More handpicked essays just for you.
Landmark bakke v regents case conclude
Affirmative action for college admissions
Affirmative action in college admissions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Landmark bakke v regents case conclude
Enjoyable post Ian, it is definitely unfair to other applicants who worked very hard to meet admission standards at a college or university. The biggest issues have been; how to balance the racial population at a college or university? Some colleges are trying affirmative action, where they are specifically granting special consideration to racial minorities. In spite of these special considerations to racial minorities this action does not always agree with justice. Whenever you give special treatment to one minority you are discriminating against another commonly called reverse discrimination, which is in violation against our constitution’s equal protection clause. In the case of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) the
I do not believe that students are accepted to college based on their skin color being white, with that being said I do believe that there is a fair process for accepting college students to schools. The numbers of white student to minority students may be very different, but I do not believe that has to do with a raciest selection of a student body. Acceptance to any college should be based off experience and how well you did in high school and none of that is determined by the color of anyone’s
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.
The institution of public education has been one of the most controversial establishments in the United States since its inception. More specifically, equality in the conditions and the opportunities it provides has been sought as one of its major goals. There is little doubt that minority ethnic groups have struggled to achieve educational equality, just as they have struggled for equality in other aspects of life. One way that minorities have tried to achieve equality in education is through lobbying for help in college admissions for their respective groups. This social practice has been debated on many grounds, including necessity and ethical permissibility.
No one—whether they’re black, white, Asian, Latino, or female—should have their qualifications questioned because of their skin color. Still using affirmative action today causes more problems than it should for minorities and women. Skin color should not be a factor of consideration for anything. Only scores, hard work, and dedication should be used to determine how a person will possibly succeed in college or a job.
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.
Bollinger case, the Gratz v. Bollinger case favored a different ruling in which race was not constitutional for distributing 20 or 1/5 of points to minorities who were underrepresented on the campus of state universities. I too agree with the court's decision because race can often get complicated when other factors such as being bi-racial and being a certain percentage of other ethnicities can be difficult to classify or group. Giving me 20 points on my application just because I'm Black is somewhat impeding and downgrading; my education, extra-curriculum activities, and other leadership experiences will be devalued and unappreciated in my eyes. I am a strong advocate for more racial inclusion and diversity programs on college campuses; however, I understand that race can be complex with negating and challenging certain stereotypes or other taboo topics that relates to race and ethnicity. Thus, another person's race should not be more valued or look down upon just because of phylogenetic features. Each race should be viewed as one of the same, but in reality, its not because of economical disparities, political beliefs, and social
“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...
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a SAT score of 2300 to be considered for admission at a top school such as Yale and a white applicant might need a score of 2100, while an African American or Hispanic only needs a score of 1700. While affirmative action provides equality in the workplace, it has no place in the college admissions process and should, therefore, be abolished and replaced. This type of policy can be repealed completely, replaced with a college admissions process that favors first generation college applicants, or replaced with a policy based on an applicant’s socioeconomic status.
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.
However, even as early as 1978 the Supreme Court has made it a point to not support laws that provide for "reverse discrimination," which Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines as "discrimination against whites or males as in employment or education." The Supreme Court stated that this isn’t acceptable when it decided "reverse discrimination" is not acceptable legally or constitutionally (Affirmative, Encyclopedia American 35). I think what they mean by this is that, even though affirmative action is necessary, it should not be so harsh as to make it so the "majority" is then discriminated against in return, because then it is just reversing the discrimination, hence the term "reverse discrimination." There have been many court cases that support each side of this issue.
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.
Affirmative Action Affirmative action can be defined as action taken to compensate for past unfairness in the education of minorities. The current system of affirmative action allows universities to admit applicants from certain ethnic and minority groups with lower credentials. The main purpose of affirmative action is to produce a diverse campus population that is comparable to today's society. The use of race as a facto by which someone is admitted to college in the long run will compromise the quality of the university. Implicating affirmative action to solve the problem of diversity on today's campuses has lead to the creation of problems.
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.
Affirmative Action is defined as an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and woman (Merriam-Webster). Recently a landmark decision on a regarding affirmative action has being in the forefront; Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in which the United States Supreme Court banned the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. A white law school candidate in 1997 with a GPA of 3.8 trials the University of Michigan Law School use of race being the reason in the admissions process due to being denied as a student at Michigan Law. The decision in this court case was the University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Imagine waking up tomorrow and reading in the local paper that the government was giving tax breaks to minorities in order to prevent discrimination. Congress insists that the deductions will “help level the playing field” in American society, claiming that diversity is necessary in creating an ideal nation, but is this attempt to prevent disparities and racism not an act of inequality in itself? By putting this policy into place, the government is giving advantages to minorities without showing the same generosity to Caucasians of the same economic backgrounds. Protests would be taking place around the country as citizens argue that the plan violates their Constitutional right to equality. Yet this is exactly the type of scenario seen in universities across the country. Colleges use race as a large factor in admissions in order to create “optimal diversity” among the students. However, this attempt at variety often comes at the expense of white and Asian students. For these reasons, affirmative action policies in college admissions should be eliminated in the United States.