Free Essay

Affirmative Action

In: Business and Management

Submitted By samsaj
Words 3125
Pages 13
Affirmative Action
Julia Samsa

The History of Affirmative Action: Landmark Cases and Legislation
Affirmative action refers to policies designed to increase the presence of “underrepresented” demographic groups-such as racial or ethnic minorities and women-in specific sectors of the workforce or in the student bodies of American universities (Affirmative Action, 2010). Affirmative action policies are founded on the premise that any observed imbalance in a given workforce or student body is due, either wholly or in part, to past and/or present discrimination-the remedy for which consists of compensatory preferences in favor of the underrepresented group(s). These measures most commonly take the form of lowered standards for the hiring, promotion, or admission of members of the preferred groups and set-asides which reserve or earmark a designated percentage of slots for members of the preferred group.
Historically, the origins of affirmative action were subtle and incremental. The term “affirmative action” was first introduced to the nation by President John F. Kennedy in March 1961. The President signed Executive Order 10925 which established the President’s Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity (Magee, 2011). By this order, any business working under a federal government contract must take affirmative action in hiring and not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin (Wilcher, 2006). JFK’s order did not advocate for the preferential treatment of minority groups, but rather sought to eliminate discrimination.
The next step in affirmative action was the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation extended Kennedy’s order to non-governmental contractors, and prohibiting discrimination in voting, public education, and employment in firms with more than 15 employees. Criminal penalties, compensation for pain and suffering, and punitive damages were not provided by the act (Magee, 2011). Instead, a new agency was formed to address conciliation, the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a branch of the US Department of Labor (USDL).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 continued the affirmative action standards of Executive Order 10925. Senators Joseph Clark and Clifford Case, sponsors of the act, wrote that there should be no requirement for an employer to meet any particular racial mix of employees, because requiring a racial balance would require an employer “to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.”
When President Lyndon B. Johnson took office he argued that fairness required more than a promise to impartial treatment. So later in 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246. This policy stated that it is a policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each department and agency (Executive Order 11246-EEO, 1965). Two years later, Executive Order 11246 was amended with Executive Order 11345 to include sex as a classification for discrimination.
In 1966 the USDL started to collect and scrutinize employment records with breakdowns by race to evaluate hiring practices (Magee, 2011). In 1968, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance set requirements which detailed specific actions to guarantee equal employment opportunities for minorities. Debate over affirmative action has its origins in these requirements. Goals and timetables were developed which compared the percentage of women and minorities in a firm and the percentage of the work force (Magee, 2011). The term “disparate impact” was used to describe situations where the percentage of women and minorities in the firm did not match the percentage in the work force. These regulations created a measurable basis for the treatment of affected minorities and women.
The Equal Employment Act of 1972 enabled the EEOC to file class action law suits. In 1978, under the Carter Administration, the EEOC created a benchmark to define disparate impact frequently called the “four-fifths rule”. Essentially, these Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection stated that federally contracted employers should not be allowed to hire any race, sex, or ethnic group at a rate below four-fifths of any other group (Magee, 2011).
As affirmative action policies began to evolve and shape, many landmark cases came about to further improve and challenge the legislation. In the Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled against Duke Power’s employment requirement of high school diplomas for unskilled jobs, a practice which had a disparate impact on minority workers. Most importantly, the case set a precedent that employers may not engage in hiring practices which discriminate against minorities and women, except in extreme cases.
Another case that shaped affirmative action was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Allan Bakke was denied admission to the University of California at Davis’ Medical School, although his admission test scores were higher than minority students who were enrolled. At the time, UC Davis reserved 16 of 100 class slots for minorities. The Supreme Court decided that Bakke should be admitted to the program due to an inflexible quota system employed by UC Davis. UC Davis was advised to continue affirmative action practices to attain a diversified environment without a quota system (Magee, 2011).
During the Reagan and GHW Bush Administrations in the 1980’s, the momentum for affirmative action was reduced. Through court appointment, hiring and firing decisions, and budget cuts, the Reagan Administration sought to end affirmative action. From 1981 to 1983, the EEOC budget was cut by 10%, and its staff cut by 12%. Similarly, the Federal Contract Compliance Office budget was cut by 24% and staff cut by 34% (Magee, 2011).
Two case rulings that weakened the affirmative action movement were Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust in 1988 and Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio in 1989. In Watson v. Fort Worth Bank, Clara Watson, a minority employee of the bank, was passed over four times for promotion. She exhausted mediation through the EEOC, and then sued the bank under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Open Jurist, 2011). The bank had no formal selection criteria for the job, but relied on subjective judgment of white supervisors. The Supreme Court found that the burden of proof lay with the plaintiff in this case. The ruling reversed Griggs v. Duke Power as the burden of proof shifted from employers to plaintiffs (Magee, 2011).
In Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio, several minority cannery workers alleged that Wards Cove hiring and promotion practices were improper because cannery jobs were primarily filled by minority workers and management positions were filled primarily by whites. The Supreme Court decided that the unskilled jobs should be compared to the related labor market, and not to management jobs (CULS, 2010). Thus, disparity in the employer’s labor force was insufficient to prove disparate impact of specific jobs.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was an attempt to slow the retrenchment of the affirmative action movement. The Act returned the burden of proof to employers in disparate impact cases (reestablishing the Griggs v. Duke Power decision), and required employers using disparate impact in hiring to prove “job related” and “consistent with necessity” (overturning the Wards Cove v. Antonio decision) (Magee, 2011). The 1991 Act allows for restitution, back pay, and compensatory damages.
