Discrimination

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action legislation has helped in the fight for equality for minorities and women in the American society; however, time has come for new legislation to replace or abolish affirmative action, as we know it. In affirmative action's beginning, the dead weight to the American government needed laws to help aid the blending of minorities and women in American economics and culture. In a world economy that grows more competitive with every passing day, our quota system is a business that is trying to survive. Not only is advancement based on race and gender but also it is costly and time consuming. American's attitude toward minorities and women is "so steep a decline that it almost certainly reflects some change from the blatantly racist and nearly universal hostile white prejudices of the recent past" (Feagin & Feagin, 1978, pp. 6-7). If America's economy is to continue to survive it will most definitely have to hire on merit alone, and not be bothered by trivial laws that are outdated.

The origination of Affirmative Action is from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI and VII. Title VI states "no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or natural origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under programs or activities receiving financial assistance." Title VII states that "[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer to: fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment , because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or natural origin"(Civil Rights Act Title VII). These laws can be justified by our constitutional principle that all men are created equal, and should remain a part of our laws and thought process. However, penalizing a business or school because they haven't hired or accepted the number of minorities required by law is injustice.

According to Roberts (1995), a Gallup Poll taken in July of 1995 shows that Americans agree that quotas are no longer useful. Our fellow " Americans reject employment quotas by a margin of 63% to 35%," and in the black community "68% opposed and 22%" favored quotas" (Roberts, 1995, p.23). Americans today disagree with quotas because when they were implanted they were meant, "as temporary bootstrap measures to help blacks advance faster" (Roberts & Stratton, 1995, p. 41). Quotas have done what they were designed to do; therefore, they should no longer be looked to as an equalizing method.

Racial Profiling (Page539)

Man is judged on the fact that he is man, and only that. There are no other means or factors brought into account. This is not the way men are judged in the United States. In the United States, ethnic and racial generalizations often influence judicial execution. The attorney general's office of New Jersey itself released a 112 page preliminary report concluding that many officers may be inadvertently discriminating against minorities in their fervor to stop drug traffickers. This report was based on the findings of an investigation on the tactics of New Jersey highway patrols and what criteria they use in identifying suspicious motorists. Among their findings were that over a four year period, eight out of every ten cars pulled over on a southern stretch of the new jersey turnpike were minorities and forty percent of all traffic stops over a twenty month period involved minorities. In addition, the police themselves admit that race is a factor in how they decide whom to stop and search. But the problem is not limited to police officers and their behavior; it escalates into a federal judicial issue in which the profiling is deemed constitutional. In the case u.s. v. Weaver, the u.s. court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the officer's actions in using race as a factor (among others) in his decision to stop a potential drug-smuggler. Other courts have agreed with the Eighth Circuit that the constitution does not prohibit using race as a factor when they decide who is a suspect, if this is done for purposes of law enforcement and crime prevention. Furthermore, there is no visible end to this injustice in the near future since state police leadership has encouraged this racial profiling by giving "trooper of the year" awards to those who make big drug arrests and then failing to monitor whether troopers are disproportionately arresting minorities. To the credit of the police, it must be said that their actions, however questionable, were done with only the intentions to uphold the law, as was also found in the attorney general's report, that generally, the officers were not racist and the arrests were not racially motivated, nor were their any claims of racial harassment filed against these same officers. Taking into account all these facts, listing time and time again how those who are responsible for the upholding of the constitution look at citizens, it is impossible to conclude that the u.s. abides by the principle of equality. And if this fundamental criterion is not met, there can be no healthy democracy.

Pregnancy Discrimination

There are many issues to consider in pregnancy discrimination. The well-being of the child, the well-being of the mother, employer/employee relations, as well as gender issues. There are however several State and Federal laws that protect people against pregnancy discrimination. Two of the Federal laws are the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment