Affirmative Action And Its Impact On Education

There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring

Affirmative action in college admissions continues to be heatedly debated. In 2003, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity was a compelling interest for colleges to use race in admissions. In the amicus brief that the American Sociological Association et al. provided to the Supreme Court, sociological evidence was presented to elucidate the value of affirmative action. Yet in 2006, Proposal 2 was passed in Michigan to ban affirmative action in public education (Levitsky). Based on the information in the amicus brief, the correlation between race and socioeconomic status of the minorities, and the negative effects of banning affirmative action, admissions officers at the University of Michigan should consider

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

Affirmative Action began in 1965 when President Johnson signed the Executive Order 11246 in to law. The Executive Order prevents federal contractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The phrase “affirmative action” was first coined, when federal contractors were required to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants were not discriminated against in anyway. When affirmative action was created, it only included minorities. In 1967, Johnson decided to expand the program to include women because women were discriminated against much like minorities. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, affirmative action was a method used to stop

Recently the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave schools across the country a higher standard to abide by when using affirmative action when making admission decisions. This case was brought to attention by Abigail Fisher, a white women rejected by the University of Texas. The verdict was a tame one and ruled in favor of Fisher with admissions requiring ““no workable race-neutral alternatives” when a student’s acceptance status is determined. This avoided much debate compared to the capacity the Court has for changing the nation.

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

This idea of admission “quotas” was short lived however and in 1978 the Supreme Court in the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke ruled that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violated the Equal Protection Clause, but race can be used as one factor for college admission (Week). Affirmative action originated as a type of redistribution policy or tool to aid in the social and economic mobility of minorities. In regards to college admissions, it was implemented as a way to increase the number of minorities accepted to universities, for reasons of giving them the opportunity for economic advancement by earning a degree. Over time President Kennedy’s “without regard” standards have given birth to policies that allow admissions officers to treat applicants “with regard” to race, which has been justified as expanding opportunities for the underprivileged and more often fostering diversity. Today the term “affirmative action” is a nice word for racial preferences.

As tensions surrounding race-sensitive admissions continue to grow, proponents of eliminating race-based policies are gaining momentum. A conservative political climate, as seen in the mandates for race neutrality in California and Washington and a recent court decision (Hopwood v. State of Texas), which significantly limits the use of race as criteria for admissions in three states, fuel this charge. Although race sensitive admissions policies are still widely used, a vocal opposition has destabilized the foundation on which these practices are based (Tierney, 1997).

According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1993), African-American in higher education face many impediments such as not being hired, by prominent white universities and colleges. President Kennedy signed “Executive Order 110925 in 1961” making affirmative-action in the higher education field, a priority. Many continue to question what is affirmation-action, what does it do? What does it mean? And what is it use for in United States. Although African-Americans focus on many issues in education and employment, as two of them are primary concerns Affirmation-action is specifically concerned with

Robert D. Putnam et. al. and Abigail Thernstrom et. al. address affirmative action policies at colleges and universities as a broader social issue than just an individual getting into the university in their amicus curiae briefs. Thernstrom submitted her amici brief in favor of the petitioner, Abigail N. Fisher et. al., and Putnam submits his amici brief in favor of the respondents, The University of Texas et. al. The University of Texas chose not to admit Ms. Fisher, who was then a high school student. Ms. Fisher then sued the University, arguing that the use of race in applications and admission decisions to and of the University were discriminatory under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. These amici briefs were submitted

The Affirmative Action Act was created to ensure that minority groups and women were given the same opportunities in education and employment that were traditionally afforded to white males. According to the National Conferences of State Legislatures, affirmative action is, “…an outcome of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups and women in education and employment. 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." The Executive Order also established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, now known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)” (NCLS, 2014). Affirmative action was further reinforced in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson when he signed an executive order requiring government contractors to increase the number of minorities that are offered employment.

The questionable existence of affirmative action continues to create a pervasive tug of war between proponents and opponents of affirmative action. The cornerstone of affirmative action policies initiated from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unequal—ultimately forever changing the system of education in America. This groundbreaking decision served as a gateway, with the goal of “leveling the playing field” and remedying the grotesque American past rooted in harsh racial discrimination against non-white individuals, primarily of African American descent. As a result of swift implementation of affirmative action policies, cultural and racial diversity quickly diversified

The words "affirmative action" were first recorded in law in the year 1961 under the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Congress passed Executive Order 10925 instructing federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color,

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

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.