In the mid-1990’s, affirmative action programs continued to be reduced by the Republican-controlled Congress, state legislatures, and court decisions (Magee, 2011). Critics charged that affirmative action was a form of “reverse discrimination,” meaning that by favoring minorities and women it discriminated against white males. In addition, they argued that affirmative action sometimes prevented companies from hiring the best available worker, and in doing so caused resentment toward minority workers on the job (Magee, 2011).
In 1996 Californians passed California Proposition 209, which banned preferential treatment based on gender or race in employment, education, and state contracting. This effectively ended affirmative action except as necessary to meet federal law (Magee, 2011). Twice challenged unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court of California, this amendment to California’s constitution remains intact today (Ballotpedia, 2010). In the late 1990’s courts across the country followed California’s lead in striking down affirmative action policies in employment and education.
In 2003, the Supreme Court laid down definitive rulings regarding the use of affirmative action in universities in two landmark cases. In Gratz v. Bollinger, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both Caucasian, applied for admission to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts in 1995 and 1997, respectively. The university used a point system to guarantee admission where 20 of 100 points were automatically awarded to racial or ethnic minority candidates. The Supreme Court decided that the admission system was too mechanical, and thus unconstitutional (CULS, 2011). In Grutter v. Bollinger in the same year, Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, was denied admission to the University of Michigan’s Law School. When she learned that minority students with lower admission scores had been admitted, she sued the University for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court decided that the admission practices of admission were acceptable. Race can be considered in admission decisions to achieve the goal of a diverse student body (NPR, 2003).
In 2006 the affirmative action movement took another blow when the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a state constitutional amendment, effectively ended affirmative action in Michigan schools and universities. The amendment essentially overturned the Gratz v. Bollinger decision. The amendment has been unsuccessfully challenged several times.
Finally, from 2006 to 2008 anti-affirmative action movements, placed proposals on the ballots which would effectively change state constitutions. These proposals were defeated or abandoned in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Missouri. A similar issue was defeated by voters in Colorado.
Reverse Discrimination
Reverse discrimination, occasionally referred to as positive discrimination, is a form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. These groups are defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Reverse discrimination seeks to redress social inequalities where minority groups have been denied access to the same privileges of the majority group.
Frequently, the term “reverse discrimination” has been used in discussions of racial or gender quotas for collegiate admission to government-run educational institutions. These policies were held to be unconstitutional in the United States, while non-quota based methods, which may include race as a factor (including some affirmative action programs) are considered legal (Reverse Discrimination, 2011).
The first United States Supreme Court case to challenge reverse discrimination was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places out of 100 for “qualified” minorities, as part of the university’s affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke’s qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke’s applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first with California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 2011).
The question before the Supreme Court was, “Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to its medical school?”
The Supreme Court ruling was both yes and no. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.
A more recent case of reverse discrimination before the Supreme Court was Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 in 2007. The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose then as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was the racial factor, intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school’s student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Seattle’s total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal (PICS v. SSD No. 1, 2011).
A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools, sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Washington State law. A Federal District Court dismissed the suit, upholding the tiebreaker. On appeal, a three-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision.
Under the Supreme Court’s precedents on racial classification in higher education, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, race-based classifications must be directed toward a “compelling government interest” and must be “narrowly tailored” to that interest. Applying these precedents to K-12 education, the Circuit Court found that the tiebreaker scheme was not narrowly tailored. The District then petitioned for an “en banc” ruling by a panel of 11 Ninth Circuit Court judges. The en banc panel came to the opposite conclusion and upheld the tiebreaker. The majority ruled that the District had a compelling interest in maintaining racial diversity. Applying a test from Grutter v. Bollinger, the Circuit Court also ruled that the tiebreaker plan was narrowly tailored because the District did not employ quotas, the District had considered race-neutral alternatives, the plan caused no undue harm to races, and the plan had an ending point.
The question before the Supreme Court was threefold:
1. Do the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger apply to public high school students?
2. Is the racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools?
3. Dose a school district that normally permits a student to attend the high school of his or her choice violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying the student admission to his or her chosen school because of race in an effort to achieve desired racial balance?
The Court’s answer to those three questions were no, no, and yes. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a “strict scrutiny” framework and found the District’s racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the plurality opinion that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that “the present cases are not governed by Grutter.” Unlike the cases pertaining to higher education, the District’s plan involved no individualized consideration of the students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity (“white” and “non-white”). The District’s goal of preventing racial imbalances did not meet the Court’s standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: “Racial balancing is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity’.” The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District’s tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means. In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy agreed that the District’s use of race was unconstitutional but stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational opportunity.

