. In the second section, I will present Harris and Scully’s (2015), and Ferguson (2015)’s criticisms of social assistance programs; and in turn emphasize the significance of social welfare systems that prioritize all members of society. Accordingly, I consider that social grants benefit some groups over others.

Silver (2003) engages with respectively the race-to-the-bottom debate and the quest for a global labor revolt debate, to understand the dilemma faced by the working class across the globe.

In the race to the bottom debate, Silver (2003) cites a number of authors who argue that the relocation of assets has impaired the working class’s bargaining power, causing a positive impact on capitalists and globalization. In this manner, the workforce across nations is compelled to compete amongst each other to survive the conditions set forth by the capitalist systems. Hence, compromising the power that the workforce could potentially possess to negotiate their conditions for employment with employers. Another debate suggests that capital flows have disregarded the government’s ability to make informed decisions on behalf of the working class and on behalf of the companies (Silver 2003). This implies that the government will lose international financial aid if the government requests corporations to minimize the rate at which they enter domestic markets. At the same time, this also suggests that the working class will continue to cause an uprising if the government requires the working class to continue working under the conditions set by the corporations. Lastly, within this domain, it is argued that there has been a shift in the way work takes place from the conveyer belt system to a “standardized mass production” system (Silver, 2003). This is a result of globalization.

In contrast, the new labor internationalism debate suggests that the working class across the globe has similar interests. In this debate, Silver (2003) cites scholars who argue that, on the one hand, the state’s autonomy is limited because the employers’ desire to universalize labor only strengthens the alliances amongst the working class beyond the peripheries of their countries. This disregards the state’s role as conflict exists between employers and employees. On the other hand, it is argued that the state’s loyalties should lie with the workers. This will give the workers an upper hand in persuading the state to create programs that will benefit their cause because workers will be pushed into a corner to turn to the government for protection (Silver, 2003).

In comparison, Silver (2003) attempts to understand the relationship between capital mobility and labor resistance. She argues that capital mobility is a bi-directional relation that has effects on both the conglomerates and the workers (Silver, 2003). In turn, she argues that capital mobility has only created a cycle of new resistance occurring amongst the working class, strengthening their bargaining power; and ensuring businesses lose profit (Silver, 2003).

By comparison, Arrighi, Aschoff, and Scully (2010) claim that the historical and forceful removal of farm owners has had negative economic implications for the development of workers in South Africa. According to Arrighi et al. (2010), historically, capitalist accumulation depended on the dispossession of land. Accumulation by dispossession meant that land in the reserves was restricted to Africans (Harvey, 2003 as cited in Arrighi et al., 2010). This brought about overcrowding of the population and the overharvesting of crops in the reserves. This resulted in land degradation, and land taxation was imposed on the marginalized population. Therefore, one was forced to work in the city to pay for the tax.

Using the L-A-W model, Arrighi et al., (2010) explain that there have been contradictions in making South Africa a better place; instead, the dispossession of land has aggravated South Africa’s potential for economic, political, and social growth. The scholars argue that during apartheid, accumulation by dispossession led to the growth of international investments in South Africa. This resulted in “political stability” and a more established white-collar working class amongst white people; thus, accumulation by dispossession created income inequalities in favor of the white working class (Arrighi et al., 2010: 426).

In the same way, due to the debt incurred by the Apartheid state, Arrighi et al. (2010) assert that neoliberal policies were implemented (in the post-apartheid era) with the hope of achieving South Africa’s developmental goals under the newly elected party -the African National Congress. These neoliberal policies, namely GEAR, were intended to improve the lives of South Africans by addressing unemployment and providing basic social services (Arrighi, 2010: 428). Nevertheless, by virtue of poor planning and execution, the policy deteriorated South Africa’s economic condition. This led to unrest amongst citizens and the working classes. Although Arrighi et al. (2010) do not say directly, they imply that the state’s autonomy is greater in creating industrial action and more socioeconomic inequalities.

On the other hand, yet, Harris and Scully (2015), and Ferguson (2015) argue that southern states need to develop outside of northern region ideologies. This is their alternative strategy in the unfolding of social grants. It is through these strategies that labor can take place outside of the capitalist mode of production.

Harris and Scully (2015) note that in the post-war era, states in Third World countries hoped to grow alongside or rather in the same way First world countries achieved prosperity, leading to their powers to alter compete in, adjust, and enter markets of the world and of the underdeveloped countries This was known as the growth first ideology (Harris & Scully, 2015: 419). It was, therefore, encouraged that growth policies of the advanced countries should be implemented by states of underdeveloped countries. However, much to their disappointment, these growth policies only led to negative consequences for the citizens.

