FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Jennifer Carnes 
February 10, 1999
English 102
Mattio Valentino
Proposal for Paper 1: Affirmative Action
Question at Issue
Affirmative action was implemented with the idea and hope that America would finally
become truly equal. The tension of the 1960's civil rights movement had made it very
clear, that the nation's minority and female population were not receiving equal social
and economic opportunity. The implementation of affirmative action was America's first
honest attempt at solving a problem, it had previously chose to ignore. However, there
are many people that don't see affirmative action as a positive solution to this major
societal problem of racial inequality. These people feel that Affirmative action uses
reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination in the workplace.
The Enthymeme
Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination
because Affirmative action makes employers have to choose from the best available
employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose simply the best
employee.
A= Affirmative action v1= uses B= reverse discrimination to solve the problem of
discrimination
Because
A= Affirmative action v2= makes C= employers have to choose from the best 
available employee from the minorities, instead of having the possibility to choose the
best available employee.
Assumption: Anything that makes employers have to choose from the best available employee
from the minorities, instead of having to simply choosing the best available employee
uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination.
Assumption and Audience
The assumption for this paper will appeal to employees who do not qualify for Affirmative
action, as well as employers and minorities. Employees not qualifying for Affirmative
action feel shortchanged due to the fact employers, for a lesser skilled employee,
bypassed them. They feel tricked by the government or the minority therefore firing up
racism among the bypassed group, while Affirmative action was introduced to decrease
racism. Employers also feel as if they have ended up with a lesser skilled employee
therefore increasing the amount of lesser quality work. Employees provided with equal
opportunity jobs bear the mark of not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a
limited group. 
Organization
Question at Issue: Does Affirmative action use reverse discrimination to solve
discrimination?
Definition of A: Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or
educational opportunities for members minority groups and women.
A -* C Relationship: Affirmative action causes federal contractors/employers to choose
from the best available employee from the minorities instead of choosing the best
available employee from the whole
Definition of B: Reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination is using
discerning treatment against a white male or female instead of a black male or female to
solve a problem of racial inequality.
A -* B Relationship: Affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem
of discrimination.
Definition of C: Employers ability to choose the best available employee from the whole
instead of a select minority is the outcome of affirmative action. It insures that
minorities are recruited to have real opportunities to be hired in the workplace.
C -* B Relationship: By employers having to choose from the best of a minority group for
employment rather than just simply the best employee, reverse discrimination is used to
solve the problem of discrimination. This is due to the fact that unequal opportunity is
given to the minority.
Research
Encarta 1998 Encyclopedia
http://www.purdue.edu/HUMANREL/tis_aa.htm
Conclusion
This argument would be represented in an editorial form due to its appeal to the common
everyday man trying to make an honest living. 
Affirmative Action Animosity
Affirmative action is the U.S. program set forth in the early 1970's to correct the
effects of past discrimination by giving preferential treatment to women and ethnic
minorities in the workplace. At the time of affirmative action's induction to society,
proponents of affirmative action programs felt that the only way to increase the number
of minorities in the workplace was to establish a system of quotas to be maintained by
law. However, by forming and maintaining these laws over the past twenty-five years, a
development of an entirely new set of problems arose; problems that would fuel
controversy over affirmative action. A majority of people are dissatisfied with current
affirmative action policies, but are opposed to eliminating them completely: Americans
hold doggedly to notions of family and liberty, but they also believe in a sort of rough
equality of opportunity that gives the underdog a real chance in life (Kahlenberg 209).
Once necessary, affirmative action programs have outlived their usefulness, and promote
discrimination by continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices. Affirmative action
uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination because it makes
employers have to choose from the best available employee from the minorities, instead of
having the possibility of simply choosing the best available employee.
The primary goal of affirmative action programs was to increase the number of minorities,
including women, in the workplace. The American Association for Affirmative Action states
that they are dedicated to the advancement of affirmative action, equal opportunity and
the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnic background or any
other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to live and work, (AAAA Sept.
1998). Most people would agree that goal has been realized. There was a definite need for
action to enlighten individuals and corporations to the negative results of their
prejudices. It is unlikely that corporations would have taken the initiative to hire from
the minority groups had it not been for government intervention. Affirmative action has
created numerous opportunities for women and minorities in this country. It would be
difficult to argue that these programs were not absolutely essential in making progress
toward the semi-equality that we have today. 
However, affirmative action has always been a compromise, and with the progress made, a
price has also been paid. Affirmative action must now be rethought and restructured. Laws
created preference programs that were based in the conscience of the American people and
in their commitment to equal treatment,(Roberts & Statton 67). The racial quotas that we
experience today are blatant perversions that are illegal under the statutory language of
the Civil Rights Act (Roberts & Stratton 67). If the goal is true equal opportunity
employment, removal of all advantages and allowing people to be hired for their skills
and abilities only should occur.
Continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices, affirmative action programs promote
discrimination. Using reverse discrimination, defined as the discerning treatment against
white males instead of black males or women of any race, to solve the problem of
discrimination will always receive criticism for its hypocrisy. For example, in 1965, the
Newport News Shipbuilding Co. buckled under the heavy hand of the EEOC, who had solicited
complaints by knocking on the doors in black neighborhoods. The company reluctantly
agreed to promote 2,890 of its five thousand black workers, designating 100 blacks as
supervisors, and agreed to a quota system. One shipyard worker stated that the EEOC had
done its best to set black against white, labor against management, and disconcert
everybody. (Roberts & Stratton 93). Another example of this reverse discrimination was in
the education system; the public case of Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas W. Carvell, Kenneth
R. Elliott, and David A. Rogers. They filed discrimination charges again the State of
Texas stating they were discriminated against and denied admission to the University of
Texas School of Law. The college granted admission to less qualified African American and
Mexican American applicants through the use of a quota system. This practice of
preferential admissions for minorities furthers the practice of reverse discrimination,
now not just in the workplace, but also in the school systems. This creates animosities
between workers that lead to further segregation, defeating the intentions of the
programs entirely. Through the demise of race-dividing policies, underrepresented
individuals shielded by affirmative action would be forced to compete, on a level playing
field, for jobs and admission to colleges and universities. Competition has nothing but
positive effects and is crucial in accelerating capitalism. The debilitating effects of
affirmative action and quotas hinder an individual's desire to compete in society. 
Destroying discrimination caused by past offenses may never have perfect solutions,
therefore, creating valid arguments for maintaining the existence of equal opportunity
programs. But, to continue to offer one group opportunity, due only to their minority
status, at the expense of another is wrong. Non-minorities continue to feel that their
rights have been violated and that they are being punished for crimes that they had no
part in committing. And when non-minorities are subject to the same discrimination, they
have little recourse: Under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, white males can have no grounds
for discrimination lawsuits until they are statistically underrepresented in management
and line positions. The 1991 Act, in effect, repealed the 1964 act by legalizing racial
preferences as the core of civil rights law (Roberts & Stratton). 
Regardless of good intentions, changing the past effects of discrimination is a goal that
is far from reach, however, not unattainable. Women and minorities should be entitled to
enjoy the same successes as the rest of the country, without the fear of being seen as
the beneficiary of entitlements. Business owners should be free to make intelligent
hiring decisions based on a persons skills and talents, without the fear of penalty from
the government. As Marsha M. states, Affirmative action is used not to level the playing
field, but used to strong-arm employer's into jobs, raises and promotions for Black
Americans and women. The growing tensions that result from these programs continues to
divide races, not bring them closer together. Ultimately, either quotas will go or
democracy will, because legal privileges based on status are incompatible with
democracy's requirement of equal standing before the law (Roberts & Stratton 177).
Allowing different sets of rules and lower standards to separate people based on race or
sex, defeats any efforts made toward finally ending discrimination. 
Today every American has access to employment and educational opportunities. Americans
live in a world of free enterprise where they can create their own successes. Americans
have the means to achieve and succeed, they just have to have the drive and incentive to
go out into the world and do it. As in every aspect of life some things may not come
easily. Yet these experiences make one stronger and sometimes even more determined to
achieve their goals. Individuals of any race should not use or misuse the color of their
skin or sexual orientation for advancing themselves over others. Instead by using their
talents, knowledge and sense of fairness to achieve their goals, affirmative action will
become outdated.
Works Cited Page
Affirmative Action: Part 1 Enforcing Equality,  An Affirmative Action Primer, The
Virginia Pilot. 1995. Pilot Online. 12, September 1998.
Heilman, Madeline. Study: Affirmative Action Hires Abilities Doubted @. Money Magazine,
Aug. 31, 1992, 3B.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Remedy. New York; BasicBooks, 1996.
M., Marsha. Untitled. Tidewater Community College. November, 1998.
Roberts, Paul Craig., and Lawrence M. Stratton. The New Color Line. Washington, DC;
Regnery Publishing, 1995.
Rough Draft
Affirmative action refers to the U.S. program set forth in the early 1970's to correct
the effects of past discrimination by giving preferential treatment to women and ethnic
minorities in the workplace. At the time of their induction, proponents of affirmative
action programs felt that the only way to increase the number of minorities in the
workplace was to establish a system of quotas to be maintained by law. However, by
forming and maintaining these laws over the past twenty-five years, a development of an
entirely new set of problems arose. These problems are what fuel the controversy over
affirmative action. Most people are dissatisfied with current affirmative action
policies, but are opposed to eliminating them completely: Americans hold doggedly to
notions of family and liberty, but they also believe in a sort of rough equality of
opportunity that gives the underdog a real chance in life (Kahlenberg 209). Once a
necessary evil, affirmative action programs have outlived their usefulness, and promote
discrimination by continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices. 