Works Cited
Affirmative Action. (2010). Retrieved March 2011, from Discoverthe networks.org: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=126&type=issue
Ballotpedia. (2010, September 27). California Affirmative Action, Proposition 209. Retrieved March 2011, from Ballotpedia: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Affirmative_Action,_Proposition_209_(1996)
CULS. (2011). Gratz v. Bollinger. Retrieved March 2011, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html
CULS. (2010). Ward's Cove Packing Company, Inc v. Antonio. Retrieved March 2011, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0490_0642_ZD1.html
Executive Order 11246-EEO. (1965). Retrieved March 2011, from The Federal Register: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
Magee. (2011). Affirmative Action Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved March 2011, from US Legal.com: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affirmative-action/
NPR. (2003, June 23). Split Ruling on Affirmative Action. Retrieved March 2011, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/index.html
Open Jurist. (2011). Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust. Retrieved March 2011, from Open Jurist: http://openjurist.org/487/us/977/watson-v-fort-worth-bank-and-trust
PICS v. SSD No. 1. (2011). Retrieved 2011, from Oyez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_908
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. (2011). Retrieved 2011, from Oyez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811
Reverse Discrimination. (2011, January 30). Retrieved 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination#cite_note-0
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. (1998, November 10). Retrieved March 2011, from DOI University.
Wilcher, S. J. (2006, April 5). History of Affirmative Action. Retrieved March 2011, from Americans for Fair Chance: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/aahist.html

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Affirmative Action Affirmative action is a government policy that gives opportunities to minorities, women, and any group who has been the victim of discrimination in the past. Affirmative action is the outcome of the 1960’s Civil Rights movement, growing out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or gender. It was the 1978 Supreme Court decision, The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed for the use of race-based preferences as a means of fostering diversity, allowing affirmative action to be used in admissions policies. It was created with the intention to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups in education and employment. Initially affirmative action focused on improving opportunities for African Americans. Colleges and universities used Affirmative action in their admission process, with the hopes of increasing their enrollment of African Americans and later Hispanic students, two minorities that were falling behind in college acceptance rates. According to data from the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), in 2007, 70 percent of white high school graduates immediately enrolled in college, compared to 56 percent of African American graduates and 61 percent of Hispanic graduates. As more and more educational institutions began using affirmative action policies in their admissions process, it became a target of great debate. With Americans taking sides as affirmative...

Words: 1799 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Affirmative Action In an effort to improve this organization and to provide a positive workplace environment, it is my recommendation that the Board of Directors of this company should implement and sustain an affirmative action policy to ensure equal opportunity for all employees. Such a policy should establish specific standards to prevent discrimination against any employee based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or veteran status. This affirmative action policy should also comply with all equal opportunity laws and regulations. The underlying motive for affirmative action is the Constitutional principle of equal opportunity, which holds that all persons have the right to equal access to self-development (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2006). Discrimination is illegal as well as immoral. The adverse treatment of an individual based on class or category goes against the belief that America is the land of opportunity. Affirmative action attempts to correct and prevent further discriminatory actions. A thorough analysis of the make-up of this organization will provide a basis with which to begin drafting an effective affirmative action policy that will ultimately ensure that the workforce of this company is diverse, adequately trained, and promoted equally. The goals of this proposed affirmative action policy is to ensure that all prospective employees that are members of a protected-class receive proportionate consideration, the pursuit of fair...

Words: 796 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Counter arguments, Disproving other side, Con affirmative action Affirmative Action has been a long debated issue in United States. One group believes affirmative action should be abolished and other group thinks it serves an essential purpose. Our group believes Affirmative Action is fair and we still need it to eliminate discrimination and establish inequality to make our country is a better place. The continued use of affirmative action is still needed to address our existing discrimination and to break down all the barriers to make sure each individual have an equal opportunity so that they can prove themselves in the society as per their talents and abilities. Compare to other countries United States have made significant progress in recent years in creating equal access to opportunity, but we still need to accomplish more. Affirmative action worked as a proven solution that had been addressing existing discrimination and promoting equal opportunity. Ending affirmative action would end the dreams of opportunity for many. “The fundamental purpose of affirmative action is to further equal opportunity and counter or prevent current discrimination. Importantly, affirmative action programs have a positive impact not only on women and people of color, but all members of our society”. This program ensures equality and provides opportunity to many women, people of color, disabled, and veterans. It is a path where they can compete and be evaluated fairly for jobs and education...

Words: 1399 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Many have argued over the years that affirmative action in schools or the workforce is necessary for the fusion and equality of our culture. In the book, Taking Sides, two different authors discuss each view of either side of the issue. Affirmative Action began as a government policy to aid in ending racial discrimination and promote equal opportunities to minorities. Both Robert Staples and Roger Clegg have a solid view of where they stand on the issue of affirmative action. Staples agrees that affirmative action is necessary to achieve racial equality. He does not believe that the United States has reached the point of being a color-blind society. Staples sees racism still being present in our modern society. Staples argues that the argument against affirmative action is only a plot to keep the white men at their privileged status at the expense of the minorities. Staples points out affirmative action is not a program used exclusively by blacks. White women are often the primary beneficiaries. Also, he recognizes that minorities, specifically blacks, are still being treated unfairly and unequally. Staples argues that there is no clear definition for Affirmative Action. It tends to be interpreted differently by many people. It has been estimated that five million people of color have gotten their jobs due to affirmative action. His stance on the issue of affirmative action is that it is the fairest way to include everyone to an equal opportunity, whether it is in the schools...

Words: 1205 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Affirmative action, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. In this paper I will discuss the history of affirmative action and its effects on education in our society, and whether a program such as affirmative action is still necessary today. I will argue why affirmative action is necessary for minorities to gain equal opportunities educationally and how affirmative action helps to mend the wounds that past discrimination has inflicted upon minorities. Affirmative action requires that supervisors in charge of economic and educational opportunities take into consideration a candidate’s sex, disabilities, and ethnic background when accepting positions, especially if the candidate’s ethnic affiliation has had a history of racial discrimination. These minority groups are entitled to special considerations, typically viewed as payments made by the government to settle past discrimination. The effects of affirmative action have been well seen in educational systems where educators have long been pressured into giving preference to minorities even if they have lesser qualifications, to help write off past discrimination. Affirmative action was established on the basis that because of the past discrimination of races, our nation was unable to flourish into what it should have become, a...

Words: 1185 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Affirmative Actions

...Running Head: AFFERMATIVE ACTION Affirmative Actions Affirmative action is an action taken by an organization to select on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity by giving due preferences to minorities like women and races being not adequately represented under the existing employment. To make the presentation of all these compositions almost equal in proportion to do away the injustice done in the past. The Supreme Company need to design an affirmative action program in the light of recent Supreme Court judgment passed in favor of affirmative actions to be adopted by various companies. Affirmative action is not free from controversies. It is one of the issues in the country, which has raked most controversies since past few decades. The purpose is the implementation would be correct the past discriminative actions against the minorities. It is a fact that minorities are not well represented in all the sectors of U.S economy. The logic and rational always given against the affirmative actions that it kills the meritocracy and the policy is of bringing in favoritism in the spirit of work culture. This would lead to loss in productivity and would be instrumental in bringing down the morale of work forces. This rational would have justification had the philosophy of affirmatives been laid without proper designing it. Care need to be taken in observing each and every details that how it is going to affect the meritocracy, the percentage of minorities like...

Words: 1087 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Abstract Using research references written by Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander, Laura P. Hartman, Raina Kelley, Brian Lilley and Jonathan Stempel, I examined the results of their findings in relation to my project. Based on their information, I determined affirmative action is still an instrumental tool in balancing the work force in the United States. There are still jobs that are out of reach for certain minority groups. As long as this imbalance exists so does the need for affirmative action. Do We Need Affirmative Action? Is affirmative action still needed in today’s society? Some people do not think so; others do. I believe affirmative action is still necessary as long as a minority group of people (Blacks, Hispanics, Women, etc.) attempting to acquire jobs in certain markets believes they are not getting those jobs because they are being discriminated against by the majority group that holds them. I will attempt to present some sources to reinforce my conclusion. I will discuss the original purpose of affirmative action and present some cases being discussed or ruled on in present day courts. I hope to show that affirmative action expands opportunity by promoting inclusion of underrepresented minorities in all areas of the job market and it is not intended to take jobs away from those in the majority. Its Purpose I’ve been in the military since 1987. The military has a zero tolerance rule for any type of discrimination and it’s strictly enforced from the top...

Words: 1597 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Eddiana Hernandez MGMT 463-61 Prof. Palmiere Final Paper Affirmative Action: Exploring a Common Ground The term affirmative action was introduced by President Kennedy during the Cold War and around the Civil Rights Movement it was then expanded by President Johnson. Affirmative action programs were created in an attempt to make sure that all groups within a society are given the same opportunity to succeed in the workplace and higher education. It has always been a controversial topic because of the guidelines surrounding it and the alleged double standard it creates since it protects some groups and leaves others out of the “iron umbrella”. Usually Caucasian males are against the action and most of the time demand reform or abolition of such programs. And that is because Caucasian and Asian males are not protected under the act. Affirmative action is one of those programs I believe have a double standard and therefore I have decided to look at it from both perspectives giving it a glance from a compromising way from both opponents and advocates of the act. Over the years it has given people opportunities that otherwise would have not been possible for the person who is part of a minority group but it had also affected the other areas in our society. The issue I have with the act is that is been used as the solely deciding factor to give someone a chance. For example, an African America high school graduate should not be getting into college just for simple fact of being...

Words: 1399 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Affirmative Action The Emancipation Proclamation issued January 1, 1863, set slaves in the confederate states free. The Thirteenth Amendment permanently abolished slavery. The former confederate states, not wanting to let go of their control over blacks, established the restrictive “Black Codes.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 proposed by Andrew Johnson was the first Civil Rights act ever written. The act was turned down by congress. The act would have given all blacks the same rights as whites. The issue of discrimination has been addressed in the court system many times. Beginning with the Dred Scott v. Sanford (1) case, in which the Supreme Court ruled, that blacks as “subordinate and inferior beings,” could not constitutionally be citizens of the United States. More recently, the Bakke case gave a look at the workings of affirmative action. A white student was denied admission to U.C. Davis because the school had already met its quotas for white students. “Affirmative action”(2) is a term coined by President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. In an executive order Johnson declared that federal contractors should take “affirmative action,” this was to guarantee that “applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Executive Order #11246 would increase the number of minorities employed by federal contractors. This order would become a major policy issue for...

Words: 706 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.   Definition of Diversity           The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences.  These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies.  It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual. Back to Diversity Initiatives Home Page Pros to Affirmative action: The Pro-Affirmative Action Side: It is a Fair and Necessary Program Proponents of Affirmative Action say that it is necessary to ensure that minorities have a fair opportunity in employment and education. The American Civil Liberties Union Briefing Paper #17 lists a number of reasons why Affirmative Action remains vital; among the statistics shared: Read more at Suite101: The Pros and Cons of Affirmative...

Words: 453 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Though affirmative action may have been valuable in the beginning, it has long since outlived any usefulness it may have had. That it ever had any usefulness is questionable, based on comparisons between overall black populations socioeconomic standing today and that of the mid-1960’s. Today, it is little more than a scapegoat behind which inferior performance can hid very well, and that scapegoat’s upkeep has become far too extravagant in today’s society. “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock my brothers and sisters--Plymouth Rock landed on us,” Malcolm X’s observation is brought out by the facts of America history. Snatched from their native land transported thousands of miles--in a nightmare of disease and death and sold into slavery blacks were reduced into the legal status of farm animals. Even after emancipation, blacks were segregated from whites--in some states by law, in social practice almost everywhere. American apartheid continued for another century. In 1954 the Supreme Court declared state compelled segregation in schools unconstitutional, and it followed up that decisions with others that struck down many other forms of official segregation. Still discrimination survived, and in most southern states blacks were either discouraged or prohibited from excersizing their rights to vote. Not until the 1960’s was compulsory segregation finally and effectively challenged. Between 1964 and 1968 congress passed the most sweeping legislation since the end of...

