Jo here....
I'm headed to school short after this. I'm sure I'll be able to fill this up when I'm speaking.
III. CONCLUSION
A. (Review of Main Points):
1. Affirmative action continues the struggle of racial preference. “The guarantee of equal protection” which is guaranteed in the constitution “cannot mean one thing when applied to a white person and something else when applied to a person of another color.”
2. Quotas enable the underprepared to be thrust into institutions filled with students who have been provided an immense advantage over them. The requirements can not be met by students who have been behind and sets them up for failure.
3. The achievements of minorities should not be dismissed and the achievement gap should be closed.
How can the U.S. black-white achievement gap be closed?
B. Poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged minorities. As President Obama put it “We have to think about affirmative action and craft it in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren’t getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more,” ban preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex in government hiring and public education. Within the lifetimes of today’s teenagers, two of every five American workers will be black or brown, and the nation’s economic and social future will depend critically on their skills. Projecting the status quo forward produces a frightening picture. One out of every three students of color fails to obtain a high school diploma. On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress Grade 8 reading exam, 46 percent of black public school students and 43 percent of Hispanic students scored “below basic.” Only 12 percent and 14 percent of these groups scored proficient
A Harvard study led by Richard J. Murnane has convinced me that The low quality of the schools black and brown children is a critical piece of the problem. We need to use the money geared towards school reformation and affirmative action to allow low income families to send their young kids to pre school, and ensure that when they are in elementary school they are being taught by the best teachers- not teachers who’s resumes look good, but by teachers who have statistically been able to improve their students learning process. There are options for bringing about real change; the commitment of suburban communities to improving the education of urban students has substantive merit. We need to publically fund programs that dramatically change the middle school and high school experiences of urban youth. Options like travel, apprenticeships with craftspeople, and long-term individual tutorials — to name just a few of the activities through which affluent parents motivate and educate their teenagers. Our public money should be used to mirror the knowledge and experience provided privately because otherwise there is no way to compete.
C. FIRST: (Pass out second test.) Please apply for the last time. I know this paper won’t get you into the school of your dreams, but I hope that when mine and your children do apply, they will have had a fair chance and their hard work will pay off with great opportunity. If we do not move past the reverse racism and quick fix of affirmation, the future holds class segregation, in which the uneducated people of all races- who were denied a fair education will be far below the affluent minority sitting far from reach at the top.
D. If we can move past race and place value on what really matters, making sure we are equally preparing all children, we can all be accepted.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Counter the Counter- Andrew
Counter the Counter Argument
Because students from low income neighborhoods, go to low income schools. They are at a disadvantage and do not receive the same quality of education. We need to put more money into reforming K-12 education. So that these students will be able to compete with the all the other students whether it be from elementary school all the way till college. We will have then eliminated the need for affirmative action to be used from a racial standpoint. Because the students will be able and ready to go to college and perform accordingly. Rather than just being admitted to fulfill quotas or create seemed diversity on a college campus.
Andrew Solutions
Solutions
As we know Affirmative Action affects everyone. We have discussed some harms and barriers to a Affirmative Action. But I am going to bring fourth to you a solution.
We need to look at Affirmative Action from a different standpoint, Affirmative Action needs to be mended, not just thrown out completely.
Reforming Affirmative Action so that college admissions is based more on merit and socio/economics rather than race.
College admissions should not base admission on race, we feel that it should be taken off the application entirely.
The admission process should be based on socio/economic standards and merit. College admissions could use a admission process based on promoting diversity, by favoring students in admission from lower/socioeconomic backgrounds, failing school districts, or a from urban areas. This is because a huge disproportional number of minorities fall into these categories.
By working to promote diversity without using race, college admissions can maintain there diversity without having whites feel that they are being abused with “reverse discrimination.”
This intern gives will qualified racial and ethnic minorities the power to be free of accusations that they only gained admission because of there skin color.
There needs to be a clean playing field so that minorities and whites have the ability to gain access to college and this starts in reforming k-12 education.
Simultaneously the federal, state, and local governments need to reform K-12 education, because in low income neighborhoods kids are not are not getting the proper education for college admission.
Reforming K-12 education, so that all kids have a chance to take the prerequisites to gain access s to college is extremely important. It gives these kids a level playing field so that they can compete with more privileged kids.
A solution to reforming education is diversify the school districts and different schools. So that not only high income neighborhoods receive a quality education.
