Affirmative Action Produces Double Standard in College Admission Essay Sample free essay sample

Affirmative Action Produces Double Standard in College Admission Consider this. President John F. Kennedy or Doctor Martin Luther King Junior would be partial to what affirmatory action has turned out to be. President Kennedy would proclaim what person could make for their state. Doctor King would be in resistance to the prejudiced impressions of affirmatory action by confirming to Americans to set preference aside to accomplish equality. non discriminatory intervention. America has distorted and moved beyond the bulk of racial barriers of the sixtiess. For case. Barack Obama. an Afro-american. was elected president of the United States in 2008 and reelected in 2012 in a state where Whites and inkinesss had to utilize separate H2O fountains merely less than fifty old ages earlier. Affirmative action is perchance one of the more ill-famed issues in the United States of American today. Put into action in response to many old ages of segregation. which marginalized the Afro-american pop ulation of the United States. We will write a custom essay sample on Affirmative Action Produces Double Standard in College Admission Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page affirmatory action was intended to revoke the unethical determinations of the yesteryear. and level the playing field in footings of employment. instruction and lodging. The phrase ‘affirmative action’ was originally used by President John F. Kennedy on March 6. 1961. in Executive Order 10925. The purpose was to set up the government’s staunchness to equal chance for all qualified persons. and to take definite action to reenforce attempts to recognize equal chance for all. In 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson. superseded Executive Order 10925 with Executive Order 11246. which prohibited â€Å"employment favoritism based on race. colour. faith. and national beginning by those organisations having federal contracts and subcontracts† ( Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity n. pag. ) . Affirmative action is used to back up processs that achieve non-discrimination. In other words. it is intended to advance equal chance. The rationalisation for affirmatory action is that it compensates for â€Å"past favoritism. persecution or development by the governing category of a civilization. and to turn to bing discrimination† ( The Burning Platform n. pag. ) . Unfortunately. affirmatory action is rearward favoritism. which has obnoxious effects neglecting to convey to fruition its original purposes. Furthermore. affirmatory action is a impermanent solution and has no topographic point in today’s society. particularly in college admittance standards. The minute higher academic establishments incorporated affirmatory action into admittances standards. definite properties of applicants’ decreased. institutional support was placed in hazard. and bias scholarships were created. seting other minority groups at hazard. First. universities modify admittances demands. which allows for persons with below mean classs and accomplishments admittance into establishments of higher instruction. This is non merely corrupting and dissing to African-Americans. but it besides gives rise to performance-hindering stigma by â€Å"undermining the accomplishments of minorities† ( Friedman 26 ) . Furthermore. affirmatory action diminishes the successes of persons. doing affirmatory action counterproductive. Affirmative action labels the receivers as missing ability and mentally secon d-rate. It frequently overlooks curriculum differences. which play an built-in map in college admittance and graduation rates. For case. â€Å"Carnegie Mellon University and CalTech are to a great extent oriented toward the scientific disciplines. Fieldss in which inkinesss have ever had a little presence† ( The Burning Platform n. pag. ) . It obstructs appeasement. replacing out-of-date unfairnesss with modern unfairnesss. and convinces admittance campaigners to sort themselves as disadvantaged. even if they are non. Second. the monetary value and fiscal emphasis of affirmatory action plans should non be forgotten with pecuniary support furnished by taxpayers. and in utmost state of affairss. puting universities under extreme examination. Like any national plans intended to run into a peculiar adversity of an underserviced group. capital to endorse these policies comes from the populace sector. Money for affirmatory action plans is frequently set aside at the disbursal of much needed wellness attention plans. It is likely that affirmatory action plans eradicate one hundred billion in taxpayer dollars ( Whitaker 6 ) . In 2010. North Carolina State University wasted an estimated $ 1. 9 million dollars on a month long run to pull Afro-american females. The university had to increase its current registration of this minority group to three per centum. or lose critical federal and province support. Additionally. universities with a high Afro-american graduation rate provide a dearly-won nurturing environment. dwelling of orientation and keeping plans for black pupils. These third establishments place black pupil keeping and graduation rates above other enrolled pupils. It is clear that the extravagancy of prolonging affirmatory action plans at universities is a liability to the taxpayer and hence. the cost of such discriminatory plans outweigh the advantages. Third. rivals of affirmatory action contemplate that it maintains the construct of race: thriving in society. making separation alternatively of integrity. Separation can be witnessed in â€Å"color based scholarships and plans that give prefere ntiality to African-Americans and except bulk groups such as Caucasians† ( Whitaker 12 ) . By puting aside scholarships for African-Americans. Caucasic undergraduates are being discriminated against. peculiarly when a ‘white only’ scholarship is deemed racially prejudiced. Therefore. racial struggle is escalated and benefits the more fortunate public within the minority groups. upper-middle category African-Americans. at the disbursal of the least privileged within the bulk public. such as low-class Caucasians. These unseeable victims of affirmatory action’s lofty picks are human deaths of a barbarous dual criterion created by minority scholarships. Therefore. affirmatory action’s usage of categorized racial favoritism to allow African-Americans scholarships is insensitive and dissentious the policy’s declarations are compromised in their executing. The most widespread claim for affirmatory action is it amends the unfairness and favoritism created by segregation. Those who champion affirmatory action. like Beth Herring. alluded to the soci etal nature of affirmatory action by breaking the opportunities of an equal playing field. She believes. â€Å"education is the lone guaranteed flight latch on poorness that there is. Without person believing holistically about my application manner back when. I doubt really earnestly I would be sitting here earlier you† ( Kroft ) . Furthermore. advocates of affirmatory action have the most confidence in their perceptual experience that it creates diverseness in its projects. Their line of logical thinking is that for a â€Å"nation whose pride lies in the unbounded diverseness of it is people. why should America deficiency in assortment in the representation of its comfortable people and leaders† ( Guernsey 20 ) ? In other words. America’s diverse population should be reflected in all facets of leading. instruction. and social equality. Affirmative action can vouch these aims are met by providing minorities and underrepresented genders with chances they would non otherwise have. Advocates of affirmatory action should see present twenty-four hours society can non be held accountable for past decennaries of favoritism. The evil of affirmatory ac tion. such as racial favouritism and bias. are acceptable and overcast the cover of good will. therefore challenging that the policy leads to diverseness. However. by cut downing admittance norms and passing unearned benefits to African americans on applications or leading chances. the attack is switching the playing field to disrespect persons of the bulk group. Additionally. as aforesaid. affirmatory action creates racial apprehensiveness that hinders harmony among the minority and bulk groups. The purpose of oppositions of affirmatory action is non to minimise it. but. to do known that even executing good plants has its limitations. By measuring the present development of affirmatory action. an ascent or complete abolition is necessary. One declaration would be extinguishing partizan plans and quota strategies such as affirmatory action. As Guernsey suggests. another realistic solution includes finding affirmatory action programs’ receivers based entirely on virtue and economic demand ( 97-98 ) . With respects to grants and scholarships. virtue based assistance is advantageous. because nose count classs are purged from the ap plications. Thus donees are non wholly from one minority group. In add-on. William Whitaker argues that â€Å"people who work hard and play by the established virtue regulations should non be denied chances because of race and gender qualifications† ( 7 ) . â€Å"Affirmative action is a impermanent intercession designed to accomplish equal employment chance without take downing criterions. and without unduly treading the calling aspirations or outlooks of current organisational members who are competent in their jobs† ( Pienaar 4 ) . Affirmative action is the band-aide that needs to be removed with one clean pull. Trying to repair and pull off it would be an tremendous faux pas. â€Å"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. the lone current black Justice. opposes affirmatory action† ( Kroft ) . Justice Thomas considers the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits affirmatory action or discriminatory intervention. He besides believes it creates â€Å"a cult of victimization† and implies inkinesss require â€Å"special intervention in order to succeed† ( Kroft ) . Affirmative action supports minority groups to delegate themselves as portion of favorite groups. to take advantage of group penc hant policies. which tend to profit chiefly upper and in-between category African-Americans. often to the hurt of low income Caucasians and Asians. Again. as higher academic establishments incorporated affirmatory action into admittances standards. definite properties of applicants’ lessenings. institutional support is placed in hazard. and bias scholarships are created. seting other minority groups at hazard ( for being overlooked ) . Plants Cited Chen. Jim. â€Å"Symposium on Affirmative Action: Diverseness and Damnation. † 11 Apr. 2009. Is Affirmative Action Still Needed? Ed. Theodore Wood. 20 Apr. 2009. Friedman. Lauri S. Racism: Writing the Critical Essay. