Affirmative Action Essay, Research Paper

Thesis:

Although many people believe that affirmatory Action is a signifier of racism, it is really used to assist minorities happen employment in an otherwise racist universe.

? In the United States, equality is a repeating subject. It has flared into a ardent moral issue at important phases of American history: The radical and Jacksonian Period, and the New Deal. In each epoch, the legitimacy of American society is challenged by some set of people unhappy with the grade of equality? ( Verba and Orren ) .

Following the Civil War, Congress passed a figure of Torahs designed to set former slaves on an equal degree with white people. The Fourteenth Amendment made the freedwomans citizen and prohibited provinces from implementing any jurisprudence which took away the privliges of any citizen, striping work forces of life, autonomy, or belongings without due procedure of the jurisprudence, or denied work forces equal protection of the Torahs. In 1875, Republican bulk in Congress, aware that Reconstruction would shortly stop, passed a civil right act to procure by jurisprudence gloss of equality for Black Americans ( Urofsky 19 ) . Many white Americans truly did non like the thought of equality for the Black Freedmen. ? Gideon Welles, who had been predominating sentiment when he wrote in 1871: ? Thank God bondage is abolished, but the Negro is non, and ne’er can be the equal of the white adult male. He is of an inferior race and must ever stay so? ? ( Urofsky 23 ) . The supreme tribunal agreed and in 1883 passed the Civil Rights act which diluted much of Thursday!

e protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Joseph Bradely interpreted the enforcement proviso of the amendment as purely remedial ; ? Congress has the power to rectify a prejudiced province jurisprudence, but could non take affirmatory stairss to protect inkinesss from other signifiers of bias? ( Urofsky 21 ) . As a consequence of this determination, the federal authorities took no action to battle racism in the state until the 2nd universe war ( Urofsky 22 ) .

Because bitterness continued to increase within the black communities and because of the menace of a March on Washington, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order on June 25, 1941. This order directed African Americans to be accepted into job-training plans in defence workss. The order besides stated that favoritism would non be excepted by employers keeping defence contracts. It besides set up a just employment pattern committees to look into charges of racial favoritism. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower continued to implement just employment statute law after Roosevelt? s policies because Congress was unwilling to make so.

In 1954, the supreme tribunal determination Brown v. Board of Education pressured both houses of Congress and the executive office to take some positive stairss on behalf of civil rights. In January 1961, John F. Kennedy took office. Almost instantly Roy Wilkins of the NAACP called for action to advance employment chances for African Americans. John F. Kennedy responded with executive order 10925, which created a presidential committee on equal employment chance ; it besides mandated federal contractors to take? Affirmative Action? to guarantee that there would be no favoritism by? race, credo, colour or nationality. ? This was non the first clip that the authorities ordered it ain contractors non merely to avoid favoritism, but to take positive stairss to right the effects of favoritism in society. In some instances contractors were asked to pay employees making similar work, the same sum of wage.

Without congressional action an executive order could merely last so long, and in 1963 Kennedy secured transition of the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act prohibited employers from paying adult females less than work forces for the same work. ? A short clip subsequently due to the blackwash of Kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson called for the transition of the Civil Rights Bill as a commemoration to the late president Kennedy. Lyndon B. Johnson skilfully guided and expanded versions of Kennedy? s proposal through the house and senate. The Civil Rights Act was signed into jurisprudence July 2, 1964. Title VII of the act banned employment favoritism based on? race, colour, sex, and nationality, ? it besides created a lasting equal employment chance committee to implement its commissariats. The act besides for the first clip included duties non to know apart to private employees, labour brotherhoods, and governmental bureaus. ( Urofsky 17 ) .

In executive order 11246, issued on September 24, 1965, Johnson require that federal contractors take affirmatory action to enroll, engage, and advance more minorities. Two old ages subsequently in executive order 11375 Johnson added adult females to the group covered by old anti- favoritism order? ( Urofsky17 ) . Each new order was a alteration of the old 1. Increasing minorities? and adult females? s opportunities to vie in the occupation market.

When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he asked Art Fletcher, the Assistant Secretary of Labor and a black adult male himself, to happen a manner to implement the hiring commissariats of Title VII in a manner that it would defy tribunal challenge. Fletcher did, and in 1971 Nixon unveiled the Philadelphia Plan. The Philadelphia Plan made federal contractors meet specific numerical ends in engaging minorities. Each contractor was to hold nine per centum of its work force be made up of minorities and adult females.