More money needs to be pumped into our schools at a younger age so that kids are able to get a leg up when they are younger, rather than giving that leg up when they are not as qualified.
Ultimately the colleges will see more diversity on their campuses if they use these solutions.
Monday, May 4, 2009
My Intro Speech
This doesnt have to be a final call or anything...just let me know what you all think :D
Good evening students, my name is Alex McFarr. Id like to begin to address our problem with a quote from the late Martin Luther King Jr, which goes :
“the best way to solve ANY problem is to REMOVE its cause” (stride towards freedom 1964)
My fellow group will now be handing out a college application to The Mike Sperla School of Communication, a school which is nationally honored as a top tier university.
Imagine yourself in the midst of your final fall semester at miracosta, you’ve been inundated with midterms, reports, and papers but still you must complete rigorous applications in order to transfer.
What Id like you all to do is answer honestly and put your pencils down when you have finished.
Now it seems that the results are in!
So turn over your application and find out whether you have been accepted or…. Rejected.
Quick, someone shout out how they felt after hearing back from the Admissions Office?
What you have all experienced is what it feels like to become the byproduct of a law which aims to promote equality….but in its reverse discrimination, fails to.
With the racial preferences that tag along with affirmative action how can we all be equal?
Tonight, we will discuss the once good-natured history of Affirmative Action.
the recent to present fallibility in quotas and attempts at university diversification, and a solution that everyone in here can put an effort into “mending, not ending” the affirmative action that we live with, not our forefathers and foremothers.
Throughout the course of several weeks, each of us has scourged the interweb for information on affirmative action: everything from the underlying foundations to the President Obama’s take. Through various articles, court cases, school studies, national and state statistics, and expert testimonies, we have picked each apart piece by piece for only the most pertinent information. Information that applies to us specifically: college students.
While we are quite confident in our knowledge of affirmative action and seek for you to decide for yourself on the topic, keep in mind that none of us claim to be professional experts.
Let me start off by saying affirmative action is a bit outdated. The problem lies within the lack of updating such an old law. Despite our country growing more diverse, and racially integrated every year, we must still live with certain prehistoric laws that do not have as profound effect on the nation as they once had.
The reason that affirmative action still carries the stigma of racial preferences and quotas in the college system is due largely in part to the lack of K-12 education reformation. Ironically, to quote one of the founding fathers of Affirmative Action, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair, “this was stated in a commencement speech at Howard University, a top black institution in To Fulfill These Rights
By simultaneously cutting the funding of programs specifically designed for minorities, programs which are available because of affirmative action, and spending that money on reforming K-12 education in low-income communities, we believe that schools and universities will find that more minorities are taking the required classes to qualify for state universities as well as cultivate a diverse group of leaders without placing preference on one race over another. We would also plan to gather enough signatures to have a bill introduced in Congress that nationally outlaws State schools and universities from requesting the race of a student on a college application.
Now Id like to hand the reigns over to Chris, the sixth member of the A Kickers.
Bear in mind that Chris has a notorious reputation for his comedic antics and is infamous for making a scene by using offensive language and views. Please do not be offended, he is really passionate about affirmative action:
Good evening students, my name is Alex McFarr. Id like to begin to address our problem with a quote from the late Martin Luther King Jr, which goes :
“the best way to solve ANY problem is to REMOVE its cause” (stride towards freedom 1964)
My fellow group will now be handing out a college application to The Mike Sperla School of Communication, a school which is nationally honored as a top tier university.
Imagine yourself in the midst of your final fall semester at miracosta, you’ve been inundated with midterms, reports, and papers but still you must complete rigorous applications in order to transfer.
What Id like you all to do is answer honestly and put your pencils down when you have finished.
Now it seems that the results are in!
So turn over your application and find out whether you have been accepted or…. Rejected.
Quick, someone shout out how they felt after hearing back from the Admissions Office?
What you have all experienced is what it feels like to become the byproduct of a law which aims to promote equality….but in its reverse discrimination, fails to.
With the racial preferences that tag along with affirmative action how can we all be equal?
Tonight, we will discuss the once good-natured history of Affirmative Action.
the recent to present fallibility in quotas and attempts at university diversification, and a solution that everyone in here can put an effort into “mending, not ending” the affirmative action that we live with, not our forefathers and foremothers.
