Affirmative action, a highly controversial topic in the United States, is defined as “a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.”
I chose to discuss affirmative action as it relates to higher education and admissions standards. While some may think of affirmative action as a positive, necessary measure in order to secure equitable educational opportunities for all, there are also negative aspects to affirmative action policies and programs. The drawbacks have recently drawn the attention of the United States Supreme Court in ruling whether universities can use race as part of their admission standards (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), or whether it unfairly discriminates against majority groups who are more highly qualified.
Supporters of affirmative action policies and programs believe that it eliminates discrimination and presents opportunities for achievement that might not otherwise be possible without it. While some proponents of affirmative action believe that it is intended to eliminate discrimination, it ultimately creates another area of discrimination—against majority groups (e.g. Caucasian males). Through affirmative action, those who may have higher test scores may not be accepted if the school quota requires the acceptance of a minority with a lower test score.
The most obvious drawback to affirmative action is reverse discrimination, or “discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group.”
Even with the Supreme Court’s ruling, affirmative action is still a touchy subject between those for and against it. These policies were set in place over 30 years ago as an answer to the discrimination faced by minorities in this country at that time. Things have changed since then, and I believe that there are definite changes that should be made with regards to education and the standards used to admit qualified students. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is illogical and, ultimately, unfair.
31 October 2008
17 October 2008
Never Lie to a Pollster
The article I chose to critique, “Eighty-Four Percent Say they’d Never Lie to a Pollster,” October 15, 2008, can be found on Ann Coulter’s blog website. Ms. Coulter is the author of six New York Times bestsellers, is a legal correspondent for Human Events, and writes a well-known syndicated column for Universal Press. She has gained popularity with many due to her controversial and confrontational style, and was on the cover of TIME Magazine, April 25, 2005. On the other hand, she has been fired as a correspondent (more than once) for inflammatory remarks made during interviews and is considered by many to be an extreme right-winger. Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike broadcasters, does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."
Coulter’s intended audience is directed toward readers who are interested in the correlation between election results and voter polling. Ms. Coulter presents an argument against the current buzz making its way through the media--the so-called “Bradley Effect.” This is “the notion that some material number of voters will lie about their intentions to pollsters, claiming that they will vote for a black candidate when in fact they will vote for the white guy.”
It is interesting to consider whether this phenomenon does exist and if it really does influence the outcome of an election. Does the American idea of political correctness make us lie to pollsters to avoid the impression of racism? She says the idea of institutional racism is just a way for democrats to “whine” about American voters. Coulter claims that not only is there social pressure to continuously convince others that you are not a racist but now it seems people are also feeling pressured into defending why they are republicans.
Ms. Coulter argues that polling results over the past 32 years (since 1976) have typically been skewed toward democratic wins. In fact, the election results indicate that not only have the polling numbers and projections been wrong, but they have been very wrong. It is not until the recent election of 2004 that the polling results actually provided a correct prediction of an election outcome.
Based on Ms. Coulter’s analysis of the previous 32 years of polling and election results, I believe that there is not a correlation that can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The theory that we can randomly sample a few voters in a few selected locations and determine an outcome is questionable. Human nature is to not share personal information with strangers, and let’s face it, voting is very personal. I believe that not only what kind of question is asked, but who is asking the question, and under what circumstances will influence how a voter might answer a pollster—truthfully or not. Perhaps if polling could be done anonymously, for example, a polling station at a precinct where a voter is chosen at random to stop and answer polling questions without anyone around. The voter could be selected at random through the computerized voting machine and given a ticket with a unique password so that polling fraud could be reduced. They would then take the ticket and login to a polling station. This would also reduce polling bias by the pollster, and results would be immediate. In other words, the system we are currently using is antiquated and not scientifically robust. With our new technological world, it is time to investigate methods that are more substantial.
Coulter’s intended audience is directed toward readers who are interested in the correlation between election results and voter polling. Ms. Coulter presents an argument against the current buzz making its way through the media--the so-called “Bradley Effect.” This is “the notion that some material number of voters will lie about their intentions to pollsters, claiming that they will vote for a black candidate when in fact they will vote for the white guy.”
It is interesting to consider whether this phenomenon does exist and if it really does influence the outcome of an election. Does the American idea of political correctness make us lie to pollsters to avoid the impression of racism? She says the idea of institutional racism is just a way for democrats to “whine” about American voters. Coulter claims that not only is there social pressure to continuously convince others that you are not a racist but now it seems people are also feeling pressured into defending why they are republicans.
