- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
Reverse Discrimination Deserves Critical Thought
Reverse Discrimination Ruling
Critical Thinking Reveals Truth
Approaching a controversial issue like racial discrimination requires conscientious thinking before drawing any conclusions. This allows us to fairly assess the facts and form an accurate and reasonable answer, rather than basing our beliefs on assumption.
Critical thinkers use a meta-cognitive process which involves the use of rationale and reflective thought which helps focus on making important decisions. In other words, to think critically about something means to think about your thoughts.
When a subject as tenuous and divisive as racism or discrimination is the issue at the forefront of discussion, personal views are often based on a preconceived notion that has been shaped explicitly by ones opinion. While having an assumptive view is an example of thinking, assumptions are not reached through rationale, therefore they do not necessarily represent an example of critical thinking.
To think critically about discrimination, first reflect on your thoughts and ask yourself a few basic questions:
- Why do I have the views I do on racial discrimination-?
- Are my views based on speculation?
- Are they the result of drawn conclusions?
- What evidence are my thoughts based on?
Sensitive social issues deserve critical thought and considerable discussion. To understand the derisive precepts of race, critical thinking requires one to be objective to avoid basing ideas and feelings on what is actually superficial and subjective opinion.
Rechargeable Flashlight only $29.95
Emotion Clouds Judgement
The word “critical” comes from the word “judgment" and one's judgment should meet the criteria of reason and integrity. Accuracy, relevance, and depth define the issues that require "critical" thought. If we really are a nation of equality, justice and truth, then let us act accordingly through an open and honest dialogue, rather than basing our views on emotion and public opinion.
Everyday, thousands of scientists, doctors, college students, lawyers and police investigators use critical thinking skills to find a solution to a problem, or to solve a crime. I respectfully ask you to read the case study below, and in doing so, use critical thought to objectively see the facts for what they are. Then, decide for yourself if our current system of law is fair and equal in its of application.
Over Qualified Lawyer?
A law firm in Denver, Colorado is looking to hire one criminal defense attorney for their practice. In their search, they hope to find a lawyer who has the credentials, qualifications and trial experience that will help the firm win more cases. As a result of their search, eight attorney's are interviewed as possible candidates. Upon a second interview, another five attorneys are eliminated, leaving three to choose from. Of the three that are left, one attorney is white, one is black and one is Hispanic.
The partners of the law firm have a meeting to discuss which of the three they should hire. In doing so, each partner agrees that the white candidate is the most qualified for the job. Their decision is not racially motivated in any way. Their decision is based on the fact that of the three, he's the only one that attended Harvard School of Law, graduated at the top of his class, has the most trial experience and has the best record for winning court cases.
Both the black and Hispanic attorneys also have gone to good colleges, and both have trial experience with respectable records for winning court cases. However, in comparison to the white attorney, they are less qualified and give the firm less chance to win cases for clients who are looking for the best legal representation their money can afford. The firm decides that out of three, the white attorney is the best one for the job.
Reverse Discrimination: Alive & Well
You would think the law firm had found the right lawyer to hire, right? Think again. Despite the fact that the white lawyer was the most qualified person for the job, they had to pass on hiring him for no reason other than the fact that he was white.
Unfortunately, for both the law firm and the white attorney, the firm must overlook qualifications and experience only to be forced into hiring someone who is less qualified based solely on the anti-discrimination laws of affirmative action.
"Affirmative Action is a band-aid on huge gash in American History"
Conservatives Tend To Agree
Legislation written over fifty years ago requires the firm to hire someone based on the color of their skin, rather than experience. Enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson in July of 1962, affirmative action law was written for the protection of minorities. During the 1970's, there was a public backlash against the controversial policy as it began to have a more widespread impact in the private sector.
For half a century, conservatives have claimed that affirmative action unfairly gives employment opportunities to minorities while it unjustly shuts the door for whites. While conservatives tend to agree that drastic changes were needed to address discrimination in the workplace, they also feel that the real problem is not why affirmative action laws were passed, but rather the law itself.
Unite Our Division
There is no fairness or equality about a law that discriminates against anyone based on the color of their skin. Whites contend it promotes reverse discrimination against white people, while minorities claim it's keeps the playing field of opportunity level. The struggle between the two sides has been a hot button topic of public debate for 40 years.
