The United States has always dealt with problems concerning equality and equal chances for all. One of the solutions to this problem is known as affirmative action, or preferential selection used to include groups into areas where they have historically been excluded from. It takes factors such as race, gender, and ethnicity into account to increase minority representations. Its origin can be traced back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented employers from hiring or firing individuals based on certain qualities. It was intended as a punishment for those who disobeyed this law. Later, President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 forced federal contractors to employ “affirmative action” as to not discriminate when hiring. It took the national stage in the autumn of 1972, when the Secretary of Labor’s Revised Order No. 4 fully implemented the executive order and applied it nation-wide.
In 2006, 58% of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, prohibiting preference and discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin in employment and public education. (Bonsur and Brokamp, law.cornell.edu). It clashed with the Supreme Court’s ruling of Grutter v. Bollinger, which decided that certain types of affirmative action were necessary for the country’s future. The NAACP’s legal defense force and a coalition of civil rights groups sued, saying it violated the 14th amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Michigan said that Proposal 2 did not violate the 14th amendment. The decision was appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit initially decided that it was unconstitutional, eventually being agreed upon by the full Sixth Court. Michigan’s Attorney General, Bill Schuette, reques...
... middle of paper ...
... the Constitution did not outline for groups to receive more attention than others nor provide different degrees of equal protection and that thinking this way would give the Supreme Court more power than the Constitution allots it. (Affirmative Action, plato.stanford.edu). The reasons that the Medical School provided were dismissed by Powell as the school was discriminating and that it did not provide enough evidence to support its special programs. Here, affirmative action clashes with fairness as Bakke surpassed the prerequisites to attend the school but was denied entry, as it unfairly favored other groups that might have been less deserving of entry compared to Allan Bakke. As he was not given equal consideration, this is an example of the injustices affirmative action can impose to those who are not minority groups yet are still deserve to achieve their goals.
In 1973 a thirty-three year-old Caucasian male named Allan Bakke applied to and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. In 1974 he filed another application and was once again rejected, even though his test scores were considerably higher than various minorities that were admitted under a special program. This special program specified that 16 out of 100 possible spaces for the students in the medical program were set aside solely for minorities, while the other 84 slots were for anyone who qualified, including minorities. What happened to Bakke is known as reverse discrimination. Bakke felt his rejections to be violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Superior Court of California. It was ruled that "the admissions program violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment"1 The clause reads as follows:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."2 The court ruled that race could not be a factor in admissions. However, they did not force the admittance of Bakke because the court could not know if he would have been admitted if the special admissions program for minorities did not exist.
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
The Court ruled that the use of racial quotas in its admissions process is unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional, in certain cases, more minority applicants could be accepted constitutionally. It was a five to four decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell. Race can be looked upon in order to ensure educational diversity, but other admissions factors must be considered. For example, someone who is a minority cannot be accepted if they do not meet the academic qualifications. For this specific case, the medical school’s process did violate equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause forbids a state from denying anyone equal protection of the law.
The idea of freedom and equal opportunity that America was built on has sadly been lost and replaced with a system of quality education only being accessible by the wealthy. In-state college tuition should be free for all students meeting admission requirements, allowing students from the full spectrum of economic backgrounds to have the same opportunity to receive the same education. The incidence of poverty in the U.S. is directly linked to educational level. When a college degree is earned, income levels rise (College Board). The best use of federal government anti-poverty funds is not another welfare or assistance program; it is to make college education affordable for everyone.
