FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative Action: A Contradiction In Itself 
Affirmative action is a term of general application referring to government 
policies that directly or indirectly award jobs, admission to universities and
professional 
schools, and other social goods and resources to individuals on the basis of membership
in 
designated protected groups in order to compensate those groups for past discrimation 
caused by society as a whole. For political, as well as prudential reasons reflecting
racial 
sensitivities, public justification of affirmative action has tended to describe it as a
logical 
extension of equality of opportunity for individuals. In fact, affirmative action
embodies 
ideas that are philosophically anti-ethical to the principle of equal protection of the
laws 
that are the basis of equality of opportunity. The essential difference is that
affirmative 
action policies are designed to benefit persons on the basis of membership in a group, 
rather than according to individual qualifications and experience. 
Affirmative action focuses on the results of the procedures used by public and 
private organization measured with respect to racial balance, rather than on the
existence 
of procedures that assure equal treatment of individuals irrespective of race, ethinicity
or 
sex. It can therefore be described as a civil rights policy, promised on the concept of 
group rather than individual rights, which seeks equality of result rather than equality
of 
opportunity.
As a general description of civil rights policy, affirmative action comprehends such 
matters as school desegregation, voting rights, housing sales and rentals, university 
admissions, the activities of federally funded agencies, and public and private
employment. 
In each of these areas, there have been judicial decisions asserting the principles of 
group and equality of results that define historical development and rationale of the
policy 
are best illustrated, however, in employment discrimination law. 
Before the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers were permitted to 
select employees according to race or any other consideration, unlike the situation in 
voting of public education where racial discrimination was arguably unconstitutional to 
races, because they can't hire the most qualified person. 
Affirmative action is, for lazy people who can't do anything for themselves, black 
whites, men and women alike! The truth is that although the government feels they are 
working for the whole, they are forgetting the individual. Setting their sites to boost
the 
economic status of minorities, but knocking them back a century is what the government 
has achieved thus far. These minority groups feel the government has the impression that

their own individual talents are not worthy of the level at which the average white
males' 
are. This angers many men and women of these minority groups, leaving them feeling 
impatient and worthless in their own right. Thus, the vicious cycle of self-doubt begins,

and these men and women depend more and more on the government to get them a job or 
get them into college, because they feel they are not qualified enough to do it on their

own.
In effect, the picture that civil rights have come a long way is an impressionistic 
one, the out-of-date policy of affirmative action only weakens the effects of the
movement 
that hese people have been working diligently for. 
Affirmative action, while being a noble idea, has failed the people it was intended 
to help. It says basically, You cannot succeed on your own. It implies that someone or 
something must take care of people and in doing so, makes them dependent on the 
government. So instead of leveling the playing field, affirmative action has the effect
of 
pushing people down. 
Not only does affirmative action suppress the people it is fighting for, but it also 
stomps on others. For example, if a white man and an African-American male apply for 
the same job, chances are the African-American male would get it, regardless of 
qualifications, because a certain percentage of each business is to be minority employed.

This means a more qualified white male is left out-in-the-cold, because of his race.
Hello!
Do I detect a bit of reverse racism here? Isn't this policy an effort to insure equality
rather 
what the race or sex is?  This is exactly my point, says Tyler attorney Floyd Getz, If 
we are going to be fair, we have to be fair all the way around the circle or affirmative

action only discriminates against the majority groups when it's whole purpose is to
ensure 
equality. Twenty or thirty years ago this policy was in desperate need but now it is 
ineffective and out of date. Yet, if the person with the most qualifications doesn's get
the 
job, it seems to me with this policy it is easier for minorities to go to college, than
for a 
majority group member, so they should be qualified!
This is all too true. Many white majority members have a very hard time being 
accepted to college or being funded through the government, because affirmative action 
relegates the percentage of acceptance and aide each group can receive. Therefore, 
affirmative action discriminates against majority groups and contradicts it's whole
purpose.
Affirmative Action contradicts the traditional liberal principle that individuals have 
rights in respect to which they are entitled to be protected equally without regard to
race 
or other irrelevant personal characteristics. The guarantee of these rights, where 
government acts upon individuals, establishes equality of opportunity. To deny an 
individual his or her rights or treat the individual differently because of