when was affirmative action introduced to the world?
337293
The first instance of it was in 1866 appearing under the umbrella of civil rights laws.   \n  \nOriginally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... " \n\nIn 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. \n\nIn 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. \n\nDuring 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ." \n\nThe 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." \n\nIn 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. \nOther equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." \n\nMuch of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
843362
Minorities and women in the workplace.\n\nAnyone that thinks Affirmative Action is not necessary and very much needed is living in a fantasy world.\n\nI have personally known over 20 women that have experienced hostility in the workplace in male dominated engineering fields. Some of them were eventually even fired after complaining.\n\nThis is an atrocity in the 21st century and it happens a lot more than anyone knows.\n\nI have an electrical engineering degree and my sister has a mechanical engineering degree. Both of us have experienced this. \n\nMy sister was a mechanical eng. for Nascar and was the only female in the research and development dept. I can not count how many times she called me while on her lunch hour upset and crying from being harassed. Btw, the only black person in that entire building was the receptionist.\n\nAffirmative Action is needed now more than ever because there are still a lot of white males that make it clear they do NOT want females or minorities to 'intrude' on what they call a 'white man's job'.\n\nPoint is that taking away Affirmative Action is saying that you believe ppl will on their own level the playing field... this is just not true as history has repeatedly shown us.
461103
13th November 1945\n\nhttp://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
676987
Try Title TITLE VII(EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) of Civil rights act of 1964.\nat:\n\nhttp://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
1091454
Well initially, affirmative action was proposed to provide equality in the workplace. However, today, many believe it is over-emphasized and now the majorities are almost minorities in a sense because the Affirmative Action clause in the respective employer will choose the minority over the majority. \nThe pros are that it helped level out the diversity in the workplace based on racial population rates in each respective geographic area. It was a huge part of the Civil rights movement that still exists today. It plays a huge role in the employment processes of todays society. Good luck in your debate.
786331
Racial discrimination is everywhere.
1010534
Affirmative action is not here to "pay back" previous discrimination but to prevent current discrimination.  Whether it exists or not in large amounts (there will always be at least one person in America who is racist and in a position of power) is somewhat difficult to determine to say the least.\n\nSome would argue that racists whites established themselves in positions of power early in this country's history and do everything they can to make sure racist whites stay in power, so even now they are at the top and affirmative action is there only to ensure a more equal chance for minorities.  Others argue the point of affirmative action was to equalize it out and now that it has been in place for many years it has done its job and it is now time to quit before it equalizes "too much."  \n\nI'm not sure myself if it is right (I'm Hispanic), especially since I don't like it being attributed to affirmative action when I get a decent job.  But I have seen it happen already too many times that I did lose a job because somebody felt I should go back to Mexico (I was born in the United States and I'm around 6th generation in from my Mexican ancestry, 3 generations in from my European ancestry, and native from my Native American ancestry).  I think it is helpful and needed but I do understand why whites (especially the males) would feel it unfair.  Sometimes they lose the job even when more qualified because of it.
377478
Affirmative action...the words sound so positive, don't they?\nThose words mask an ugly racism which is morally no different from that practiced in the southern US not too many years ago.\nThe only criterion used to judge people under the tyranny of affirmative action is the color of one's skin.  This is the very definition of racism.\nThere is no such thing as "reverse discrimination."  Giving anyone any advantage solely based on skin color is racism, no matter who practices it against whom.\nPeople who support affirmative action should learn, understand and take to mind Dr. King's most important lesson: We should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.
631329
The list is too lengthly to list here. Starting with Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights movement, to the first introduction of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, to the total overhaul and repeated revamping of that law into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the 1980's and it's repeated revisions, not to mention FERPA, NCLB, and ADA, to a multitude of court cases seeking to define the elements of IDEA (special education policy is really about 99% defined by court cases rather than by legislative actions)... you are asking for almost 60 years of history on a chat forum!  For full details and explanations, it takes a college textbook.  Try here:\n\nhttp://ericec.org/faq/spedhist.html\nhttp://www.parentsunitedtogether.com/page15.html\nhttp://www.reedmartin.com/specialeducationstatutes.htm\nhttp://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html\n\nThese summaries are only really a start.
