Affirmative Action Case Summary

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

Among the citizens of America affirmative action is a sensitive subject with some seeing it as a necessity to help those who have been repressed and others seeing it as reverse racism. Many Americans may also be conflicted about affirmative action, because it is such a complex issue. People fervently debate affirmative action, because it is a complex issue revolving around one’s own race, experiences, and desires.

Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and

The Law School initially placed petitioner on a waiting list, but subsequently rejected her application. Petitioner alleged that respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. The outcome of this ruling was the court ruled in favor that someone can be denied admission in preference of a different race that meet the same qualifications. The University of Michigan Law School was conducting highly individualized reviews of each applicant, and the courts determined that race was only one of the many factors they had considered for eligibility of their applicants (Grutter,

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

She claimed that the reason for this was because of the affirmative action policy that the university had in place. The case gained traction and was taken to the Supreme Court. This also sparked up a national conversation about affirmative action throughout the nation. An article in the New York Times had quotes from some of the Justices stating that it is necessary to have affirmative action that way the classroom can stay diversified (Liptak

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

One of the controversial topics and philosophical questions that really sparked my interest was affirmative action. The author of text that I will be drawing connections from is Tom L. Beauchamp and his publication is titled “In Defense of Affirmative Action”. The theme behind his work is self-explanatory from the title. Beauchamp states the strong arguments as to why people want to abandon affirmative action, but also gives his own insight and support to defend its existence and continued implementation. He understands that there is flaws with affirmative action, but the policy does more good than bad, thus it should be continued.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of the statistics, however, shows

Affirmative Action is a policy in the United States of America. It is in use to help minorities get equal treatment in admissions policies for big businesses and higher educational programs. In one way or another, this policy affects almost every person in America. It affects people directly, and most commonly, indirectly. When this policy affects people, it usually affects them in a negative way. When Affirmative Action first started, it was a descent policy, but with changes in society, it has become a policy that does more harm than good. Since this is what the policy currently does, Affirmative Action should be out of use for every application it has a function for. So, this policy should be out of every law book in America to

A major controversy encompassing the country is the issue of affirmative action. Many believe that the abolition, or at least restructure, of affirmative action in the United States will benefit the nation for many logical reasons. Originally, affirmative action began as an attempt to eliminate discrimination and provide a source of opportunity; affirmative action did not begin as an attempt to support just minorities and women. In addition, affirmative action naturally creates resentment when the less qualified are preferred instead of the people actually deserve the admission or job. Another reason that has existed since the abolition of slavery is the myth that women and ?minorities? cannot compete

The roots of affirmative action can be traced back to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act where legislation redefined public and private behavior. The act states that to discriminate in private is legal, but anything regarding business or public discrimination is illegal ("Affirmative" 13). There are two instances when opposing affirmative action might seem the wrong thing to do. Even these two cases don't justify the use of affirmative action. First is the nobility of the cause to help others. Second, affirmative action was a great starter for equality in the work place. The most prominant variable in deciding affirmative action as right or wrong, is whether or not society is

Affirmative action supporters make one large assumption when defending the policy. They assume that minority groups want help. This, however, may not always be the case. They fought to attain equality, not special treatment. To some of them, the acceptance of special treatment is an admittance of inferiority. Some would include me. I believe I can become successful on my own. I don’t need laws to help me get a great job. I along with many others who are against affirmative action want to be treated as equals, not as incompetent. Although discrimination is not placed in a well-distant past, affirmative action is an unneeded and drastic remedy for today’s world (Farron, Steven, 2005)

Amid these good intentions however, downsides in the system became obvious as early as the 1970?s, brought into the open by the famous case of Allan Bakke (Brunner, par 3). Bakke, a white college student had been turned down by a medical school twice, while reserved positions went to under-qualified minorities. Similar cases of protest against affirmative action have been heard over the years (Brunner, par. 3-10) shining light on the unfairness of a system designed to bring society together.