The presentation of the Minority Set-aside Programs is such that it has been accepted as a remedy by the public, especially the black community. In the search for ways to safeguard advances made by civil rights activist’s decade’s back, legislators have viewed ways to ensure that blacks get a fair share of the public funds and this would be a solution to the outcry on foul play in terms of resource distribution. It is the reasoning that by creating channels and opening ways into which racial minorities can get access to development opportunities, there will be reduced concerns over unequal distribution of resources (Kravitz, Bludau & Kkineberg, 2008). Among many others ways to ensure this, awarding of public contracts to minority groups has come to be adopted as one of the political measures to reduce the piling pressure on the need to offer all people equal opportunities for economic progress irrespective of their racial background. Thus, the rationale for having the policy in force is based on political situation rather than the actual ability to tackle the social issue at hand logically.
In short, the policy in this review is more of a political strategy to let other races besides the whites to thrive economically. It is politicians approach to gain support and trust from the public that it is doing all it can to ensure a democratic society (Chemsons & McBeth, 2015). By addressing current economic disparities, the government expects to overcome challenges facing its people and create a conducive environment where anyone, regardless of social background, is able to progress economically. One way to ensure this is to open up ways to allow public funds to be accessed equally irrespective of undue advantages that may be enjoyed by one group of people. This political reasoning gives birth to minority set-aside programs which may be doing more harm than good to a nation seeking a healing process to historical injustices. There could be other ways to present this to the public so as to avoid the negative political interest it is already arousing among the public. This may be explained by consistent efforts to have the policy withdrawn or even reinstituted in some other ways other than its current version that poses legal and ethical questions.
Politicians have revoked various constitutional clauses and events of the past to buy public support for the minority set-aside programs. The most referred to the clause is that of equal opportunities to all regardless of one’s economic, social or political background. Based on the prevailing circumstances and the need for support in a political bid, many presidential candidates found themselves emerging as political progressives and who wanted to bring change to America. President Reagan and President Bush used this to win their presidential bids just as President Barrack. These political progressives use the political past to forecast into the future and define ways for the public to realize that future. In the case of the United States, the future is that of harmony in a multi-racial democracy (Klein, 2012). The future of America is of equal opportunities to all. This lies in public policies that ensure equal distribution of resources to advance economic and raise the social status of minority groups who, for a long time, have been discriminated against in terms being offered equal opportunities. Through these rhetoric appeals to ethics and emotions of the population, politicians have managed to mobilize people to support minority set-aside programs across many states.
On the other hand, those who are discontented by the initiatives have also appealed to their supporters using the Constitutional. Although such attempts have often ended in defeat in the courts of law, opponents to minority set-aside programs question the morality and legal background of the programs (Kravitz, Bludau ; Klineberg, 2008). They argue that the programs are unconstitutional in that they offer an undue advantage to minority groups even where some of these organizations are not in the capacity to carry out tasks assigned to them. Another profound argument is that these programs abrogate constitutional clauses on Equal Opportunities and Equal Rights Protection.
From the foregoing, there is more to achieving equality among racial groups in America, and it does not take the way of giving one group advantage over the other based on history. It is irrational to think that solving racial discrimination takes the form of offering incentives for the group to one group and somewhat suppressing the other. In any case, this is only going to result in perpetual antagonism and no proper solution may be derived out of that.
Brady, D. ; Kessler, D. (Nov. 6, 2009). Public Opinion and Health Reform. The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704597704574486250768494702
Clemons, R. S., ; McBeth, M. K. (2015). Public Policy Praxis: A Case Approach for Understanding Policy and Analysis(Ch. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9).
Klein, E. (June 25, 2012). ;Unpopular Mandate: Why do politicians reverse their positions?; The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/25/unpopular-mandate#ixzz1yeAUc8jR
Kravitz, D., Bludau, T., ; Klineberg, S. (2008). The Impact of Anticipated Consequences, Respondent Group, and Strength of Affirmative Action Plan on Affirmative Action Attitudes. Group ; Organization Management, 33(4), 361-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601108318655
Peters, B. ; Stone, D. (1989). Policy Paradox and Political Reason. The American Political Science Review, 83(1), 304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956482
Stone, D. (2002). Policy;paradox. New York: Norton.