You are on page 1of 3

Aaron Clinkenbeard Period 7 What Are We Even Doing Why Affirmative Action Should be Replaced I. Introduction A.

In 1961 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, this order established the concept of affirmative action by mandating government contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." I believe in the words of President Kennedy, and an america where equality is legally enforced. 1. I have been getting emails from many colleges recently, asserting I am among the top, like everyone else. And I have noticed that many colleges are bragging about their ratios of gender and minorities being as high as they can achieve. 2. After Executive Order 10925 in 1961, up to 2003. The percentage of low income students and minority students accepted in comparison to white, high income students has increased 37%. (Grutter vs. Bollinger, Katel). 3. On this topic most say that affirmative action is necessary, in order to prevent civil rights from being violated based off of race and gender. Others say affirmative action in itself is racist, by prioritizing some races over others and that it should be removed entirely. I believe that although Affirmative Action is bad because it violates the very reason it exists, we still need some way to prevent illegal judgements based off of race or gender. 4. (I have no not racist things to say, nothing to provide evidence, would not say this section out loud obviously) 5. We are all American citizens, America is a land of freedom and equality, we all deserve the right to live the American dream, and to get a fair shot at it. Narration A. After 1961, when Affirmative Action was put in place, businesses of all kinds were now required to make sure that no minority of any kind was discriminated against in the hiring process employers took, as well as with schools accepting students. B. In a study asking about which student a college would accept if only one seat was left available from 2003, results showed evident prejiduce against Hispanic students, even if that was the only given information, and a low income student is 60% more likely to be accepted. Division A. Listed Points 1. Most people agree that all American citizens should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender or socioeconomic status, and that this is why we need affirmative action, to keep this equality.





2. Others however, believe that affirmative action promotes the use of quotas while hiring, which makes an unfair environment for those who are not in a minority and are equally qualified. B. The solution to the problem is down the middle road. I agree that all American citizens should have equal rights and that we need a way to protect those rights, however the way affirmative action works is the problem. All I believe we should do is replace affirmative action with a similar system that does not advantage one race against another to Repay minorities for past mistakes. (Jost) Proof A. 1. We should replace affirmative action with a formula that only makes sure companies are hiring/recruiting people of different races approximately equally by race, gender and socioeconomic status according to applicant ratios, and assuming they are all equally qualified. a) Under the current system minorities are encouraged to make up about 50% of the accepted applicants no matter what the ratio of non minority applicants to minority applicants is. (Steele) b) However this is an unfair system because this gives one race over another, by preferring one minority over another, this method of preventing minority right violations is unnecessarily violating the rights of others. c) For example, when Sharon Taxman was fired from her job instead of a black coworker, based solely off of race, her civil rights had been violated, in the name of stopping civil rights violations. (Jost) d) The correct way to decide who should be hired, or in this case fired, if all applicants are equal is by giving them all an equal chance, just using chance to decide is the only fair, and therefore constitutional way to decide. B. Statistics reveal that colleges will hire a minority students over a white male students over 3:1, this number stays approximately the same no matter what the ratio if minority to non minority kids is (Katel). This kind of system is truly unbalanced if it ignores the amount of minority students applying and always encourages a 50:50 ratio. Refutation A. Those who argue that affirmative action is necessary to maintain civil rights are not entirely wrong. B. 1. The issue is they believe affirmative action promotes absolute race, gender and socioeconomic equality. The fact is that affirmative action works by giving one race a higher chance to get a job than another, and it encourages companies to hire minorities before hiring non minorities no matter the situation. This is a violation of


the constitution because it infringes on the rights of American citizens based off of race, gender, or socioeconomic status.(Constitution of the United States of America) 2. The problems that would occur without affirmative action are easily solved, just replacing affirmative action with a system that maintained approximately equal ratios and determined racial bias in companies, much like a constitutional Section Four of the Voting Rights Act would solve the previous problems and not create any problems like those made by affirmative action. 3. Imagine you were denied access to your dream college, because only one spot was left and the other person applying was given a larger boost by affirmative action. The place should be 50:50, all up to odds. Affirmative action would change those odds in favor of the minority. C. Although affirmative action increasing the amount of minorities that are able to get jobs or into college is a good thing. The cost comes at violating non minorities civil rights, something which does not have to happen. Under affirmative action, they weigh the odds, so that if 8 people applied to a job with four opening and all 8 people were equally qualified but two were women six were men, two would get the job along with two men. In the ideal system the ratios of people hired under this circumstance would be about 3 men and 1 woman being accepted. Conclusion A. True equality is equal opportunity, however, the gender or race while talking about equal opportunity should never matter. If it comes into play, we have violated the constitution and our civil liberties. B. We are Americans: 1. We are all Americans, we are all born equal, if we make race an advantage or disadvantage, we have violated our natural rights as Americans, to be treated equally. 2. America was founded on the beliefs that all Americans are equal, and although at that time they did not include races other than white, genders other than men, or Irish people. We do now, and that is what makes America so great. 3. For America to call itself a land of freedom, and land of equality, we simply cannot have affirmative action, we have no place for it in a country where the constitution promises equality just off of being human. We are all human, we are all American, our races do not matter to America, and in fact cannot. C. This is why we must replace affirmative action with a system that only monitors to make sure no significant unequal ratios of races are hired, or fired. Thank you.