Affirmative Action has become of the most controversial social policy issues to be discussed in recent years. It is controversial because it challenges fundamental American beliefs. As Seymour Martin Lipset put it: “Affirmative Action policies have forced a sharp confrontation between two core American values: equality and individualism. “(Dudley7) This values oriented approach, which pervades popular discussion and derives from functionalist sociology, fails to explain why similar challenges to our core values did not in the past result in the kind of spite surrounding Affirmative Action today.
As the popular lore and written history of urban politics in America demonstrate and as minority leaders today frequently point out, benefits were routinely distributed to individuals not on merit, but on racial criteria (Sigelman7). The Federal, state, and local governments run currently many programs intended to increase opportunities for various groups including women, and minority groups.
These programs are commonly called ”affirmative action” programs. For example; state law identifies specific goals for the participation of women, and minority-owned companies on work involved with state contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, which include that at least minority-owned companies should do 15 percent of the value of contract work, and at least 5 percent should be done by women-owned companies.
The law requires departments, however, to reject bids from companies that have not made sufficient ”good faith efforts” to meet these goals. Other examples of affirmative action programs include: Public college and university programs such as scholarship, tutoring, and outreach that are targeted toward minority or women students. Goals and timetables to encourage the hiring of members of ”underrepresented” groups for state government jobs.
State and local programs required by the federal government as a condition of receiving federal funds such as requirements for minority-owned business participation in state highway construction projects funded in part with federal money. The federal government in President Kennedys Executive Order 10925 first used the term. The directive ordered contractors to take affirmative action to insure that applicants were employed, and employees are treated during their employment, with out regard to their race, creed, or color, or national origin.
In 1998 the federal government had no less than 160 affirmative action programs overseeing the hiring of governments workers as well as the employment practices of companies contracted to do business with the federal government. Those in favor of these laws argue that affirmative action is a logical way of leveling the playing field because white males had dominated society for way too long and closed off opportunities to females, and minorities.
In the Maine School Administrative District No. , it is the intent to pursue policies of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity in all of its departments, programs, and activities. Theyve used affirmative action to insure that all applicants are treated fairly during employment. Such affirmative action applies to, but is not limited to, employment, appointment, selection, up grading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, lay-off, termination, rates of pay and fringe benefits or other forms of compensation and selection for training or academic leave.
It also has established procedures to insure that the effects of its actions upon students, parents, citizens, local educational authorities, schools, libraries, towns and other organizations, and persons are non-discriminatory. It is their policy to insure equal employment/educational opportunities/affirmative action regardless of race, sex, color, national origin, marital status, religion, age or handicap in accordance with all federal and state legislation relative to discrimination. One law against Affirmative Action is Proposition 209 in California.
This law prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, schools, and other government agencies from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Governor Pete Wilson of California, Ward Connerly, Chairman of California Civil Rights Initiative, and Pamela A. Lewis Co-Chair have stated, We are individuals!
Not every white person is advantaged. And not every ”minority” is disadvantaged. Real ”affirmative action” originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis. Let’s not perpetuate the myth that ”minorities” and women cannot compete without special preferences.
Let’s instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against or for any individual( Brune7). There are over 400 diverse, community-based organizations in California are dedicated to the effort to end Proposition 209. The so called Civil Right’s Initiative, which is neither civil nor right, is really a deceptive attempt to recreate gender discrimination, and slam shut the doors of opportunity that African Americans have fought so hard to open.
Affirmative action is not a system of officially designated groups with enforced boundaries and memberships, as Europeans steeped in corporatist traditions envision of such things. Neither is it a system of group rights in the sense intended by domestic critics of affirmative action who see it as adverse to fundamental American values. What we do have is an example of American superiority: a unique but typically American mixture, and a system of rights afforded to groups that are weakly constituted.
To some it might seem that this argument is an: black/white, or us/them debate. Whites are as deeply divided on affirmative action, the level of routine race and sex discrimination and the role of the government in addressing it, according to a Seattle Times national poll (Tom). The poll indicated that 51 percent of whites–and 72 percent of minorities–still believe in the ideals of affirmative action. Both whites and minorities want the way it actually works, reformed.
The Times poll suggested many whites want to do away with goals and timetables for hiring and promotion as well as set-asides of public contracts for minority and women’s firms. A popular reform, the poll indicated, would be to change affirmative action so that it is based on economic disadvantage rather than race and gender. But most civil-rights leaders reject that approach, feeling affirmative action should remain in force until its foes offer a better alternative.
William Connerly of California warned that people wanting to give politically correct responses could skew the results of this poll, and others. Often they tell pollsters one thing about race, he said, then vote the opposite way. Connerly seized on the poll’s suggestion that most whites believe affirmative action leads to unqualified minorities being pushed ahead of better-qualified whites in hiring, promotion and college admissions.
He said that has grave implications for the notion that affirmative action is responsible for the expansion of the black middle class, because it suggests whites think they are not qualified for their jobs. “If you don’t have the training and education, you won’t get the job,” he said (Brune7). It was and still is necessary to have law that state blacks and women need to be give equal treatment in employment and admission to jobs, and schools. If Affirmative Action was done away with a return to what was happening a generation ago could arise again.
No employment of blacks and women, it will be a return to the one thing that once was fought so hard for. The main group that is so upset is the white male establishment cut, and dry. The feeling is that when one black student is admitted into a prestigious school and a white is not, that is so much more deserving it is reverse discrimination. The feeling now is that, ok we gave you a hand out and now undeserving under qualified blacks are being employed and admitted, and that is not fair to the logically more qualified white male (Fine7).
No one wants to be treated unfairly, but by getting rid of Affirmative Action employers and schools will not be obligated to admit, and hire African Americans. Weather people want to admit it or not there is still a racial problem in this country. There has only been a generation of equal treatment, and only through the blood, sweat, ranting, and deaths of others has this happened. Learning from the past is something that is always pointed out. These laws of affirmative action were put into place because of inequality. Let not the work of those past go in vain.