Throughout the course of several weeks, each of us has scourged the interweb for information on affirmative action: everything from the underlying foundations to the President Obama’s take. Through various articles, court cases, school studies, national and state statistics, and expert testimonies, we have picked each apart piece by piece for only the most pertinent information. Information that applies to us specifically: college students.
While we are quite confident in our knowledge of affirmative action and seek for you to decide for yourself on the topic, keep in mind that none of us claim to be professional experts.
Let me start off by saying affirmative action is a bit outdated. The problem lies within the lack of updating such an old law. Despite our country growing more diverse, and racially integrated every year, we must still live with certain prehistoric laws that do not have as profound effect on the nation as they once had.
The reason that affirmative action still carries the stigma of racial preferences and quotas in the college system is due largely in part to the lack of K-12 education reformation. Ironically, to quote one of the founding fathers of Affirmative Action, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair, “this was stated in a commencement speech at Howard University, a top black institution in To Fulfill These Rights
By simultaneously cutting the funding of programs specifically designed for minorities, programs which are available because of affirmative action, and spending that money on reforming K-12 education in low-income communities, we believe that schools and universities will find that more minorities are taking the required classes to qualify for state universities as well as cultivate a diverse group of leaders without placing preference on one race over another. We would also plan to gather enough signatures to have a bill introduced in Congress that nationally outlaws State schools and universities from requesting the race of a student on a college application.
Now Id like to hand the reigns over to Chris, the sixth member of the A Kickers.
Bear in mind that Chris has a notorious reputation for his comedic antics and is infamous for making a scene by using offensive language and views. Please do not be offended, he is really passionate about affirmative action:
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Solution ONE
I think this is a good solution to the problem of affirmative action placing racial preferences in college admissions. so basically solution numero uno.
SOOOO in my opinion,
the bottom line is we should propose a Nationwide law that states: universities cannot take race into account in undergrad and grad school admissions.
This will bar racial preference and quotas.
If we want diverse colleges, we must reform k-12 education and prepare minorites and low income students for higher education... as in improving statistics like this:
“In CA, 36 percent of all high school students in 2001 had taken all the courses required for admission to the state university system, according to a study by the civil rights project at Harvard university. Among black students, only 26 percent had taken the prerequisites and only 24 percent of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 41 percent of white and 54 percent of Asians had taken the necessary courses.” (20) (from the 36 page article)
Its just like President Lyndon B. Johnson said in a major speech that laid the foundations for affirmative action programs, although they werent set up for another five years after:
"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair, " (To Fulfill These Rights, a 1965 commencement speech at Howard University in Washington, DC, a top black institution)
However,
Thats not to say that admissions officers must ignore an applicants background if part of his/her personal statement essay includes that. I.E. my father's real life American Dream of reaching the land of freedom and opportunity has inspired me to be all i can be, etc etc.
Any thoughts?
But in California, one of the country's major 
affirmative action
laboratories, the "end it" argument proved more popular. Racial/ethnic preferences had become a major issue in a state whose minority population was booming. California's higher-education system also included two of the nation's top public institutions: the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) and UCLA.
Among many white, Anglo Californians, affirmative action had come to be seen as a system under which black and Latino applicants were getting into those two schools at the expense of whites or Asians with higher grades and SAT scores.
By 1996, the statewide university system's majority-Republican Board of Regents voted to end all race, ethnic and gender preferences in admissions. The board did allow universities to take applicants' socioeconomic circumstances into account.
And in the same year, California voters approved Proposition 209, which outlawed all race, ethnicity and gender preferences by all state entities. Connerly helped organize that referendum and followed up with successful campaigns in Washington state in 1998 and in Michigan in 2003.
Meanwhile, the "reverse discrimination" issue that had been decided in the Bakke case flared up in Texas, where Cheryl Hopwood and two other white applicants to the University of Texas law school challenged their rejections, pointing to the admissions of minority students with lower grades and test scores. In 1996, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided for the plaintiffs, ruling that universities couldn't take race into account when assessing applicants.
The appeals judges had overruled the Bakke decision, at least in their jurisdiction of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, yet the Supreme Court refused to consider the case.
But in 2003, the justices ruled on two separate cases, both centering on admissions to another top-ranked public higher education system: the University of Michigan. One case arose from admissions procedures for the undergraduate college, the other from the system for evaluating applicants to the university's law school. 
SOOOO in my opinion,
the bottom line is we should propose a Nationwide law that states: universities cannot take race into account in undergrad and grad school admissions.
This will bar racial preference and quotas.