Ms. Coulter argues that polling results over the past 32 years (since 1976) have typically been skewed toward democratic wins. In fact, the election results indicate that not only have the polling numbers and projections been wrong, but they have been very wrong. It is not until the recent election of 2004 that the polling results actually provided a correct prediction of an election outcome.
Based on Ms. Coulter’s analysis of the previous 32 years of polling and election results, I believe that there is not a correlation that can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The theory that we can randomly sample a few voters in a few selected locations and determine an outcome is questionable. Human nature is to not share personal information with strangers, and let’s face it, voting is very personal. I believe that not only what kind of question is asked, but who is asking the question, and under what circumstances will influence how a voter might answer a pollster—truthfully or not. Perhaps if polling could be done anonymously, for example, a polling station at a precinct where a voter is chosen at random to stop and answer polling questions without anyone around. The voter could be selected at random through the computerized voting machine and given a ticket with a unique password so that polling fraud could be reduced. They would then take the ticket and login to a polling station. This would also reduce polling bias by the pollster, and results would be immediate. In other words, the system we are currently using is antiquated and not scientifically robust. With our new technological world, it is time to investigate methods that are more substantial.
03 October 2008
Over the Cliff?
The article I chose to critique was written by Dr. Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times since 1999 and a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University since 2000. He has written and edited over 18 books, and published hundreds of articles on economics and international affairs. His most recent article, “Edge of the Abyss,” can be found in the opinion section of the New York Times.com website, October 2, 2008.
Dr. Krugman’s intended audience seems to be directed toward readers who are concerned about the ongoing economic plight of the US and the impact of the current administration’s policies on this mess.
The basic argument of this article is that the financial state of the U.S. economy has gone from “not good” three weeks ago to one that is “really, really bad.” Krugman argues that we are entering a time of “severe crisis with weak, confused leadership.” The argument relies on the assumption that officials in the Treasury, specifically Henry Paulson, were aware of the impending financial crisis a year ago, and yet did nothing to address the problem. In fact, they continue to add to it—for example, the hastily and ill-prepared $700B Bailout Plan. The author suggests that the resulting financial chaos is causing panic for both Wall Street and Main Street. His advice is that unless the administration develops a long-term solution to the economic crisis, the US will be in for a depression-like environment. Unfortunately, he does not believe the current administration has enough time nor wits to develop a plan, and he fears that there will not be enough time available for the incoming administration to do so before financial disaster strikes. “The next administration’s economic team had better be ready because it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression.”
The article presents a very strong warning of impending financial disaster and based on the recent events of the past 3 days, I think he made a very convincing argument. Dr. Krugman’s credentials are exemplary and I believe he has a strong grasp of what has happened and what is needed to fix it. I am convinced that the US government needs stronger leadership and a team of economic experts who understand how we can survive this hardship with the least amount of destruction to our society. Something has to be done quickly, but it is just as important that something be done correctly or we will only continue down the road to financial disaster!
Dr. Krugman’s intended audience seems to be directed toward readers who are concerned about the ongoing economic plight of the US and the impact of the current administration’s policies on this mess.
The basic argument of this article is that the financial state of the U.S. economy has gone from “not good” three weeks ago to one that is “really, really bad.” Krugman argues that we are entering a time of “severe crisis with weak, confused leadership.” The argument relies on the assumption that officials in the Treasury, specifically Henry Paulson, were aware of the impending financial crisis a year ago, and yet did nothing to address the problem. In fact, they continue to add to it—for example, the hastily and ill-prepared $700B Bailout Plan. The author suggests that the resulting financial chaos is causing panic for both Wall Street and Main Street. His advice is that unless the administration develops a long-term solution to the economic crisis, the US will be in for a depression-like environment. Unfortunately, he does not believe the current administration has enough time nor wits to develop a plan, and he fears that there will not be enough time available for the incoming administration to do so before financial disaster strikes. “The next administration’s economic team had better be ready because it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression.”
The article presents a very strong warning of impending financial disaster and based on the recent events of the past 3 days, I think he made a very convincing argument. Dr. Krugman’s credentials are exemplary and I believe he has a strong grasp of what has happened and what is needed to fix it. I am convinced that the US government needs stronger leadership and a team of economic experts who understand how we can survive this hardship with the least amount of destruction to our society. Something has to be done quickly, but it is just as important that something be done correctly or we will only continue down the road to financial disaster!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