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
Over the past 15 years tremendous awareness has been raised around this and programs of preferential treatment emerged. These programs ensured equal rights for people of color and females in the work place, allowing for them to apply for executive level positions and earn the same amount of money, benefits, and prestige as a white male ensuring equality for all race and sex. Lisa Newton argues that, “reverse discrimination does not advance but actually undermines equality because it violates the concept of equal justice under law for all citizens. In addition, to this theoretical objection to reverse discrimination, Newton opposes it because she believes it raises insoluble problems.” Among them are determining what groups have been sufficiently discriminated against in the past to deserve preferred treatment in the present and determining the degree of reverse discrimination that will be compensatory. Newton outlines the importance of ensuring her argument is recognized as logically distinct from the condition of justice in the political sense. She begins her argument for reverse discrimination as unjustified by addressing the “simple justice” claim requiring that we favor women and blacks in employment and education opportunities. Since women and blacks were unjustly excluded from such opportunities for so many years in the not so distant past, however when employers and schools favor women and blacks, the same injustice is done. This reverse discrimination violates the public equality which defines citizenship and destroys the rule of law for the areas in which these favors are granted. To the extent that we adopt a program of discrimination, reverse or otherwise, justice in the political sense is destroyed, and none of us, specifically affected or no is a citizen, as bearers of rights we are all petitioners
Many people are pressuring colleges to change their admissions policy and abolish affirmative action. As a result, many colleges are abolishing their affirmative action policy. According the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), states like California, Florida, Michigan, and New Hampshire have passed laws prohibited the use affirmative action in public colleges or universities. In Michigan, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rul...
African Americans have been fighting for equality since the pre-Civil War era. Although the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments became realities, segregation and exclusion of African Americans from public places were the realities throughout the 1800’s and 1900’s. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, or the “Force Act” (pg. 157), only allowed the government to protect African Americans from being excluded by “public officials of state and local governments” (pg. 157), not private businesses. Thus, Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 polarized the nation, for the case declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” (pg. 158). As long as the accommodations for both races were equal, separating various public spaces was also equal; however, in 1954 “separate but equal” was reversed with Brown v Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education focused on Oliver Brown’s fight for his daughter, Linda, to attend an “all-white Summer School, which was closer to home” (pg. 160). When the school refused to admit his daughter, Brown took his fight to the NAACP and then took his fight to the Supreme Court; subsequently, the Court decided on the case with the “consequences of segregation” (pg. 160), which concerned a lack of “equal educational opportunities” (pg. 160). As a result, the Court declared Plessy v.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.
The issue of affirmative action has been a controversial one since its inception. The law was developed during the 1960’s as a result of the civil rights movement and the need to address injustices committed against minorities throughout the United States history. There were multiple attempts to correct the inequities between the majority and the various minorities including the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to create rules to end discrimination. Affirmative action came into being with the executive order 11246 issued by President Johnson. The Civil Rights Act and President Johnson’s executive order have been updated throughout the years to address gender, disabilities, age and other characteristics that could be considered discriminatory.
Introduction Known as one of the biggest obstacles in higher education to date would arguably be the use of affirmative action within the higher education admission process for both private and public institutions (Kaplin & Lee, 2014; Wang & Shulruf, 2012). The focus of current research is an attempt to either justify or deny the use of affirmative action within current practices through various higher education institutions, and though any one person could potentially be swayed to side with the rationale to maintain its use or disregard, the facts are quite clear that the future of this practice is unclear. Therefore, this essay will present current research in an attempt to determine if affirmative action should continue to be used within college admission decisions. What is Affirmative Action?
The Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger and in Gratz v. Bollinger are two compelling and complex cases. In the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme court favored that race and ethnicity along with other factors are justifiable in the admission process of promoting a diverse and inclusive student body on the premises of state law schools. I agree with the court's decision because minorities only make up a small percentage on college campuses and universities, and that race and ethnicity does play a crucial role in recruiting students of colors from various cultural backgrounds. Students must be trained scholars who know how to interact with people from all walks of life and they must be able to adapt and understand different people in different environments in a given context. The goal is for everyone
Develop an argument on or some ideas of understanding about curriculum as multicultural text by relating the works of Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-Lopez, Delpit, Duarte & Smith, Greene, Nieto and Sletter to your experience of curriculum, teaching, and learning as affirming diversity. You could think specifically about the following questions: Is there a need for diversity in curriculum studies and designs? Why? What measures do you think will be effective in incorporating such a need into curriculum studies and designs? What is the relevance of diversity to your career goal, to education in your family, community, and school, to education in Georgia, and to education in general? In which way can you develop a curriculum which helps cultivate empathy, compassion, passion, and hope for citizens of the world, and which fosters social justice?
To me, equality of opportunity in public education is where every single person deserves and is entitled to an equal chance to obtain a good education, grow and make positive progress throughout their time in school, and be successful in reaching their full potential later in life. These people should be treated identically, not differently due to their gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.