Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Average Grade Point Average Average Sat Score - 3,292 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Failures of Affirmative Action Once upon a time, there were two people who went to an interview for only one job position at the same company. The first person attended a prestigious and highly selective university, had years of work experience in the field, and in the mind of the employer, had the potential to make a positive impact on the companys performance. The second person was just starting out in the field and seemed to lack the ambition that was visible in his opponent. Who was chosen for the job? you ask. Well, if the story took place before 1964, the answer would be obvious.

However, with the somewhat recent adoption of the social policy know as affirmative action the answer becomes unclear. After the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, it became apparent that certain business traditions, such as seniority status and aptitude tests, prevented total equality in employment. Then President, Lyndon B. Johnson, decided something needed to be done to remedy these flaws. On September 24, 1965, he issued Executive Order # 11246 at Howard University that required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin (Larden). When Lyndon Baines Johnson signed that order, he enacted one of the most discriminating pieces of legislature since the Jim Crow Laws.

Affirmative action was created in an effort to help minorities leap the discriminative barriers that were ever so present when the bill was first enacted, in 1965 (Internet 1). At this time, the country was in the wake of nationwide civil-rights demonstrations, and racial tension was at its peak. Most of the corporate executive and managerial positions were occupied by white males, who controlled the hiring and firing of employees. The U. S. government, in 1965, believed that these employers were discriminating against minorities and believed that there was no better time than the present to bring about change.

When the Civil Rights Law passed, minorities, especially African-Americans, believed that they should receive retribution for the years of discrimination they endured. The government responded by passing laws to aide them in attaining better employment as reprieve for the previous two hundred years of suffering their race endured at the hands of the white man (Berkeley). To many, this made sense. Supporters of affirmative action asked, why not let the government help them get better jobs?

After all, the white man was responsible for their suffering. While this may all be true, there is another question to be asked. Are we truly responsible for the years of persecution that the African-Americans were submitted to? The answer to the question is yes and no. It is true that the white man is partly responsible for the suppression of the African- American race. However, the individual white man is not.

It is just as unfair and suppressive to hold many white males responsible for past persecution now as it was to discriminate against many African-Americans in the generations before. Why should an honest, hard-working, open minded, white male be suppressed today, for past injustices? Affirmative action accepts and condones the idea of an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. Do two wrongs make a right? I think mother has taught us better than that.

Affirmative action supporters make one large assumption when defending the policy. They assume that minority groups want help. This, however, may not always be the case. My experience has led me to believe that minorities fought to attain equality, not special treatment.

To minorities, the acceptance of special treatment is an admittance of inferiority. They ask, Why can t I become successful on my own? Why do we need laws to help me get a job? Minorities want to be treated as equals, not as incompetents! In a statement released in 1981 by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Jack P. Harbor, who directed the project, said: Only if discrimination were nothing more than the misguided acts of a few individuals would affirmative action plans be reverse discrimination.

Only if today s society were operating fairly toward minorities and women would measures that take race, sex, and national origin into account be preferential treatment. Only if discrimination were securely placed in a well-distant past would affirmative action be an unneeded and drastic remedy (Warren 102). What the commission failed to realize was that there are thousands of white males who are not discriminatory, yet are being punished because of those who do. The Northern Natural Gas Company of Omaha, Nebraska, was forced by the government to release sixty-five white male workers to make room for minority employees in 1977 (Nebraska Advisory Committee 40). Five major Omaha corporations reported that the number of white managers fell 25 % in 1969 due to restrictions put on them when affirmative action was adopted (Nebraska Advisory Committee 27). You ask, What did these white males do to bring about their termination?

The only crime that they were guilty of was being white. This hardly seems fair to punish so many innocent men for past crimes of a relative few. But the injustice toward the white male doesn t end there. After the white male has been fired, he has to go out and find a new job to support his family whom previously depended on the company to provide health care and a retirement plan in return for years of hard work.

Now, because of affirmative action, this white male, and thousands like him, require more skills to get the same job than that of a lesser qualified black man needs. This is, for all intents and purposes, discrimination, and it is a law that our government strictly enforces. Affirmative action is not only unfair for the working man, it is extremely discriminatory toward the executive, as well. The average business executive has one goal in mind, and that is to maximize profits. To reach his goal, this executive would naturally hire the most competent man or woman for the job, whether he or she is black or white or any other race.

