The subject or question for your paper will be given to you after the mid-term exam. Your paper will be due Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at the beginning of class. Any papers submitted after the start of the class will not be graded.
This term paper is worth 200 points towards your final grade. Your grade will be determined in two parts. The success of your argument will be 75% of your grade. The remaining 25% of your grade will be measured on your grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence structure skills.
Your paper will be reviewed through Turnitin Originality Check for plagiarism. Be very careful what you write and how you cite resources. You can fail this paper with a grade of zero if you fail to properly cite your sources.
Term Paper Format
I will take points off if you fail to format this paper as detailed above.
As a Georgia Highlands student, you have agreed to abide by the academic integrity policy. It is imperative that you familiarize yourself with this policy if you have not already done so. Academic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated. The consequences for plagiarism on a paper or cheating on an exam in this course can be suspension or expulsion. If you have any doubt as to what that policy is, please refer to http://www.highlands.edu/site/student-rights.
There are four questions for you to pick one to discuss. All four questions are intended to challenge your critical thinking and to improve your academic research skills. There are no right or wrong answers. Pick a side of the issue and defend it. I will be grading you on how well you defend your position.
Regardless of your position, you must use at least four original sources, properly documented and cited.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
The original basis of immigration in the United States in the early 1920s was a national origins’ system. This had been the foundation of immigration law for a quarter century, and nobody has yet proposed a better system. This system was intended to favor northern Europeans believing a continuation of the original colonists that founded the nation was is necessary to preserve U.S. culture. Northern Europeans are more similar to Americans than southern and eastern Europeans and so will be better able to assimilate into U.S. society.
Others believed the worst part of the act is the continuation of the national origins system, which many felt was a racist system because it discriminates against southern and eastern Europeans. Especially in the cold war era, it was wrong to ask those nations to join the struggle against the Soviet Union while at the same time telling them they are less worthy than northern Europeans to immigrate to the United States. The granting of quotas to Asian nations was an improvement, but the Act did not go far enough because it grants Asians extremely small quotas that are more insulting than meaningful.
In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act over the veto of President Harry S. Truman. The Act maintained the national origins system for determining immigration quotas, setting quotas for each nation based on the ancestry of people living in the U.S. Under that system, more than 80% of the quota went to immigrants from northern Europe. Was the 1952 Act necessary to protect U.S. society and culture? Or was the Act discriminatory, an extension of the “Jim Crow” era and clearly a violation of the American Constitution?
Feminist Movement – The Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment and the feminist movement it represents are considered by some to be a threat to traditional American society. Women are fundamentally different from men and should be treated under the law accordingly. The proper place for a woman is in the home, where she is best able to care for the needs of her husband and children. Ratification of the ERA will empower an already intrusive federal government to undermine local customs, religious beliefs and enact radical policies that will completely blur the line between genders. At the same time, this amendment will also sweep away decades of protective laws meant to help women succeed in the business, professional and academic worlds outside of the comfort of their homes.
On the other side of the argument, the biological difference between men and women is extremely small, and even the biological traits that differentiate the sexes should have little if any bearing under the law. Laws should treat women and men as individuals with varying abilities, not as indistinguishable members of a particular gender group. While state and federal governments have passed many laws to benefit women, only an amendment to the Constitution can enshrine gender equality once and for all.
The core tenet of the mainstream feminist movement is that women and men should be treated equally under the law. There should be no difference in the treatment of or special conditions for either sex. Should the Constitution—through a proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)—reflect that principle of gender equality or are Constitutional protections already in place?
Affirmative Action - Is Affirmative action necessary and legal or does it violate the U.S. Constitution?
For approximately 100+ years, minority groups were denied opportunities enjoyed by the majority in the United States. Affirmative action programs are necessary to overcome centuries of slavery and segregation. The legacy of prejudice and discrimination has unfairly burdened members of minority groups with obstacles to advancement in education, employment, and other fields. While the goal of a color-blind society is an important one, the only way to ensure racial equality in the future is to temporarily take race into account to provide greater access to members of historically disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action is also necessary to ensure diversity on campus, and to produce more minority professionals, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.
On the other hand, by basing admissions’ decisions on people's race and giving members of minority groups special treatment, affirmative action programs have the potential to violate the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These affirmative programs amount to reverse discrimination, in which others are denied opportunities because of the color of their skin. The benefits of redressing past discrimination do not justify discriminating against another race now or in the future. Affirmative action also hurts minorities by reinforcing the view that minorities cannot succeed without help, and are therefore less capable than other races or sexes.
The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the legality of affirmative action programs and have ruled on several cases. Are affirmative action programs consistent with the U.S. Constitution and necessary to promote diversity and redress past discrimination against members of minority groups? Or do they violate the U.S. Constitution and amount to "reverse discrimination" against the majority and other minority groups?
USA Patriot Act: Defense Against Terrorist or Restriction of Liberties?
When a country is attacked, as the U.S. was on September 11, 2001, it must find a way to ensure that such attacks are not repeated in the future. Some believe the expansion of federal authority under the Patriot Act is crucial in tracking terrorists effectively and preventing them from striking again. Investigative secrecy in those intelligence gathering operations is essential for keeping terrorists unaware that they are being watched. Inevitably, there is a risk that some civil liberties will be occasionally compromised, but for many, this is a small price to pay to prevent deadly terrorist attacks and the murder of thousands of American citizens.
On the other hand, many opponents of the Patriot Act's provisions believe it violates the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, which protects free speech, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unwarranted search and seizure. In their view, the Patriot Act will allow the government to investigate people who have presented little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Furthermore, the veil of secrecy that this law gives federal policing authorities will hamper any effective oversight by others while creating an environment that encourages the abuse of power.
Is the Patriot Act just one of many acts of Congress throughout American history and therefore justified by precedence, or is the law unique and necessary to protect the lives of all citizens even at the expense of some American civil liberties?