If we want diverse colleges, we must reform k-12 education and prepare minorites and low income students for higher education... as in improving statistics like this:
“In CA, 36 percent of all high school students in 2001 had taken all the courses required for admission to the state university system, according to a study by the civil rights project at Harvard university. Among black students, only 26 percent had taken the prerequisites and only 24 percent of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 41 percent of white and 54 percent of Asians had taken the necessary courses.” (20) (from the 36 page article)
Its just like President Lyndon B. Johnson said in a major speech that laid the foundations for affirmative action programs, although they werent set up for another five years after:
"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'You are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair, " (To Fulfill These Rights, a 1965 commencement speech at Howard University in Washington, DC, a top black institution)
However,
Thats not to say that admissions officers must ignore an applicants background if part of his/her personal statement essay includes that. I.E. my father's real life American Dream of reaching the land of freedom and opportunity has inspired me to be all i can be, etc etc.
Any thoughts?
this is alex again:
President Bill Clinton gave a 1995 speech at the National Archives in Washington in which he acknowledged that critics had a point. He said he didn't favor "the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender." Butaffirmative action was still needed because discrimination persisted, Clinton added. His bottom line: "Mend it, but don't end it."
I really like this...its short, catchy and realistic..
IMO, we cannot propose to fully abolish affirmative action, that cant realistically happen and mike will counter our proposal by saying "well why hasnt it ended before" blah blah blah.
President Bill Clinton gave a 1995 speech at the National Archives in Washington in which he acknowledged that critics had a point. He said he didn't favor "the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender." But
affirmative action was still needed because discrimination persisted, Clinton added. His bottom line: "Mend it, but don't end it."I really like this...its short, catchy and realistic..
IMO, we cannot propose to fully abolish affirmative action, that cant realistically happen and mike will counter our proposal by saying "well why hasnt it ended before" blah blah blah.
Useful quotes/stats/history etc.
FYI: this is alllll from the fat 36 page article
Some main points:
affirmative action is only a quick fix
Most advocates of Affirmative action propose simultaneous reform of K-12 education
Republicans are scared to oppose aa because of losing minority voter turnout
Whites are not losing jobs to african americans, whites and African americans are losing jobs to the asian subcontinent”
“The global economy makes it more difficult to have a convenient domestic scapegoat for lost jobs.”
“In CA, 36 percent of all high school students in 2001 had taken all the courses required for admission to the state university system, according to a study by the civil rights project at Harvard university. Among black students, only 26 percent had taken the prerequisites and only 24 percent of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 41 percent of white and 54 percent of Asians had taken the nexessary courses.” 22
Efforts at ensuring racial and ethnic diversity in higher education would have been better aimed at improving k-12 schools across the country.
“At the k 12 level you could argue that affirmative action has led to stagnation, theres very little forward movement, vey little closing of the black-white gap of the past 20 years” Richard sander professor of law at UCLA law school
“We have a whole range of students with different abilities. All of the weak students are not minority students; all of the strong students are not white students” James E. Coleman professor at Duke University Law School
The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and '60s forced a new look at the policies that had locked one set of Americans out of most higher-education institutions and higher-paying jobs.
As early as 1962, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the most active civil-rights organizations, advocated hiring practices that would make up for discrimination against black applicants. "We are approaching employers with the proposition that they have effectively excluded Negroes from their work force a long time, and they now have a responsibility and obligation to make up for their past sins," the organization said in a statement from its New York headquarters. Footnote 25
Facing CORE-organized boycotts, a handful of companies in New York, Denver, Detroit, Seattle and Baltimore changed their hiring procedures to favor black applicants.
In July 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act, which had been championed by President John F. Kennedy since his 1960 presidential election campaign.
The law's Title VII, which prohibits racial, religious or sexual discrimination in hiring, said judges enforcing the law could order "such Previous affirmative action as may be appropriate" to correct violations.
