Monday, April 16, 2007

Affirmative Action

Is affirmative action justified? Affirmative action allows people from minority groups a step up in university admissions, job opportunities, etc. because of the applicant's race, but it does this by disadvantaging another applicant. Is it fair to balance one disadvantage with another? Is affirmative action a good solution or a solution that is the same as the problem it is intended to solve?

If you don't know much about AA, you can check out the basics at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Megan Qualls (11:00)

10 comments:

English student said...

That's a tough question! I actually have been affected by something of the sort when I was in basic training in the US Army. I was up for promotion through dedication, hard work, and continually improving my skills-at the end of the 9 weeks in basic I was told by my Drill Sergaent that I would recieve a promotion while in final formation in front of everyone- The entire battallion, commanding Officers and most importantly my parents( who I had told the good news to). When it was time to call my name they called someone elses- They called a minority who received the promotion. I was devastated! Now mind you I was a minority (white girl) in basic training & had reached the top of my class past most of the guys, so why wasn't I chosen(especially when I was told I would be!). Maybe it should be on a case by case determination, but in all actuality if you're qualified for the job more than the next person regardless of color than why should we get punished for your color? Im thinking that by doing this maybe we're trying to make up for a terrible past, yet by allowing others to be discriminated against only hurts our future!

English student said...

last comment by Amy Marx

English student said...

I don't think that affirmative action is a good thing because when putting it more toward race, it lowers oppurtunities to have more people try to come and help. Picking from a race is wrong and it is choosing a side. Instead, having someone trying to get a job should be based on how much they know from past jobs or how good of a team player they seem to be.
Katrina Burkhardt

English student said...

This is a tough question because there is no perfect solution. Affirmative Actions was meant to make sure more minorities were treated fairly, but then that pushes university admissions, business owners, etc. to admit/hire more minorities and less caucasians. So then the caucasians are given less opportunities. But then again caucasians have had greater opportunities for years so isn't this only fair? In my opinion it's not. I think in the college admissions process, nationality and color should not even be allowed to be on the application - that way everyone is treated the same in the admissions process. That's not so easy in job applications because of the interview process, so I don't have a solution for that. But I do have to agree that Affirmative Action creates the same problem it intended to solve. It probably never will be solved either.
Nigel Knop.

English student said...

I am very glad someone posed this question. Affirmitive Action is one thing that I am very much against. Whtether it's for college or a job, i beleive that the best available candidates should either get the job or get in the school. I don't care if they are black, white, asain, etc. Another example is from a news program i saw on CBS about this topic. The University of Michigan accepts prospective students on a "points system." For example, A high GPA will get you some points, as will being involved in extracurricular activities. The more points, the better chance you have to get into the school. Now in this system, 5 points are awarded for having a high ACT score. But 20 points are givin for just being a minority! I was absolutely shocked when i heard that. Being a minority is more important than having a good ACT score? In my opinion, affirmitive action is one of the stupidest things. Matt Lindsay

English student said...

Affirmative action should be revised to fit the society we live in today. People who are qualified to use this method have a leg up on those who are as well qualified for the position, placement. Each person needs to be evaluated on their merits of experience, ability, education, knowledge. For what it was intended should not be an issue any longer. Revisions in this policy are outdated, and inappropriate. Linda Francis

English student said...

I am not really sure on this. I mean that it is hard to understand what people want in a person when they promote them or hire them. You may think that you have the job because you have all the right stuff that it takes to do the job well, but the employer may not like you personality. They may have other reasons for not hiring you or some other person. It is not fair though to pick a person because of race and color. Employers know what they want and look for what they want in their employees.

Jarrod Winder

English student said...

i think this is descrimination in a way. i mean it is very wrong to actually look at race to get a job or acceptance to a school, yet the thing that sounds right about it is the fact that the united states is trying really hard to promote the non-racial values, and i think the top positions are occupied by white male. white females and other races are usually left in the dark, so by doing so i think we are just giving everybody a fair chance. its a really tough subject, i mean it would be better if they have specially reserved positions for minorities so they wouldn't end up depriving someone of their right. i never thought about that and i think i actually am confusing myself right now. it seems right and wrong. i think the best solution is to match up qualifications of applicants. when they are the same, the race and sex value should kick in. its totally not fair for someone to get a job for their race or sex, without the qualifications.
BAHAA ABU SALIM

English student said...

I think it has its disadvantages and advantages. I believe all people should be given the right to prove themselves in employment and college opportuinites. I feel a person should demostrate skills to be placed in prestigious jobs. I do not think it is right to bump a more qualified person out because they feel it is necessary. As Ms. Marx says, she should of been given the promotion regardless of the person who received it. I believe it was wrong to do such a thing, and this is another way that sexism plays a role in a woman's everyday life. If affirmative action is to benefit minority groups, we women fall into the group as well. I am not against affirmative action, because it has helped a lot of people obtain college degrees, employment, and improve their lives. I feel some people use it incorrectly.
Cheri A

English student said...

I find a problem with people being refused a job due to race,gender, or age. I would like to think this isn't going on, but there seems to be a gap in salaries. White men, on average, make more than women and minorities. I think that hiring someone just because they're a minority is also wrong. The problem I think is the interviewer. They are ill-equipped to hire properly. The interviewer usually relies on what one looks like on paper. What one looks like on paperis very vague. One that was able to acquire the finances to go to a top university, may not be a good employee. It looks like it on paper, but they may lack people skills. Interviewers aren't able to properly root out the personality of the interviewee. The interviewers could probably be better trained. If they are trained somewhat in psychology they might be able to make a clearer estimate. Somebody's paper acheivements can be fluffed. Another problem is the interviewees take on another role in interviews. The interviewers must be aware that this is a possibilty. I feel if the interviewer is better trained in psychology and ethics they will make better decisions.
Someone has to ask the question of whether people are being equal in hiring, just to keep the employers in check. If they didn't, it would become a giant issue. Equality wouldn't stand in the employers eye.
Employers tend to be unequal to older employees; they will give younger people promotions, regardless of seniority. The reason for this is, the younger person will do more work for less pay. Especially if the younger person has student loans to pay off, they are more eager to do more work. What the employer doesn't foresee is the quality of their work. The younger person is more likely to make more mistakes more often. This is a problem, because employers take cues from accountants. The accountants just see math on paper and lack the management skills to diagnose this. The mistakes can add up to a excessive loss in efficiency. It would be cheaper to pay more an hour for the employee with senority. I like more diverse atmospheres, it makes a better work or school environment. This will be noticeable if interviews are done right, regardlessof race, gender, or age personality is what matters. The problem with those against affirmative action is, they now have something to blame if they are turned down. It couldn't of been their fault in any way, it was someone else's. They might not have been well prepared for the interview, but it wasn't their fault. In the eyes of those against affirmative action, it happens more often than in truth. T don't think it happens that often at all, but it's what they want to think. There are so many job openings I don't see how it could. I work in a place with high turnover, they are always hiring. They are desperate for anybody, so if you are turned down it's for some other factor. The problem is that the one turned down doesn't want to hear that, they want a easy solution. Affirmative action isn't strictly enforced. The employers that do turn down due to race, gender, and age are getting away with it.
Aaron Peters