Case Of 1986 Amplify The Importance Of Diversity

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

In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

Affirmative action is a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination of minorities through active measures in order to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. In other words, it is policy that was established to hopefully eliminate racial preference and equalize the United States. The fight against discrimination has been a long lasting one that started with the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, which ended in the desegregation of all schools (Ficker). Affirmative action was put into place in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Executive Order that mandated government contractors to “take affirmative action” in all aspects of hiring and employing minorities (Brunner). Upon its arrival, the policy

Even though affirmative action does not entail direct payments for past discrimination, most supporters view it as a compensatory program; the greater economic opportunities it affords its beneficiaries do constitute a kind of reparations and are intended as such. After more than 30 years of affirmative action -- and my work on a comprehensive article on this subject in 20 Yale Law & Policy Review 1 (2002) -- several effects seem clear. (Many other effects, both good and bad, are more debatable).

Although the majority correctly avoided the constitutional question, Justice Scalia authored a concurring opinion addressing the issue. Justice Scalia’s opinion poses the question: “[w]hether or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?” Id. at 2682, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 515. Justice Scalia’s assertion that “Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes” mischaracterizes the Act. Id. The disparate-impact provision of Title VII simply allows for and encourages employers to be cognizant of the racial impact of their business practices so that they can craft fair assessment procedures that gives everyone equal opportunity. Justice Scalia callously classified the City’s action as racial decision-making. This contention disregards the fact that race consciousness was deemed

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

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

In the case of Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 the court reversed the judgment and because of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which prohibited the discrimination based on race, therefore, equitable relief to achieve its purposes, including the ability to award seniority retroactively. Due to the title 7 and Civil Rights Act of 64 which prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin as well as in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974);same asMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973); as well as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-430 (1971), in addtion, an ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the "highest

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

Affirmative Action was established during the Civil Rights era to address the problem of racial inequality in the workforce and the educational field. Advocates of affirmative action since have argued that it is necessary to maintain it to make sure that diversity in schools and the workplace is upheld. They also have argued that in the absence of affirmative action, minorities and members of underprivileged groups will have fewer chances of getting good jobs or good quality education. Though motivated by noble ideas, affirmative action programs in the last decades have become an object of intense controversy, leading many white men to argue that affirmative action promotes reverse racism. The problem is further exacerbated because affirmative action programs are badly implemented by employers and schools. These controversies came to a forefront of mainstream discussion when 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic in New Haven, Connecticut, filed a lawsuit, arguing that they were victims of racial bias. After the lawsuit was dismissed by the federal appeals court in New York, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the lower court and supported the white firefighters. Evidences show that the Supreme Court decision was justified.

Along with this ruling, the Supreme Court appealed this case. It was believed that the plaintiffs in the case needed more proof. The court wanted the plaintiff to show more reasoning why that individual was denied a job based on race, creed, color, or other factors. The Supreme Court also wanted the employer to show the reasoning behind the testing or the requirements of the job. As a result, the case moved closer to disparate treatment. However, in these types of emotional cases proving the case can be tedious.

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 has been an issue of contention since its inception during the Civil Rights struggles of mid 20th century America. Discrimination could no longer be tolerated and the Unites States government had an obligation to encourage equality at all levels of the social infrastructure. The main type of discrimination being addressed by Affirmative Action programs was racial discrimination. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as: ‘a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.’ The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination of any kind, laid the foundation for the introduction of Affirmative Action

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)