Similar to Arrighi et al. (2010), as mentioned above, Harris and Scully (2015) reject Rostow’s system which emphasized that the coercion of farm workers into proletariats was an essential move toward economic growth (Harris & Scully, 2015: 420). This system turned subsistence peasants into wage workers through the commodification of agricultural land. As such, the work done in the home had to be refocused towards producing for the market through agriculture (Harris & Scully, 2015). This process would only take place through state intervention (Harris & Scully, 2015). In this manner, farms were commodified to drive the capitalist machine.

They further critique the southern region states adopting the same welfare system (used by the northern countries) to improve the lives of those working in the rural areas, hoping that they could achieve the same results. Amongst other problems, labor-intensive firms paid higher wages to those already in the labor market and therefore could not accept new working classes because of the limited wage labor class size (Harris & Scully, 2015). This forced people to seek informal forms of labor (outside of the rural areas) to sustain their lives- which southern region states fostered as they failed to provide secure work for all.

To undo these errors of neoliberalism, states turned towards social welfare programs and grants as a form of decommodification of economic and social life. Nonetheless, this form of social protection was not as beneficial as the states would have liked to believe.

Thus, borrowing from Peter Evans’s developmental state model, the scholars maintain that it is in the working classes that progress will take place (Evans, 2010 as cited in Harris & Ben, 2015). Rather, they argue that we should move towards a developmental welfare state that caters to the needs of all citizens. For example, these grants and social programs are aimed at solving the poverty and unemployment crises, but they do not address how individuals, such as graduates (who have become new members of the working force), can benefit from them. In the context of South Africa, for instance, yes, there have been programs under the South African government to reduce unemployment such as the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA). The NYDA aims to give the unemployed youth the necessary skills that will assist them to enter the labor market, but what guarantees do those skills have as competencies and job descriptions evolve and/or become obsolete because of the demand and supply dynamics in the labor market?

In the same manner, Ferguson (2015) rejects the contestation that social programs foster patriarchy within the mode of production. With reference to South Africa and Latin America’s social grant system -primarily- providing aid to women, the disabled, and children; the arguments presented state that these programs feed into the notion that men are the providers of the families. Hence, the common view is that men should contribute to capitalism and society by selling their labor for wages, and by extension, they are not ‘privileged enough’ to receive free social income; whereas, women are seen as the crux in contributing to the economy through their traditional roles in the household (Ferguson, 2015). By virtue of that, women receive social income. Ferguson (2015) further critiques these arguments which suggest that the welfare programs are symbols of patriarchy, they emphasize and enforce society’s expectations of these groups. Firstly, in coercing men to work, they label them as strong and “able-bodied” enough to carry through the mode of production; and the acceptable explanation for the men to receive grants is if they are medically deemed unfit by the state, i.e. disabled (Ferguson, 2015: 42). Secondly, by categorizing women as the targets for the social grants, leans towards conceptualizing women as ‘weak’ (especially physically), ‘emotional’ to carry out the processes of capitalism.

In this manner, Ferguson (2015) argues that it is erroneous to limit men to these grants as they have earned the right, as the social grants are fruits of their labor (although this idea isn’t recognized by capitalists). Consequently, Ferguson engages in debates on the political implications of social welfare. To some extent, he argues that social grant programs are a temporary solution to unemployment and precarious work. Consequently, he argues that cash payments should be taken as shares, which are dividends paid to the social collective. This is based on the value of common resources such as minerals in mining (Ferguson, 2015). He claims that it is a progressive response to distributive politics. Ferguson states that the welfare society is produced when capitalists buy labor power and produce and sell commodities at higher prices.

Ferguson (2015) argues that we are focused on this moment of production and this is the way social welfare is accommodated. He states that the Marxists and the Left tend to see the strength of the working class in the point of production as the key face where the social welfare system can be challenged (Ferguson, 2015). The frame which Ferguson is addressing is that, in a country like SA, we should focus on workers as workers deserve more because they produce the goods (Ferguson, 2015). Hence, we should broaden the range of resources that are cast into circulation to produce the wealth of society, and therefore all societies should have some claim on how these resources are distributed. By simply concentrating on distribution, this form of politics could be equally progressive and equally transformative.

One argument is that institutionalizing this form of distribution has many positive effects on investment and efficient production. For instance, by granting the same amount of money (that capitalists reinvest) to the lower classes, these individuals are more likely to invest it in establishing new small businesses.

However, in as much as these social grants are a temporary solution, it cannot be ignored that social grants have aided individuals meet their basic needs, such as paying electric and water bills, taking children to school, etc. In addition, grants increase the labor supply. Supposedly, instead of solely depending on the state to provide income, individuals are actively seeking employment with cash payments.

Thus, Ferguson (2015) makes a more radical and controversial argument. He argues that there is an alternative way of thinking about the need for labor and the way in which the workforce reorganizes, but which divorces from the narrow compounds of capitalist wage labor.

