Friday, April 22, 2011

Do Democratic Governments provide Equal Opportunity for all Citizens?

A democratic government must provide equal opportunity for all citizens.
Describe a specific situation in which a democratic government might not have to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens. Discuss what you think determines when democratic governments must provide equal opportunity for all citizens and when they need not.
___

Contrary to Thomas Jefferson's words, not all people are created equally. Some are born with more intelligence and beauty. Others happen to be blessed with competent and caring parents. A few are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and do not have to worry about finances for the rest of their lives. While reality shows that people are not born equally, our democratic system maintains the cornerstone of all being equal under the law. In the United States, for example, there exists respect for the rule of law and notion that all its citizens must be given equal opportunity. In an attempt to correct the country's discriminatory history, the government has institutionalized affirmative action policies in its process of hiring and promotion. While some might argue that this is a path toward providing minorities with equal opportunity, others will maintain that the policy is discriminatory toward the rest of the population who do not qualify for the program.

"Equal opportunity" is a term that connotes providing all citizens equal access to the nation's resources. For instance, all children have the right to free education in the United States for 13 years. People have the right to gainful employment and earn "fair wages" for the work that they perform. Other examples can be drawn from the US Constitution's Bill of Rights which provide a framework for the ways people must be treated equally.

In the late 20th century, the government began to apply affirmative action policies in its hiring and promotion process in government work. It has also, more controversially, been applied in government-funded university admissions. Recognizing its history of slavery and systemic racial discrimination, the government has attributed its past actions to the socioeconomic difficulties faced by blacks today . These minorities have fallen behind white (and now Asian-American) citizens in terms of finishing high school and completing a university degree. Black people, furthermore, make up a majority of people in prison or caught up with the legal system. In essence, affirmative action policies are a means of compensating for the past harm and propping up the minorities (specifically blacks and latinos) who tend to not achieve the standard of the American dream.

Those in favor of affirmative action policies maintain that the government owes minorities who have been discriminated against historically a chance to improve their situation in society. They say that special consideration in employment and higher education admissions will help the minorities rise and inspire others of the same racial and economic background. Some also emphasize that minorities are under-represented in the government and certain sectors and their presence and different perspectives will contribute to a productive, rich working or learning environment.

Those against affirmative action policies see the system as inherently discriminatory. First, people are being given special consideration simply by virtue of their skin color. In the case of higher education admission, they maintain that socio-economic status is, perhaps, a more appropriate way to distinguish people. Furthermore, some maintain that affirmative action policies send the wrong message to minorities---that they would be unable to succeed if it not were for the special consideration given solely because of their skin color. Affirmative action can have the affect of shutting out more capable and experienced applicants from the hiring pool. In a sense, this policy creates "unequal opportunity" for the rest of the population.

Given the fact that minorities have been institutionally discriminated against for several decades, the government has a compelling argument for using affirmative action policies for evening the playing field. However, the indefinite continuity of such programs make it more unequal as time passes by. It is safe to say that people cannot use the excuse of their socio-economic situation as a result of their grandparents being discriminated against by the government. Recent immigrants from several developing nations have demonstrated educational and vocational success after one generation living in the US. They have shown that people can rise from their situation---no matter how dire--with perseverance and hard work. Perhaps slowly phasing out affirmative action policies will provide equally opportunity to qualified minorities by showing that they, too, are capable of succeeding without special consideration from the government.

No comments:

Post a Comment