A former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan and the George H. Clegg held the second highest position in the Civil Rights division as well as several other positions at the U.
By David Sacks and Peter Thiel Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.
We are beginning to see why.
Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus.
In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality. Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers.
If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race. Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus. The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee?
Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity. But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race.
The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way. The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.
When University officials boast of "looking for racism everywhere," as multicultural educator Greg Ricks did in a Stanford Daily interview, then perhaps the most sensible and certainly the most predictable response will be for white students to avoid dealing with such quarrelsome people.
In this way, the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness.
None of this is to deny that there are some people in America who are racist and that there are some features of American life that are legacies of a much more racist past. But racism is not everywhere, and there is very little at a place like Stanford.
Certainly, no one has accused Stanford's admissions officers of being racist, so perhaps the real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.
Although Stanford's admissions office cannot undo the wrongs of history, its mission is still very important -- namely, admitting the best class of students it can find.
The sole criterion in finding the members of this class and in defining "merit" should be individual achievement -- not just grades and test scores, of course, but a broad range of accomplishments, in athletics, music, student government, drama, school clubs and other extracurricular efforts.
But race and ethnicity or gender or sexual preference do not have a place on this list; these are traits, not achievements.
Perhaps the most tragic side effect of affirmative action is that very significant achievements of minority students can become compromised.
It is often not possible to tell whether a given student genuinely deserved admission to Stanford, or whether he is there by virtue of fitting into some sort of diversity matrix. When people do start to suspect the worst -- that preferences have skewed the entire class -- they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences.
It is a strange cure that generates its own disease. A Stanford without affirmative action will be a Stanford in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered.Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually.
Skip to main content An official website of the United States government. Here’s how you know. tranceformingnlp.com means it’s official. Federal government websites often end tranceformingnlp.com tranceformingnlp.com with disabilities, and covered .
· For a number of years in the United States, it was very difficult, if not impossible, for minorities to get a fair chance to succeed.
Although the Constitution guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, the reality of that pursuit was filled with roadblocks. That’s what Affirmative Action was tranceformingnlp.com · Finally, those who would eradicate affirmative action because it "stigmatizes" minorities have two flaws in their argument.
Stigma is the product of racist attitudes that still persist today. As a result, killing affirmative action would do little, probably nothing, to ameliorate the stigmatization of tranceformingnlp.com United States () regarding the internment of those with Japanese ancestry living in the United States?
What is the status of affirmative action in college admissions after the Supreme Court decisions in the two cases involving the University of Michigan, Gratz v.
Government - Chapter 5 - Civil Rights. 47 terms. Tri. 2 Chapter 5 tranceformingnlp.com For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.
For example, both Asian and Jewish Americans have been subject to discrimination in the United States, but they are by and large excluded groups in the Affirmative Action scheme. Another hot argument to the issue of determining which groups constitute “minority” groups is the geographical or regional tranceformingnlp.com://tranceformingnlp.com · However imperfect, affirmative action has made a small dent in the inequities that have characterized the distribution of jobs and educational opportunities in the United States. According to The New York Times, "The percentage of blacks in managerial and technical jobs doubled during the affirmative action tranceformingnlp.com://tranceformingnlp.com /affirmative-action-or-negative-action. - Affirmative Action - The Battles Against Race-Based Educational Plans California's decision in to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United tranceformingnlp.com://tranceformingnlp.com?text=affirmative+action.
Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company s written personnel tranceformingnlp.com://tranceformingnlp.com · An affirmative action lawsuit against Harvard University alleging the school's race-conscious admissions policy discriminates against Asian-Americans is exposing a chasm among members of the tranceformingnlp.com