Skip to main content

Affirmative Action

 

Affirmative action works

If racism were a relic of the past, then some arguments for affirmative action would be out of place (LaFollette, 2007, p. 96). Isn’t this the truth? Our current society has long shown that racism is quite the founding member in our environment. Each, and every day we’re reminded by acts of hate towards other groups of people. Not only is this standard for our news, and media coverage, but also in our educational systems. Brown vs. the Board of Education was an important moment in American history, in that the integration of different races began with Linda Carol Brown in 1954 and continued for many more decades. Educators in American higher education have long argued that affirmative action policies are essential to ensure a diverse student body, that such diversity is crucial to creating the best possible educational environment, and that the educational benefits of racial and ethnic diversity on campus are not limited to any one group of students (Gurin, 2004, p. 100). If we didn’t have affirmative action, who would be there to ensure I wouldn’t be learning from only one race’s history, and culture? If we didn’t have affirmative action, what kind of assurances would there be so that a person who is deserving of employment, a loan, or a raise, would receive one? Just as we normally think the most deserving students should receive the best grades, persons with “the best qualifications” should always receive jobs and school positions (LaFollette, 2007, p. 92). Isn’t part of the qualification that we have the diversity to begin with? We tend to forget the sacrifice and struggle that have contributed to minority access to mainstream America (Sinkford & Valachovic, 2003, p. 469). It is this forgetfulness that needs a reminder, and the reminder should be affirmative action. Don’t you agree?

Is it ethical?

I believe affirmative action is ethical because it is designed to give everyone an opportunity. Over the course of time, the more affirmative action is used, the more, and more diverse our social will become. Without affirmative action, companies could be left to continue to promote the race they want, rather than all of them. If left unchecked, overtly racist employers and school officials will openly discriminate against blacks (LaFollette, 2007, p. 97). Affirmative action helps to prevent things from becoming unbalanced, like they were before the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Affirmative action is a social policy that is designed to place disadvantaged members of our world into positions of opportunity, because of the way they were previously treated. Being ethical means doing what is right. I believe the right thing is to make others whole, and if that means diversifying, so be it. If that means reparations, so be it. This isn’t a white world, a black world, a red world, or another other color. This world is ours, together. We need to do what is right. But which side is it?

Views from the other side

Affirmative action has played a role to diversify our school systems, sometimes at the detriment of other races. This other race is white. Affirmative action, they claim, is wrong for the same reason: these programs discriminate against whites simply because of their race (LaFollette, 2007, p. 87). Affirmative action can be seen as a way to take back some of what the more privileged class has lost. If affirmative action is meant to equalize society, then some races may see this as taking something away from them. Compensatory justice requires that people pay for damage they cause others (LaFollette, 2007, p. 89). It seems that many negative views of affirmative action come from white people. Whether they see it as a handout, a leg up, or an opportunity to give others something simply because of their race, it is viewed as a problem, and some want to do away with it. Unless these cases are relevantly different, then affirmative action is just old-fashioned discrimination in a new guise (LaFollette, 2007, p. 88). To place one class above another, simply because of race is flat out discrimination. This is why it doesn’t work. Or, does it?

References

Gurin, P. (2004). Defending diversity: affirmative action at the University of Michigan. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.17844

LaFollete, H. (2007).  The Practice of Ethics. Blackwell Publishing

Sinkford, J. C., & Valachovic, R. W. (2003). Affirmative action: Essential to achieving justice and good health care for all in america. Journal of Dental Education, 67(4), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.4.tb03648.x

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...