Depends on Writer Essay Example for Free

Depends on Writer EssayMany countries, including the join States, are currently struggling with devil apparently conflicting objectives, that is how to stag newcomers and internal minorities find they set about equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream, while at the same time convincing the native majority that policies crafted to help otherwises are not discriminating against their own rights and opportunities. The two main insurance thrusts employ by governments, schools and other institutions designed to promote racial diversity and integration are passage cognizant and coloring blind. Race advised and color blind are not mutually exclusive, but two ends of a continuum. At the nonpareil end an example of a be given conscious policy would be if die hard was the sole distinguishing factor deciding whether one candidate is selected over another and there is a quota for members of a specified race. For example assume two candidates of different races for militar y promotion both date the required minimum standard. An extreme race conscious policy would dictate that the person from the race considered disfavour would be promoted even if less meritorious.On the other hand under a completely color blind policy, race would play absolutely no part, and the best candidate would be promoted . In betwixt is a situation where race is only one factor to be considered and the candidate of the disadvantaged race would be promoted only if the sum total of his merits was considered at least equal to that of the other candidate. Race was the deciding factor to break the tie so to speak Also in the middle scenario there is no set quota for those considered disadvantaged, only a vague goal that they would be in sufficient numbers that they wouldnt feel isolated.For the disadvantaged color blind policies tend to promote the status quo in that because their color is oftentimes associated with other negative factors such as poverty, limited educational op portunities and cultural limitations, they find it difficult to argue and get ahead. Racial inequalities are thus perpetuated and racial identities more starkly contrasted. In other words the discontented tend to feel its them versus us. On the other hand, race conscious policies can make the dominant group feel that in efforts to improve opportunities for the disadvantaged, their rights are infringed.In effect they can feel they are victims of reverse discrimination. They conceptualise their rights are threatened, and are without delay detriment racial inequalities because of efforts to help the antecedently disadvantaged. They also fear losing their status as the dominant race. The Asian American Legal Foundation legal brief advocated color blind policies on the grounds that race conscious policies favoring only designated races were prejudicial to the interests of groups they represent such as the Chinese in San Francisco.While accepting the goal of racial diversity, they ar gued as the dominant race in this area, the school placements there should reflect this reality. That is, they should not be capped at 40% in order to accommodate specifically designated and therefore preferred disadvantaged races nationwide. They argued that this was discriminating against them as the dominant race in the area, and that there was no compelling reason to assist minorities, at least not to the design where their placements exceeded their proportion of the local population.They also argued that having separate Chinese schools was not the answer, as this was counter to the goal of racial diversity, and tended to encourage inferior facilities. Conversely, the military brief advocated race conscious policies in order to develop a racially divers officer corps. They argued that while blacks were recruited into the military in large numbers immediately afterwards World War II, they tended to stagnate in the lower ranks because of poor education, prejudice and other reaso ns.Thus in the 1960s and 1970s, a mainly white officer corps was in charge of a advantageously black lower ranks, resulting in low morale and racial tension. In fact this situation was considered to establish a detrimental affect on the ability to fight in Vietnam. While there is now a larger percentage of black officers, the brief argues that race conscious policies need to be go on to have the percentage of black officers comparable to that of enlisted men to have a cohesive, effective fighting force. then the brief argues that there is a compelling government necessity justifying the need for a race conscious policy. If the Supreme Court decides the Grutter case on the basis of the military brief, that is, that race conscious policies are justified, she would of demarcation continue to be denied a place at the University of Michigan, and most probable this would also apply to the other perspective white students. Naturally this would fuel the notion that they were subject to unequal access and therefore suffering from racial reverse discrimination.On the other hand if the case is decided on the basis of the American Legal Foundation brief, she and many other whites would probably be accepted at the university. However, designated disadvantaged races would likely feel that their quest for equality and racial status was still not being adequately addressed. Although Gruther felt she was being discriminated against, the Courts decision upholding Michigan Law Schools affirmative fulfill policy for admissions, shows that it agrees with the schools stated intention to redress historical and current discrimination, which I believe in fact was the schools honest purpose.By considering race as only one of the factors in deciding whether to enroll prospective students, I believe this is an appropriate middle ground surrounded by a pure race conscious and color blind policy. I also believe that this policy will help realize social equality, and once people fro m different races achieve success round proportional to their numbers, the policy will no longer be necessary, hopefully within 25 years. work Cited Nos. 02-241 and 02-516 In The Supreme Court of The United States. Grutter, Barbara (Petitioner) v. Lee Bollinger et al (Respondents)