Why would a business man intentionally cause his business to lose money by hiring a poorly qualified worker? Most wouldn t. With this in mind, it seems unnecessary, even wrong to employ any policy that would cause him to do otherwise. But, that is exactly what affirmative action does.

It forces an employer, who needs to meet a quota established by the government, to hire the minority, no matter who is more qualified. Another way that affirmative action deducts from a company s profits is by forcing them to create jobs for minorities. This occurs when a company does not meet its quota with existing employees and has to find places to put minorities. These jobs are often unnecessary, and force a company to pay for workers that they do not need. Now, don t get the impression that affirmative action is only present in the work place.

It is also very powerful in education. Just as a white male employee needs more credentials to get a job than his minority opponent, a white male student needs more or better skills to get accepted at a prestigious university than a minority student. There are complete sections on college applications dedicated to race and ethnic background. Colleges must now have a completely diverse student body, even if that means some, more qualified students, must be turned away.

A perfect example of this can be found at the University of California at Berkeley. A 1995 report released by the university said that 9. 7 % of all students accepted were African-American. Only 0. 8 % of these African-American students were accepted by academic criteria alone. 36. 8 % of the accepted applicants were white. Of these accepted white students, 47. 9 % were accepted on academic criteria alone.

That means that approximately sixty times more African-American students were accepted due to non-academic influences than white students. It seems hard to believe that affirmative action wasn t one of theses outside influences (Internet 3, 6). Another interesting fact included in the 1995 report said that the average grade point average for a rejected white student was 3. 66 with an average SAT score of 1142. The average grade point average for an accepted African American student as 3. 66 with a 1030 average SAT score. These stunning facts show just how many competent, if not gifted students fall between the cracks as a direct result of affirmative action (Internet 3, 6). The problem has been identified through my view point only, but I am not the only one who sees affirmative action as reverse discrimination.

In fact, California, who houses more than 12 % of our nation s population agrees with me. With the passing of Proposition 209, in affect, California is stating that affirmative action is reverse discrimination. In order for me to present an objective view, California s view in a non biased way, I am forced to recite nothing but the facts. Through this retelling of the facts I will show without a doubt that California, the largest state in the U. S. has an opinion of affirmative action much like mine (Internet 8).

Proposition 209 is an amendment to the California Constitution. Through this proposition, section 31 is added to Article I of the State s Constitution. SEC. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section s effective date. (c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section. (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state. (f) For the purposes of this section, state shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state. (g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California anti discrimination law (h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section (Internet 1). This proposition would eliminate affirmative action programs used to increase hiring and promotion opportunities for state or local government jobs, where sex, race, or ethnicity are preferential factors in hiring, promotion, training, or recruitment decisions.

In addition, the measure would eliminate programs that give preference to woman-owned or minority-owned companies on public contracts. Contracts affected by the measure would include contracts for construction projects, purchases of computer equipment, and the hiring of consultants. These prohibitions would not apply to those government agencies that receive money under federal programs that require such affirmative action (Internet 1). The elimination of these programs would result in savings tot he state and local governments.

These savings would occur for two reasons. First, government agencies no longer would incur costs to administer the programs. Second, the prices paid on some government contracts would decrease. This would happen because bidders on contracts no longer would need to show good faith efforts to use minority-owned or woman-owned subcontractors. Thus, state and local governments would save money to the extent they otherwise would have rejected a low bidder because the bidder did not make a good faith effort and awarded the contract to a higher bidder. The estimate by California s Secretary of State on the amount of money that would be saved could total tens of millions of dollars each year (Internet 9).

This proposition also would affect funding for public schools and community college programs. For instance, the proposition would eliminate, or cause key changes to be made to, voluntary desegregation programs run by school districts. (It would not, however, affect court-ordered desegregation programs. ) Examples of desegregation spending that would be affected by the proposition would include the special funding given to magnet schools (in those cases where race or ethnicity are preferential factors in the admission of students to the schools) and designated racially isolated minority schools that are located in areas with high proportions of racial or ethnic minorities. California s Secretary of State estimates that up to $ 60 million of state and local funds spent each year on voluntary desegregation programs would be affected (Internet 9). In addition, the measure would affect a variety of public school and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, outreach, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts in those cases where the programs provide preferences to individuals or schools based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Funds spent on these programs total at least $ 15 million a year, estimates California s Secretary of State.