The primary goal of affirmative action programs was to increase the number of minorities
in the workplace. Most people would agree that that goal has been realized. There was a
definite need for action to enlighten individuals and corporations to the negative
results of their prejudices. It is unlikely that corporations would have taken the
initiative to hire from the minority groups, had it not been for government intervention.
Affirmative action has created numerous opportunities for women and minorities in this
country. It would be difficult to argue that these programs were not absolutely essential
in making progress toward equality that we have made today. The American Association for
Affirmative Action states that they are dedicated to the advancement of affirmative
action, equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race,
gender, ethnic background or any other criterion that deprives people of opportunities to
live and work (AAAA Sept. 1998).
However, affirmative action has always been a compromise, and with the progress made, a
price has also been paid. Affirmative action must now be rethought and restructured. Laws
created the preference programs: were based in the conscience of the American people and
in their commitment to equal treatment. The racial quotas that we experience today are
blatant perversions that are illegal under the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act
(Roberts & Stratton 67). If the goal is true equal opportunity employment, removal of all
advantages and allowing people to be hired for their skills and abilities only should
occur.
By continuing to allow for unfair hiring practices, affirmative action programs promote
discrimination. Using reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination will
always receive criticism for its hypocrisy. By requiring corporations to fulfill quotas,
the affirmative action laws promote the hiring of less qualified workers. For example, in
1965, the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. buckled under the heavy hand of the EEOC, who had
solicited complaints by knocking on the doors in black neighborhoods. The company
reluctantly agreed to promote 2,890 of its five thousand black workers, designating 100
blacks as supervisors, and agreed to a quota system. One shipyard worker stated that the
EEOC had done its best to set black against white, labor against management, and
disconcert everybody. (Roberts & Stratton 93). This creates animosities between workers
that lead to further segregation, defeating the intentions of the programs entirely. 
Another example of this reverse discrimination was in the education system; the public
case of Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas W. Carvell, Kenneth R. Elliott, and David A. Rogers.
They filed discrimination charges again the State of Texas stating they were
discriminated against and denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law. The
college granted admission to less qualified African American and Mexican American
applicants through the use of a quota system. This practice of preferential admissions
for minorities furthers the practice of reverse discrimination, now not just in the
workplace, but also in the school systems.
Affirmative action has never been a perfect solution and people will always have valid
arguments for maintaining its existence. But, to continue to offer one group opportunity,
due only to their minority status, at the expense of another is wrong. Non-minorities
continue to feel that their rights have been violated and that they are being punished
for crimes that they had no part in committing. And when non-minorities are subject to
the same discrimination, they have little recourse: Under the 1991 Civil Rights Act,
white males can have no grounds for discrimination lawsuits until they are statistically
underrepresented in management and line positions. The 1991 Act, in effect, repealed the
1964 act by legalizing racial preferences as the core of civil rights law (Roberts &
Stratton). 
Regardless of good intentions, changing the past effects of discrimination is an
unattainable goal. Women and minorities should be entitled to enjoy the same successes as
the rest of the country, without the fear of being seen as the beneficiary of
entitlements. Business owners should be free to make intelligent hiring decisions based
on a persons skills and talents, without the fear of penalty from the government. As
Marsha M. states, Affirmative action is used not to level the playing field, but used to
strong-arm employer's into jobs, raises and promotions for Black Americans and women. The
growing tensions that result from these programs continues to divide races, not bring
them closer together. Allowing different sets of rules and lower
Standards to separate people based on race or sex, defeats any efforts made toward
finally ending discrimination. Ultimately, either quotas will go or democracy will,
because legal privileges based on status are incompatible with democracy's requirement of
equal standing before the law (Roberts & Stratton 177).
Today every American has access to employment and educational opportunities. Americans
live in a world of free enterprise where they can create their own successes. Americans
have the means to achieve and succeed, they just have to have the drive and incentive to
go out into the world and do it. As in every aspect of life some things may not come
easily. Yet these experiences make one stronger and sometimes even more determined to
achieve their goals. Individuals of any race should not use or misuse the color of their
skin or sexual orientation for advancing themselves over others. Instead by using their
talents, knowledge and sense of fairness to achieve their goals, affirmative action will
become outdated.
Works Cited Page
Affirmative Action: Part 1 Enforcing Equality,  An Affirmative Action Primer, The
Virginia Pilot. 1995. Pilot Online. 12, September 1998.
Heilman, Madeline. Study: Affirmative Action Hires Abilities Doubted @. Money Magazine,
Aug. 31, 1992, 3B.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Remedy. New York; BasicBooks, 1996.
M., Marsha. Untitled. Tidewater Community College. November, 1998.
Roberts, Paul Craig., and Lawrence M. Stratton. The New Color Line. Washington, DC;
Regnery Publishing, 1995.