Lets say the courts never gave us an equality tool such as AA. We would not be where we are today if AA had not been there to make up for societies inequalities. The fundamental difference I see in our argument is; (1) The world is unequal, AA is a tool to create equality, (2) The world is unequal, AA should not be a tool, (3) The world is equal, there is still a need for AA, (4) The world is equal, there is no need for AA. Although I hope for a society like scenario 4, I believe in scenario 1. I think we need to realize that because what has happened in past generations, today we have a majority of white males in positions of power. (Obama why do you have to undermine my argument?) I do not think that they are racist CEO's or white men who don't think women are as productive employees, However, because of there fortunate histories, I think that it brings on an unequal world to current marginalized groups. I think that the very term "marginalized groups" should as an end be terminated, with affirmative action as the means.
If we do not need AA in higher education, then student populations should reflect the racial diversity of our country. BUT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS STILL DON'T! That in and of itself totally justifies why we need AA in, for example, the Michigan Law School.
Adam Yust
All men are created equally in a perfect society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adam I totally agree with you that Number One is the way things are now, but we're striving to reach Number 4. I was really surprised by how, I don't know? Passionate, maybe, I got in class the day we debated AA, and I believed everything I said- I wasn't just trying to win the debate. (But we did- ha! Just kidding, Axl and Candi.) Like I said, I would be mad as H-E-Double Hockey Sticks (Oops, sorry!) if I was passed up for a job I would rock at just because the firm practiced quota AA, but in the long run, I'd chalk it up to being a personal sacrifice we have to endure in the long process of establishing true equality for all.
ReplyDelete