More handpicked essays just for you.
Legal aspect of affirmative action
United States affirmative action law
United States affirmative action law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Affirmative action is without a doubt, one of the most controversial and debated political topics found throughout the entirety of the history of the United States, especially in regards to college admissions. On both sides of the argument, you have millions of Americans vitriolically defending their beliefs as to whether or not affirmative action is a positive thing that benefits the entirety of America as a whole, or rather an outdated model existing well past its expiration date. Both sides of the argument have its pro and cons, but personally, I am of the opinion that affirmative action in regards to college admissions does more harm than good for America as a whole on a social, political, and economic level, and that it at the very least needs to be modified heavily, if not abolished altogether. However, in order to first understand the arguments both supporting and decrying affirmative action, as well as the controversy behind it, we first need to delve into its history for the related context.
Originally, the term affirmative action had absolutely nothing to do with schools, or many of the things it is associated with today. The term “affirmative action” was first used by President John Kennedy in 1961, in regards to one of the executive orders passed by his administration. Executive Order 10925, the order in question had two major effects, one being the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the other being a mandate declaring that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
When Kennedy said that affirmative action needed to be taken, it was originally in regards to employment, in that he required that fe...
... middle of paper ...
...d have them resolved. One such example was again, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which monitors and responds to claims of discrimination. So, if at any time a person of a different ethnicity feels as if they are being denied opportunities because of their skin colour, the EEOC is one medium in which they can bring up their grievances. Article 14 also protects the civil rights of any American citizen regardless of colour, and any American can go to court if they feel as if they are being suppressed because of their ethnicity. I guess I feel so strongly about this because I do not believe that raising yourself up should not come at the expense of another, and because I believe in the concept of a meritocracy, where hard work, ability and talent rather than on class privilege are rewarded, because I feel that such a system is what is best for the country.
Another article titled “The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action” (Source B) by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. takes a similar stance, but walks the reader through an alternative route in reaching a conclusion by discussing the negative aspects of AA on minority students. A third article by the name of “Actually, we still need affirmative action for African Americans in college admissions. Here’s why” (Source C) by Valerie Strauss provides input from the other side of the spectrum by arguing that AA is still needed. While source A provides an extremely biased perspective on affirmative action and does little to persuade the audience with its weak language, source B presents a slightly stronger argument against affirmative through its descriptive language and academic tone, which appeals to the reader but fails to address the opposite side of the dispute. However, source C offers the most compelling argument through its thorough analysis of affirmative action that considers both sides of the spectrum with strong diction and formal tone to effectively convey its ideas to the
Affirmative action, while a great idea in the beginning, is no longer needed to make up for the past discrimination of women and minorities. It does not get rid of discrimination, but rather creates it towards whites and men. Any form of discrimination is wrong, whether intentional or unintentional. Businesses and universities will set aside a separate pool for minorities and women so they don’t have to originally compete against the whole pool of applicants. A person’s qualifications and how they got to where they are should not be questioned because of affirmative action. The only reason some people are still questioned or considered undeserving is because affirmative action still takes place. Getting rid of affirmative action in universities and businesses will eliminate reverse discrimination and ensure that their qualifications, along with achievements, will not be questioned based on the skin color or gender of a
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.
The first concept of affirmative action was presented by President Kennedy in a 1961 executive order. His order stated that government contractors should voluntarily support affirmative action efforts by recruiting, hiring and promoting minorities (Moreno 5). Higher education did not become the focus of affirmative action until the 1973 case Adams vs. Richardson. In this case the Department of Heath, Education and Welfare Published guidelines ordering a unitary higher education system. The goal of these guidelines was to ensure that the proportion of black high school graduates equaled the proportion of white graduates entering state institutions of higher learning (Moreno 6).
“Anyone interested in higher education should want to contemplate, on behalf of colleges and universities, students and faculty, alumni and paying parents, the fate of affirmative action(Chace, M William 20). The Oxford Dictionary states Affirmative Action is “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.” In 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order calling for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This is now known today as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC). Affirmative action policies would later be forced upon businesses and have also been instituted at many universities where minorities are given preferred admissions over non-minorities. An Example of this would be at the University of Michigan where applicants who represented racial or ethnic minorities were given 20 points towards admission out of a 150 point system where only 100 points were needed to gain admission. Trying to put the 20 points in perspective, applicants with perfect SAT scores only received 12 points toward admission. This system was later struck down by the Supreme Court, but another similar policy was upheld at the University of Michigan Law School. With how diverse our society is currently compared to years ago, it seems to compliment that the policies have indeed worked. But now, the policies are questioned by many as whether or not they moral, constitutional, and/or...
