Ira Katznelson's When Affirmative Action Was White

There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring

The academic debate over affirmative action has become a bitter stalemate. Opponents consider affirmative action to be reverse discrimination, while supporters say that the relationship between blacks and whites is hardly symmetrical. The sterility of this debate suggests that it is time for a fresh perspective, and an analysis considers affirmative action in light of critical race theory (CRT). One of CRT’s tenets is that conventional civil rights scholarship has limited application to current racial problems. Because of the practical and political limits on affirmative action, disputes about its legitimacy are likely to fade as attention shifts to other problems and remedies.

Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. When the emphasis is placed on aiding people with certain skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, affirmative action sets the races further apart than before. Could this be just another form of segregation? The attempts at boosting minorities to the level of the others have grotesquely failed. To raise minorities the government has pushed down the majority group, fueling racial conflicts. In addition, lowering the bar for minorities for admission into jobs or schools has created a harmful atmosphere for them. Because some of them could not originally qualify on merit and skills, many face failure or extra hardship when they get ushered into their job or school. As Charles T. Canady said in his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., "Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged" (43). Meanwhile the majorities receive punishment because of their lack of a specific skin tone or origin. "Entitlements by race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation-categories that in no way reflect merit-" Shelby Steele described, "are at the root of the great social evils in American life" (175). It is unfair to reward or turn away applicants because of something that is only theirs by ascribed means. When prospective college students or job applicants are considered, the competition should be solely based

Even though affirmative action does not entail direct payments for past discrimination, most supporters view it as a compensatory program; the greater economic opportunities it affords its beneficiaries do constitute a kind of reparations and are intended as such. After more than 30 years of affirmative action -- and my work on a comprehensive article on this subject in 20 Yale Law & Policy Review 1 (2002) -- several effects seem clear. (Many other effects, both good and bad, are more debatable).

Alexander summarizes her interpretation of the period when a number of black individuals were elected into government offices with the phrase “black faces in high places.” By this she means that although black individuals were elected, this development actually obscured the problem rather than remedied it. Alexander writes that in 1974, 64 percent of new federal employees came from minority backgrounds. These changes helped a relatively small group of African American households, and left the rest behind. On account of these changes, the idea that hard work was the way blacks could overcome institutional challenges was born. By masking the government’s responsibility to help all African American households, colorblindness led the public to believe the country

When Affirmative Action was White written by Ira Katznelson he addresses how throughout history whites and blacks had a extreme gap between them. He demonstrates conclusively that the gap of wealth between black and white americans result not simply from slavery but by benefits for white while excluding blacks over time.

Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and

Affirmative Action has become of the most controversial social policy issues to be discussed in recent years. It is controversial because it challenges fundamental American beliefs. As Seymour Martin Lipset put it: "Affirmative Action policies have forced a sharp confrontation between two core American values: equality and individualism."(Dudley7) This values oriented approach, which pervades popular discussion and derives from functionalist sociology, fails to explain why similar challenges to our core values did not in the past result in the kind of spite surrounding Affirmative Action today. As the popular lore and written history of urban politics in America

Summary: This paper is based on an article called "I'm Black You're White Who's innocent" by Shelby Steel. The article takes a position that is against affirmative action because it takes the independence away from people of color.

Katznelson argued that government programs produced a social shift in middle class in which white and black Americans participated and benefited. After the war, blacks had a strong downward spiral in society; they experienced welfare inequalities, unfair employment and distrust in the military all because of inherent racism America had at this time. Predominantly white southern democrats who held the power in society seemed to effectively avoid any legislation that might break down the social hierarchy in which discrimination and racism was deeply embedded. Katznelson believes that groups have power, and we see that proven to be true when legislators and people

Affirmative action from the 1960s has generated a more diverse society and it focused mainly on opportunities for middle-class African-Americans pursuing an approach to exceptional jobs and higher education. “Affirmative action has done more to advance fair treatment across racial lines than any other recent public policy. If affirmative action did not exist, the United States would be a vastly more segregated country. Without such efforts, most white Americans would have far less contact with their fellow black citizens.” (171) In other words, without affirmative action, diversity could no longer survive. Black Americans would be stigmatized and condemned as a subordinate group even more so. In the 1978 Supreme Court case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell offered firm standards for racial modification. He argued that adjustments to color-blind strategies could be commenced to remedy race-based detriments when two circumstances are met. There has to be a pure connection to affirmative action’s remedies and past harms based on race. Also, the tie between past actions and present policy must be sturdy and accurate. Powell also believed if there is a non-racial way to chase a specified goal, that way should always be the preferred route. Affirmative action is legitimized because the detriment of blacks in the Roosevelt and Truman years satisfies Powell's “strict-scrutiny” test. “Combining Powell’s principles and Johnson’s ambitions . . . push us forward to a framework for public policies that can respond to the injuries inflicted by officially sanctioned

Today, we define affirmative action as “an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minatory groups and women.” However, this have not always held true throughout the American history. During the New Deal and Fair Deal eras, affirmative action was created to improve the standards of the American people; the white American people. These eras focused on expanding the welfare, labor, and military programs to boost the economy from the Great Depression. Through implementing these programs, the Democratic Party would make the “Faustian bargain” with its southern members in order to pass the legislation. Ira Katznelson’s novel, “When Affirmative Action was White”, reveals the truth about the key programs

Interestingly, affirmative action, a then-new approach to empowering black Americans, undermined this basic tenant. It gave African Americans preferential treatment in hiring and school admissions, which effectually assimilated blacks into majorly white institutions. (Affirmative Action 2014) Thus, affirmative action adopted a more inclusive philosophy. As such, it is easy to conclude that these two ideologies lie on opposite sides of the race relations spectrum; that despite originating to bring about societal justice for African Americans, black power advocates sought their freedoms through

Chace (2012) continues to state the various disconnect that the comments made by President Johnson has on current practices by once advocating the intent to give back to a race that had lost so dearly, is now not viewed the same. After these past fifty years, today’s realties are quite different. Restitution seems much less the focus of such affirmative action policies than in the past.

In the book, When Affirmative Was White by Ira Katznelson, his overall theme of this novel is about how the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II led to the development of the New Deal, which relieved the lives of the unemployed and poor, restored the economy back its normal state, and improved the financial system in the United States. When New Deal programs for war, work and welfare were forming, White Americans were receiving more benefits while the African Americans were being excluded and treated unfairly. Katznelson’s main argument was that Democratic leaders needed the assistance from Congress’ southern representatives to approve their desired legislative programs. He explains how the southerners persuaded the local citizens