Affirmative Action - History Essays - Social Inequality,

Affirmative Action - History Affirmative Action is defined by Webster's New World College Dictionary as " a policy or program for correcting the effects of discrimination in the employment or education of members of certain groups." The phrase "affirmative action" was coined by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 when he issued Executive Order 10925, initiating the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246. This order required federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to increase the number of minorities that they employed. Thus affirmative action was born. However, when Kennedy and Johnson established affirmative action, they did not intend for it to have the perverted and distorted effect that it currently has today. Such perversions and distortions include the hiring of unqualified workers, the causing of problems for groups it originally set out to help, and reverse discrimination that results in unfair standards into higher education and the work force. The practice of affirmative action must be stopped. The main argument for affirmative action is that it creates equal opportunity for people in the work force and for students seeking admission into higher education. However, this is not a valid point. While affirmative action creates equal opportunity for some individuals, it discriminates against others, primarily white males. Therefore, affirmative action uses reverse discrimination to solve the problem of discrimination. Do two wrongs make a right? The answer is no. The first reason affirmative action should be stopped is that employees often are hired that are not qualified to execute their jobs effectively. Many times employers are forced to find the best minority, rather than the person most qualified for the job. For example, a policy was adopted by Duke University in 1993 that required each department at the university to hire at least one new African-American for a faculty position (Pasour). However, various surveys and estimates show that less than 4,000 blacks receive Ph.D.s in the United States. This is less than two black Ph.D.s for every American college or university (Sowell). Therefore, Duke University's policy would force them to hire faculty that are not as qualified, due to a shortage of black Ph.D.s, as their white counterparts. The hiring of unskilled workers is also detrimental to businesses as well. The primary purpose of a business is to make money for the employer, as well as the employees. The hiring of unqualified employe es is harmful to the business's production. When employees cannot perform their specific tasks, it often leads to error, which costs the company time and money. If the business is continually paying for worker error, its profits will decrease, producing a decrease in employee pay. Many times companies are forced to hire unqualified individuals because of quotas. Often when a business's quota is not filled it is forced to conceive unnecessary jobs for minorities, which is also decreases a company's profit. Incapable employees are a detriment to worker unity as well. If an employee is not as qualified as his or her co-worker, it may create tension and frustration between them, in turn creating another complication.. The second reason it is imperative to abolish the practice of affirmative action is that it often initiates problems for the minorities it originally intended to help. This is apparent in the work place as well as in colleges and universities. The first problem affirmative action establishes for minorities is that it places a stigma on groups who benefit from affirmative action, especially those who actually earn their position because they are qualified for it. Consider an employer who hires a member of a minority group on the basis of merit alone. Many employees automatically assume that the individual's appointment resulted from affirmative action. Thus, any employee who does benefit from affirmative action bears the brand of "not being the best pick, but only the best pick from a limited group (Pasour)." The second problem it creates for minorities in the workplace is the loss of spirit and vitality for their jobs. If workers feel that the sole reason they are employed is to fill a quota, they may lack pride in their jobs, which in turn hinders their performance. In addition, minorities's problems due to

History of Ethics Violations in Congress

History of Ethics Violations in Congress Back-to-back charges against two veteran members of Congress in the summer of 2010 cast an unflattering light on the Washington establishment and its historic inability to mete out justice among members who stray beyond ethical boundaries they helped to draw. In July of 2010, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct charged U.S. Representative. Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat from New York, with 13 violations, including failing to pay taxes on rental income he received from his villa in the Dominican Republic. Also in that year, the Office of Congressional Ethics charged U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, with allegedly using her office to provide assistance to a bank in which her husband owned stock to ask for federal government bailout money. The potential for highly publicized trials in both cases raised the question: How often has Congress expelled one its own? The answer is–not very. Types of Punishment There are several major types of punishment members of Congress can face: Expulsion   The most serious of penalties is provided for in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. Such moves are considered matters of self-protection of the integrity of the institution. Censure A less severe form of discipline, censure does not remove representatives or senators from office. Instead, it is a formal statement of disapproval that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his relationships. The House, for example, requires members being censured to stand at the well of the chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House. Reprimand   Used by the House, a reprimand is considered a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a member than that of a censure, and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution. A resolution of reprimand, unlike a censure, is adopted by a vote of the House with the member standing in his place, according to House rules. Suspension Suspensions involve a prohibition on a member of the House from voting on or working on legislative or representational matters for a particular time. But according to congressional records, the House has in recent years questioned its authority to disqualify or mandatorily suspend a member. History of House Expulsions Only five members have been expelled in the history of the House, the most recent being U.S. Representative James A. Traficant Jr. of Ohio, in July of 2002. The House expelled Traficant after he was convicted of receiving favors, gifts, and money in return for performing official acts on behalf of the donors, as well as getting salary kickbacks from staff. The only other House member to be expelled in modern history is U.S. Rep. Michael J. Myers of Pennsylvania. Myers was expelled in October of 1980 following a bribery conviction for accepting money in return for his  promise to use influence in immigration matters in the so-called ABSCAM sting operation run by the FBI. The remaining three members were expelled for disloyalty to the union by taking up arms for the Confederacy against the United States in the Civil War. History of Senate Expulsions Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only 15 of its members, 14 of which had been charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. The only other U.S. senator to be kicked out of the chamber was William Blount of Tennessee in 1797 for anti-Spanish conspiracy and treason. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint, according to Senate records. For example, U.S. Sen. Robert W. Packwood of Oregon was charged with the Senate ethics committee with Sexual misconduct and abuse of power in 1995. The Committee on Ethics recommended that Packwood be expelled for abuse of his power as a senator by repeatedly committing sexual misconduct and by engaging in a deliberate ... plan to enhance his personal financial position by seeking favors from persons who had a particular interest in legislation or issues that he could influence. Packwood resigned, however, before the Senate could expel him. In 1982, U.S. Sen. Harrison A. Williams Jr. of New Jersey was charged by the Senate ethics committee with ethically repugnant conduct in the ABSCAM scandal, for which he was convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and conflict of interest. He, too, resigned before the Senate could act on his punishment.