It Is Time To Reaffirm Our Actions
The history of this Nation is being carved with the chisels of our incessant struggle towards freedom and equality. Evidently, that struggle has continually propelled us scores of years away from slavery and flagrant bigotry. Yes, we can not deny to ourselves that our odyssey to the realms of crystal-clear equality has not yet ended. Though, attempting to surpass the craters of injustice with fabricated bridges of unequal treatment will merely make our journey that much more treacherous and insurmountable. No matter how benevolently intended, practicing preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity, and gender ultimately results in great social discomfort to everyone involved. Initially, in the mid 1960’s, Affirmative Action programs were intended to protect minorities from racial and gender discrimination. Today, we need to demonstrate to ourselves that we have truly progressed towards a gender and color-blind society, since the inception of Affirmative Action. To materialize that goal, we must start adopting feasible alternatives that may allow us to value and select the most suitable individuals, among ourselves, based solely on the merit of our abi
The mentality of human beings does not change easily. Generally, It takes a family one generation to transform the prejudicial mind-set of its members. Especially, when we deal with profound issues, such as, the kind--and level--of family interaction with people from different races, or the opposite genders. We must keep in mind that it took the American society nearly 30 years to mix the workplace --harmoniously-- with people of different color and gender. Therefore, the ultimate system that will end our journey towards a Crystal-clear, color-blind American society is, at the very least, three generations away from materializing. As result we will need: • A third one to assimilate it. lities and actions, and Not on our God-given skin-pigment and/or gender. How did America drift from the ideal of a color blind society into the current environment of quotas, goals, timetables, set-asides, diversity training, and the like?. However, since Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is very vague and broad in its language, many proposals con or pro Affirmative Action are ultimately challenged in court. For instance, In November 1996, the majority of people of the State of California voted YES on Proposition-209. That Proposition effectively banned Affirmative Action Programs mandated by the State. The initiative for that Proposition was undertaken by two white, male, and politically moderate professors in the California State University System (Puddington, 1). A few weeks later, a California District Court Judge (Afro-American) halted the implementation of Proposition-209, on the grounds that its legality and constitutionality must be established first. Evidently, that was another prime example of the increasing disparity between the people’s democratic decisions and their government’s inability to implement them. Because our own laws no longer fulfill what we benevolently enacted them for, in the past: To treat everyone equally without regard to race and gender. Instead, our own laws have severely divided us in two bands, either, con or pro Affirmative Action.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, Forces Sullivan, Establish Boundaries, Judge Afro-American, Presidents Congresses, Action Programs, Latinos Asia-American, affirmative action, School Board, Act Marked, american society, action programs, racial gender, affirmative action programs, race gender, ethnicity gender, race ethnicity gender, race ethnicity, 1964 civil rights, civil rights, own laws, treatment based, racial gender discrimination, preferential treatment based,
Approximate Word count = 1504
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