Thus the proposition would save up to $ 75 million in state spending in public schools and community college (Internet 9). The proposition would affect admissions and other programs at the state s public universities. For example, California State University uses race and ethnicity as factors in some of it s admissions decisions, and so does the University of California. This proposition will eliminate such practices from all California Universities. Also the universities run a variety of assistance programs for students, faculty, and staff that are targeted to individuals based on sex, race, or ethnicity.

These include programs such as outreach, counseling, tutoring, and financial aid. The two universities alone spend $ 50 million each year on these programs (Internet 9). With the passing of Proposition 209 the state of California can expect a savings of at least $ 125 million. Money isn t the only thing California will gain though.

It will gain one step toward equality. A generation ago, we did it right. We passed civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination. But special interest groups took over the civil rights movements. Instead of equality, governments imposed quotas, preference, and set-asides. Proposition 209 is called the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Reverse discrimination based on race or gender is just plain wrong. And two wrongs don t make a right. Today, students are being rejected from public universities because of their race. Job applicants are turned away because their race does not meet some goal or timetable. Contracts are awarded to high bidders because they are of a preferred race. That s just plain wrong and unjust.

Government should not discriminate. It must not give a job, a university admission, or a contract based on race or sex. Government must judge all people equally, on merit, without discrimination. And remember, Proposition 209 keeps in place all federal and state protections against discriminations. Government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates.

Proposition 209 will stop the terrible programs which are dividing our people and tearing us apart. People naturally feel resentment when the less qualified are preferred. We are all Americans. It s time to bring us together under a single standard of equal treatment under the law. We are individuals. Not every white person is advantaged, and not every minority is disadvantaged.

Real affirmative action meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. That s why Proposition 209 prohibits discrimination and preferences and allows any program that does not discriminate, or prefer, because of race or sex, to continue. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure all American children are provided with tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on fair, color-blind, gender-blind basis. There are a few possible alternatives to affirmative action, some of them are very simple and some are a little more complex. These alternatives include: reconstruction of civil society in minority communities, increasing minority and female applicant flow, and most important promote broad policies for economic opportunity and security that benefit low- and middle-income Americans, black and white (Internet - 10).

Building up civil society means strengthening intermediate institutions, lying between the state and the individual, such as community associations, schools, media, and independent social agencies, which provide the organizational foundation for collective development and effective public representation. (Internet 10). If the same capital was made available for minority institutions, as other institutions, they would be able to develop in the society and eventually become a strong part of the minority community. These institutions would give direction and guidance that is needed by all to play a major role in his / her community (Internet 10). Increasing minority and female applicant flow would be very easy for a company to do. They simply need to include minority colleges and universities in campus recruitment programs, place employment opportunities in minority oriented print and broadcast media, and retain applications of unheard minority applicants to be reviewed as a position opens. This would be a great opportunity for applicants and employers (Internet 10).

We should work toward broad based economic policies by consistently emphasizing broad-based, race-neutral policies-for example, public investment, national health reform, an enlarged earned income tax credit, child support assurance, and other policies benefiting families with young children. Widely supported programs that promote the interests of both lower- and middle-income Americans-and that deliver substantial benefits to minorities on the basis of their economic condition-will do more to reduce minority poverty than narrowly based, and poorly funded, measures for minority groups or the poor alone. These efforts can also be designed to coincide with intermediate institutions and thereby to contribute to the overall process of civil reconstruction and renewal (Internet 10). 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. Fairness not favoritism! Berkeley, Morgan H. Affirmative Action: Taking It All Back. Society.

July, 1995. Larden, Michael. Private Sector Affirmative Action. Lewis Printing Press: New York, 1979.

Warren, Thomas. Commission on Civil Rights, Affirmative Action in the 1980 s. J &# 038; L Press: Washington, 1992 Woods, Joe. Dismantling the Process of Discrimination.

Newman Books: Washington, 1981. United States. Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U. S.

Commission on Civil Rights. # 1134 - 224: government document, 1991. Internet Sources 1. web 2. web 3. web ebook / ucb - 95.

html 4. web 5. web cheetham / kaplan - 1. html 6.

web 7. web ebook/ 8. web 9. web 10. web


Free research essays on topics related to: civil rights act, average sat score, african american students, average grade point average, united states constitution

Research essay sample on Average Grade Point Average Average Sat Score

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com