920888
It is a racist policy that enables someone to benefit off the color of their skin.\n2. It benefits minorities and women.\n3. We have lost fair hiring practices to it.\n4. It effects everyone because one day you could be passed over for a job simply because they have a quota of ethnicity to hire. It basically promotes racism and in equality. It is just another pathetic way to keep racism alive. People are not inferior based on the color of their skin or their sexual gender. Affirmative action reinforces centuries old beliefs that here in America, the white skin of the male is praised by all.
444498
Hmm, that's a slightly controversial one, but not nearly as much as say, er, other stuff, so I'll jump in.  Why not?  ^_^\n\nIt may depend slightly on the type of affirmative action you're talking about, but in general I don't feel that it's right.  Especially relating to job acquisition, this is a bad idea.  If a white guy applies for a job and a black (forgive the terms, but "white" and "black" DO take less time to type...although this sentence kinda already made that a useless excuse...but meh) guy applies for the same job, and the white guy is more qualified but they take the black guy because they have to "meet quota" or they "don't want to appear rascist," then that both hurts the economy as well as being a bad moral practice.  Also, if the place those two were applying at WAS just trying to "meet a quota," and later the same white guy tries to apply and another black guy of slightly lesser qualifications also applies (please don't infer that I'm saying that non-white people are less skilled; this is merely an example), they are going to hire the white guy, or at least they should, as he meets the criteria better (not because he's white; I stated that his qualifications are better for the purposes of this example).  Anyway, if the second black guy is technically more skilled than the first black guy, then the end result in this situation is that a white guy and a black guy were hired, but the company could have had a better black guy, and the black guy that had mre qualifications did not get the job he could have had if the company had hired on what I think is a moral basis: ability.  And yes, this is a very far fetched example.  However, hiring on the basis of race is completely unjustified.  I also think hiring on the basis of need is unjustified, which of course immediately leads me to the aforementined race conclusion.  If a person really needs a job, then they need to convince their employer that they can do a darn good job of it.  Thing is, if they really need it, they will try harder to get it AND will work harder at it, which will make them at least in part better cantidates for employment.  I hope that this made sense; I tend to ramble a lot.  Anyway, I'm gonna move on to education.\n\nAs for education, there are a lot of grants out there, and I have seen stats about how African Americans and Hispanics (hmmmm, I chose to type it out NOW, but not in the earlier...oh well) are oftentimes at a disadvantage in paying for school compared to white people.  However, I really feel that we should not be labeling people like that.  there are white people I'm sure that are in just as dire straights as some of the people who apply for "race-only" scholarships.  I think scholarships should be based on merit and need.  If the people of certain races really are more needy, and they are willing to get the grades or reccomendations (and/or write good scholarship application essays), then they should get those scholarships anyway.  As it is, white people who need scholarship money are having to compete with everybody for them, but other races can enter both into "everyone" scholarships as well as scholarships that are only for their race.  Also, having quotas for letting other races into colleges can be hurtful to the people who actually try to get good grades.  I'm not saying that white people always get better grades or anything like that, but if say for one year the applicants at a university are a little more slim on the "non-white" side, and the "white" side is better qualified to get in, the unbiversity may still have to "meet quota," which is not necessarily PUNISHING ability, but is certainly not rewarding it.  If people are not rewarded for their ability and work, then something is wrong.  If minorities want to get into college, then they should (and many do of course) work h
1110996
Affirmative action is beginning to give the minority groups an unfair advantage over non-minorities.  Perfect example: Employment,  most government agencies hire based on a points system.  The applicant with the most points gets the job.  Points are awarded based on interviews, exams, etc., but most employers automatically give minorities a few extra points just for being a minority.  When you look at it like this one can see that affirmative action is really nothing but racism, which is what it was meant to eliminate.