itle VII didn't specify what kind of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit could be decreed. But racial preferences were openly discussed in the political arena as a tool to equalize opportunities. Official working definitions of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit didn't emerge until the end of the 1960s, under President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1969, the administration approved the "Philadelphia Plan," which set numerical goals for black and other minority employment on federally financed construction jobs. One year later, the plan was expanded to cover all businesses with 50 or more employees and federal contracts of at least $50,000. The contracts were to set hiring goals and timetables designed to match up a firm's minority representation with the workforce demographics in its area. The specified minorities were: "Negro, Oriental, American Indian and Spanish Surnamed Americans." Footnote 27
The sudden change in the workplace environment prompted a wave of lawsuits. In the lead, a legal challenge by 13 black electric utility workers in North Carolina led to one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit, the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case. Footnote 28
In a unanimous decision, the high court concluded that an aptitude test that was a condition of promotion for the workers violated the Civil Rights Act. Duke Power may not have intended the test to weed out black applicants, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in the decision. But, he added, "Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation." Footnote 29
If the point of the Civil Rights Act was to ensure that the consequences of institutions' decisions yielded balanced workforces, then goals and timetables to lead to that outcome were consistent with the law as well. In other words, eliminating racial discrimination could mean paying attention to race in hiring and promotions.
That effort would produce a term that captured the frustration and anger among white males who were competing with minority-group members for jobs, promotions or school admissions: "reverse discrimination."
The issue went national with a challenge by Allan Bakke, a white, medical school applicant, to the University of California. He'd been rejected two years in a row while minority-group members — for whom 16 slots in the 100-member class had been set aside — were admitted with lower qualifying scores.
After the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices in a 5-4 decision in 1978 ordered Bakke admitted and prohibited the use of racial quotas. But they allowed race to be considered along with other criteria. Representing the University of California was former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor who was fired on orders of President Nixon in 1973. Cox's granddaughter, Melissa Hart, helps lead the opposition to an anti-Previous affirmative action ballot initiative in Colorado. Footnote 30
In 1979 and 1980, the court upheld worker training and public contracting policies that included so-called set-asides for minority-group employees or minority-owned companies. But in the latter case, the deciding opinion specified that only companies that actually had suffered discrimination would be eligible for those contracts. Footnote 31
Divisions within the Supreme Court reflected growing tensions in the country as a whole. A number of white people saw Previous affirmative action as injuring the educational and career advancement of people who hadn't themselves caused the historical crimes that gave rise to Previous affirmative action.
Some main points:
affirmative action is only a quick fix
Most advocates of Affirmative action propose simultaneous reform of K-12 education
Republicans are scared to oppose aa because of losing minority voter turnout
Whites are not losing jobs to african americans, whites and African americans are losing jobs to the asian subcontinent”
“The global economy makes it more difficult to have a convenient domestic scapegoat for lost jobs.”
“In CA, 36 percent of all high school students in 2001 had taken all the courses required for admission to the state university system, according to a study by the civil rights project at Harvard university. Among black students, only 26 percent had taken the prerequisites and only 24 percent of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 41 percent of white and 54 percent of Asians had taken the nexessary courses.” 22
Efforts at ensuring racial and ethnic diversity in higher education would have been better aimed at improving k-12 schools across the country.
“At the k 12 level you could argue that affirmative action has led to stagnation, theres very little forward movement, vey little closing of the black-white gap of the past 20 years” Richard sander professor of law at UCLA law school
“We have a whole range of students with different abilities. All of the weak students are not minority students; all of the strong students are not white students” James E. Coleman professor at Duke University Law School
The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and '60s forced a new look at the policies that had locked one set of Americans out of most higher-education institutions and higher-paying jobs.
As early as 1962, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the most active civil-rights organizations, advocated hiring practices that would make up for discrimination against black applicants. "We are approaching employers with the proposition that they have effectively excluded Negroes from their work force a long time, and they now have a responsibility and obligation to make up for their past sins," the organization said in a statement from its New York headquarters. Footnote 25
Facing CORE-organized boycotts, a handful of companies in New York, Denver, Detroit, Seattle and Baltimore changed their hiring procedures to favor black applicants.
In July 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act, which had been championed by President John F. Kennedy since his 1960 presidential election campaign.
The law's Title VII, which prohibits racial, religious or sexual discrimination in hiring, said judges enforcing the law could order "such Previous affirmative action as may be appropriate" to correct violations.
itle VII didn't specify what kind of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit could be decreed. But racial preferences were openly discussed in the political arena as a tool to equalize opportunities. Official working definitions of Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit didn't emerge until the end of the 1960s, under President Richard M. Nixon.
