Legal Issues Of Affirmative Action

The affirmative action case I chose for a case study involved the case of Abigail Fisher verses the University of Texas (UT), this suit was originally filed during the second quarter of 2008 after her application for admission into the college was rejected. Her suit alleged her admission was rejected on the grounds of her “race” which was a violation of the equal protection clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment. This case would go completely through the judicial system in the State of Texas, Fifth Circuit of Appeals and finally before the Supreme Court of the United States of America which issued a final ruling in June of 2016.

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) was a highly divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of race in admission decisions on a time-limited basis to further the educational benefits that flow from a diverse

Throughout America there are many different views on the effects of affirmative action. Many see it as a negative policy which gives an unnecessary advantage to minorities in America. In a 2009 Pew Poll, “58% of African Americans agree” and only “22% whites agree” that there should be “preferential treatment to improve the position of blacks and other minorities” ("Public Backs Affirmative Action”).

          In Bakke v Regents of the University of California, we have a landmark reverse discrimination case that influenced education as a whole. Bakke was rejected from graduate school even though he had superior scores than many of the African-American applicants who were admitted. Bakke challenged the University of California and overturned the quota system that had been established in public universities across the nation. The University of California held on to the belief that black people should have access to black doctors. However, if the University were to go on a sole merit system then the number of special admittees would diminish along with the aforementioned belief. This belief was quickly altered by the Supreme Court with their decision against the University.

One long-term effect was that both California and Washington adopted constitutional amendments denying preferential treatment based on race or sex in governmental programs. On the other hand, a short term effect was that with the new “race blind” application system, the entering class at UC Davis Medical School in 1998 only had five African Americans and three Hispanic students, and the entering class at the university’s law school in Berkeley that same year contained not a single African American student. Because of the sudden drop in admitted minorities, the decision of the court only furthered the controversy of Affirmative Action, and if a “quota” based application is necessary. After winning the case, Bakke went on to graduate from the school and received his medical degree in

For over forty years the issue of affirmative action has been subject to a tremendous amount of debate and controversy. Affirmative action policies and programs seek to redress and eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality; and therein lies the controversy, as much of the opposition to affirmative action argues that it creates reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is beneficial in assuring that women and minority groups don’t assume rolls of inferiority amongst society; and it encourages positive action to ensure that qualified candidates for employment positions and admissions to universities are given equal opportunity and consideration. The issue of affirmative action has become

America is founded on the belief that all citizens are free to pursue their ambitions regardless of race, color, creed, or national origin. Yet, for the last fifty years, Affirmative Action has created an educational and work environment less focused on equality and more focused on ethnicity. There is no benefit for the United States to enforce Affirmative Action for minorities in educational and employment opportunities and equal treatment, because it promotes reverse discrimination, devalues real accomplishments, and cultivates the minority struggle.

Court cases that have involved Affirmative Action are not rare, such as Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Wessman v.Gittens (Russo and Mawdsley 263,266), and Grutter v. Bollinger (Kim 17). In these cases students of the non-minority category, were denied admissions into the school, even though they were more qualified. These court cases show how affirmative action has hurt majorities and benefited minorities. “Affirmative Action is calling into question the values of our society, such as equality, fairness, and justice” (Kim 12). Affirmative action is a form of reverse racism and it is in direct violation of the equal protection clause of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Giving out points based on race is unequal and if the majority gave points to Caucasians or Asian Americans, would receive serious back lash. People that gave these points to the whites or Asians will be viewed as a racist. Everyone should be held to the same standards and the same

Perhaps one of the most divisive issues in the United States is race. While most Americans would rather not talk about it, there are still issues surrounding race that will strike the interest of most citizens. This is perhaps nowhere more true than the debate over affirmative action. Although the United States has made great strides in improving race relations over the past forty years, affirmative action continues to be one of the most controversial policies in America. It has rattle the halls of higher education. It has appeared on the steps of the Supreme Court. And it has divided not only different racial groups, but even members of a single racial group. In fact, I’ve heard some of the most heated conversation over affirmative action between two African Americans. Like myself, many other African Americans believe this policy is one the most effective strategies for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field. However, critics of affirmative action believe this kind of reform does an injustice to the idea of merit. Though no one can deny that minorities and women have made significant steps towards autonomy and equality in American society, there are still wide economic disparities between these groups and white males. While theses issues and controversies surrounding affirmative action can not be resolved easily, the question remains: do we still need affirmative action in America? I say yes, affirmative action was and is needed to achieve full gender and

Affirmative Action policies have shown effectiveness in increasing the number of minority applicants and graduates who benefitted from these programs receive better jobs, earn more money, and essentially live better lives because of the opportunities they received. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2018), “statistics show that after California abolished its affirmative action programs in 1998, the minority student admissions at UC Berkeley fell 61 percent, and minority admissions at UCLA fell 36 percent”. The reality is not everybody is born into a high socioeconomic status family, and individuals with a higher socioeconomic status have more opportunities than those with low socioeconomic status. Affirmative action polices compensate for this social and economic oppression. I do believe that certain racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged because they are frequently in lower income brackets consequently not exposed to the same resources than those in higher income brackets. The notion of competition between students based on merit is still supported, but affirmative Action does help compensate for economic

Affirmative action, the means to create an equal playing field for disadvantaged minorities in both employment and academic settings is often the subject of controversy for its role to persuade free markets to consider employing and accepting blacks and women amongst others, to qualify for government contracts and/or funding. According to Mink (1998), “Affirmative action foes believe that when numerical rankings are balanced against social factors, unqualified or less qualified individuals steal college admission from “the best” students, good jobs from deserving workers, and business contracts from the lowest bidder.” Conversely, while advocates agree that the potential exists for some of “the best” to become collateral-damage as a result of Affirmative Action measures, still,

A significant, amount of court cases have been brought up to the Supreme Court dealing with affirmative action. One important court case that deals with affirmative

In response to being asked about the necessity of affirmative action Maynard Jackson replied “If you don 't like affirmative action, what is your plan to guarantee a level playing field of opportunity?” Affirmative action as seen in higher education has not always been around to the extent we see today, as it was originally used as a tool to prevent discrimination against women in the work force (Messerli). As time went on, though, and equality in the workforce came to a justifiable level with acts such as the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act and more safeguards preventing against discrimination while also helping the underrepresented, it seemed as if by the 1990s affirmative action had achieved its goal. The goal was fairly representing the unfairly represented groups present. However, this didn’t necessarily translate to other aspects of life and more specifically higher education, as up until recently and even today some underrepresented groups are not being given the same shot as majorities. After all was said and done, though, great strides have been made towards progress and even defended, as in the 1997 case of Grutter Vs. Bolinger where affirmative action was defended at the University of Michigan’s Law School in a 5-4 decision that showed that groups not affected by affirmative action are not harmed by it either ("Grutter v. Bollinger."). All things considered affirmative action has mended disparities