The Irony of Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action was originally designed to facilitate the economic and professional needs of minority individuals. In recent years of tokenism, however, where charges of descrimination hover like a shadow over the heads of many employers who tread lightly. The irony with this particular ideal is that is turned out promoting a practice that it had originally meant to alleviate or eliminate altogether; Affirmative Action tends to advocate descrimination, or unfair advantages, but in reverse.

The biaseness practiced through Affirmative Action favors African Americans, women, Asians, Muslims, Immigrants and many other groups instead of the non-male and non-caucasian majority groups. No matter which way a social or employment consideration leads, if it it favors any characteristic other than qualifications, it is still descrimination.

Below are three fictional but realistic scenarios illustrating Affirmative Action, along with explanations for their respective circumstances:

* Dolores, an 18-year-old Affrican American girl from Detroit, along with two others—a 25-year-old white male and a 30-year-old Asian male—apply to a college program at a local university. Only one can be chosen. The two males have considerable experience in their respective fields and even have their own works published, whereas Delores comes straight from high school and demonstrates poor writing skills. Delores gets chosen into the program. The department committee accepts her on the basis of the fact that she is both a female and African American. The decision is wrong and unfair, as the other two applicants clearly deserve the position over her.

* Juan Guarez, an middle-aged immigrant from Mexico who walks with a cane applies for a job working in a convenience store. Other young citizens (male and female caucasians) with experience also apply. As it turns out, Juan gets the job because he’s older, handicapped and an immigrant. Again, unfairness comes into play, as the younger are better qualified yet loose out to the minority. This is discrimination against the majority and in favor of the minority. As noble as it is, it is wrong and may be illegal if the reasons for the selection are ever exposed.

* Marleen, a white 30-year-old female, and Charles, a caucasian male of the same age, both apply for the position of a camp counsellor. Marline has two summers worth of experience, but was reprimanded twice for insubordination. Charles, on the other hand, has ten summers experience and two awards for outstanding performance. Of course, Marleen gets the position. Why? Gender, in this case, made the deciding vote.

The problem that has made Affirmative Action such a complication revolves around politics. Playing favoritism to minorities makes the system seem fair and non-biased. In the end, it hurts both the minority and the majority because it ignores truth and goes for appearance. Cultural enlightenment is supperficial and therefore non-existent.

About the Author:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To find the best home based business ideas and
opportunities so you can work at home visit:
http://www.eBooks-Health.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------