Affirmative Action in America Essay Example for Free

Affirmative Action in America Essay Throughout the years, much of the public’s confusion over affirmative action lies in the manners it is defined, because the manner at which the concept is described usually becomes the basis that shapes public attitude. Affirmative action in the United States basically refers to policies that take ethnicity, race, and gender into consideration in an effort to encourage equal opportunity. The focus of such policy varies from employment and public contracting objectives to health and educational outreach programs. It is intended to promote public institutions, such as police forces, hospitals and universities to be more representative of the people they serve. The thrust towards affirmative action is twofold, which is the rectification as a result of involuntary, institutional, or blatant discrimination, and maximization of the advantages of diversity in every levels of society. Affirmative action continues to be one of the most conflict-ridden issues in the United States, remaining unsettled ever since the civil rights legislation in 1960s. Despite the fact that numerous efforts have been challenged to get to the bottom of the problem, none attempted to recognize the fundamental causes of the criticism against the policy. Therefore, in order to understand the future of affirmative action, one must be aware of its evolution, its resistance, and its application in the United States. Evolution of Affirmative Action Affirmative action in the United States started as a device to deal with the enduring discriminations among African-Americans in the 1960s. This particular phrase was initially applied to represent the country’s government policy in 1961 as a means of redressing inequalities that had persisted albeit the constitutional guarantees and civil rights laws (Brunner, 2007). Focusing particularly on jobs and education, affirmative action policies mandated that active measures be taken to make sure that African-Americans and other minorities benefited from equal opportunities for financial aid, scholarships, school admissions, career advancement, salary increase, and promotions that had been practically the whites’ exclusive province. Affirmative action was visualized from the start as a provisional remedy that would end once there was an identical playing field for every Americans. President Kennedys Executive Order 10925 of 1961 intended and mandated every government contracting agencies to practice affirmative action to make sure that black applicants were hired and that they were equally taken cared of throughout their employment, without considering their color, creed, race, or national origin. In 1964, the landmark legislation of Civil Rights Act was signed into law, which prohibits employment discrimination by large employers, regardless of their previous contracts with the government. President Johnson developed and enforced for the fist time the country’s affirmative action through the Executive Order 11246 of 1965, requiring every government contractors and subcontractors to observe affirmative action so as to expand employment opportunities for minorities. President Johnson amended Executive Order 11246 in 1967 to incorporate affirmative action for women. By this time, federal contractors were required to make good-faith endeavors to increase employment opportunities for minorities and women (Wilcher, 2003). The 1978 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 912 upheld the use of race as one aspect in selecting qualified applicants for admission. Concurrently, it also ruled illegal the practice of the University Medical School of setting aside 18 seats for minority students in every incoming class of 100 (Wilcher, 2003). The following year, a National Women’s Business Enterprise Policy was created by President Jimmy Carter through the issuance of Executive Order 12138, which further requires every agency to take affirmative action to support business enterprise of women. In the same year, the Supreme Court ruled in United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber, 444 U. S. 889 that race-conscious endeavors intended to abolish an evident racial disparity in an employers labor force ensuing from past discrimination are acceptable if they are impermanent and do not infringe the rights of other employees. The United States Supreme Court in 1987 ruled in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U. S. 616 that a serious under representation of minorities and women warranted the use of sex or race as one aspect in selecting amongst qualified applicants. Opposition to affirmative action has resulted to numerous legal challenges, starting with the United States Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in City of Richmond vs. J. A. Croson, which required local and states governments to draw on more comprehensive evidence of inequalities to validate the need for the programs. Immediately after that, Oregon and Michigan discontinued their affirmative procurement programs. In 1998, both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives prevented efforts to abolish particular programs of affirmative action. Amendments to eliminate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program sponsored through the Transportation Bill were rejected by both houses, and the upper house rejected an endeavor to abolish the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions programs supported through the Higher Education Act. Throughout these periods, the opinions of the Supreme Court justices in affirmative action cases have been generally divided partly because of conflicting political beliefs but moreover because the issue is basically so complicated. Rather than tackling the whole policy, the Court has approached majority of the cases in a piecemeal manner, focusing on its narrow features. But in 2003, the landmark case involving the affirmative action policies of University of Michigan, which became one of the most imperative rulings on the issue in 25 years, the Supreme Court finally and positively supported higher education’s right of affirmative action (Brunner, 2007). The Court held as constitutional the use of race, among other aspects, of the University of Michigan in its law school admissions program given that the program advanced a compelling interest in achieving an educational advantage that flows from the diversity of student body. In addition, the Court established that the law school’s program was narrowly tailored, flexible, and supported a holistic assessment of every applicant.

