The purpose of affirmative action was to establish equality, not to perpetuate discrimination. Affirmative action, particularly pertaining to the admissions process of the American education system, has unintentionally morphed into a noxious means of discrimination against the majority, and is thus dangerously eroding America's foundational morals of merit and equality.
The Civil Rights Act was initially enacted to achieve equal employment opportunity,"The provisions of the act forbade discrimination on the basis of race in hiring, promoting, and firing." Additionally, the act demanded for governmental programs, combined with public initiatives, to eliminate past and present discrimination. Thus, effectively combating the potential for future discrimination.
As new generations approach admission to the education system and the employment field, affirmative action has proven to be outdated, and in turn discriminatory. Particularly pertaining to admission to institutions of higher education, affirmative action has so heavily favored certain minorities that it has eroded the American merit system, justified many inadequacies in American students and the public school system, bred resentment towards minorities, and has once again institutionalized racial discrimination.
The concept of affirmative action was established to institutionalize racial equality within society; however, its affect on modern society contradicts the foundation it was created upon. Placing certain races above others is what caused the racial schism that drastically harmed American culture. Many decades ago when discrimination shielded minorities from opportunity and success, affirmative action was imperative. But society has grown immensely since its past discrimination. The idea of necessary preferential treatment is no longer applicable to contemporary society and especially not to the education system. On the contrary, affirmative action within the admissions process gives birth to new forms of discrimination; which only perpetuates the ignorant rationales that supported racism in its earlier forms.
Affirmative action's preferential treatment towards minorities is not only discriminatory to the majority, but it also psychologically undermines the capabilities of the minorities it is aiming to help. Not holding certain factions of society to the same expectations as everyone else facilitates feelings of inadequacy. By enforcing the same admissions criteria on everyone, it will inspire the youth to achieve universal excellence without the crutch of affirmative action, "If minority students are not held to the same standards, they become mere actors creating feel-good Potemkin villages of diversity." Potemkin villages were fake settlements constructed to exude a façade of success; while admitting minorities aimed to evoke racial equality and opportunity within the American education system, that is not the reality. The act of promoting undeserving candidates is an insult to minorities as a whole. As long as minorities receive preferential treatment in the admissions process, they will be regarded to as inferior classes within society, negating all of America's perilous work done to establish racial equality.
Advocates for affirmative action argue that modern society still endorses structural racism in the form of standardized testing, justifying the necessity for affirmative action; however, this argument is negated by the availability of the primary education system, public libraries, and the Internet. Standardized testing is a major component in the admissions process. Statistically, certain minorities continually test lower than others. Much of this is attributed to the cost of prep courses and the language barriers that many minorities face, but these obstacles can be absolved in a variety of ways. The primary public education system, which is guaranteed to all citizens, instills English into students starting at the age of five. Granted that not every school system is adequately funded to offer individual help, readily accessible public libraries serve as a secondary learning venue. Almost free, public libraries contain endless amounts of beneficial learning materials that will improve one's English. Additionally, the accessibility of the Internet provides an inexpensive learning device. No amount of prep courses can compare to years of this accessible and affordable preparation. All of the methods will copiously prepare any student, without regard to their race or national origin, for standardized testing. Standardized testing is not a form of structural racism; rather, it is an unbiased form of testing that necessitates logic, problem-solving abilities, and American education. Accordingly, successful scores depend upon such skills, and not upon one's race.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Are Americans Disconnected from What Matters?
In this technology era where Americans have never been more connected, author Susan Faludi argues that american manhood has become totally disconnected from previous roles in society and useful primarily as a consumer. However, I disagree because Faludi is essentially arguing that men have an instinctive way and that society is the sole catalyst in their response. This presumption assumes that there is one way to be male, and that way is portrayed as very barbaric. An example of this can be seen in the movie Fight Club.