In 1969, the administration approved the "Philadelphia Plan," which set numerical goals for black and other minority employment on federally financed construction jobs. One year later, the plan was expanded to cover all businesses with 50 or more employees and federal contracts of at least $50,000. The contracts were to set hiring goals and timetables designed to match up a firm's minority representation with the workforce demographics in its area. The specified minorities were: "Negro, Oriental, American Indian and Spanish Surnamed Americans." Footnote 27
The sudden change in the workplace environment prompted a wave of lawsuits. In the lead, a legal challenge by 13 black electric utility workers in North Carolina led to one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Previous Hitaffirmative actionNext Hit, the 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case. Footnote 28
In a unanimous decision, the high court concluded that an aptitude test that was a condition of promotion for the workers violated the Civil Rights Act. Duke Power may not have intended the test to weed out black applicants, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in the decision. But, he added, "Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation." Footnote 29
If the point of the Civil Rights Act was to ensure that the consequences of institutions' decisions yielded balanced workforces, then goals and timetables to lead to that outcome were consistent with the law as well. In other words, eliminating racial discrimination could mean paying attention to race in hiring and promotions.
That effort would produce a term that captured the frustration and anger among white males who were competing with minority-group members for jobs, promotions or school admissions: "reverse discrimination."
The issue went national with a challenge by Allan Bakke, a white, medical school applicant, to the University of California. He'd been rejected two years in a row while minority-group members — for whom 16 slots in the 100-member class had been set aside — were admitted with lower qualifying scores.
After the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices in a 5-4 decision in 1978 ordered Bakke admitted and prohibited the use of racial quotas. But they allowed race to be considered along with other criteria. Representing the University of California was former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor who was fired on orders of President Nixon in 1973. Cox's granddaughter, Melissa Hart, helps lead the opposition to an anti-Previous affirmative action ballot initiative in Colorado. Footnote 30
In 1979 and 1980, the court upheld worker training and public contracting policies that included so-called set-asides for minority-group employees or minority-owned companies. But in the latter case, the deciding opinion specified that only companies that actually had suffered discrimination would be eligible for those contracts. Footnote 31
Divisions within the Supreme Court reflected growing tensions in the country as a whole. A number of white people saw Previous affirmative action as injuring the educational and career advancement of people who hadn't themselves caused the historical crimes that gave rise to Previous affirmative action.
Hey this is Emily. This is what I have written out for what I am going to say.
(the black is my harm and the blue is my barrier)
As Megan mentioned before me, affirmative action does great harm to those of us that work hard and truly do achieve and deserve a spot at universities, but what I want to point out is that it does harm to the minorities, the very people that it seeks to help, by discrediting their achievements, giving them a fraudulent and stigma-ed reputation among others, and damaging their self esteem as students and achievers. In all the irony of affirmative action, we are harming everyone involved. As we have said before, affirmative action policies were started out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s as a temporary attempt to give back some of the many opportunities that had been unrightfully taken away from African Americans and other minorities. It is, in a sense a form of pity. Black journalist and media consultant, Deroy Murdoch explains it by saying that, “The underlying philosophy behind affirmative action is the notion that blacks and Hispanics aren’t smart and aren’t prepared. We must help these little brown people, and the blacks. That’s where affirmative action programs come from.” And if this is how we all see affirmative action, then this is how we see the people who supposedly benefit from affirmative action, as insignificant, unintelligent, incapable, “poor minority people”. Is that right? Is that how this program is supposed to be affecting blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans? I don’t think so. And it is a fact that many people see affirmative action this way, including those minorties that the programs focus on.
Through the eyes of University of California Regent, and African American, Ward Connerly, growing up was a constant humiliation of segregation and unfair treatment. He is standing in line at the drinking fountain, standing beneath the enormous and ominous sign stating “Coloreds Only”. And this is what he is forced to face every day of his life, just because of the color of his skin. Connerly, now compares his position being labeled and “affirmative action businessman” claiming that it is almost has bad because it keeps him from being judged on the quality of his work.
Just try to imagine how having this constant stigma floating over your head would make you feel about your own abilities. Affirmative action is demeaning and only serves to perpetuate the stereotype that minorities are less able than other students to succeed. They are tired of being presumed as defective and having to wear that badge that says “I am here because you all feel bad for me and don’t think I could get here on my own.” Personally, I see affirmative action as racism in and of itself.
