Essay Affirmative Action
Using any feedback youve 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.