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. 2007. Print. Guernsey. JoAnn Bren. Affirmative Action: A Problem or a Remedy? . Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company. 1997. Print Human. L. . Abednego Maphumulo. Mpumelelo Obed Mbatha. and G. S. Zulu. Affirmative Action and the Development of Peoples: A Practical Guide. Kenwyn: Juta A ; Co. Ltd. 1993. Print.Kroft. Steve. â€Å"Clarence Thomas: The Justice Cipher Knows. † CBSNews. com. 1 Feb. 2009. 09 Nov. 2012.Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity. â€Å"A Brief History of Affirmative Action. † OEOD. uci. edu. 03 May 2010. 09 Nov. 2012.Pienaar. Jacques Schalk. â€Å"PERCEPTIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THE POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THEREOF IN THE WORKEnvironment: A STUDY OF THE DESIGNATED AND NON-DESIGNATEDGROUPS IN SOUTH AFRICA. † UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH. Western Cape: Stellenbosch University. 27 Dec. 2009.The Burning Platform. â€Å"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? . † The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education ( 2007 ) : n. pag. Web. 09 Nov 2012.Whitaker. William A. White Male Applicant: An Affirmative Action Expose. Izmir: AproposPress. 1996 Print.

Strong Acid Definition and Examples

Strong Acid Definition and Examples A strong acid is an acid that is completely dissociated or ionized in an aqueous solution. It is a chemical species with a high capacity to lose a proton, H. In water, a strong acid loses one proton, which is captured by water to form the hydronium ion: HA(aq) H2O → H3O(aq) A−(aq) Diprotic and polyprotic acids may lose more than one proton, but the strong acid pKa value and reaction only refers to the loss of the first proton. Strong acids have a small logarithmic constant (pKa) and a large acid dissociation constant (Ka). Most strong acids are corrosive, but some of the superacids are not corrosive. In contrast, some of the weak acids (e.g., hydrofluoric acid) may be highly corrosive. Note: As acid concentration increases, the ability to dissociate diminishes. Under normal conditions in water, strong acids dissociate completely, but extremely concentrated solutions do not. Examples of Strong Acids While there are many weak acids, there are few strong acids. The common strong acids include: HCl (hydrochloric acid)H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)HNO3 (nitric acid)HBr (hydrobromic acid)HClO4 (perchloric acid)HI (hydroiodic acid)p-toluenesulfonic acid (an organic soluble strong acid)methanesulfonic acid (a liquid organic strong acid) The following acids dissociate almost completely in water, so they are often considered to be strong acids, although they are not more acidic than the hydronium ion, H3O. HNO3Â  (nitric acid)HClO3Â  (chloric acid) Some chemists consider the hydronium ion, bromic acid, periodic acid, perbromic acid, and periodic acid to be strong acids. If the ability to donate protons is used as the primary criterion for acid strength, then the strong acids (from strongest to weakest) would be: H[SbF6]Â  (fluoroantimonic acid)FSO3HSbF5Â  (magic acid)H(CHB11Cl11)Â  (carborane superacid)FSO3HÂ  (fluorosulfuric acid)CF3SO3HÂ  (triflic acid) These are the superacids, which are defined as acids that are more acidic than 100% sulfuric acid. The superacids permanently protonate water. Factors That Determine Acid Strength You may be wondering why the strong acids dissociate so well, or why certain weak acids do not completely ionize. A few factors come into play: atomic radius - As the atomic radius increases, so does acidity. For example, HI is a stronger acid than HCl (iodine is a larger atom than chlorine).electronegativity - The more electronegative a conjugate base in the same period of the periodic table is (A-), the more acidic it is.electrical charge - The more positive the charge on an atom, the higher its acidity. In other words, its easier to take a proton from a neutral species than from one with a negative charge.equilibrium - When an acid dissociates, equilibrium is reached with its conjugate base. In the case of strong acids, the equilibrium strongly favors the product or is to the right of a chemical equation. The conjugate base of a strong acid is much weaker than water as a base.solvent - In most applications, strong acids are discussed in relation to water as a solvent. However, acidity and basicity have meaning in nonaqueous solvent. For example, in liquid ammonia, acetic acid ionizes completely and may be considered a str ong acid, even though it is a weak acid in water.