So the question is, how could we possibly rationalize keeping affirmative action policies in place? Well, unfortunately, the original goals to promote equal opportunity are not the actual goals of affirmative action any longer. Today, it is just another way for a college to look good. Have you ever noticed that on every, and I mean every college brochure, one of the first qualities listed about the school is its “diversity”? This is the sole reason colleges use affirmative action now, to be able to say, we are diverse and welcome all! It is all just a front used to make schools look good and a way to keep from being accused of being racist, when in fact racism is exactly what is going on here. Over the decades and decades of using affirmative action, little has even been accomplished in the area of diversifying our universities and colleges. (need statistic here) So why keep pushing what’s not working. Isn’t it the definition of insanity to keep trying the same thing over and over and expect different results?
First three harms and the barrier-Megan
Hey everyone, this is a bit of what i have for my part of the 1st harm and barrier.
please let me know any of your suggestions for change ASAP! or just let me know in our next meeting.
Thanks:)
Megan
Megan Doughty
Comm 207
Persuasive speech
Against Affirmative Action
Layout of what I am going to sayJ
HARMS
· Now that you know a little bit about affirmative action, I am going to talk to you about how affirmative action harms college admissions.
· Now we are all college students, and that is why it is important to address this controversial issue.
· Affirmative Action is a current, nationwide problem that places costly burdens on student populations.
· The civil rights act of 1964 authorized courts to take affirmative action, which was to uproot racial discrimination. That objective was, and remains morally right. But the difference between affirmative action and race preference is plainly distinguishable.
· Carl Cohen, a philosophy teacher at the University of Michigan declares that “Giving preference by race is wrong and unjust; when done by an agency of the state it is unlawful and a violation of our constitution.
· There was a past case in 1973, when a white student applicant, Allan Bakke, was denied admittance to the university of California medical school due to the schools unfair admission programs. Justice Powell of the case so eloquently states that “The guarantee of equal protection” which is guaranteed in the constitution “cannot mean one thing when applied to a white person and something else when applied to a person of another color.”
· Another harm that comes about is how students are not credited for all of their hard work.
· For example: a student who works hard for 4 years to earn a 4.0 grade point average could be denied admissions to Berkely or UCLA in favor of someone with a 3.0 merely because that University wants racial diversity.
· And thirdly not only does affirmative action enhance racial preference, and discredits students merit, but creates an environment of tension amongst different ethnic groups.
BARRIERS
· In the 1960’s when affirmative action played a key role in helping minorities get ahead, America desperately needed it to start the end of racial discrimination.
· That was more than 50 years ago, and our country has changed dramatically, we are more diverse than ever before.
· Affirmative action had good intentions in the begining, but now, instead of reaching our goal affirmative has proven to be counterproductive in these recent times. And is slowing down our countries strive for racial equality.
please let me know any of your suggestions for change ASAP! or just let me know in our next meeting.
Thanks:)
Megan
Megan Doughty
Comm 207
Persuasive speech
Against Affirmative Action
Layout of what I am going to sayJ
HARMS
· Now that you know a little bit about affirmative action, I am going to talk to you about how affirmative action harms college admissions.
· Now we are all college students, and that is why it is important to address this controversial issue.
· Affirmative Action is a current, nationwide problem that places costly burdens on student populations.
· The civil rights act of 1964 authorized courts to take affirmative action, which was to uproot racial discrimination. That objective was, and remains morally right. But the difference between affirmative action and race preference is plainly distinguishable.
· Carl Cohen, a philosophy teacher at the University of Michigan declares that “Giving preference by race is wrong and unjust; when done by an agency of the state it is unlawful and a violation of our constitution.
· There was a past case in 1973, when a white student applicant, Allan Bakke, was denied admittance to the university of California medical school due to the schools unfair admission programs. Justice Powell of the case so eloquently states that “The guarantee of equal protection” which is guaranteed in the constitution “cannot mean one thing when applied to a white person and something else when applied to a person of another color.”
· Another harm that comes about is how students are not credited for all of their hard work.
· For example: a student who works hard for 4 years to earn a 4.0 grade point average could be denied admissions to Berkely or UCLA in favor of someone with a 3.0 merely because that University wants racial diversity.
· And thirdly not only does affirmative action enhance racial preference, and discredits students merit, but creates an environment of tension amongst different ethnic groups.
BARRIERS
· In the 1960’s when affirmative action played a key role in helping minorities get ahead, America desperately needed it to start the end of racial discrimination.
· That was more than 50 years ago, and our country has changed dramatically, we are more diverse than ever before.
· Affirmative action had good intentions in the begining, but now, instead of reaching our goal affirmative has proven to be counterproductive in these recent times. And is slowing down our countries strive for racial equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)