Sources 6-10 – Joe Mleczko

6. About the AAAA

Background: This source describes the American Association for Affirmative Action’s automatic opposition to any federal or state programs that eliminate or even reduce the policies of Affirmative Action.

How I Intend to Use it: The AAAA has often publicly opposed efforts by legislators to “throttle back” on affirmative action. I will examine the proposed changes in policy to evaluate whether the AAAA’s reflex opposition has prevented changes that could have made Affirmative Action better for everyone.

7. Conflicted Views of Affirmative Action

Background: This source provides actual data on how many Americans view affirmative action. These statistics provide the reader with views from both sides of the argument, some people express approval and others express their dislike.

How I Intend to Use it: With the help of the numbers provided by the tables, I hope to clearly outline where and how many people stand on the many topics of affirmative action. For example, the “Personally Affected by Affirmative Action” numbers show that of the majority of people affected by affirmative action are affected in a negative way.

8. Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College Entry

Background: This article found in the New York Times, reports the 2003 verdict by the Supreme Court, in which it said colleges have the right to take race into account when  admitting new students. Now eleven years later, the justices are contemplating changing that ruling.

How I Intend to Use it: I must sound like a broken record, but the purpose of affirmative action was to create a color blind nation by providing every race with equal representation in places of employment and higher education. Color blind implies that race does not come into account whatsoever in the recruiting process. This ruling by the Supreme Court is allowing colleges to discriminate against applicants. This is the definition of reverse discrimination.

9. System Justification Beliefs, Affirmative Action, And Resistance to Equal Opportunity Organizations

Background: This source further explores the possibility that affirmative action causes more harm than good. According to actual studies, affirmative action policies have opponents not only among the majorities they harm, but also among the minorities they benefit.

How I Intend to Use it: As a rebuttal to the argument that minorities truly need affirmative action and would suffer without it, I will use direct examples of minorities disagreeing with affirmative action. It is now common to see people that think the United States has come far enough to survive without the policies of affirmative action. In fact, minorities now feel affirmative action takes away from true accomplishments, because others view these accomplishment as only possible through affirmative action policies. In other cases, people are less likely to support a business that is notorious for reverse discrimination against applicants. This brings a past topic of mine to the surface again where the wrong people are blamed for simply following the laws set by the government.

10. White Americans’ opposition to affirmative action: Group interest and the harm to beneficiaries objection

Background: This source explores the view that White American’s are the main group behind opposition to affirmative action, even though there are those in the minority who also oppose it. The paper explains that White American’s object to the fact that merit is not the primary qualification.

How I Intend to Use it: I like this source, because this entire time I have been arguing that affirmative action creates reverse discrimination. While I still find this to be true, this paper addresses the fact that through reverse discrimination, the concept of merit is suddenly less important. In a nation that pride’s itself on the American Dream, merit and ability is extremely relevant. Making merit irrelevant is un-American, and is another good example of the harm affirmative action does.

This entry was posted in Sources 6-10. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sources 6-10 – Joe Mleczko

  1. davidbdale says:

    Joe, I have style recommendations for Source 6.

    Background:
    “involves the AAAA” is weak.
    “how they oppose” is accurate only if you discuss their method of opposing.

    So maybe instead:
    This source describes the American Association for Affirmative Action’s automatic opposition to any federal or state programs that eliminate or even reduce the policies of Affirmative Action.

    How I Intend to Use it:

    Use when and where accurately.
    “when talking” makes perfect sense.
    “where people oppose” does not.

    So maybe instead:
    I will use this source for specific examples of opposition to the elimination of affirmative action policies.

    Eliminate “there is/there are” when possible.

    So maybe instead:
    The AAAA has often publicly opposed efforts by legislators to “throttle back” on affirmative action. I will examine the proposed changes in policy to evaluate whether the AAAA’s reflex opposition has prevented changes that could have made Affirmative Action better for everyone.

    In addition to the more direct style, I hope you’ll see I’ve rephrased to make a clearer argument of your (?) position. You may not always be ready to draw conclusions, but you can always say what you currently believe or suspect.

  2. davidbdale says:

    7. *where?
    how–many Americans? or:
    how many–Americans?
    The numbers don’t have two sides.
    *many poles?
    It’s problematic for advocates of Affirmative Action that its beneficiaries want to deny that it helped them, while its victims are so vocal.

    8. “talks about” is vague. Does it simply report on the facts of the case? Does it advocate a position? Does it suggest that the review so many years later is overdue?

    And yet, Joe, there’s the “affirmative” claim. How can affirmative action mean anything other than positive efforts to reverse an inequality? A law that advocated merely the elimination of discrimination wouldn’t be affirmative so much as neutral. I admit the question is complex, but that’s what makes it such a good topic. Were colleges, for example, discriminating against black applicants in the past (not legal), or were they discriminating against low SAT scores (presumably perfectly legal)? Neutral means we go by scores alone in the future, I guess? Affirmative means something else, I think.

    9. “disagreed upon”?
    Maybe: AA policies have opponents not only among the majorities they harm, but also among the minorities they benefit?

    direct examples “where” minorities?
    people “who” think, please

    Yes, I see how this will support your argument about wrongful blame. A good bit of evidence if it contains what you say it does.

    10. White American’s? american’s? pride’s?
    And what is their problem with it? Do you mean they object to the fact that merit is not the primary qualification?

    On the question of merit, give some consideration to the question of whether the most meritorious minority candidate still beats less meritorious candidates from the same minority. Are there cases of majority candidates losing out to minority candidates who in turn lose out to “more deserving” minority candidates even less meritorious?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s