Affirmative Action Term Paper
Affirmative Action is defined as “any policy or action aimed at securing [greater equality], that goes beyond simple legal access or passive nondiscrimination, but that does not alter the standards or qualifications for [people].” (DesJardins, 242). This concept has been a product of much debate between advocates for and against Affirmative Actions. The text, Affirmative Action as an Equalizing Opportunity by Luke Charles Harris and Uma Narayan, gives an argument for Affirmative Action which focuses on the idea that Affirmative Action does not involve preferential treatment and instead is a policy that promotes equal opportunity to minority groups in a social, racial and gender based aspect; this is done in order …show more content…
Pojman believes that Strong Affirmative Action is a form of “unjust reverse discrimination against young white males or any other group of people” (Pojman 434). Pojman uses the term “Strong Affirmative Action” which can be defined as “preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender, discriminating in favor of underrepresented groups against over represented groups” (Pojman 434). In turn, using this strong Affirmative Action ends allows minorities to attain high positions of power that are not qualified and devalues the importance of merit. While I do understand where his argument is coming from, I can explain why the Affirmative Action that I am advocating does not have these consequences. My definition of Affirmative Action coincides with Weak Affirmative Action, the “policies that will increase opportunities of disadvantaged people” to improve socially and institutionally. Pojman's argument all refer to Strong Affirmative Action, which Harrison's argument does not advocate for. In the end, the arguments are referring to two very distinct definitions and forms of Affirmative Action. Even if Pojman was referring to Affirmative Action that I am advocating for, his argument would still not hold. This is because Pojman states that Affirmative Action is a form of “reverse discrimination for young white males” but this statement is in fact false. Harrisons and Narayan's argument for Affirmative Action states that it is not “preferential treatment” but as an attempt to “equalize opportunities” (Harris and Narayan). Also, Affirmative Action does not discriminate against young white males, it in facts helps them. For example Affirmative Action is a policy that helps minorities in a socio economic sense, racial sense and gender wise. Vassar college's used Affirmative Action to seek to recruit
Affirmative Action is defined as “any policy or action aimed at securing [greater equality], that goes beyond simple legal access or passive nondiscrimination, but that does not alter the standards or qualifications for [people].” (DesJardins, 242). This concept has been a product of much debate between advocates for and against Affirmative Actions. The text, Affirmative Action as an Equalizing Opportunity by Luke Charles Harris and Uma Narayan, gives an argument for Affirmative Action which focuses on the idea that Affirmative Action does not involve preferential treatment and instead is a policy that promotes equal opportunity to minority groups in a social, racial and gender based aspect; this is done in order …show more content…
Pojman believes that Strong Affirmative Action is a form of “unjust reverse discrimination against young white males or any other group of people” (Pojman 434). Pojman uses the term “Strong Affirmative Action” which can be defined as “preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender, discriminating in favor of underrepresented groups against over represented groups” (Pojman 434). In turn, using this strong Affirmative Action ends allows minorities to attain high positions of power that are not qualified and devalues the importance of merit. While I do understand where his argument is coming from, I can explain why the Affirmative Action that I am advocating does not have these consequences. My definition of Affirmative Action coincides with Weak Affirmative Action, the “policies that will increase opportunities of disadvantaged people” to improve socially and institutionally. Pojman's argument all refer to Strong Affirmative Action, which Harrison's argument does not advocate for. In the end, the arguments are referring to two very distinct definitions and forms of Affirmative Action. Even if Pojman was referring to Affirmative Action that I am advocating for, his argument would still not hold. This is because Pojman states that Affirmative Action is a form of “reverse discrimination for young white males” but this statement is in fact false. Harrisons and Narayan's argument for Affirmative Action states that it is not “preferential treatment” but as an attempt to “equalize opportunities” (Harris and Narayan). Also, Affirmative Action does not discriminate against young white males, it in facts helps them. For example Affirmative Action is a policy that helps minorities in a socio economic sense, racial sense and gender wise. Vassar college's used Affirmative Action to seek to recruit