Teens and Sex - Teen Pregnancy :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Teen Pregnancy Before we venture into the controversial aspects of teen pregnancy, I think that it is imortant to answer a vital question brought up by one of our classmates. This question addresses how teen pregnancy has evolved and how times have changed to bring upon such a serious issue. To begin answering this question we must take a look back in time to the roles of women and men in our society. Teen pregnancy is not just a rare virus that has recently sprung up and will someday dissapear due to some type of cure. Adolescent pregnancy has plagued our country for over three centuries, but it is only more recently that we have noticed its growth and severe impact on many aspects of society. The social change that lead to this visibility is not only based on a change in sexual behaviors, but it also is based on a change in the nature of adolescence. These changes begin with the decling of the average age of menarche. The average age for menarche in girls ten years ago was 14.2; this age has dropped by two years since then. The average age for menarche today is 12.2. This statistic suggests that since girls are capable of having children at younger ages they are also more apt to have sex at a younger age. The social changes that effect these statistics deal with the raising of the average age of marriage, standard attitudes towards marriage as a sacred institution, and economic shifts which have led to a need for longer educational careers. These changes have produced pockets of urban poverty where education is often not valued or taken seriously. Unfortunatly, the need for higher education is reflected in the fact that only at levels after high school has enrollment increased in recent years, and only in the late teens are whites more likely than blacks to enroll in an educational institution. Due to the demands of the economy many young people are dependent on their parents for a longer peroid of time which has left some groups without access to the economic options that allow them to prepare for the future. Â   Some of the reasons for the increased age in marriage stem from the changing roles of women in our society. Women are now more than ever participating in a mans work world, and dealing with such problems as maintaining their homes, the cost of childrearing, and the importance of an education.

Death of a Salesman Essay AP English III

Death of a Salesman Essay Wily Loan is a symbolic icon of the failing America. He is representing a typical chaser of the American dream in the sass's. He experiences a tragedy in his life where he was trying to find his place in his own life with his sons leaving, growing old, and an escalating sense of stubbornness. Wily was Just one of many Americans that experienced a great tragedy during this time which was a reason that led up to the great depression in 1929. This makes a symbolic icon of the failing America during this time.Wily Loan had a life most people admired while his sons were still in high school. He had a Job and was very happy at that time. His son Biff was the high school quarterback and was very good at his position. This made Wily extremely proud and hoped he would see his son go off to play football at the college level. He was very content with his life at this point and this symbolizes the booming American economy before the Great Depression. Wily soon got too caught up in the idea of the American Dream, to be hard working and honest among other things.He soon began to get greedy in the idea of the American Dream along with other things that went wrong. His pride soon escalated and prevailed in the worst way. Biff reveals to Wily that he has failed his senior math class and will not have enough credits to graduate high school. This incident highlights and really reveals Willis stubbornness for he Just thinks Biff could just go to summer school and get the credits he needed to graduate. It was not that simple as Wily soon learned. Biff then tells his father he is going to go to an interview or an important high paying Job and Wily is very excited for him to get the Job.Biff ends up not going to the interview because he felt he was not able to get the Job. As he tries to tell his father what happened, Willis stubbornness again shows as he would not even let Biff explain what had happened. Wily keeps talking and interrupting his son saying t hings as if he got the Job. This causes very high tension between the two and leads to a huge argument at the end of the play that indirectly leads to Wily killing himself. Another incident that escalates to the tragedy that occurs in the play is when Biff catches Wily cheating on his wife.Biff is heartbroken, in shock, and angry all at once and leaves the scene leaving Wily questioning what has become of him and started to realize his life was not what it used to be, but his stubbornness still prevailed. At the end of the play the whole family meets together at their house. A significant argument breaks out mostly between Biff and Wily about how stubborn and blind he really is. Wily ends up telling Biff to get out of his house and Biff says he never wants to come back. The argument was the deciding factor hat led up to Wily getting in his car and killing himself.In the end, Willis stubbornness and pride led to things such as the arguments between him and Biff, him getting fired and refusing to take another Job out of pride, and lack of realization that he was slowly setting the stage for his own demise. Wily was Just another lower middle class American stuck in the idea of the American Dream. Along with many other Americans during the time, he symbolized the failing America of the Great Depression of the sass's and even the digressing American economy of today.