555837
Some historians believe the modern civil rights movement began during World War 2. But the increasing acceptance of African Americans in the 1940's happened not because white society suddenly realized the irony of fighting racism abroad while maintaining racism at home. It happened because, as soldiers and workers, African Americans were needed as never before. \nFor every Dorie Miller, a ship's cook who won the Navy Cross for his heroism at Pearl Harbor, thousands of black recruits spent the entire war doing drudgework in service and engineer units, sometimes with tragic consequences. An explosion in July of 1944 nearly destroyed California's Port Chicago Naval Base, killing 320 men, 202 of them African American munitions loaders. Black sailors who refused to continue working until safety conditions improved were charged with mutiny. Unlike their white counterparts, African American troops working on the Trans-Alaska Highway were forbidden to go into Canadian towns, because their white commanding officer claimed "…they will mate with the Indian population and form a mongrel race." \nAs the war continued, more African Americans were allowed to fight. Eventually 5% of all African American troops saw combat. General Patton specifically requested the ferocious 761st "Black Panther" Tank Battalion. The 99th Pursuit Squadron and the 332nd Fighter Group, mostly graduates of the Tuskegee Institute training program, flew with distinction in North Africa and Europe. 2,500 African American volunteers fought beside whites for the first time in Europe in the Battle of the Bulge, although their involvement was suppressed to avoid jeopardizing Southern political support for a post-war draft. \nAt home, African Americans were getting the best-paying jobs of their lives. But discrimination in hiring still plagued American industry. The Pittsburgh Courier, the nation's largest black newspaper, initiated the "Double V" campaign: Victory against fascism abroad/Victory against racism at home. By threatening a march on Washington, African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph forced President Roosevelt to pass Executive Order 8802, prohibiting employers from discrimination based on "race, creed, color or national origin." \nAfrican American suffering and hard work, in industry and in the military, had rewards. On July 26, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services. On paper at least, the United States finally had an integrated military. \nAn integrated United States would take a lot longer.
411012
Just as slavery was accepted, but morally bankrupt when compared to the phrase " all men are created equal", affirmative action is accepted by some, but morally bankrupt.  Equal opportunity for all should be taken at its face value, not perverted to raise one group of people over another.
886787
Affirmative Action is needed now more than ever before.\n\nWhy now more than ever? Because while the discrepancies in the past were more vast, today we are running into the white males that are feeling their loss of power... they are feeling this and started calling it discrimination, racism, etc...\n\nThat was to be predicted any time a certain race, gender begins to lose complete control.\n\nWhat they don't realize is that less than 100 years ago a female couldn't attend college nor could she vote. So they believe in 'the best man for the job'... just because women and race minorities now have those privileges. \n\nThey fail to realize that there have been 1000s of years of oppression that have resulted in the behind the scenes deals that give ppl advantages... the on the golf course deals, or after work at the bar, etc....\n\nBeyond that and more important, are the studies on affirmative action where they clearly show it is human nature to hire a person 'like yourself' in the job processing. \n\nA white male with 3 kids and a wife will tend to hire a white family man after an interview not because he consciously chooses to... but the study shows that is human nature.\n\nAffirmative Action is necessary because of that exact human nature. When you have one group, white males, doing the hiring, what do you think the control factor will remain as? = white males. How many white males really without being told to, hire blacks or women on the odds? Not many unless they are told to be conscious of it.\n\nThat is the exact reason affirmative action is necessary.\n\nSome argue that this exact study illustrates that when women or minorities get into hiring positions, that they will hire like ppl to them. This is not true. The studies showed that they do tend to hire more minorities but nowhere near the numbers of 'like ppl' like the white males do. The studies concluded it was due to minorities and females being more 'consciously aware' of race and gender and making an conscious effort to be fair.
947339
Affirmative action applies to hiring, firing and promotions.\n\nHere's a Wikipedia article on it.  You can use it to extend your search if you need to do so.
944248
Well that has to do with a combination of history, human nature and pure and simple discrimination.\n\nLet's examine those one at a time:\n1. History - the USA was created by white men therefore white men gained power and control from the beginning. It is always difficult for another race to gain power when one race has complete control. Btw, this also applies to gender.\n2. Human nature - when any one race gets into power, it is human nature to want to keep power within that one race.\n3. Discrimination - there have actually been a few studies on this that were used to justify Affirmative Action. It is not that white males intentionally discriminate. The studies illustrated that when a certain type of person, say a white male, is conducting a job interview, that ppl tend to like ppl the most like themselves. I'm saying that a white male that say has a wife and kids is more likely to hire a white male of the same situation not because he intentionally discriminates but that is human nature also.\n\nBtw #3 applies to all races and gender.