Essay Affirmative Action

Using any feedback you’ve received on your outline, fully draft your paper.  Use APA format, including a title page.  All of your resources should be used and properly cited and referenced.  10 pages

Running head: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 1

Affirmative Action

Errica L. Watkins

Excelsior College

LA298

24 September 2020

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 2

M5A1 Full Social Ethics Outline

Affirmative Action

I. Introduction

A. Affirmative action holds that resources are preserved to a given group in a community

and are based on sex, religion, skin color, country of origin, and race.

B. It holds some benefits; however, a given part of the society feels much oppressed from

the ideology. Affirmative action poses a global dilemma in the way different groups

perceive it when it comes to equality on resources.

C. Globally, affirmative action faces an ethical challenge in quantifying its benefits or

shortfalls across education, job allocation, and political sectors.

II. Body
1. Benefits of Affirmative Action

a. Socioeconomic status can be improved. Socioeconomic status is categorized

into three-level; low, middle, and high.

Equality of the oppressed one can lead to substantial improvement in economic status.

The process involves releasing and availing education and job resources to minorities within a

community (corporatefinanceinstitute.com, 2020).

b. Disadvantaged students get access to learning. Poverty hinders education.

Disadvantaged groups are granted with scholarships and grants. E.g., Canada provides a

scholarship for international students. Students with a potentially positive future get access to

quality education. Access to education latter boosts socioeconomic activities.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 3

c. Inclusiveness of the entire community in job allocation and access to learning.

Women and other oppressed people get access to education and equally paid job regardless of

sex and race.

Human percapita income is raised. Living standards are boosted (corporatefinanceinstitute.com,

2020).

2. Shortfalls of Affirmative Action

a. Reverse discrimination. Affirmative action increases prejudice and

discrimination of people without a minority grouping background. Qualified groups are secluded

when they do not come from the minority.

Hatred develops between majority and minority groups.

b. Discourage of meritocracy in the education sector. The policy of affirmative

action encourages minority inclusion rather than people with ability. In this instance, skilled

people of those with learning abilities end up underusing their talents.

Increased racism.

It increased gender violence.

c. Demeaning achievement. True abilities or level of effort may seem to be

underutilized with the ideology of considering oppressed people rather than real talent and skills

(corporatefinanceinstitute.com, 2020).

3. How Affirm is Action is Perceived in Different Countries

a. South Africa. Formed in 1994 after independence.

Act 97 development in 1998

The marginalized historical group; female and minority groups (Rankhumise & Netswera, 2010)

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 4

Challenges faced in policy implementation at Mpumalanga hospital (Rankhumise & Netswera,

2010)

African level at the workplace.

Transformation at the workplace

The implication from the department of health

Equity in the education sector

Government intervention through training (Rankhumise & Netswera, 2010)

Existing barrier.

b. the USA. Abigail Fisher vs. the University of Texas.

Abigail a ‘white’ to join a university of Texas (Thorne, 2016).

Denial into the institution likely due to affirmative action

The court hearing on the cause of denial. The court attributed that they preserved positions for

minority groups, forming a basis of her denial (Thorne, 2016).

Many thought of the death of Affirmative action, but the court Upheld the University

administration by 5-3 on the basis that it was constitutional.

Less qualified students are favored into the instruction, excluding qualified ones.

Direct positions were latter regarded unconstitutional.

Skeptical US supreme court Conservative on historic oppression (Thorne, 2016).

Glutter vs. Bollinger case also upholds a limited form of affirmative action (Thorne, 2016).

c. Canada. Fisher attributes that equality laws in Canada are distinguishable from

The one in the US

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 5

Affirmatory action is perceived differently when it comes to the consideration of qualified whites

and the minority group.

Canada upholds mutual equality regarding affirmative action to avoid liking minority groups’

consideration with reverse racism (Thorne, 2016).

Controversies of Affirmative Action.

Lack of policy understanding (Ng, 2016).

Affirmative action in recruiting, training, retention, and promotion

Most qualified people are hired and retained regardless of qualification (Ng, 2016).

Relationship between Affirmative action and favoritism as perceived (Ng, 2016).

III. Conclusion

A) Affirmative action has its advantages in counter covering less privileged groups

However, it faces excellent controversies

The whites and some qualified people in different fields perceive it as a form of

reverse racism

Some group of people perceives it as prejudice

B) The concept of fair consideration of the minority group regarding access to resources

is addressed. Nevertheless, some group refer to it as unfair federal action when it comes to

opportunity allocation based on qualification and merits

C) As much as there is a struggle for equality. It might lead to an increase in prejudice

and some forms of colorblind racism. In this instance, the public needs to be educated on policies

for mutual understanding of procedures followed by law firms in decision making regarding

complaints on oppression.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 6

References

corporatefinanceinstitute.com. (2020, April 15). Affirmative Action – Overview, Advantages, and

Disadvantages.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/affirmative-action/.

Ng, E. (2016, June 20). Why Do Individuals Oppose Affirmative Action? Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diverse-and-competitive/201606/why-do-

individuals-oppose-affirmative-action.

Rankhumise, E., & Netswera, F. G. (2010, November 16). Identifying the barriers to affirmative

action training: Perceptions of affirmative action appointees in Mpumalanga public

hospitals. SA Journal of Human Resource Management.

https://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/view/222/279.