As unrealistic as it may seems, I thought a packed schedule was the only way to show colleges how hardworking and motivated I was. My mom now spends her time conversing with asian parents whose children went to Harvard conversations which she shares at the dinner table for motivation and constantly reminds me to work harder at school.
Although this policy seems great because it is giving people an even playing field, it completely disregards the qualification aspect of things. It is giving a leg up to people who are minorities, thinking that it will help them in the long run.
However, this leg up could cause more damage than good. A person who falls under this policy can have an unfair advantage over someone who is more qualified for a job or for a spot at a university. This is seen a lot when it comes to applying for college.
Most applications that a student fills out when applying for college always asks the question: What is your race? A top UC school may want to appear well-rounded, therefore they will choose to admit students based on their nationality or race and not how high a gpa is or how qualified they may be for that school.
As a consequence, the argument goes, these students suffer learningwise and, later, careerwise. To be clear, mismatch theory does not allege that minority students should not attend elite universities.
It could leave them as a mediocre student or employee because a great opportunity was handed to them; instead of getting said great opportunity because of hard work.
Christie Garcia Affirmative action is also known as positive discrimination for a reason: The idea of affirmative action is to try to obtain some equality by giving preference to minorities rather than those from the bigger groups.
Affirmative action unfortunately does not guarantee equal results but what it does do is create more opportunities. Members of these minority groups deserve the extra boost. Simply being white, male and able-bodied, for example, gives them an advantage that other people do not have.
Overall people from these groups benefit more If it starts from college then it could lead to minorities being better represented in the work force in the future.
According to the ACLU, white men make up only 48 percent of the college-educated workforce, yet they hold 96 percent of CEO positions, 86 percent of law firm partnerships, over 90 percent of the top jobs in the news media, and 85 percent of tenured college faculty positions.
People of color today make up about 36 percent of the workforce overall. With the help of affirmative action, more minorities would be given the chance to attend colleges.
Those people from non-minority groups are not being left out and minorities are the only ones being chosen over them every time. There is a system to it, and even though it was challenged, it has still remained in place.
The case of Fisher v. University of Texas came up when a white female, who was rejected at a local college, complained of discrimination because it was because a person of color was who was granted admission instead of her because she was white.
The decision from that case reaffirmed the ruling that upheld affirmative action because nothing out of the ordinary was occurring. Not only does this give an extra helping hand but more minority groups also helps diversify the campuses.About Affirmative Action, Diversity and Inclusion In its Final Report to President Eisenhower, the President's Committee on Government Contracts, headed by Vice President Richard Nixon, concluded: Overt discrimination, in the sense that an employer actually refuses to hire solely because of race, religion, color, or national origin is not as.
Mar 17, · The idea that affirmative action might harm its intended beneficiaries was suggested as early as the s, when affirmative action, a phrase introduced by . The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students -- and shroud the education system in dishonesty.
Richard Sander Stuart Taylor Jr. On October 15, , the topic of affirmative action once again came before the United States Supreme Court. This time, the debate over race-based preferences came to the Court via Schuette v. Affirmative Action regulation forbids employers to discriminate against individuals because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in decisions regarding hiring, firing, compensation or other forms of employment.
Due to its nature, this regulation likely affects workers if and when they are hired or working for a regulated firm. Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the Court's personnel — most notably Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement with Justice Samuel Alito — as cause for concern.