Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Dec 30, 2004 1:37:13 GMT -5
wasn't sure where to put this, culture or politics, but, here's another paper of mine.
In recent years the policy of affirmative action has come into the spotlight of public attention. Affirmative action programs are programs that ensure that companies or schools have a equal amount of minorities employed or enrolled as compared to the community they are in. The question that results from this is whether it is moral, or legal for that matter, to make these sorts of distinctions based on race. I will be arguing that affirmative action is both morally and legally wrong, because our morals are, when it comes down to it, based on the laws of our country.
In the United States constitution, the document that all the laws that we follow are based on, states that no man shall be discriminated against based on race color or creed. So, based on these two things, it is an easy matter to see that any law that makes preferences of one race over another, whether the race getting the boost is a minority or not, is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional. Our moral code is based on the laws of our country, whether those morals are the correct morals or not remains to be seen, and is a matter for another paper. And if, according to our laws, something is wrong, so should it be in our moral code, in which case, affirmative action should not exist.
However, the constitution also states that all men are equal, meaning everyone should have equal opportunity and access to universities, schools, and employment. Affirmative action is one way of ensuring that these ideals are met. The programs attempt to ensure that even the poor are able to get into a top 10 university, and that any discrimination in the work place or acceptance committees in universities is bypassed to allow equal opportunities for all minorities. The affirmative action programs are in place to counter the problem of tyranny of majority, so that minorities get the amount of representation they deserve.
The part of the Constitution in question states that all men are equal, this does not mean that some groups of people get handouts so that all citizens of this country are all on the same economic level. This part of the constitution is referring to opportunity for advancement. All people in this country have the same options available to them. Also, a law that gives benefits to people based on their minority status is another way to discriminate against a group of people, in this case the group of people is the majority, or at least plurality population, but it is discrimination none the less.
Laws such as affirmative action have another issue that can be raised against them. The whole point of having a law that benefits a certain group of race is to eventually bring an end to discrimination. The problem with these programs, though, is that they accomplish the exact opposite, they prolong the separation between the different groups of people that live in this country. By drawing lines for admission, for employment, they are giving people a definition of the lines of the races. The programs, instead of moving towards an end of discrimination, they prolong it, creating animosity among the majority, as minority members with fewer qualifications take the opportunities provided to them by affirmative action. As long as affirmative action exists, so too will the lines of prejudice and discrimination.
By eliminating affirmative action, you will eliminate a way for minorities, or otherwise disinclined persons to advance their life, for example, the poor inner city schools unable to produce students of the caliber required for the higher level learning. What is to be done for the people who, by no fault of their own, are unable to get the high quality education that is available to the more wealthy white suburban schools? The whole point of affirmative action is to give these lower income families the ability to get the education they need and deserve. It is morally wrong to deny them the equal opportunity.
By putting affirmative action in place you are admitting people based not on talent, or skills, or ability, or intelligence, the only thing that is being judged is a person’s minority status, which is not what a university should use to determine who is admitted. The whole point of having admittance qualifications is to ensure that the people admitted into the college are competent, and have the skills to make it through the curriculum. Universities are places of education, not of percentages. This same idea can be used when applied to the work place. Any employer who chooses a minority over a majority person for reasons other than the difference in their abilities to perform their job is in the wrong, it is the same as choosing a majority member over a minority, the same crime is being committed, the same discrimination is there.
In this paper I have argued that affirmative action is morally wrong, based on the morals that our legal base produces. This kind of question is rather straightforward. It is against the law of our nation and should therefore be abolished. That, however is not the whole of it, it is furthermore morally wrong because programs such as these prolong the problem of discrimination and prejudice in our nation.
In recent years the policy of affirmative action has come into the spotlight of public attention. Affirmative action programs are programs that ensure that companies or schools have a equal amount of minorities employed or enrolled as compared to the community they are in. The question that results from this is whether it is moral, or legal for that matter, to make these sorts of distinctions based on race. I will be arguing that affirmative action is both morally and legally wrong, because our morals are, when it comes down to it, based on the laws of our country.
In the United States constitution, the document that all the laws that we follow are based on, states that no man shall be discriminated against based on race color or creed. So, based on these two things, it is an easy matter to see that any law that makes preferences of one race over another, whether the race getting the boost is a minority or not, is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional. Our moral code is based on the laws of our country, whether those morals are the correct morals or not remains to be seen, and is a matter for another paper. And if, according to our laws, something is wrong, so should it be in our moral code, in which case, affirmative action should not exist.
However, the constitution also states that all men are equal, meaning everyone should have equal opportunity and access to universities, schools, and employment. Affirmative action is one way of ensuring that these ideals are met. The programs attempt to ensure that even the poor are able to get into a top 10 university, and that any discrimination in the work place or acceptance committees in universities is bypassed to allow equal opportunities for all minorities. The affirmative action programs are in place to counter the problem of tyranny of majority, so that minorities get the amount of representation they deserve.
The part of the Constitution in question states that all men are equal, this does not mean that some groups of people get handouts so that all citizens of this country are all on the same economic level. This part of the constitution is referring to opportunity for advancement. All people in this country have the same options available to them. Also, a law that gives benefits to people based on their minority status is another way to discriminate against a group of people, in this case the group of people is the majority, or at least plurality population, but it is discrimination none the less.
Laws such as affirmative action have another issue that can be raised against them. The whole point of having a law that benefits a certain group of race is to eventually bring an end to discrimination. The problem with these programs, though, is that they accomplish the exact opposite, they prolong the separation between the different groups of people that live in this country. By drawing lines for admission, for employment, they are giving people a definition of the lines of the races. The programs, instead of moving towards an end of discrimination, they prolong it, creating animosity among the majority, as minority members with fewer qualifications take the opportunities provided to them by affirmative action. As long as affirmative action exists, so too will the lines of prejudice and discrimination.
By eliminating affirmative action, you will eliminate a way for minorities, or otherwise disinclined persons to advance their life, for example, the poor inner city schools unable to produce students of the caliber required for the higher level learning. What is to be done for the people who, by no fault of their own, are unable to get the high quality education that is available to the more wealthy white suburban schools? The whole point of affirmative action is to give these lower income families the ability to get the education they need and deserve. It is morally wrong to deny them the equal opportunity.
By putting affirmative action in place you are admitting people based not on talent, or skills, or ability, or intelligence, the only thing that is being judged is a person’s minority status, which is not what a university should use to determine who is admitted. The whole point of having admittance qualifications is to ensure that the people admitted into the college are competent, and have the skills to make it through the curriculum. Universities are places of education, not of percentages. This same idea can be used when applied to the work place. Any employer who chooses a minority over a majority person for reasons other than the difference in their abilities to perform their job is in the wrong, it is the same as choosing a majority member over a minority, the same crime is being committed, the same discrimination is there.
In this paper I have argued that affirmative action is morally wrong, based on the morals that our legal base produces. This kind of question is rather straightforward. It is against the law of our nation and should therefore be abolished. That, however is not the whole of it, it is furthermore morally wrong because programs such as these prolong the problem of discrimination and prejudice in our nation.