Although I agree with both Harris & Scully (2015) and Ferguson (2015) to a point, I cannot accept their overall conclusion that we have to separate ourselves entirely from capitalism. I think that it is impossible. For centuries, capitalism has been the dominant and the driving force behind the mode of production- that is the relationship of labor power as a commodity for the owners of production, and to an extent, land dispossession. Above, I have highlighted that these social grants exclude the youth. Consequently, in today’s society, the focus should be on adding graduates- the unemployed youth with qualifications- to the affirmative action policy. Historically, affirmative action was implemented in South Africa to redress the discrimination in the workplace against black, Coloured, Indian men and women; white women, and people living with disabilities (Grossett & Hills, 2003). It is to be implemented by all businesses. By extending the list of beneficiaries, the re-evaluated affirmative action policy will compel companies to train graduates and teach them the skills that are in demand through internship, apprenticeship and leadership programs. This will assist the youth to stay up-to-date with the competencies. Increasing their chances to find employment based on the demand of the labor market.

Nonetheless, this approach could have the following weaknesses. Such programs are not measures to secure the candidates (the graduates) secure employment. More so, based on an organization’s high expectations, only top-performing candidates are selected. In addition, companies cannot select every candidate due to their limited resources and/or office spaces. Consequently, as a result of company competency standards, these programs exclude candidates who have the capabilities to participate in the initiatives.

To conclude, this essay has established that in the debates Silver (2003) captures, intellectuals agree that capital mobility has produced a one-sided relationship between workers and conglomerates. Nevertheless, she insists that capital mobility has produced a bi-directional relation, causing an upsurge of unrest across the world, and diminishing the powers of international investors in cities they settle in. Likewise, Arrighi et al., (2010) indicate the same pattern stems within South Africa’s context through the dispossession of land and the failure of the South African state to control these labor movements. Silver (2003) argues that capital moves across and beyond nations to find cheap labor. Whilst Arrighi et al. (2010) argue that the privatization of farms obligated individuals to seek work in the city, to produce for capitalist machines. This adverts to the movement of labor within the nation, from province to province ascribable to the restrictions to reserves placed by land laws against the marginalized race.

These ideas give rise to the commodification processes that Harris and Scully (2015), and Ferguson (2015) address that emerged from neoliberalism. In their discussions, southern region governments should challenge and transform capitalism through politics of distribution and welfare-first developmental states. These approaches will reconstitute how the processes of labor will take place without capitalist interventions; leading to advantageous results for societies. Yet, my own view holds that social welfare systems cannot guarantee employment stability for the youth; rather businesses can fill the gap of scarce skills for South African graduates through an amended affirmative action policy.

To express opinions on a subject, we must first understand the concept of the same. What is the actual meaning of affirmative action? In short, affirmative action means taking positive steps to increase the representation of women and minorities in education, employment, and culture, which have historically been excluded. The concept of affirmative action was first proposed and signed by John F. Kennedy in 1961. Its main objective was to stop malicious acts of racism, which had segregated or broken up society into different opposition groups and fragments. The goal was to eliminate the concept of polarization with the help of constitutional authority and legitimacy. It basically aims to increase employment or educational opportunities considering an individual’s caste, creed, race, religion, gender, or national origin, in order to increase opportunities for underrepresented parts of society. It can also be looked at as eliminating or bringing down discrimination against a particular set or group of people so that they can come to par with others.

India has a long history of discriminatory practices. People are discriminated against on the basis of caste, race, class, religion, gender, etc. Castes continue to play a leading role in Indian soil. People belonging to lower castes face many problems. They face oppression from the dominant caste who consider themselves superior. They have no access to education or resources, which can help them improve their condition and move up the social ladder. Hence, they are unable to improve their status. As a result, these people are caught in a continuous cycle of poverty. Girls are still considered a burden. She is often deprived of basic rights and equal opportunities to lead a healthy childhood and adult life. According to the 2011 census, girls made up 48% of the total child population in India, many of whom were engaged in child labor, child trafficking, and child marriage. Patriarchal norms prevent many girls from striving for their dreams through quality education, and a general awareness of medical facilities and welfare. Coming to religion, there is a high chance that the majority might dominate the minority community.

This is where the concept of affirmative action comes into the scenario. Affirmative action as a protocol, aims to balance out the distance that everyone must cross to achieve their goals, in order to compensate for obstacles such as racism, sexism, and prejudice that might appear in any way or form. This is indisputably true. We can all agree that some groups of people or a section of society are prone to unfair disadvantages. Affirmation action can help these groups to improve their status and condition by providing them with equal opportunities. There are certain people who are of the opinion that the decline in equality is actually a decline in privileges, but in the real sense, it is a process of society moving closer to the ideal of equal opportunities.