By Mark Reagan
(This column represents of the writer and does not represent the views of the UNO School of Communication.)
One day, there was a state. This state decided it wasn’t sure about one law it had passed. This state thought about it, and one man in that state made removing this law from his state his crusade. He was successful and removed this law from his state.
But there were still other states. All of these states had similar laws. Some people of those states liked the law, and some other people in those states didn’t like the law. So is life.
The man from
The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 424, would “prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting.” This language is taken from Nebraskans United Web site and Connerly’s Web site for the American Civil Rights Institute, of which, he is president.
I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this argument and picking a side. Affirmative action is far from a black-and-white issue. It’s true that affirmative action seeks to obtain diversity in workplaces and on college campuses, but in some cases, affirmative action allows people with higher qualifications to be passed over for a job or college in the name of retaining diversity. Sometimes this is fair, and sometimes it’s not, but this is how the world works.
The best way to look at Connerly’s argument is that he thinks the affirmative action laws are outdated and reaffirm minorities’ status as second-class citizens. Opponents, like Nebraskans United, think the affirmative action laws are functional and should be retained.
I would agree that sometimes affirmative action is out of touch and unfair. I would also agree that sometimes affirmative action is necessary. This would lead the logical mind to think that it’s not time to get rid of affirmative action.
What does this mean for the
Basically, it means that women and minorities would not be able to receive scholarships based on their minority status. The playing field would be equal. But would it?
I am particularly concerned with the case of women. Very few women work in the sciences. The field is still male-dominated. By getting rid of affirmative action, women interested in the sciences would not be eligible for a scholarship based on their minority status as women. The playing field would be equal for everyone else but perhaps not women.
Is
To get rid of affirmative action is to assume that our society is completely equal and that everyone has the same opportunities. It’s a mistake to assume this because our country is not completely equal. Our country is not completely fair. Nothing is.
Affirmative action seeks to combat discrimination. Humans discriminate, and they always will. Offering scholarships to minorities and women is a good thing. Many minorities live in a lower economic bracket. Affirmative action offers opportunities to people who might not otherwise have them.
Affirmative action also seeks to retain diversity. Diversity is necessary for universities and workplaces. People deserve to have opportunities they might not otherwise have. Affirmative action gets many poor minorities noticed in the piles of paperwork in financial aid offices. This is good.
Connerly is seeking to change
Why is a Californian advocating for a change in
No, we don’t.
