Affirmative Action Curbed in California Essay

Corwin mentions how affirmative action, the policy of favoring members of a group who suffers from discrimination, plays a role in the admissions of inner-city students to universities. Since most inner-city students are of minorities and lack stable economic conditions, many people accuse them of being more favored by administrators. However, a study suggests that “about 45 percent of the students who were accepted as a result of affirmative action, despite lower grades and test scores, were white.” They were chosen as a result of possessing “characteristics…other than race that were deemed important.” Furthermore, even after affirmative action ended, Pete Wilson, a presidential nominee at the time, ran his own affirmative action program that “benefitted the children of the rich and influential white people,” those he considered to “play by the rules.” Corwin also reveals that Wilson has used his position to gain UC admissions for his family and acquaintances; some of whom were chosen before more qualified

The topic of “Affirmative Action” policy, placed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, introduced the program to reduce discriminatory acts towards “underrepresented and minority groups, which required and ensured any applicant are employed—without regards to race, creed, color, or national origin (663).” In Richard Rodriquez article “None of This Is Fair,” published in 2007, he tells his own account of discrimination as a student. Rodriguez attended Stanford, Columbia, and the University of Berkley during the “Affirmative Action” period. Being of Mexican-American heritage, Rodriguez writes in great detail about his struggles, emotionally and mentally, throughout his collegiate years. Rodriguez’ main argument is all individual rights,

Wilson also appointed southern segregationists to separate employees. He did draft many black soldiers into the army, hundreds of thousands in fact, however he kept them segregated and put them in black regiments with white (usually strictly racist) officers. He was heavily criticised by both sides. African Americans believed his actions were discriminatory and he was believed to take segregation too far, however others believed that he didn’t restrict black employment enough, especially within government. From looking at his actions, he didn’t impose much legislation which was specifically targeted at African Americans, however his enthusiastic support of segregation meant that it became an issue for blacks in both their everyday lives to the progression of their civil rights.

Affirmative Action. For many Texas high school students, these two words haunt them. Their future, or at least their future at the University of Texas, depends on these words. For Abigail Noel Fisher, a 2008 graduate from Sugar Land, Texas, affirmative action and its race bias policies allegedly ruined her chances of getting into this prestigious state university. Fisher argues that race should not be a factor in college admissions processes, Fisher argues for equality. Equality in respect to race is in our constitution; it surrounds us everyday. In theory, race should be irrelevant in this day and age. Humanity has established that one race is not superior to another, so why should race matter at all in the college admissions process? Why should the University of Texas, or any other university, have that “check your race” box on their applications? Abigail Fisher, and every other person applying to the university, deserves as much opportunity as every other student of any race. When it comes to college, intelligence and character should be key to admission- not the color of the applicant’s skin. The University of Texas’ current affirmative action policy is an unfair college admissions process that the Supreme Court should ban so that admissions are based on intellectual ability in high school, national testing scores, extracurricular activities, and community service; this should be changed so that every person,

Antonovics, Kate. "The Effect of Banning Affirmative Action on College Admissions Policies and Student Quality." Journal of Human

Implying that congress does not have the constitutional authority to punish states for the past by using old data to impose upon elections (and the 10th amendment) in the present. If congress is to justify treating the states differently by denying 10th amendment powers to regulate elections, then it must be based on ‘current conditions’ and ‘current needs’. The justice goes on to argue the importance of state sovereignty citing Katzenbach and Norwest Austin and continually reiterating this concept throughout the

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

In the Maine School Administrative District No. 32, it is the intent to pursue policies of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity in all of its departments, programs, and activities. They’ve used affirmative action to insure that all applicants are treated fairly during employment. Such affirmative action applies to, but is not limited to, employment, appointment, selection, up grading, demotion, transfer, recruitment advertising, lay-off, termination, rates of pay and fringe benefits or other forms of compensation and selection for training or academic leave. It also has established procedures to insure that the effects of its actions upon students, parents, citizens, local educational authorities, schools, libraries, towns and other organizations, and persons are non-discriminatory. It is their policy to insure equal employment/educational opportunities/affirmative action regardless of race, sex, color, national origin, marital status, religion, age or handicap in accordance

I propose that the state of California overturn Prop 209, which had previously removed race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin as consideration factors for admission to universities for undergraduate learning. Increasing additional students of color who enroll not only expands opportunities but also enhances the educational experiences of white students. Overturning Proposition 209 means there would be an increase in access to higher education for a growing number of students, reflecting a more accurate distribution of the

July 6, 1964: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs The Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination and mentions the use of “affirmative action to overcome the effects of prior discrimination.”

In the lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender (LGBT) community affirmative action should also obtain continued changes. Brandi Bower, longtime Hastings resident and LGBT advocate notes some of the changes that are needed, starting with Nebraska Legislative Bill 568 (LB 586). LB 586 document states the following actions for the communities rights, “Prohibiting disqualification of any person from taking an examination, from promotion or from holding a position because of race, sex, unless it constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification, or national origin, physical disabilities, age, political or religious opinions or affiliations, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other factors which have no bearing upon the individual's fitness

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

In the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin multiple individuals played a vital political role. The plaintiff Abigail Smith sued the defendant the University of Texas after being denied admission. She believed that the school was racially discriminating against her after finding that the university had accepted students of racial minority with lower grades and test scores. The university president, Bill Powers proclaimed in defense," We remain committed to assembling a student body…that provides the educational benefits of diversity…while respecting the rights of all students…” (Williams, McClam). With a 4-3 ruling the Supreme Court decided that the use of affirmative action in university admissions decisions was in fact

The article starts with the result of the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which gave supporters of affirmative action a major win

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