Words: 3048 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Is Affirmative Action still necessary? Introduction This topic will explore if Affirmative action is still necessary in the 21st century. Affirmative Action is the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority group members, in employment. It has been commonly referred to as a positive discrimination policy or program designed to counter discrimination against minority groups and women in areas such as employment and education (dictionary.com). “Pro” position There are several reasons to justify Affirmative Action. It was developed to assist society’s less-advantaged members by promoting affirmative action policies is to remedy the effects of past discrimination. Along with the use of the Affirmative Action policy there is the recognition that wrongs have been committed in the past and acknowledgment that there is a moral obligation to set things right (pros and cons). African Americans are not the only, or even the main beneficiaries of affirmative action. There are a wide range of groups that have benefited from Affirmative Action. Some of the groups include women, Native Americans, Arab Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and African Americans. According to the United States Department of Labor, it found that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action (aapf.org). “Con” position The opposing view point states that it is reverse discrimination. Those opposed of affirmative action do not contest the moral obligation to...

Words: 1603 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...How Affirmative Action Ban Affect College Admission? Abstract: In this research paper I examined the effects of affirmative action ban on the university enrollment stage. The importance of this topic is that it is very contentious social issue today. In this paper I mentioned some of the experiences of African American activist Ward Connerly, examples of his movement and his opponent approach towards affirmative action. The research finds that affirmative action bans decrease the enrollment in selective universities. However, affirmative action debate will continue in the United States. From research discussions I find that affirmative action carries out emotional reaction, because the concern is the inequality in education. However throughout the research I found some confusions and mixed proofs for that concern. Affirmative action in college admission is one of today’s most argumentative social policy issues. The supporters of affirmative action view it as a just response to past or present discrimination, stress the social benefits of producing minority role models and leaders, and claim that there are educational benefits to diversity. At the same time its opponents contend that it is an impediment to achieving a race-blind society and may even be harmful to those it is intended to directly benefit. The issue has been in headlines as affirmative action in college admissions has been limited in recent years by court decisions...

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

...Affirmative Action Affirmative action is wrong and will not help solve the problems minorities face. The reason it is wrong is because it's discrimination. It has no place in today's society in today's society because it does more bad than good. In addition to that most people don't enjoy the presence of affirmative action. Also, it appears that affirmative action can actually be detrimental to employees health. First of all, affirmative action is discrimination, there is no hiding it. When an employer hires anyone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else if more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. Affirmative action legalizes discrimination (Steele 1990, 39). "I thought discrimination was illegal in this country (Buchanan 1995, 1)." Also, if this discrimination continues racism in the United States may become worse. Imagine what you would feel like if you couldn't get a job just because you are a white man and not a hispanic man. The racism will become worse because of it, and that is the very thing it is trying to prevent. It is possible that because of affirmative action, racism will grow and continue to grow until we history repeats itself and we end up living under Jim Crow laws again. That is an extr! eme possibility to end up under Jim Crow laws again, but it is a definite possibility...

Words: 1057 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Affirmative Action

..."Affirmative Action" was initiated in the early 1960's by President John F. Kennedy in an attempt to improve employment and educational opportunities for people belonging to a minority population ("Affirmative Action"). After the assassination of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. This act started a wave of affirmative action that would later impact every American opportunity ("Civil Rights Act"). At the end of the decade businesses across America were enforcing provisions set forth by the Civil Rights Act, along with other legal enforcements that assisted minority groups of race, disability, gender, ethnicity and age. Though he was against the idea of meeting quotas in the workplace, President Richard Nixon in 1969 used the city of Philadelphia as a test when he "required federal contractors to show "affirmative action" to meet the goals of increasing minority employment" (Brunner). The quotas also found a way into the federally funded educational institutions as by this time numerous regulations had been initiated insisting the entrance of minority group members (Eisaguirre 2). While there were many supporters of affirmative action who saw this as the only way to change the historically discriminative American society, many others saw a trend of reverse discrimination in the nation (Eisaguirre 3). Although I believe that the plan of affirmative action has been beneficial to attain equal rights in our society, I don't think that these ideas can...

Words: 1962 - Pages: 8