Affirmative Action in Higher Education
In its tumultuous forty year history, affirmative action has been both praised and attacked as an answer to racial inequality. The policy was introduced by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as a method of redressing discrimination that persisted despite civil right efforts and constitutional guarantees. After the passage of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, President Johnson shaped affirmative action through the passage of Executive Order 11246 in 1965. The executive order requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.
On college campuses nation wide, the debate over affirmative action policies started with the implementation of Title VII. Many viewed affirmative action programs as a tool that would not only expand the opportunities of minorities but also play a significant role in diversifying America’s colleges and universities. However, in the late 1970’s, despite its good intentions, flaws in the policy began to show up. Reverse discrimination became an issue, exemplified by the Regents of California vs. Bake case in 1978.
Allan Bakke, a white applicant, had been denied admission twice to the University of California Medical School at Davis, while less qualified minority students were being accepted. The medical school had separate admission policies for minority students and reserved and certain amount of spaces specifically for minorities. Bakke had felt that he had been discriminated against and maintained that his rejection violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, so he took the University of California Regents to the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of quotas as the medical school had set aside was not.
The most important affirmative action decisions since the Bakke decision were in the landmark 2003 cases involving University of Michigan’s affirmative action programs. Two cases, first tried in 2000 and 2001, were involved: Gratz v. Bollinger, which challenged the University of Michigan's undergraduate admission’s policy and Grutter v. Bollinger which challenged its law school admission’s policy. As Bakke had done before, both Gratz and Grutter challenged the constitutionality of the University’s admission policy, which they argued, was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
When Bakke applied again in 1974 he was once again rejected. This time Bakke sued the University of California. His position was that the school had excluded him on the basis of his race and violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitution, and civil rights legislation. The trial court ruled in Bakke's favor, however they did not order the University of California to admit him. Bakke appealed to the California Supreme Court where they ruled that the school's admissions programs were unconstitutional and ordered the school to admit Bakke as a student.
The name of this case and the specific facts, however, were unavailable at this time.9 Obviously affirmative action and reverse discrimination are still heavily debated issues. This is because they affect all people of all races and ethnicities. Conclusion Allan Bakke was denied his fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the laws. In addition the University of California at Davis violated Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By order of the Supreme Court Bakke was admitted and th e numerical quotas of the special admissions program were deemed unconstitutional. Justice was served to Bakke, but future generations who are not minorities may be plagued by the other half of the decision: That race may still be used as a "plus" on an application.
History has known far more authoritarian regimes than any other form of government. Authoritarianism is a form of non-democratic rule defined by state power being centralized in a single person or a small group of people. Unlike democracies, these individuals in power are not dependent on the people for power. Thus, under authoritarianism, state leaders have little accountability to the public and there is little individual freedom. Additionally, authoritarian regimes are not bound by a constitution that might limit their power. Such democratic liberties such as the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are highly controlled or non-existent. State policies are designed to maintain the power status quo in favor of the ruling group and perceived threats are marginalized or, in some cases, extinguished.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
The next challenge to Affirmative Action programs in higher education sets the precedent for future cases moving forward to the 21st century. The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1974) involved a white Anglo male, Allan Bakke, and the University of California, Davis Medical School (UCDMS). The plaintiff, already obtained a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, was denied admission to UCDMS. Bakke claimed that the university’s special admission minority program had reduced the number of places for which he could compete (Moreno, 2003, p. 17). During this time, many higher education institutions began using quota systems as a means to increase the number of students of color in their campus (Smallwood, 2015, p. 2). According
This paper explores the work of six published articles that discuss the topic of police militarization. The purpose of this paper is to explore the polarity between domestic policing and the military. This paper begins by discussing the evolution of the police and the military and then later determining the shift in strategy in favor of police militarization. The paper will also discuss the effect this change has on local communities as well as examples of recent occurences that have made their way into the public eye as a result of “police militarization”. Balko (2013) argues the prevalence of “police militairzation” with the use of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tatics) teams. Hall and Coyne (2013) discuss the factors and strategies in favor of
In 1978, in University of California Regents v. Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court held (5-4) that fixed quotas may not be set for places for minority applicants for medical school if white applicants are denied a chance to compete for those places. The court, however, did say that professional schools may consider race as a factor in making decisions on admissions. More recently than the Regents decision, in United Steelworkers of America V. Weber (1979) and Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), the court continued to hold for affirmative action.
Police tactics are completely justified and the public should not concentrate on the race of the criminal or the officer, but on the criminal and his/her crimes. Militarization of the police has been only for the safety of the public, and the officers themselves.
Our values, opinions and beliefs depend on what culture, religion and the society we come from. People who are against view euthanasia as murder and that we must respect the value of life. Those who are in favor of euthanasia believe that doing such act eliminates the patient’s pain and suffering. Also, the right to die allows the person to die with dignity. Euthanasia may involve taking a human’s life, but not all forms of killing are wrong nor consider as murder. It depends on the underlying reasons and intentions. If you value a person’s life and the cause of death is for the patient’s benefit and not one’s personal interest, then euthanasia is permissible.
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.
Chaney and Robertson, (2013) stated that “The Department of Justice office of Civil Rights has investigated more than a dozen police departments in major cities across the country on allegations of racial discrimination or police brutality”. Police brutality is defined as the use of excessive physical force or verbal assault and psychological intimidation. White police officers who grew up in the south and were raised to see African Americans in a negative way have a lower opinion of them. However, not all white police officers are from the south, some say that police officers are just abusing their power. When we look at what is going on around the country, it appears racism plays a part in police brutality. Even during this new digital age, there are video cameras in police cars facing the front of the vehicle, but that still does not hinder police using excessive
The height of reverse discrimination cases was in the 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The affirmative action policy in place had reserved sixteen spots for qualified minorities. University of California Medical School at Davis rejected Allan Bakke, a white man, twice, and both times the school admitted candidates less qualified than Bakke. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that race could be a consideration in an effort to promote diversity, but could not implement quota systems for minority students. In this way, the Supreme Court was able to continue promoting gains for minorities through affirmative action while limiting issues of reverse
Aristotle believes the amount of friends should be limited because a real friendship requires time. In battle, Plato agrees that if the enemy is also Greek, then precautions should be taken with regards to land, and killing, however if the enemy is not Greek, then there are no boundaries. Plato believes that knowing what is right will automatically lead to the right thing being done, while Aristotle believes that it isn 't enough to just know what is good, the person still must make the right choice. Plato believes that virtue wasn’t mandatory for a somewhat primitive kind of happiness, however Aristotle believed that virtue was needed. Plato basically believed that all of the virtues boil down to wisdom, and Aristotle believed that virtue must be practiced, and one can still be virtuous and unhappy. Socrates emphasizes that everyone is considered family, and there will be no divided loyalties in the perfect state. Also there would be no private ownership, which is responsible for feuds. Plato 's teacher Socrates believes that a philosopher should become a ruler, or the current ruler should learn philosophy, as philosophers are more aware of how to run the state. However, Aristotle believes that all sophists should stay out of
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?
For both Plato and Aristotle, virtue was considered essential for happiness. For Plato, wisdom is the basic virtue and with it, one can unify all virtues into a whole. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that wisdom was virtuous, but that achieving virtue was neither automatic nor did it grant any unification of other virtues. To Aristotle, wisdom was a goal achieved only after effort, and unless a person chose to think and act wisely, other virtues would remain out of reach