Upon meeting this one particular friend for the first time, we had a conversation about something that I love to discuss but it is very controversial and I am still on the fence about it myself. This discussion started when I asked my friend where he was from, how long he has worked here, ya da ya da. He said that he has worked at this non-profit (that shall remain anonymous) for 3 years and is planning to become a police officer in the very near future. He has tried to become a West Des Moines Police Officer and was 9 months into the process and they cut him. They said he wasn't the "right" fit. He has also tried to become a State Trooper and again, still not the "right" fit for the job. He explained to me that the reason he is not the right fit is because he is a male Caucasian who comes from a very nice suburb and the academy is required to have a variety of ethnicities and backgrounds in their ranks that have experienced urban communities and have also experienced prejudice themselves. But isn't that prejudice against him as an "ordinary" citizen?
I was immediately intrigued by his views because I have learned through many class discussions how Affirmative Action can work greatly in your favor as well as how terribly it can work against you. Before these class discussions, I thought Affirmative Action was perfect and awesome because it helped those less fortunate, especially minorities, earn an opportunity that they may not have had growing up in their community or environment because of a lack of funds or resources.
Post-class discussions, I have learned that many lawsuits have actually occurred over the years because Caucasians are now experiencing "reverse discrimination" in which they are denied enrollments or careers because their institution of choice only allows a certain percentage of a race or background and have filled their quota, even if the next minority they allow in had a lower GPA or less experience than him/her.
I may not have explained this in the best way possible but here is an excerpt from an article I used in a paper, giving an example of the misfortunes of Affirmative Action...
1. City of Richmond v. Croson
This case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels—a Richmond program setting aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms was challenged. For the first time, affirmative action was judged as a "highly suspect tool." The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota.(Meaning they can’t establish this quota without reasonable cause that there has been discrimination) It maintained that affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be "widespread throughout a particular industry." The Court maintained that "the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out' illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. The test also ensures that the means chosen `fit' this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype."
This case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels—a Richmond program setting aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms was challenged. For the first time, affirmative action was judged as a "highly suspect tool." The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota.(Meaning they can’t establish this quota without reasonable cause that there has been discrimination) It maintained that affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be "widespread throughout a particular industry." The Court maintained that "the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out' illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. The test also ensures that the means chosen `fit' this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype."
Oh and p.s.- if you are reading this blog, share your info by creating a blogger account or connect my blog to your gmail and start following me so I don't feel like I am talking to the air. If you have questions just e-mail me.Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment