Recent orders

Affirmative Action

Name:

Professor:

Course:

Date:

Affirmative Action

California alongside eight other states in the country has banned affirmative action policies in institutions of higher learning with far-ranging consequences. Historically, women and minority groups have been represented in various areas of life such as education, employment, among others. Affirmative action is the process by which institutions, governments, and other groups make efforts and policies to increase the representation of these underrepresented groups. The idea of affirmative action has always been a controversial one for multiple reasons. One such argument is that it favors one group which leads to others in the majority being disadvantaged. Affirmative action is an excellent way to increase equality for women and minorities in areas where they have been historically excluded or underrepresented. This policy gives these groups opportunities they may not have gotten otherwise, promoting equality and addressing bias and injustice against women and minorities.

The history of injustice and bias against women and minorities in the US dates far back, with efforts to address it made only fairly recently. Much of the injustice against African-Americans in the US dates back to slavery and segregation policies thereafter. African-Americans and other minority groups were not allowed to interact with white Americans in all areas of life such as places of residence, marriage, schools, public transport, churches, and hotels, among many others. Such unfair policies have always promoted the idea of inferiority among these groups. Women have also faced discrimination in the early twentieth century where they were not allowed to work, vote, or take part in any progressive community activities. When the time came for women and minority groups to join the rest of the population in culture, employment and education, they had, and still have, a lot of catching up to do. Affirmative action is an excellent way to aid them in this endeavor.

Affirmative action takes many forms in areas of underrepresentation. For example, in education, some schools take in a specific number of minority and female students who might not have gotten admission through regular competitive admissions programs. Affirmative action considers race, gender, and ethnicity to create fair policies for women and minority groups. Through these programs, disadvantaged students can also get funding in form of grants and scholarships to help financially struggling students through college. One argument in favor of affirmative action is that minority students remain underrepresented on college campuses across the country. The Center for American Progress reports that in 45 out of 50 flagship campuses, there is a significant disparity in enrolment for African-American students (Maxwell & Garcia, 1). Although college completion rates have improved significantly over the years, black and Latinx students are yet to achieve the same rates as their majority counterparts. Affirmative action reduces this disparity.

Affirmative action in education not only benefits female and minority students but all students as well. Students in racially diverse school environments enhance experiences through interaction and reduce racial biases, promote self-confidence and improve satisfaction. Such benefits also prepare students for diverse environments later on such as in employment where they can work with people from different cultures and backgrounds respectfully. Between 1979 and 2008, affirmative action has led to a 39% increase in black student enrolment (Arcidiacono et al. 488). Affirmative action also promotes equity in admissions for students who face historical barriers. Many minority students face exclusion, have lower familial wealth and fewer resources to help them get into college. In contrast, white, wealthier students have the advantage of legacy admissions from their family, attend schools with competitive extracurricular activities that give them an edge in college admission. These two groups of students do not have a level playing field applying to college. Minority students who do not have such advantages benefit greatly from affirmative action.

Multiple arguments have been brought forth against affirmative action, the most prominent being that it is a form of reverse discrimination. The main aim of affirmative action is to address discrimination that women and minority groups have faced. However, the process also creates a situation where students in a non-minority group lose out on opportunities, creating tension between the two groups (Balafoutas et al. 91). This argument is questionable, mainly because the main premise of discrimination is that a person is historically disadvantaged in some way. White, wealthier students cannot claim that affirmative action discriminates against them because the system is already designed to give them a priority.

Another argument against affirmative action is that it discourages meritocracy and demeans achievements. Qualified students with great potential miss out on opportunities that may be offered to students with lower qualifications based on affirmative action. Meritocracy encourages individuals to do their best so that they can get into a specific school or job, and affirmative action goes against this system. Additionally, affirmative action creates a situation where achievements by women and minorities are credited to affirmative action rather than personal effort. It suggests that they did not get there by merit but by discriminatory policies. These negative attitudes towards affirmative action defeat the whole idea of the policy. Affirmative action supports minorities who would not have gotten the same opportunities as everyone else, and they have to be qualified to get those opportunities.

In summary, affirmative action is crucial to bringing equity and justice to groups that have traditionally been excluded and discriminated against. Women and minorities continue to face many hurdles in major areas such as employment and education. For a fair, balanced, and progressive society, every individual must be afforded the same opportunities. Women and minorities have a long way to go to catch up with other majority groups, and affirmative action is one of the best ways to work towards equity and parity. Although affirmative action remains a sensitive topic with nine states banning it, the public needs to understand that the policy benefits society as a whole. The negative attitudes surrounding the issue should be open to debate and to create new ways of implementing affirmative action without promoting the idea of reverse discrimination. Women and minorities deserve the same opportunities as other privileged groups, which is why stakeholders should work together to counter these obstacles.

Works Cited

Arcidiacono, Peter, Michael Lovenheim, and Maria Zhu. “Affirmative action in undergraduate education.” Annu. Rev. Econ. 7.1 (2015): 487-518.

Balafoutas, Loukas, Brent J. Davis, and Matthias Sutter. “Affirmative action or just discrimination? A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 127 (2016): 87-98.

Maxwell, Connor & Garcia, Sara. “5 Reasons to Support Affirmative Action in College Admissions.” Center for American Progress. 1 October 2019. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

Affirmative action, which was introduced by President Kennedy, has raised hot debate from various individuals ranging from pr

Name

Course

Course Instructor

Date

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, which was introduced by President Kennedy, has raised hot debate from various individuals ranging from provocative researchers, scholars, politicians as well as the judiciary. Affirmative action plays an integral part in eliminating the numerous discriminations and unfairness experienced almost everywhere across the world in various set ups. It acts as the best tool of fighting racial, ethnic and gender inequalities and was first used in 1960s (Debate.org Web). It is undeniable that affirmative action has proved to be a very effective tool in redressing several injustices experienced in the past and even currently against the disadvantaged group.

The federal government, state governments and other relevant institutions have strongly step forward in improving the opportunities for the minorities and even women have now been given preference than before. According to “Debate.org” special consideration for the disadvantaged group and levelling the playing ground for the groups in various factors including public service composition and government contracting decisions (Web).

Giving preferential treatment to minorities is not an easy task and its success has not been achieved in as much as policies were put in place several decades ago to give the disadvantaged a boost. However, the diversity of the current society attempts to indicate some elements of success making some people argue that the policies are no longer needed as they trigger many problems. One of the outstanding examples was the issue regarding the University of Michigan admissions criteria of rating potential applicants on a point system. Minority students got double points in achieving a perfect SAT score as the school official argued that diversity was significant and affirmative action was the best thing to do (Brownstein Web). There are indeed various other court decisions and events regarding affirmative action experienced by almost everyone across America and globally.

Although various countries describe affirmative action in numerous terms, the concept still remains unchanged which is of ensuring that the minority groups are fully represented in various institutions, employment decisions, admission to educational organizations and many other vital arenas where affirmative action is deemed effective. There is likeliness in that even the disadvantaged group have equal opportunity to succeed just like the so called advantaged group though not fully confirmed because of the affirmative action.

Looking at the institution of affirmative action, it is undeniable that it arose due to particular assessment of past injustices in a nation. According to American Civil Liberties Union affirmative action has always been meant to provide a vital compensatory measure in cultures and groups, which have experienced a past discrimination or denying them opportunities based on their economic disadvantage brought about by their race and or national origin (Web). Restoration of complete equality amongst various races has been widely practiced in numerous countries although it has received almost equal criticism. The lines of argument have continuously been changing since its conception and the social and demographic demography context has been transformed into a more complex and consequential manner.

According to Brunner and Rowen, affirmative action has had major milestones that involved allocation of resources and jobs to disadvantaged groups since 1960s to the latest cases witnessed in the courts (Web). In March 6, 1961,the executive order 10925 made the initial reference to affirmative action which was issued by President JF Kennedy to create the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that all the government funded projects take affirmative action. Executive Order 10925 was to eliminate discrimination against hiring and employment practices based on race. In July 2 1964, Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson prohibiting biasness based on race, colour, religion, or even national origin. This marked as the most effective and sweeping civil rights bill after the Reconstruction and was believed to greatly eliminate discrimination of various kinds.

UClIrvine explains that President Johnson further gave a defining concept of affirmative action on June 4, 1965 to the graduating class at Howard University where he posits that civil rights alone could not be enough to eliminate biasness (Web). He later issued Order 11246, which was meant to reinforce affirmative action for the first time where contractors were required to take responsible and non-discriminatory measures while hiring. Additionally, there was the 1969 Philadelphia Order that was initiated by President Richard Nixon to guarantee fairness in construction jobs since construction constituted several offenders against equal opportunity laws.

The regents of the University of California v. Bakke in June 28, 1978 were a landmark Supreme Court case that enforced restraint on affirmative action. It was argued that offering opportunity to the disadvantaged groups was not supposed to be enacted at the expense of the majority and that affirmative action triggered reverse discrimination. The University of California, Davis and Medical School had different admission pools including the pool for standard applicants and the other for minority as well as the economically disadvantaged groups. It was noted that Allan Bakke who was a white applicant was twice rejected despite some minority groups being admitted regardless of their lower scores compared to Bakke’s. According to the Supreme Court ruling, judging Bakke based on race was not good because the white race was a legitimate factor in school admissions (UClIrvine Web).

According to Beattie the cases of affirmative action have been continuous throughout the years and courts still battle with the issues from time to time (761-762). Fullilove v. Klutznick, Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, United States v. Paradise, City of Richmond v. Croson, White House guidelines on affirmative action, Florida bans race as factor in college admissions, Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions and Ballot Measure to Ban Affirmative Action Goes before Voters are amongst the cases. The latest incident where issues of affirmative action were touched was in June 24, 2014 when Court ordered University of Texas to re-examine affirmative action policy making the decision appear as if it is a compromise between the court’s conservative and liberal factions.

According to Parker, race based college admissions is still a debatable issues and some critics argue that affirmative action is not important in this times of Obama presidency. Parker explains that other criticizers think that affirmative action would leads to discrimination against the white race. White students are denied opportunities to access education in some institutions simply because they do not fall under the minority group such as the people of colour. Currently there are issues regarding whether the affirmative action should c0oncentrate on race or socioeconomic issues and whether the learning institutions should continue with their admission policies or drop them (Parker Web). The fruits of affirmative action are evident across various learning institutions where minority students enrol in large numbers. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of the quality of education offered in those institutions. As much as minority group is apportioned a good percentage and are allowed in public learning institutions, there should be improved quality of services (Hodgman Web).

Indeed, affirmative action has contributed to numerous transformations across the world and has provided a good remedy for education and jobs. The disadvantaged groups have had their fair share for their sweat and unrelenting push to eliminate various forms of discriminations. Although affirmative action cases are experienced, a lot of effort has been vested to bring normalcy and fairness amongst the disadvantaged groups. It can however, be argued that the majority groups have somehow been disadvantaged since they can no longer enjoy all the goodies that resulted from discrimination. For example, affirmative action has empowered the black race to have almost equal opportunity to attend school, secure jobs, get promotion and earn similar amount of salary with a white person in the same job position. This is indeed positive but the question is what is the percentage of the whites are denied opportunity to learn into a particular institution or secure a job due to affirmative action?

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. Affirmative Action: The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation, 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/affirmative-action>.

Beattie, Brett, et al. “Affirmative Action for the Future.” Contemporary Sociology 39.6 (2010): 761-2. ProQuest. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/815416183/141EFEAD5B1341E604A/4?accountid=45049>.

Brownstein, Ronald. Why This Affirmative Action Debate Is Different. National Journal, 30 May, 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.<http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/why-this-affirmative-action-debate-is-different-20130530>.

Brunner and Rowen. Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones. Infoplease, 2007. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>.

Debate.org. Affirmative Action Debate: History and Debate of Affirmative Action, 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.debate.org/affirmative-action-debate/>.

Hodgman, Matthew R. “The College Access Debate: Class Considerations and College Preparation.” Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online) 10.1 (2013): 63. ProQuest. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/1418715759/141EFEAD5B1341E604A/11?accountid=45049>.

Parker, Zachary. The Decades-Long Affirmative Action Debate is Incomplete. Huffington Post, 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zachary-parker/the-decadeslong-affirmati_b_3575653.html>.

UClIrvine. Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. University of California, 5 March 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.oeod.uci.edu/aa.html>.

Aesthetics

Aesthetics:

In the Western world, aesthetics is considered the branch of philosophy that is concerned with concepts of value and beauty as they relate to the arts. Philosophers from Plato until the present time have had rigid ideas about what artists should create and what people should like, but in today’s world, aestheticians represent a variety of approaches to the philosophy of art.

Aesthetics, in the broadest sense, may be thought of as a worldview, a view that may be markedly different in other cultures. Objects from other cultures that are categorized as art works from the Western perspective may or may not hold the same meaning in their culture of origin. Precisely because of possible differences in worldviews and aesthetic stances of non-Western cultures, it is important to set aside Western aesthetics as criteria when making judgments about non-Western art. For example, many non-Western cultures recognize no distinction between fine art and craft, may not even have a word for “art,” and may not separate art from everyday life.

Japanese Aesthetics:

To understand the art and aesthetics of Japan, it is necessary to investigate a Japanese worldview, ideas about the nature of art, and influences brought about through contact with other cultures. The aesthetics of Japan developed in a unique fashion, partly because of its geographic location, a string of islands about 100 miles from Korea and 500 miles from China. Its isolation by the sea helped protect Japan from foreign invasion and allowed its rulers to control contact with other nations.

During long periods of self-imposed isolation, art forms and aesthetic ideas developed that were specifically Japanese. Over the centuries, when interactions with foreign cultures occurred, they influenced the traditional arts and aesthetics of Japan. For the purposes of this discussion, the focus will be on what remained essentially Japanese.

Traditional Japanese art and aesthetics were most affected by the Chinese and Buddhism, but influences from the West are also evident. For example, the Japanese made no distinction between fine arts and crafts before the introduction of such ideas by Europeans in the 1870s. The Japanese word that best approximates the meaning of “art” is katachi. Katachi translates to mean “form and design,” implying that art is synonymous with living, functional purpose, and spiritual simplicity.

The primary aesthetic concept at the heart of traditional Japanese culture is the value of harmony in all things. The Japanese worldview is nature-based and concerned with the beauty of studied simplicity and harmony with nature. These ideas are still expressed in every aspect of daily life, despite the many changes brought about by the westernization of Japanese culture. This Japanese aesthetic of the beauty of simplicity and harmony is called wabi-sabi (wah-bee sah-bee).

Wabi-Sabi:

Since wabi-sabi represents a comprehensive Japanese worldview or aesthetic system, it is difficult to explain precisely in western terms. According to Leonard Koren, wabi-sabi is the most conspicuous and characteristic feature of what we think of as traditional Japanese beauty and it “occupies roughly the same position in the Japanese pantheon of aesthetic values as do the Greek ideals of beauty and perfection in the West.”

Wabi-sabi is a beauty of things imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete.

It is the beauty of things modest and humble.

It is the beauty of things unconventional.

The concepts of wabi-sabi correlate with the concepts of Zen Buddhism, as the first Japanese involved with wabi-sabi were tea masters, priests, and monks who practiced Zen. Zen Buddhism originated in India, traveled to China in the sixth century, and was first introduced in Japan around the 12th century. Zen emphasizes “direct, intuitive insight into transcendental truth beyond all intellectual conception.” At the core of wabi-sabi is the importance of transcending ways of looking and thinking about things/existence.

All things are impermanent

All things are imperfect

All things are incomplete

Material characteristics of wabi-sabi:

Suggestion of natural process

Irregular

Intimate

Unpretentious

Earthy

Simple

As wabi-sabi once was the preeminent high culture Japanese aesthetic, a familiarity with its concepts is essential for the understanding of the Japanese tea ceremony.

The Japanese Tea Ceremony:

“Tea began as a medicine and grew into a beverage.” –Katkuzo Okakura

“The Way of Tea cannot be taught in any book…It is a state of mind. Tea is a living tradition.” –Professor Kimiko Gunji, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

“Holding a bowl of tea whisked to a fine froth… Such a simple thing: yet filled with a spirit that Reaches back more than a thousand years.” –The Urasenke Tradition of Tea

The most comprehensive example of the Japanese aesthetic of wabi-sabi is found within the traditions of the tea ceremony. To understand Japanese aesthetics, it is necessary to understand the unique features of the Japanese tea ceremony, known as chanoyu, chado, or sado. The tea ceremony is the serving of tea, ritualized over time and rooted in Zen Buddhism. It symbolizes aesthetic simplicity and represents the fundamental Zen principles of harmony, respect, purity, and tranquility. The word chanoyu (chah-no-yoo) literally means “hot water for tea,” but its simple art is a synthesis of many Japanese arts which focus on preparing and serving a bowl of tea.

According to Leonard Koren, the tea ceremony “became an eclectic social art form combining, among other things, the skills of architecture, interior and garden design, flower arranging, painting, food preparation, and performance.”

The tea ceremony developed under the influence of Zen Buddhism, the aim of which is, in simple terms, to purify the soul by becoming one with nature. The true spirit of the tea ceremony has been described by words like calm, rustic, graceful, austere, and simple. The tea ceremony varies according to the seasons, with tea bowls, types of tea, flowers, and scrolls appropriately chosen.

The History of the Tea Ceremony:

The tea plant probably originated in the mountainous regions of southern Asia, and China received it later. Tea was first introduced to Japan along with Buddhism from China in the sixth century. The Emperor Shomu, who ruled from 724-749, is credited with introducing tea drinking into the country after he had been presented bricks of pressed tealeaves by a Chinese priest. During the Heian period (794-1185), tea was made from steamed and dried tealeaves ground into a powder. This green tea powder, called matcha (mah-chah), is still used today.

In the 15th century, Juro Murata, tea master to Shogun Yoshimasa Ashikaga, integrated many of the concepts of wabi-sabi into the tea ceremony, including the dedication of a special room or house for the sole use in the chanoyu. The samurai class, familiar with the austerity of Zen Buddhism and the disciplined and proscribed lifestyle of the warrior, embraced the ceremony of tea. As rules governed every other aspect of life at the time, participants in tea ceremonies were also required to follow certain rules and procedures.

An increased emphasis on Zen Buddhist concepts in the tea ceremony was established by Sen no Rikyu (1522-1591), the most revered Japanese tea master. During the Momoyama period in the second half of the 16th century, Rikyu established a tea ceremony that reflects a simple and quiet taste, the form that is practiced and taught in Japan and throughout the world today.

He also designed a simple, separate building to house the ceremony based on a typical Japanese farmer’s rustic hut. Rikyu further formalized the tea ceremony’s rules of behavior and identified the spirit of chanoyu with four basic Buddhist principles of harmony, respect, purity, and tranquility. These guiding principles signify the highest ideals of the tea ceremony.

The Seven Rules of Rikyu:

“Make a delicious bowl of tea, lay the charcoal so that it heats the water; arrange the flowers as they are in the field; in summer suggest coolness; in winter, warmth; do everything ahead of time; prepare for rain; and give those with whom you find yourself every consideration.” –Soshitsu Sen

Many stories are told about Rikyu. Rikyu became the tea master for the warlord Hideyoshi Toyotomi, a difficult and powerful man. Hideyoshi heard of the wonders of Rikyu’s garden of morning glories and expressed a desire to see the flowers. Consequently, Rikyu invited the warlord to tea. When Hideyoshi arrived and walked down the path to the teahouse, not a flower was in sight. Upon entering the teahouse, Hideyoshi saw a single, beautiful morning glory displayed on the alcove. Rikyu had cut down all the other morning glories so that full attention could be focused on one single blossom.

The power of Japanese warlords in evident in another story about Rikyu. In 1591, Hideyoshi demanded that Rikyu hand over his daughter to be a concubine to the warlord, but Rikyu refused. In retaliation, Hideyoshi ordered Rikyu’s ritual suicide. Rikyu held a last tea ceremony at the age of 70 and committed seppuku (ritual suicide) when the ceremony was completed.

Much of the prescribed behavior used in contemporary tea ceremonies was introduced by Rikyu. Some of his contributions include a teahouse that can accommodate five people, a separate small room where tea utensils are washed, and two entrances, one for the host and one for the guests. The entrance for guests had a doorway low enough to require the guests to bend down to enter, humbling themselves in preparation for the tea ceremony.

In the traditional chanoyu, every part of the ceremony is carefully orchestrated. There are rituals for entering and leaving the room, making and serving the tea, and appreciating the choices of flower, scroll, and tea vessel appropriate to the season. The simplicity and austerity of the tearoom (and of Japanese homes) allows an exceptional focus and appreciation of a single flower or scroll carefully chosen to represent the season.

Aesthetic objects are not left on permanent display in Japanese homes, but are brought out for focused viewing and appreciation for specific purposes or seasons. As the season or purpose for display changes, the objects are stored and replaced by others more appropriate. Though Japanese rooms sometimes may appear too bare or simple for Western tastes, a Japanese visiting an a typical American home may feel surrounded and overwhelmed by visual clutter.