Fight Club highlights the economic superfluity of the American male because members of the fight club all are overworked and underpaid and fight club is a way to reject, "We've all been raised to believe that we'll be millionaires and movie idols. But we won't!" Demonstrating his disappointment and bitterness towards the American Dream. There is much focus on economic status in the film. Gray-collar men are criticized by Tyler, but he also tries to empower them to overcome social stratification and the trap of working for someone else. Tyler pretends to rob a convenience store, tells the clerk he is going to murder him and then tells him that if he does not pursue the dream he originally held that he will be dead in six weeks. This implies that the motivation to succeed must come from the individual. The narrator (Jack) demonizes the upper class when he blackmails his boss to put him on salary for not revealing the company's unscrupulous business practices and quits his job as a recall coordinator. This implies that the people at the top of society are slaves to the service class that Jack/Tyler belongs to. There is a certain disdain for the classes higher than Jack, but then Tyler is the side of Jack that is brave enough to reject materialism. Tyler believes, though he works at a restaurant and as a projectionist, is not truly one of the class of gray-collar workers. At one point, Jack interrogates a worker in a dry cleaning facility and is disgusted by him and tells him how he isn’t special, and he puts him down for his occupation. The working poor are lulled into cooperating and staying in the service of richer classes because they are mislead to believe that if they work hard they will ascend to higher security and status.
The superfluous male does not extend itself across generations because, according to Tyler, this generation of men has had no great wars in which they could prove their toughness and worth, and serving someone richer than them does not allow the working man to test themselves. It is for all males who have been forced to work for other superfluous males without having the opportunity to prove their worth in other ways.
Perhaps there is a kernal of truth in Faludi’s argument, but this condition is not exclusive in males. In the blog, JUST JEN, the author posted about women struggling to define themselves in the working world without disconnecting themselves from their previous roles in society. “Women should be able to live knowing that they are “doing the right thing for themselves and for the people who depend on them” without having to compromise achieving their fullest potential in their career and in their personal life” (Robinson).
I think that what should be taken from Faludi’s theory is that the roles of men and women are changing, but this identity change does not come from a man or woman’s role as a consumer. Instead, this change seems to have been sparked by a shift in the working world. Maybe Faludi is right; maybe identities are being skewed because men need to fight and women need to care for their children. Regardless, it seems to me that the true problem is that people are defining themselves by the work they do. There seems to be a problem with both men and women sacrificing the things they care about for their careers. This is because in America success is measured by occupation. People are defining themselves by how much they make instead of measuring their success by more ethical means. The only remedy would be to lower the competition level in the work place, and to change policies in such a way that is more conducive to allowing workers to take time off to pursue things other than their career, like their families.
Fight Club highlights the economic superfluity of the American male because members of the fight club all are overworked and underpaid and fight club is a way to reject, "We've all been raised to believe that we'll be millionaires and movie idols. But we won't!" Demonstrating his disappointment and bitterness towards the American Dream. There is much focus on economic status in the film. Gray-collar men are criticized by Tyler, but he also tries to empower them to overcome social stratification and the trap of working for someone else. Tyler pretends to rob a convenience store, tells the clerk he is going to murder him and then tells him that if he does not pursue the dream he originally held that he will be dead in six weeks. This implies that the motivation to succeed must come from the individual. The narrator (Jack) demonizes the upper class when he blackmails his boss to put him on salary for not revealing the company's unscrupulous business practices and quits his job as a recall coordinator. This implies that the people at the top of society are slaves to the service class that Jack/Tyler belongs to. There is a certain disdain for the classes higher than Jack, but then Tyler is the side of Jack that is brave enough to reject materialism. Tyler believes, though he works at a restaurant and as a projectionist, is not truly one of the class of gray-collar workers. At one point, Jack interrogates a worker in a dry cleaning facility and is disgusted by him and tells him how he isn’t special, and he puts him down for his occupation. The working poor are lulled into cooperating and staying in the service of richer classes because they are mislead to believe that if they work hard they will ascend to higher security and status.
The superfluous male does not extend itself across generations because, according to Tyler, this generation of men has had no great wars in which they could prove their toughness and worth, and serving someone richer than them does not allow the working man to test themselves. It is for all males who have been forced to work for other superfluous males without having the opportunity to prove their worth in other ways.
Perhaps there is a kernal of truth in Faludi’s argument, but this condition is not exclusive in males. In the blog, JUST JEN, the author posted about women struggling to define themselves in the working world without disconnecting themselves from their previous roles in society. “Women should be able to live knowing that they are “doing the right thing for themselves and for the people who depend on them” without having to compromise achieving their fullest potential in their career and in their personal life” (Robinson).
