ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

SEMESTER 01 | ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES – ENN103F | UNIQUE NO. 707714 | | STUDENT NO. 53078136 | 2/27/2013 |

SECTION A – SHORT QUESTIONS AND SECTION B ESSAYS |

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION A LOOSING BATTLE?
Section A : Short questions

1) IS THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY MORALLY DEFENSIBLE? EXPLAIN.

In my opinion, I believe that the Affirmative Action Policy is not morally defensible as it tends to be more favorable towards a certain group of people. However according to an article in the Mail & Guardian Affirmative Action is still deemed as morally defensible. Affirmative Action was initially meant to affirm previously dis-advantaged people and not to impede and hinder those not favored by it, such as white males and even white woman occasionally. Those making the decisions to apply the policy in various situations are not always true to the fact that the objective is to achieve a societal good. For example: in the event of not filling a vacancy for a critical position subsequent to advertising on numerous occasions just because all the successful candidates are non-African can be deemed as a societal harm and regarded as “racist” rather that Affirmative Action.

2) IN YOUR OPINION, WHICH COUNTRY HAS SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED THE POLICY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND WHY DID IT SUCCEED?

In my opinion and after extensive research I have found that there is no country with a 100% successful rate with regards to the implementation of the Affirmative Action Policy since the support of the Affirmative Action Policy varies between countries and racial groups represented within. According to the “Gallop Poll” responses regarding the Affirmative Action policy amongst Whites, Blacks and Hispanics varied. In 2005 a survey was conducted to see how many people were in favor or apposed Affirmative Action programmes and it was found that 64% responded in favour and 34% apposed. Taking this into consideration I would then say that if there were a country in my opinion that could be remotely successful it would be one of the African countries such as Nigeria or Zimbabwe who are predominantly black.

3. IN YOUR VIEW WHY DID THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY AND ACT AND WAS IT EVER JUSTIFIABLE?

In my view the South African government chose to implement the Affirmative Action Policy and Act to try and correct the political structured society during the Apartheid Era. The policy was meant to ensure that qualified designated groups (black people, women and people with disabilities) have equal opportunities to get a job as opposed to that of the apartheid regime which favoured white people only. The policy was implemented to end apartheid and begin democracy in 1994 as a way of correcting previous imbalances. For these reasons only was it justifiable.

4. DOES THE POLICY NEED TO BE DISCONTINUED AFTER A CERTAIN LENGH OF TIME, AND WHY?
I do believe that the policy should be discontinued after a certain length of time, if not it should be amended to bring a balance within the equality of each ethnic group represented within the country. The reason being that it is not rational for a white male for example, to go through his entire educational or career path being subjected to a society that only gives preference to the opposite race. The policy should protect and preserve the rights of the individual irrespective of race otherwise seemingly the Affirmative Action policy would be regarded as a tool of revenge by one race against the other for the apartheid era.

5. IN YOUR OPINION, WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE FROM A DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUP ARE UNEMPLOYABLE IN CERTAIN SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY AND NOT IN OTHERS?

In my opinion there are numerous factors that influence the reasoning for people with a different race group being unemployable in certain sectors of the economy and not in others, such as racial dominance governing that specific economy, a person of specific race with a disability which would also have limits to their capabilities for the demand of the job applied for, a lack of skills and education as a result of not being exposed to the best schools during their upbringing during the apartheid era due to their ethnic group.

SECTION B: ESSAY

1. DO YOU THINK CULTIVATING AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SOCIETY HAS HELPED COUNTRIES SUCH AS SOUTH AFRICA AND AMERICA TO MOVE FORWARD? IN A CAREFULLY WORDED ESSAY, SHOW HOW THIS IS THE CASE OR WHY IT IS NOT.

I do not believe that cultivating an equal opportune society in countries such as America and South Africa has assisted in them moving forward due to the many challenges that continue to arise with the act or policy itself. In fact I would refer to it as the “attempt” to cultivate an equal society. There has been a discrete division within the various ethnic groups rather than equality. Affirmative Action is highly disputed since it was meant to create access to the promise of a better and independent life.

Affirmative Action would have been more tolerable if it was designed to advance equality for all regardless of race or gender. The goal was for the policy to empower and capacitate and not to be punitive as a tool to punish those which it does not favor. In doing so this creates room for division within the nation at large and motivates violence and anger. Such a nation does not consider itself equal or united in any way and thus cannot move forward.

I would justify this statement in the body of my essay which focuses on South Africa an America as two separate countries both with similar remarks on the supposed “equal opportunity society”.
South Africa, everyone agrees, is a profoundly unequal society. It is marked by inequality of power, of wealth, of access to the means for acquiring power and/or wealth, of education, and of status. This much is agreed upon. Disagreement arises, however, when the causes of this; situation are sought. Most whites see these inequalities as being the result of the unequal contribution made by the various ethnic groups.
There is disagreement as to whether and when this cultural gap can be bridged, but there is wide agreement that it existed in the first place and is at the origin of today's inequalities. Most africans, on the other hand, see these inequalities as being largely the result of exploitation and of inequality of opportunity.
America is becoming more unequal economically, and most people find that disturbing. Indeed, the tendency towards greater inequality has been one of the most consistent themes of the election campaign. Some believe that inequality is necessary to reward hard work, achievement and entrepreneurship but think that the current level is too extreme. Others blame unfair tax policies and see the extent of today’s inequality as a sign that the government has abandoned the goal of an equal opportunity.
The systemic failings as seen in both aforementioned countries with regards to education, health and other empowerment systems mean that we are far from being a completely structurally sound or remotely equal opportune society.
If the Policy or Act is continuously being used as a tool to make up for the inequities of the past apartheid era or slave trade regime of both aforementioned countries as well the failings of the respective government in respect of critical portfolios such as education and health, the goal of the country moving forward successfully can not in any way be achieved.
In conclusion, according to my understanding, the fundamentals for an equal opportunity society should be reconstructed within this period and be able to deliver productive and independent citizens and the need for an equal opportune society would then become progressively less dreadful, taking into consideration factors such as incapacity and ineffectiveness. Therefore it is apparent that there is more division within both countries than equality which does not permit for a country to be able to move forward successfully.
Reference:
1. Internet, Studymode.com 2. Mail & Guardian articles