Thesis Essay Example For Students

Thesis: Essay Although many people believe that affirmative Action is a form of racism, it is actually used to help minorities find employment in an otherwise racist world. In the United States, equality is a recurring theme. It has flared into a fervent moral issue at crucial stages of American history: The revolutionary and Jacksonian Period, and the New Deal. In each era, the legitimacy of American society is challenged by some set of people unhappy with the degree of equality (Verba and Orren). Following the Civil War, Congress passed a number of laws designed to put former slaves on an equal level with white people. The Fourteenth Amendment made the freedmen citizen and prohibited states from enforcing any law which took away the privliges of any citizen, depriving men of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, or denied men equal protection of the laws. In 1875, Republican majority in Congress, aware that reconstruction would soon end, passed a civil right act to secure by law semblance of equality for Black Americans (Urofsky 19). Many white Americans really did not like the idea of equality for the Black Freedmen. Gideon Welles, who had been prevailing sentiment when he wrote in 1871: Thank God slavery is abolished, but the Negro is not, and never can be the equal of the white man. He is of an inferior race and must always remain so(Urofsky 23). The supreme court agreed and in 1883 passed the Civil Rights act which diluted much of th!e protection of t he Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Joseph Bradely interpreted the enforcement provision of the amendment as strictly remedial; congress has the power to remedy a discriminatory state law, but could not take affirmative steps to protect blacks from other forms of prejudice (Urofsky 21). As a result of this decision, the federal government took no action to combat racism in the country until the second world war (Urofsky 22). Because resentment continued to increase within the black communities and because of the threat of a march on Washington, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order on June 25, 1941. This order directed African Americans to be accepted into job-training programs in defense plants. The order also stated that discrimination would not be excepted by employers holding defense contracts. It also set up a fair employment practice commissions to investigate charges of racial discrimination. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower continued to enforce fair employment legislation after Roosevelts policies because Congress was unwilling to do so. In 1954, the supreme court decision Brown v. Board of Education pressured both houses of Congress and the executive office to take some positive steps on behalf of civil rights. In January 1961, John F. Kennedy took office. Almost immediately Roy Wilkins of the NAACP called for action to promote employment opportunities for African Americans. John F. Kennedy responded with executive order 10925, which created a presidential commission on equal employment opportunity; it also mandated federal contractors to take Affirmative Action to ensure that there would be no discrimination by race, creed, color or nationality. This was not the first time that the government ordered it own contractors not only to avoid discrimination, but to take positive steps to redress the effects of discrimination in society. In some cases contractors were asked to pay employees doing similar work, the same amount of pay. Without congressional action an executive order could only last so long, and in 1963 Kenn edy secured passage of the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act prohibited employers from paying women less than men for the same work. A short time later due to the assassination of kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson called for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill as a memorial to the late president kennedy. Lyndon B. Johnson skillfully guided and expanded versions of kennedys proposal through the house and senate. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law July 2, 1964. Title VII of the act banned employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, and nationality, it also created a permanent equal employment opportunity commission to enforce its provisions. The act also for the first time included obligations not to discriminate to private employees, labor unions, and governmental agencies.(Urofsky 17). In executive order 11246, issued on September 24, 1965, Johnson require that federal contractors take affirmative action to recruit, hire, and promote more minorities. Two years later in executive order 11375 Johnson added women to the group covered by previous anti- discrimination order (Urofsky17). Each new order was a modification of the previous one. Increasing minorities and womens chances to compete in the job market. When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he asked Art Fletcher, the Assistant Secretary of Labor and a black man himself, to find a way to enforce the hiring provisions of Title VII in a way that it would withstand court challenge. Fletcher did, and in 1971 Nixon unveiled the Philadelphia Plan. The Philadelphia Plan made federal contractors meet specific numerical goals in hiring minorities. Each contractor was to have nine percent of its work force be made up of minorities and women. Even with all these Executive Orders, Civil Rights Act, and Amendments passed, only a small percent of minorities held position in the job force. In recent years, in order to combat job discrimination in the employment market, the federal government has issued a series of executive orders and have established government funded firms to secure equal opportunity in the work force. Affirmative action and other executive orders were created to insert qualified minorities in the job market, but in recent years it has been used to deter job discrimination from happening. Yet societys viewpoint on Affirmative Action has been a way for the federal government to favor one class of people over another. The fact is, that in order to use Affirmative Action to favor minorities and women against white males in the workplace, jobs must first be integrated with both minorities and whites. For no one can separate apples and oranges if there are no apples!In the case of Firefighters Local Union No. 17 84 v. Stotts (1984). The Memphis fire department was found in violation of Title VII and was under court order to hire and promote more blacks to make amends for past discrimination. Later, anticipating a budget deficit, the city planned to lay off public employees with the least seniority, and