Try To Demonstrate That You Have Done The Reading ✓ Solved

1try To Demonstrate That You Have Done The Reading That You Can Expl

Write about what you know about affirmative action after completing the assigned readings. What is Affirmative Action, Really?

Many people in the U.S. feel strongly about affirmative action. Some perceive that everyone is treated as an individual, regardless of racial or ethnic group membership, and may feel frustrated by what they see as preferential treatment. Others understand from a multicultural perspective that white people often enjoy the privilege of being treated as individuals, whereas people of color face discrimination in employment, housing, and education. Misunderstandings about affirmative action often stem from initial assumptions about race and privilege.

Throughout this course, we've explored these assumptions. Consider: if affirmative action laws and policies result in increased representation of people of color in jobs and education, where are these individuals? Are they your teachers or your bosses? Many of you have worked for white bosses; were they competent? When a person of color gets a position, it is sometimes perceived that they are less qualified—perpetuating stereotypes and collective memories about community biases.

Historically, hiring and admissions decisions have been influenced by race and gender. White males have dominated, making up 39.2% of the population but holding over 77% of Congress, 92% of state governors, and significant portions of college faculty and media leadership (Newsweek, 1993). These statistics reveal how slowly social change occurs and the importance of current, reliable data.

It's important to understand that affirmative action laws, executive orders, and policies do not mandate the hiring of unqualified individuals. Instead, they require hiring managers to consider bias and broaden the candidate pool. For example, as a faculty member, I focus on ensuring diversity in interviews while maintaining qualifications, which benefits students by exposing them to multiple perspectives.

Affirmative action is grounded in the idea, articulated by Iris Young, that societal institutions and habits are shaped to favor white heterosexual men, reinforcing material and ideological advantages. Several laws underpin these policies, including Executive Order 11246, Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, and the Rehabilitation Acts. These aim to prevent discrimination based on race, gender, disability, or veteran status.

Despite misconceptions, affirmative action does not enforce quotas; rather, it encourages the consideration of race and gender as one among many factors. There are four main types: aggressive recruiting of diverse applicants, evaluating selection tools for fairness, revising merit measures to include talents under different conditions, and establishing goals and timetables for hiring underrepresented groups—distinct from illegal quotas.

Recognizing stereotypes and assumptions is crucial. Search online for current information and analyze different perspectives. Reflect on your own beliefs and feelings about affirmative action, race, gender, and social class. Consider why these policies evoke such strong opinions and how their implementation aims to correct historic inequalities.

Specifically in higher education, the myths often include claims that affirmative action undermines merit, that admissions are solely based on tests or grades, or that it unfairly excludes white students. Research shows that admissions prioritize a holistic view, including personal qualities, leadership, overcoming adversity, and diverse talents. Race is one factor among many, used to promote inclusiveness and educational benefits for all students.

Historically, higher education has favored those with influential connections, athletic skills, or white male privilege. Affirmative action efforts have aimed to rectify this, providing opportunities for students of color and women, which enhance campus diversity. Studies show that affirmative action does not disadvantage white students but contributes to a broader, richer educational environment.

The motivations for affirmative action include a societal responsibility to ensure inclusive higher education and a commitment to rectifying racial and gender discrimination. The impact has been positive: students report increased cultural awareness, sensitivity to race, and greater understanding of diverse perspectives. Diversity in education fosters skills vital for participating in a democratic society and promotes mutual respect among differing communities.

Paper For Above Instructions

After engaging with the assigned readings, I have deepened my understanding of affirmative action beyond superficial interpretations. The misconception that affirmative action mandates the hiring or admission of unqualified individuals is widespread; however, the reality is nuanced, emphasizing fairness, diversity, and rectifying historical inequities. From historical data to current policies, the progress and challenges of affirmative action reveal a complex socio-political landscape influenced by stereotypes, assumptions, and institutional habits.

Historically, the dominance of white males in employment, politics, and academia was the norm, with statistics from the early 1990s illustrating their disproportionate representation (Newsweek, 1993). These figures demonstrate the entrenched nature of racial and gender privilege. Affirmative action laws such as Executive Order 11246 and the Civil Rights Act aimed to challenge these disparities by mandating non-discrimination and promoting diversity. Importantly, these policies do not impose quotas but encourage broader consideration of candidates, including race and gender, as part of a holistic review process.

One of the key insights from the readings was understanding the myth versus reality around affirmative action. Many assume that these policies lower standards or unfairly displace qualified white candidates. However, evidence suggests that affirmative action has not caused significant disadvantages for white students or applicants (Sander & Taylor, 2012). Instead, it introduces more equitable representations that benefit educational and workplace environments by fostering diversity of thought and experience.

The concept of evaluating and updating selection criteria is vital. For example, pre-1965, hiring for positions such as airline stewardesses or police officers was based on gendered and racial stereotypes—such as women needing to be a certain height or weight—rather than actual competency. Modern policies scrutinize these traditional measures of merit, recognizing the importance of diverse talents and skills that previously were undervalued or ignored. This shift reflects a broader societal move toward inclusion and fairness.

Moreover, the role of goals and timetables in affirmative action, distinct from quotas, is to ensure representation aligns with demographic realities, addressing systemic biases resulting from centuries of discrimination. These goals are flexible and aspirational, intended to guide institutions toward equity rather than enforce strict numerical targets that could lead to unfair treatment of qualified candidates.

The readings emphasized the importance of self-awareness and critical analysis of stereotypes. Recognizing one's own biases and assumptions about race, gender, and social class can foster greater empathy and understanding. For instance, questioning why certain stereotypes persist or why policies are perceived as unfair helps dismantle stereotypes rooted in misinformation.

In higher education, affirmative action has played a significant role in expanding access for marginalized groups. Despite myths that suggest it harms white students, research indicates that diversity enhances the educational experience for all students. The increased exposure to different cultures and perspectives prepares students for participation in a diverse democracy (Gurin et al., 2002). It also counters the historic exclusions that favored white males, promoting a more inclusive and equitable academic environment.

Reflecting on these insights, I realize the importance of critically evaluating the assumptions I hold about affirmative action. Understanding the legal bases, policies, and their real-world implications encourages me to see these programs as tools for social justice and educational equity. Disentangling myths from facts enables a more nuanced discussion about how to create fair opportunities for everyone, regardless of race or gender.

Ultimately, affirmative action serves to correct systemic inequities, foster diversity, and enrich educational and workplace environments. Its evolution reflects societal recognition of the importance of inclusion and the need to address historical disadvantages. Moving forward, it is essential to approach these policies with an open mind, informed by data and guided by a commitment to fairness and social justice.

References

• Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on students. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 477-521.
• Sander, R., & Taylor, S. (2012). Mismatch: How affirmative action hurts students it’s intended to help, and passions avoid the truth. Harvard University Press.
• Newsweek. (1993). The statistics on white male dominance in leadership roles. March 29, 1993.
• Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at Fairness: How American Schools Shortchange Girls. Touchstone.
• Iris Young. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
• United States Department of Labor. (2020). Executive Order 11246 and related policies. www.dol.gov.
• U.S. Civil Rights Act, 1964. Public Law 88-352.
• U.S. Civil Rights Act, 1964—Title IX, Education Amendments 1972.
• Rehabilitation Act, 1973. Sections 503 and 504.
• Vietnam Era Veterans Re-adjustment Assistance Act, 1974.