Difference between revisions of "Affirmative Action"
m |
(mealy-mouth term) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Affirmative action''' is a remedy | + | '''Affirmative action''' is a name given to any of several disparate policies intended to |
| − | + | remedy the historical effects of race discrimination. | |
| − | + | The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done ''affirmatively'', by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities. | |
| + | This would be, in its way, admirable. | ||
However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination. | However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination. | ||
Revision as of 21:17, June 22, 2007
Affirmative action is a name given to any of several disparate policies intended to remedy the historical effects of race discrimination.
The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done affirmatively, by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.
This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.
Regents v. Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"
Dinesh D'Souza wrote:
- Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism. [1]
External links
- The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden - Dinesh D'Souza