that action would have mostly affected recently hired black firemen. Stotts, a black fireman challenging the proposed personnel actions, received a favorable decision from the federal court, which granted an injunction enjoining the Fire Department from strictly adhering to seniority in layoffs. As a result, the union appealed to protect its seniority plan and white union members. The Burger Court reversed the lower court by ruling that because no intentional discrimination had been proved, Title VII protects bona fida seniority systems, and it is inappropriate to deny an innocent employee the benefits of his seniority in order to pr!ovide a remedy in a pattern of practiced discrimination sui t such as this (Janosilk 1205). So from then on the court upheld that even if an individual shows that the discriminatory practice has an impact on him/her, the court noted, he/she is not automatically entitled to have a non minority employee laid off to make room for him (Janosilk 1205). Juliana Queiroga EssayPresident Clinton, is facing a no-win situation betweeen traditional civil rights constitutenciesand the many angry white males in this country. These men wish to change federal affimative action policies but promise to continue efforts to eliminate discrimination. Yet no plan or proposal that Republican lawmakers, or angry white males have created has help decrease the number of discrimantory act by a company or has helped minorities find jobs than Affirmative Action plans existing today. These same Republican lawmakers are pushing ahead with efforts to unravel affirmative action, encouraged and empowered by a dramatic Supreme court ruling that cas doubt on federal programs seeking to advance women and minorities. The high court June 12 handed down a 5-4 opinion in a closely watched case, Adarand Construction v. Pena, that challenged a federal Affirmative Action Program. The majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day OConnor, did not actually strike down any Affirmative Action programs, but it criticized the moral justification for Affirmative Aciton, saying that race conscious programs can amount to unconstitutional reverse discrimination and even harm those they seek to advance. Yet they had not proven any way in which Affirmative Action can harm those they seek to advance. Republican had been preparing a legislative assault on federal Affirmative Action, either by eliminating programs or with a sweeping measure to outlaw virtually all federal preferecnes on the basis of race or gender. Their targets include scores of congressional and executive branch initiatives that offer special consideration or set-aside for women, minorities and others in federal contracting and hiring. This proves that Republicans wish to eliminate Affirmative Action plan and replace it with nothing. With nothing to help women or minorities their is minimal chances of them competing in the job market.In defending the program, the Clinton administration stressed that white-owned companies can quaify for bonuses given by Affrimative Action Plans if they prove that they are Socially or enconomically disadvantaged. Some critics of Affirmative Action want to adopt social or economic hardship as a criterion for all Affirmative Action plans. Civi rights groups say they are not opposed t o using socioeconomic disadvantages, but want to keep policies specifically aimed at women and minorities too(America Online 3). Speculation about the future of Affirmative Action must go beyond prognosis of the courts configuration and estimations of its respect for precedents said John Naibandian of University of Kansas (Public Administration Reveiw 43). He was also quoted as saying , Over an 18-year period, adminstrators hve become sensitized to court decisionexpressing the value of social equity. It is unreasonable to anticpate sudden administrative reversal of these impacts now regardlass of Court action (Public Administration Review 43). Some observers have suggested that the solution to racial inequality in the United States lies largely in a two-pronged attack on discrimination in educationm and employment. If such a solution is possible, certainly the Supreme Court will play a role. But, in a system of separation of powers, it is axiimatic that only so much can be accomplished by even the most activist Courts. That is why all human beings must strive to understand the total implication of what they do. They must help each other see that there is a problem in employing women and minorities. Saul Solano HoneggerEnglish 102October 18, 1995Affirmative action: Is it a form of Racisim?Thesis: Although many people believe affirmative action is a form of racism, it is actually used to help minorities find employment in an otherwise racist world. I. Civil WarA. Laws passed during the civil warB. Plans used to help lawsII.JFK and Excecutive orderA. Steps taken by JFKB. JFK Executive order taking effect III. Other PresidentsA. Harry Truman controbution to Affirmative ActionB. FDR controbution to Affirmative ActionC. D. Eisnehower Executive orderIV. Court CasesA. Firefighters Local Union No.1784 v. StottsB. Stelle v. Louisvill Nashville RailroadC. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. D. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenE. Hazelwood School District v. United StatesV. Those against Affirmative ActionA. Why are white male against Affirmative Aciton Plans B. Why white male dislike the idea of affirmative actionKaus, Mickey. The End of Equality New York: Basic,1992. Urofsky, Melvin. The Conflicts of Rights New York: Scribner 1990. Verba, Sidney, and Gary R. Orren. Equality in America Massaschuettes Harvard, 1984. Hugh, Graham The American Judical System New York:Scribner, 1987. Jost, Kenneth. America Online Internet, 1995Webb, Janette and Sonia, Liff.Play he white man: the social construction of fairness and competition in equal opportunity. The Sociological Reveiw v.36, Aug. 88 532-51 Perman, Florence. The players and the problems in the Eeo enforcement process: a status reportPulbic Administration Reveiw v.48, July/Aug. 88, 827-33Boris Eileen and Honey Michael. Gender, race and the policies of the Labor Department. Monthly Labor Review v.111, Feb. 88, 26-36. Nalbandian, John. The U.S. Supreme courts consensus on Affirmative Action. Public Administration Reveiw. v.49, Jan./Feb. 89, 38-45Tatel, David and Minchber, Elliot. The Supreme Courts 1987 decision on voluntary Affirmative Action. Public Management. v.69, Dec. 87, 3-5Steel, Brents and Lovrich, Nicholas P. Equality and Efficiency Tradeoffs in Affirmative Action. The Social Science Journal v.24, Nov. 87, 53-70Leonard, Jonathan S. What was Affirmative Action. The American Economic Review v.76, May 86, 359-63