Even with all these Executive Orders, Civil Rights Act, and Amendments passed, merely a little per centum of minorities held place in the occupation force. In recent old ages, in order to battle occupation favoritism in the employment market, the federal authorities has issued a series of executive orders and have established authorities funded houses to procure equal chance in the work force. Affirmative action and other executive orders were created to infix qualified minorities in the occupation market, but in recent old ages it has been used to discourage occupation favoritism from go oning. Yet society? s point of view on Affirmative Action has been a manner for the federal authorities to prefer one category of people over another. The fact is, that in order to utilize Affirmative Action to prefer minorities and adult females against? white males? in the workplace, occupations must foremost be integrated with both minorities and Whites. For no 1 can divide apples and oranges if there are no apples!

In the instance of Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts ( 1984 ) . The Memphis fire section was found in misdemeanor of Title VII and was under tribunal order to engage and advance more inkinesss to do damagess for past favoritism. Later, expecting a budget shortage, the metropolis planned to put off public employees with the least senior status, and that action would hold largely affected late hired black firemen. Stotts, a black fireman disputing the proposed forces actions, received a favourable determination from the federal tribunal, which granted an injunction enjoining the Fire Department from purely adhering to senior status in layoffs. As a consequence, the brotherhood appealed to protect its senior status program and white brotherhood members. The Burger Court reversed the lower tribunal by governing that because no knowing favoritism had been proved, ? Title VII protects bona fida senior status systems, and it is inappropriate to deny an guiltless employee the benefits of his senior status in order to pr!

ovide a redress in a form of adept [ favoritism ] suit such as this? ( Janosilk 1205 ) . So from so on the tribunal upheld that even if an person shows that the discriminatory pattern has an impact on him/her, the tribunal noted, ? he/she is non automatically entitled to hold a non minority employee laid off to do room for him? ( Janosilk 1205 ) .

One of the most historic Affirmative Action determinations in employment in the 1970 & # 8217 ; s was United Steelworkers of America v. Weber. In this instance tan on-the-job Affirmative action understanding was jointly bargained by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and the United Steel workers of America at a works in Gramercy, Louisiana. There were no skilled black craftsmen at the works, and a voluntary Affirmative Action program was developed to avoid the possibility of judicial proceeding by black employees into the company. Even though no past favoritism by the Kaiser Company had of all time been proven. Under the understanding, half the slots for in-plant trade preparation plans were reserved for black employees until the proportion of Blacks in the local labour force. Weber, a white denied admittance to the preparation plan, claimed that because this regulation it set up a specific quota, it constituted racial favoritism in misdemeanor of Title VII. Title VII states that? an employer can non be!

? required? to give preferencetial intervention to any racial group because of a racial instability in the work force. This instance shows that even it is impossible to know apart against white males merely because a company must run into a quota.

History has shown that favoritism has and ever will be a job every bit long as society remains nescient of its being. Still many people believe that favoritism in the workplace is non every bit bad as the politicians and Service Commissions, such as? Fair Employment Practice Community? and? Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor, ? do it out to be.

In Stelle v. Louisville & A ; Nashville Railroad, a brotherhood and an employer had agreed on a contract under which Blacks? chances for employment as firemen had been restricted. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Black employees of the Duke Power Company of North Carolina stated that employees needed to run into certain demands: ? Employees need to hold a high school sheepskin or and an acceptable class on an intelligence trial for both new employees and occupation transportations? ( Janosik 1205 ) . In many instances these trials were used to weed out any Black employment chance, for these trials were biased and non moderately related to the abilities or accomplishments necessary for successful public presentation on the occupation. In McDonnell Douglas Corp. V. Green, The McDonnell Douglas Corp. withheld a place from Mr. Green while trying to reconnoiter for person with equal makings as Green ( Janosik 1205 ) .

In Hazelwood School District v. United States, the tribunal decided that? favoritism may be based on statistical grounds showing an obvious instability in the racial composing of the module of a school when compared to the racial make up of the general community population? ( Janosik 1204 ) . Meaning that if the community in which the school lies in, is made up of a mixture of people with different cultural backgrounds, that there should non merely be white instructors learning, but Black and Hispanic instructors learning every bit good. There are to grounds for the opinion on Hazelwood School District v. United States. One is that to forestall pupils from larning certain accomplishments merely a instructor of a certain cultural background can supply is favoritism excessively. Students should be able to see different sorts of civilizations and linguistic communications. The 2nd ground is that in a community largely are made up of adult females and minorities, out of the many possible instructors in that community their!

should be at least a twelve instructors at a school in that territory. That manner the instructor understands the jobs the pupils are confronting in their communities. By holding a instructor that come from the same communities as their pupils they will be cognizant of the jobs confronting their community and that of their pupils, that manner they can break aid theses childs, than person that lives outside of the kids

The community and has no thought of the jobs they are confronting. In 1984 their were 71 adult females professors out of 1,112 ( 6.4 per cent ) . They were non nevertheless, equally distributed across topics and sections, but were concentrated in conventionally? female? countries. Three out of five professors of library scientific discipline are adult females, and five out of seven professors or nursing. Womans are besides noteworthy represented in instruction ( seven out of 49 professors ) and societal work ( six out of twenty- one professors ) . In contrast there is merely one adult females professor out of thir!

ty-eight in concern disposal and one out of 147 in technology ( Webb 538 ) . ? An scrutiny of Numberss of stations lost or gained between 1980 and 1984 besides reveals that countries where adult females are most concentrated have been cut back most significantly: Numberss of station in nursing, for illustration, have declined across all classs while Numberss of stations in technology and concern disposal have stayed changeless or increased.