I think that what should be taken from Faludi’s theory is that the roles of men and women are changing, but this identity change does not come from a man or woman’s role as a consumer. Instead, this change seems to have been sparked by a shift in the working world. Maybe Faludi is right; maybe identities are being skewed because men need to fight and women need to care for their children. Regardless, it seems to me that the true problem is that people are defining themselves by the work they do. There seems to be a problem with both men and women sacrificing the things they care about for their careers. This is because in America success is measured by occupation. People are defining themselves by how much they make instead of measuring their success by more ethical means. The only remedy would be to lower the competition level in the work place, and to change policies in such a way that is more conducive to allowing workers to take time off to pursue things other than their career, like their families.
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Punishment Does Not Fit the Crime
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive reaction to recent announcements from the Palestinian government regarding its relations with Hamas is acting as a double-edged sword for the Israeli government. The decision, although intended to protect Israel from Hamas, who seeks to destroy the Jewish state, violates current peace agreements, which require that, “Israel transfers about $1.2 billion to the Palestinian Authority each year, accounting for about two-thirds of its budget.”
Palestinian rival factions, Hamas and Fatah, proposed joining forces resulting in Israel’s refusal to pay the owed tax revenue to the Palestinian government. Withholding this tax remittance is presumptuous because the alliance between Fatah and Hamas has not been made official by the Palestinian cabinet. “Israel has started a war prior to the formation of the government.”
While the Israeli government fears that the money will be used to pay for terrorist operatives, “Palestinian leaders condemn the move as an act of 'piracy' and 'war.’” Holding on to the tax funds sets back the entire Palestinian government. Further, it has not been proven that Hamas will have access to the funds even if the factions unite. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Stein said, “if the Palestinians can prove to us … that there is no joint funding between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza, we are confident we will consider the matter.” Israel is weary of the distribution agreement. However, the regime change has not been made official, therefore withholding the funds is a disproportionate consequence.
The Israeli government is casting its net too wide. The fear of supporting the enemy has driven Israel to make a rash decision, which puts the Israeli government at odds with the entire Palestinian government, not just Hamas. “Former Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanebi warned that Netanyahu might be alienating Palestinian moderates.” Cutting off tax remittance from the tax remittance-led government is too severe. Any prospects of negotiations are grim now that the Israeli government has prematurely upset its neighbor.
"I would not advise walking away from all contacts with the moderate Palestinian leadership, because we do not have many alternatives." More civil options should be explored in lieu of destroying the moderating contract between the two countries. Until Hamas officially becomes a recipient of the tax remittance, steps need to be taken to ensure that Israel does not sever ties with the Palestinian government by inviting retaliation.
Palestinian rival factions, Hamas and Fatah, proposed joining forces resulting in Israel’s refusal to pay the owed tax revenue to the Palestinian government. Withholding this tax remittance is presumptuous because the alliance between Fatah and Hamas has not been made official by the Palestinian cabinet. “Israel has started a war prior to the formation of the government.”
While the Israeli government fears that the money will be used to pay for terrorist operatives, “Palestinian leaders condemn the move as an act of 'piracy' and 'war.’” Holding on to the tax funds sets back the entire Palestinian government. Further, it has not been proven that Hamas will have access to the funds even if the factions unite. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Stein said, “if the Palestinians can prove to us … that there is no joint funding between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza, we are confident we will consider the matter.” Israel is weary of the distribution agreement. However, the regime change has not been made official, therefore withholding the funds is a disproportionate consequence.
The Israeli government is casting its net too wide. The fear of supporting the enemy has driven Israel to make a rash decision, which puts the Israeli government at odds with the entire Palestinian government, not just Hamas. “Former Israeli lawmaker Tzachi Hanebi warned that Netanyahu might be alienating Palestinian moderates.” Cutting off tax remittance from the tax remittance-led government is too severe. Any prospects of negotiations are grim now that the Israeli government has prematurely upset its neighbor.
"I would not advise walking away from all contacts with the moderate Palestinian leadership, because we do not have many alternatives." More civil options should be explored in lieu of destroying the moderating contract between the two countries. Until Hamas officially becomes a recipient of the tax remittance, steps need to be taken to ensure that Israel does not sever ties with the Palestinian government by inviting retaliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)