Why Did the Americans Win the Mexican-American War

From 1846 to 1848, the United States of America and Mexico fought the Mexican-American War. There were many causes of the war, but the biggest reasons were Mexicos lingering resentment over the loss of Texas and the Americans desire for Mexicos western lands, such as California and New Mexico. The Americans believed their nation should extend to the Pacific: this belief was called Manifest Destiny. The Americans invaded on three fronts. A relatively small expedition was sent to secure the desired western territories: it soon conquered California and the rest of the current U.S. southwest. A second invasion came from the north through Texas. A third landed near Veracruz and fought its way inland. By late 1847, the Americans had captured Mexico City, which made the Mexicans agree to a peace treaty which ceded all of the lands the U.S. had wanted. But why did the U.S. win? The armies sent to Mexico were relatively small, peaking at about 8,500 soldiers. The Americans were outnumbered in nearly every battle they fought. The entire war was fought on Mexican soil, which should have given the Mexicans an advantage. Yet not only did the Americans win the war, they also won every major engagement. Why did they win so decisively? The U.S. had Superior Firepower Artillery (cannons and mortars) was an important part of warfare in 1846. The Mexicans had decent artillery, including the legendary St. Patricks Battalion, but the Americans had the best in the world at the time. American cannon crews had roughly double the effective range of their Mexican counterparts and their deadly, accurate fire made the difference in several battles, most notably the Battle of Palo Alto. Also, the Americans first deployed the flying artillery in this war: relatively lightweight but deadly cannons and mortars that could be swiftly redeployed to different parts of the battlefield as needed. This advance in artillery strategy greatly helped the American war effort. Better Generals The American invasion from the north was led by General Zachary Taylor, who would later become President of the United States. Taylor was an excellent strategist: when faced with the imposingly fortified city of Monterrey, he saw its weakness right away: the fortified points of the city were too far from one another: his battle plan was to pick them off one by one. The second American army, attacking from the east, was led by General Winfield Scott, probably the best tactical General of his generation. He liked to attack where he was least expected and more than once surprised his opponents by coming at them from seemingly out of nowhere. His plans for battles such as Cerro Gordo and Chapultepec were masterful. The Mexican Generals, such as the legendarily inept Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, were way outclassed. Better Junior Officers The Mexican-American War was the first in which officers trained at the West Point Military Academy saw serious action. Time and again, these men proved the value of their education and skill. More than one battle turned on the actions of a brave Captain or Major. Many of the men who were junior officers in this war would become Generals 15 years later in the Civil War, including Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, P.G.T. Beauregard, George Pickett, James Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan, George Meade, Joseph Johnston, and others. General Winfield Scott himself said that he would not have won the war without the men from West Point under his command. Infighting Among the Mexicans Mexican politics was extremely chaotic at that time. Politicians, Generals and other would-be leaders fought for power, making alliances and stabbing one another in the back. Mexicos leaders were unable to unite even in the face of a common enemy battling its way across Mexico. General Santa Anna and General Gabriel Victoria hated one another so badly that at the Battle of Contreras, Victoria purposely left a hole in Santa Annas defenses, hoping the Americans would exploit it and make Santa Anna look bad: Santa Anna returned the favor by not coming to Victorias aid when the Americans attacked his position. This is only one example of many of Mexican military leaders putting their own interests first during the war. Poor Mexican Leadership If Mexicos generals were bad, their politicians were worse. The Presidency of Mexico changed hands several times during the Mexican-American War. Some administrations lasted only days. Generals removed politicians from power and vice-versa. These men often differed ideologically from their predecessors and successors, making any kind of continuity impossible. In the face of such chaos, troops were rarely paid or given what they needed to win, such as ammunition. Regional leaders, such as governors, often refused to send any aid at all to the central government, in some cases because they had serious problems of their own at home. With no one firmly in command, the Mexican war effort was doomed to fail. Better Resources The American government committed plenty of cash to the war effort. The soldiers had good guns and uniforms, enough food, high-quality artillery and horses and just about everything else they needed. The Mexicans, on the other hand, were totally broke during the entire war. Loans were forced from the rich and the church, but still corruption was rampant and the soldiers were poorly equipped and trained. Ammunition was often in short supply: the Battle of Churubusco might have resulted in a Mexican victory, had ammunition arrived for the defenders in time. Mexicos Problems The war with the U.S. was certainly Mexicos biggest problem in 1847†¦but it wasnt the only one. In the face of the chaos in Mexico City, small rebellions were breaking out all over Mexico. The worst was in the Yucatà ¡n, where indigenous communities which had been repressed for centuries took up arms in the knowledge that the Mexican army was hundreds of miles away. Thousands were killed and by 1847 the major cities were under siege. The story was similar elsewhere as impoverished peasants rebelled against their oppressors. Mexico also had enormous debts and no money in the treasury to pay them. By early 1848 it was an easy decision to make peace with the Americans: it was the easiest of the problems to solve, and the Americans were also willing to give Mexico $15 million as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Sources Eisenhower, John S.D. So Far from God: the U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman: the University of Oklahoma Press, 1989Henderson, Timothy J. A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States.New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.Hogan, Michael. The Irish Soldiers of Mexico. Createspace, 2011.Wheelan, Joseph. Invading Mexico: Americas Continental Dream and the Mexican War, 1846-1848. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007.