There's a reason lines of dissent have been drawn which separate minorities and whites. When you consider the struggle that has been abdicated by affirmative action laws, and the social derisiveness it's caused in peoples careers and education, critical thought leads one to an answer which suggests that its the law itself which separates us. It seems that Affirmative Action was metaphorically named as the action that has coincided has been affirmed by driving a huge wedge between the white and minority communities. 40 years later, we stand on two separate sides, still accusing and questioning each others motives rather than standing together as a unified front to question why a law that's so racially divisive has not yet been repealed.
Put Yourself in White Shoes
Other than prejudicial reasons, if the only reason why an employer doesn't hire a white person is because they are white, does affirmative action justify such a decision? No, it doesn't. Even though countless cases of discrimination against whites occurred over the years, for the most part it went unchecked in the courts. For decades, employers used Affirmative Action as legal justification to discriminate against white people applying for a job and even students trying to enroll in college.
The entire time this was going on it went against everything the Civil Rights Act was supposed to to protect. A law that was designed to protect against discrimination was being used to undermine the very principles of equality that the law was designed to protect. Meanwhile, the law was at work in opposition of our economic productivity, not to mention the social tension that it created when there should of been none had the law never have been passed to begin with. It has degraded the quality of important professional positions by replacing skills and qualifications with politically correct empathy. It has broken down the essence of capitalism, by killing the spirit of the ambitious and it has replaced hard work, determination and know-how with nothing more than social justice.
Older Americans are very aware of what is happening while many young people either advocate it, do not see, or care to recognize the reality of the situation. The fear of older Americans is likely true. Unless something changes, small business will be destroyed. Fair-trade and competitive advantage will be lost. Our economy and way of life will be translated into a version of democratic socialism. Our flag will still wave high, its stars replaced by a sickle, tragically unfurled and absent of the color blue.
For you the reader, I ask that you now place yourself in the shoes of a victim who must testify in court against a criminal. The scenario written below should be taken literally because it has happened before, and it will happen again. Imagine the impact of the results, and how you would feel about the consequences. Then decide for yourself, if it all could've been avoided if affirmative action did not exist.
What if You Had to Testify?
Imagine you have been assaulted by a criminal and the Assistant District Attorney assigned to prosecute the case convinces you to testify to put the person responsible in prison. You agree with their suggestion and take the stand to tell your story and point out your attacker for the jury. The criminal stares at you, glaring you down as your testimony reveals their guilt. This of course has made the criminal very angry as they quietly vow to take revenge against you.
Although your lawyer graduated from law school and did his internship for a few years, his qualifications and experience are not that impressive compared to the other applicants. The only reason your attorney was hired is because of his status as a minority, not because he had the most experience or was the best candidate for the job.
Now imagine the lawyer defending your attacker in court. He is well-dressed, pretty savvy and has a way with words and a reputation for convincing juries that his clients are innocent. He knows about the law as well as the white applicants who were turned down for the job as prosecutor.
Furthermore, because of affirmative action laws, you have a less qualified prosecutor trying to put your attacker in prison all because the state couldn't hire someone who had the best skills to defend you because the most qualified person was white.
It should come as no surprise when the prosecutor drops the ball by overlooking a simple clerical error on the warrant that had been issued to arrest your attacker. The defense attorney sees the error and notifies the judge, at which time the case is dismissed.
As the trial ends, your attacker smiles and winks at you as he walks out of the courtroom a free man. You sit in fear and wonder how this could've happened. The only reason you agreed to testify was based on the fact that prosecutor had told you it would assure that your attacker didn't get away with it.
Fair Justice For Everyone
The problem is, the criminal did get away with it. Why? Because he overlooked a simple typing error on a warrant, which is something a more qualified prosecutor would have never done. More importantly, its because affirmative action put an unqualified person into a position that wasn't quite up to performing the job that you needed them to do.
Now, if you were the victim in that same situation, wouldn't you want a lawyer who was hired with discretion over experience? Wouldn't you want professional qualifications rather than racial qualifications? Hiring someone based on the color of their skin is the same as not hiring someone based on the color of their skin.
One must ask, is our over-sensitivity to minorities, or our desire to be a culturally diverse nation really worth risking the equality and rights of the majority? Affirmative-action is not the answer to a solution that requires fair justice for everyone. If you can't see that, go back to the beginning of this article and read about how to use critical thinking skills again. I think you may have missed it.
By: James Gaskins (not a racist... just a critical thinker)