Crawford (2004) presents an excellent analysis of the dilemma faced by the current state of the affirmative action by investigating five different options of the non-discrimination rule. There are interesting insights in the paper followed by appropriate analysis. The main arguments are also presented with a clear stand that if every person receives the right not to be racially discriminated, none of them will benefit from racial preference. Again, if the law authorizes racial discrimination to some people, the others would be denied the right not to suffer tribal inclination (Crawford, 2004).
The author evidently demonstrates that the current affirmative action is no longer useful. Crawford (2004) supports his claims with plentiful and persuasive evidence to the dilemmas of right and wrong, and those of racial discrimination and racial preference. Besides, Crawford (2004) clearly offers a basis for the understanding that the current affirmative action encourages racial preference, which effectively reaches the intended audience. Moreover, the arguments are presented logically with good paragraphs and smooth transitions between ideas. The conclusion is also effective as it summarizes the main ideas and provides a well-articulated point of view.
The major weakness of this article is that it lacks a clear central idea ad the introduction is not quite effective. Perhaps the central idea could have been incorporated in the introduction to make it more emphatic. Some discussions on the options are too short and could have been kept slightly longer.
Bobo (2004), on the other hand, gives excellent insights and clarifications into the contemporary form of racial discrimination in the United States. The author evidently stresses that racism is still a problem in America even though the conventional prejudice has declined, because it has only evolved into a new form, or expression. The thesis is strong and clearly articulated. The author presents persuasive arguments to the world at large to draw attention to real-world effects of the modern forms of discrimination. Moreover, Bobo (2004) clearly supports his arguments with ample and valid evidence ranging from politics and general crimes to the education sector. For example, the whites still regard themselves superior to the black Americans and considered them lazy and unintelligent. Suitable conclusion summarizes the main points of the article and the author’s stand that the affirmative action has not outlived its usefulness.
Although the paper is good and contains a strong central idea at the beginning, the author gathered evidence from only one city and used it to refer to the whole populaation. The interview could have involved at least more focus groups with a good number of participants sampled from different cities rather than just two groups from the same town. Additionally, Bobo (2004) seems to explore the way the whites treat the blacks more than how the blacks treat the former apart from focusing on academy and politics. Moreover, the author fails to cover the issues of class and gender, because the affirmative action does not only cover racial or ethnic minority but also includes class and sexual discrimination. Therefore, although the proofs of continued and elusive racism are valid, they are not just misrepresented but also biased.
How Can We Help?
In conclusion, to address the issue of racial affirmative action, some important aspects need attention. Both authors failed to address the issue of globalization and cultural intelligence in their discussion. Crawford has a proper conclusion compared to Bobo, but lacks thesis in his introduction. One has to read through the information to grasp the main argument in Crawford’s article, while in Bobo’s article, the main idea is clearly presented in the introduction. Two questions, nevertheless, are left unanswered: 1) What is the place of globalization in racial affirmative action? 2) To what extent is cultural intelligence incorporated in racial affirmative action?