A instance survey demonstrated that equal chance is far from a affair of? following a simple programme? ( Webb 545 ) . Sonia Liff was quoted as say? Women and minorities fail non because they are less Abel to transport out the undertakings ; they are excluded because of the manner that they necessary making are defined. The competition is structured against adult females and minorities because the occupation is perceived as necessitating accomplishments, experience and working forms far mor likely to be found amongst white work forces, or so seen as inherently male. What should be asked of employers is non that they accept less qualified, less able adult females or minorities in penchant to white work forces but that they rethink what the occupation requires that do non govern out competent adult females or minarets.

In Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. , Bowman Transportation Co. discriminated against black appliers for occupations as truck drivers within the company to more desirable place. The lower tribunals found in favour of the inkinesss in this quandary, telling that they be given penchant in the future occupation gap. The Burger tribunal took the old opinion against Bowman Transportation Co. One measure further and ruled that? retroactive senior status could be awarded to racial minorities who had been discriminated against in misdemeanor of Title VII? ( Janosik 1204 ) . A major aim of Title VII, noted by the tribunal bulk, is to supply appropriate compensation for those injured because of discrimation in the workplace.

Even though the tribunal ruled that presenting a minority who has been discriminated against is acceptable, it might non be so in some instances, so compenstating minorities for past prejudiced action upon them by some other company would non use, but if a company does discrimate against person, the individual that they discriminate against is applicable for compensation.

? After the mid-1970 & # 8217 ; s an increasing figure of Burger Courts instances involved the widely debated issue of Affirmative Action in employment? ( Janosik 1210 ) . Society must recognize that Affirmative Action plans is instead a safety cyberspace to forestall prejudiced Acts of the Apostless against non Whites males than merely a method of using minorities and adult females into the work force? there is significant grounds of the countinuing veritical and horizontal occupational segregation between work forces, adult females and minorities? ( Webb 533 ) . Yet many people against Affirmative Action see Affirmative Action programs and Executive orders as an advantage that is given to minorities and woment by the Federal Government and that is why they can non see Affirmative Action programs and executive orders as safety cyberspaces for adult females and minorities.

Those opposed to the thought of affirmatory action feel that affirmatory action is really reversed favoritism at work ; but a recent survey by Alfred Blumorosen, a professor at Rutgers University jurisprudence school, found that merely a few twelve reported instances of rearward favoritism in federal tribunals over the past four old ages, most of which were rejected by the tribunals. ( America Online 1 ) . These same people besides feel that Affirmative Action leads to take down criterions of instruction needed to work, this is wholly untrue. Affirmative action programs are non puting people in occupation that they are non qualified for. The people that are given occupation by Affirmative Action programs have graduated from four twelvemonth universities or have the Assossiates grade. No 1 can remain employed in a occupation if they do non hold accomplishments to preform their undertaking.

To state Affirmative action Acts of the Apostless on the footing of bias is non true. Affirmative Action does non expose prejudice or has irrational hatred of a peculiar group, race, or faith. Affirmative action programs is merely a manner of assisting poeple to acquire occupations. ? Republican lawgivers and presidential hopefulls are competing with eac other to interest out the strongest place for restricting or get rid ofing racial and gender penchants in federal plans? ( Gottlieb551 ) . Robert Dole? s closest challenger, senator Phil Gramm of Texas, pledged to pass over out minority penchant in the ferderal authorities with a shot of a pen if elected. ? This is a policy that needs to be overturned. Gramm said on CBS? ? Face the Nation? April 16. Yet none of these politican have a solution more effectual of forestalling favoritism in occupations and at the same clip helps minorites find occupations.

President Clinton, is confronting a no-win state of affairs betweeen traditional civil rights constitutenciesand the many? angry white males? in this state. These work forces wish to alter federal affimative action policies but promise to go on attempts to extinguish favoritism. Yet no program or proposal that Republican lawgivers, or? angry white males? have created has aid diminish the figure of discrimantory act by a company or has helped minorities find occupations than Affirmative Action plans bing today.