Affirmative action. What was its purpose in the first place, and do we really need it now? It began in an era when minorities were greatly under represented in universities and respectable professions. Unless one was racist, most agreed with the need of affirmative action in college admissions and in the workplace. Society needed an active law that enforced equality during a period when civil rights bills were only effective in ink. With so much of America¹s work force spawned from integrated schools now, some may question whether racism really is the problem anymore, and many college students might answer yes. They see it on college campuses today, and they are not sure why.
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.
Affirmative action started in the 1960’s as a way to end discrimination against African American and later all minorities - including women. By migrating people of all color into workplaces and colleges/universities seemed to be the suitable solution to diversify our nation. Although blacks had been freed for a 100 years, they continually struggled with segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the segregation of all sort in the United States, however that was not enough. Congress mandated the affirmative action program as a plan of desegregation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy made reference to this plan, but it was not until September 1965 that it was enforced by President Lyndon Johnson. The program affected federal jobs, to include federal contracting company, and universities. In order to receive federal funding, each entity had to hire and enroll minorities. Affirmative action was a good jump start to get our nation to where it is today. However, affirmative action should not be continued because it is a form of discrimination, it is more harmful than helpful, and it supplements race or gender for one’s qualification.
Affirmative action has been the topic of debate for many years. It has been controversial because it has been said to be a form of reverse discrimination. This paper will discuss the purpose behind affirmative action, as well as, its various strengths and weaknesses. Also, this paper will look at the following issues surrounding affirmative action such as the incompetency myth ( are companies hiring less qualified people?), the impact on employment (what has changed in the work place?), the impact on women (how have their lives changed?) and the impact on employment law (what documents back up affirmative action?). Lastly, a discussion of affirmative action on an international scale, and what international documents have to say about the topic. The purpose of this paper is to bring to light all the issues, and then make an educated statement of whether affirmative action is a worthwhile activity or if there is a better solution.
As the United States entered the 60s discrimination was still taking place, even after the passage of the civil rights act. Affirmative action was proposed as a way to bring equality to schools and the workforce. Polices were placed to ensure that African Americans and minorities had the same opportunities for school admissions, financial aid, and even advancements for careers and salary. One of the main goals for the affirmative action program was to ensure that minorities as well as women receive equal opportunities free of any type ...
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.
The history of affirmative action has its roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and stems from the United States Supreme case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. In 1969, the department of Labor exposed widespread racial discrimination of the Construction Department so President Nixon decided to incorporate a system of "goals and timetables" that provided guidelines for companies to follow and comply with affirmative action regulations. Which brings us to today
Signed in an executive order by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity was created to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. Three years later, President Lyndon Johnson presented the Civil Rights Act in 1964 prohibiting discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin (Wang & Shulruf, 2012). Later that same year, President Johnson gave a commencement speech attempting to give an ethical response to the losses both materially and mentally to the African-Americans in slavery in the United States (Chace, 2011). Within the later years of the 1960s, higher education institution administrators, in an effort to boost under-represented groups of minorities, introduced the affirmative action concept into the admissions processes (Wang & Shulruf, 2012).
Kennedy was president. Affirmative action is a result of the Civil Rights movement, because its original goal was to create equal opportunities for minority groups. “In 1961, President Kennedy was the first to use the term "affirmative action" in an Executive Order that directed government contractors to take ‘affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.’”(“Affirmative Action | Overview.” Feb. 7th, 2014, NCSL). Affirmative action has been brought up in the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. In 1978, the Bakke v. University of California was one of the first cases to be brought to the Supreme Court. It allowed race to be one of several factors during the college admission policy. In 2003, the Gratz v. Bollinger case regarding the University of Michigan, affirmative action was impacting their undergraduate admissions policy. Students who had 3.0 GPAs and high test scores on the ACT were not being accepted due to the fact that they wouldn’t benefit the school's racial diversity. Affirmative action doesn’t only apply to education, in 1965 President Lyndon signed an executive order requiring government contractors to to use the affirmative action policies while hiring in order to create more diversity in the workplace (“Affirmative Action | Overview.” Feb. 7th, 2014, NCSL). Affirmative action benefited many minority groups when the policy was first signed off in 1961; yet, America is rapidly changing and affirmative action policies seem to be creating controversy throughout the
Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school....