These same Republican lawgivers are forcing in front with attempts to unknot affirmatory action, encouraged and empowered by a dramatic Supreme tribunal opinion that cas uncertainty on federal plans seeking to progress adult females and minorities. The high tribunal June 12 handed down a 5-4 sentiment in a closely watched instance, Adarand Construction v. Pena, that challenged a federal Affirmative Action Program. The bulk sentiment written by Justice Sandra Day O? Connor, did non really strike down any Affirmative Action plans, but it criticized the moral justification for Affirmative Aciton, stating that race witting plans can amount to unconstitutional contrary favoritism and even harm those they seek to progress. Yet they had non proven any manner in which Affirmative Action can? harm those they seek to progress? .

Republican had been fixing a legislative assault on federal Affirmative Action, either by extinguishing plans or with a sweeping step to criminalize virtually all federal preferecnes on the footing of race or gender. Their marks include tonss of congressional and executive subdivision enterprises that offer particular consideration or set-aside for adult females, minorities and others in federal catching and hiring. This proves that Republicans wish to extinguish Affirmative Action program and replace it with nil. With nil to assist adult females or minorities their is minimum opportunities of them viing in the occupation market.

In supporting the plan, the Clinton disposal stressed that white-owned companies can quaify for fillips given by Affrimative Action Plans if they prove that they are? Socially or enconomically disadvantaged. ? Some critics of Affirmative Action want to follow societal or economic adversity as a standard for all Affirmative Action plans. ? Civi rights groups say they are non opposed to utilizing socioeconomic disadvantages, but want to maintain policies specifically aimed at adult females and minorities excessively? ( America Online 3 ) .

Guess about the hereafter of Affirmative Action must travel beyond? forecast? of the tribunal? s constellation and appraisals of its regard for case in points said John Naibandian of University of Kansas ( Public Administration Reveiw 43 ) . He was besides quoted as stating, ? Over an 18-year period, adminstrators hve go allergic to tribunal decisionexpressing the value of societal equity. It is unreasonable to anticpate sudden administrative reversal of these impacts now regardlass of Court action ( Public Administration Review 43 ) .

Some perceivers have suggested that the solution to racial inequality in the United States lies mostly in a two-pronged onslaught on favoritism in educationm and employment. If such a solution is possible, surely the Supreme Court will play a function. But, in a system of separation of powers, it is axiimatic that merely so much can be accomplished by even the most activist Courts. That is why all human existences must endeavor to understand the entire deduction of what they do. They must assist each other see that there is a job in using adult females and minorities.

Saul Solano

Honegger

English 102

October 18, 1995

Affirmative action: Is it a signifier of Racisim? ?

Thesis: Although many people believe affirmatory action is a signifier of racism, it is really used to assist minorities happen employment in an otherwise racist universe.

I. Civil War

A. Laws passed during the civil war

B. Plans used to assist Torahs

II. JFK and Excecutive order

A. Stairss taken by JFK

B. JFK Executive order taking consequence

III. Other Presidents

A. Harry Truman controbution to Affirmative Action

B. FDR controbution to Affirmative Action

C. D. Eisnehower Executive order

IV. Court Cases

A. Firefighters Local Union No.1784 v. Stotts

B. Stelle v. Louisvill & A ; Nashville Railroad

C. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

D. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

E. Hazelwood School District v. United States

V. Those against Affirmative Action

A. Why are white male against Affirmative Aciton Plans

B. Why white male dislike the thought of affirmatory action

Kaus, Mickey. The End of Equality New York: Basic,1992.

Urofsky, Melvin. The Conflicts of Rights New York: Scribner 1990.

Verba, Sidney, and Gary R. Orren. Equality in America Massaschuettes Harvard, 1984.

Hugh, Graham The American Judical System New York: Scribner, 1987.

Jost, Kenneth. America Online Internet, 1995

Webb, Janette and Sonia, Liff. Play he white adult male: the societal building of equity and competition in equal chance. The Sociological Reveiw v.36, Aug. 88 532-51

Perman, Florence. The participants and the jobs in the Eeo enforcement procedure: a position study

Pulbic Administration Reveiw v.48, July/Aug. 88, 827-33

Boris Eileen and Honey Michael. Gender, race and the policies of the Labor Department.

Monthly Labor Review v.111, Feb. 88, 26-36.

Nalbandian, John. The U.S. Supreme tribunal? s? consensus? on Affirmative Action. Public Administration Reveiw. v.49, Jan./Feb. 89, 38-45

Tatel, David and Minchber, Elliot. The Supreme Court? s 1987 determination on voluntary Affirmative Action. Public Management. v.69, Dec. 87, 3-5

Steel, Brents and Lovrich, Nicholas P. Equality and Efficiency Tradeoffs in Affirmative Action.

The Social Science Journal v.24, Nov. 87, 53-70

Leonard, Jonathan S. What was Affirmative Action. The American Economic Review v.76, May 86, 359-63