Liliana Garces Affirmative Action Research

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

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

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.

On a beautiful day in 1965, June 4th, President Lyndon B Johnson spoke at the commencement at the prestigious Howard University commencement. He can be quoted saying “ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying ‘ you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.”(ECS1) Shortly after giving this address President Johnson, “Put his money where his mouth was” and signed executive orders mandating that all government contractors take “affirmative action” to hire minority groups (Brunner 2002). In responses to this many professional schools, colleges and university’s followed the governments

The Bakke Vs. The Regents of University of California case is one of the most well known supreme court cases in America dealing with the topic of affirmative action. Stated by Eastland, “affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society” (10). In 1978, the plaintiff Bakke filed a suit against the University of California, claiming that his rejection from the school was a result of racial discrimination and that it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, and the California Constitution (Posner 171). The U.S Supreme court ruled that affirmative action was constitutional, but not the use of racial quotas. The significance of this case is that it dealt directly with two major theories prevalent to minorities and race: Their assimilation into the university setting using affirmative action, and also the systemic racism that these groups faced as well. More specifically however, the Bakke Vs. the Regents of University of California case can be explained by systemic racism more so than assimilation, because systemic racism was and still is in effect in these educational institutions. Even with the inclusion of programs such as affirmative action that are supposed to combat systemic racism and simplify assimilation, American institutions were built upon ideological processes that

admissions policies are themselves finding that the only way to enlarge the minority presence in college without such policies is to improve dramatically the

The fact that, in most cases, a minority student will get accepted over a white student with the same or almost the same qualifications is causing controversy all over the nation. This is precisely the definition of affirmative action. In an excerpt titled Affirmative Action and the College Admissions Process from the book, 8 Steps to Help Black Families Pay For College, by Thomas and Will LaVeist, it is stated that, “affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups.” This leveling of the playing field leads to the very broad generalization and misperception that the policy is allowing less-qualified minorities to take the place of the more-qualified whites.

Race-based affirmative action has been challenged by a great deal of objection during the course of it duration. According to its opponents, Affirmative action proves to be inconsistent. Affirmative action based on race increases race consciousness instead of supporting color-blind justice. By giving people special consideration to ensure equality, it contributes to inequality. The constitution of the United States calls for equal treatment, therefore, allowing racial consideration poses a contradiction.

     Affirmative action is an attempt by the United States to amend a long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, not ease, the nations internal divisions. Opponents of affirmative action say that the battle for equal rights is over, and that requiring quotas that favor one group over another is un-American. The people that defend it say that the playing field is not level, and that providing advantages for minorities and women is fair considering the discrimination those groups tolerated for years. This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action, how it is implemented in society today, and evaluate the arguments that it presents.

The utilization of race in affirmative action policies in higher education has been a topic of contention for several decades now. Since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have seen some of the most heated debates over the fairness of affirmative action and the impacts on society the utilization of race creates. With such pending questions on fairness and of the constitutionality of affirmative action policies two major Supreme Court cases have arisen, University of California Regents v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, both impacting university admissions policies throughout the country and setting precedent in following rulings. Following the two rulings of these cases, I argue that affirmative action and the utilization of

The equal opportunity that affirmative action provides has also increased the amount of minority applicants applying to each school. It has “resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community” (Messerli). Since the playing field has been evened, it has encouraged more of those who are disadvantaged because of their ethnicity to apply for and get admitted into college. However, the quotas cause schools to admit under qualified students of minor races who don’t meet the limit over highly qualified students who’s race has reached the limit.

In his commencement address at Howard University one year after signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson raised a question regarding the growing inequality between white and black Americans after World War II despite the country’s prosperity. Ira Katznelson’s When Affirmative Action Was White posits that the vast programs such as the New Deal and G.I. Bill of Rights of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, seen as progressive, were inherently racist. Katznelson discusses these programs and how they affected black Americans in their various political, economic, and social spheres. He examines these problematic and discriminatory areas under four scopes: welfare, the workplace, military service, and education.

The lifelong dream of a virtuous student, acceptance into a prestigious college of choice, crushed by the prejudice of a single law. Hopes upon hopes of attaining one’s dream job, demolished due to the same impassive law. Affirmative action, a national dilemma, continues to crush the dreams of many across the country; although meant with noble intentions, affirmative action offers an ineffective, impractical, and useless rectification to correct a historical social evil, the growing imbalance of different ethnicities. Instead of augmenting this common problem, affirmative action plays a critical role in reverse discrimination, equating race to diversity in opinion, and destroying the idea of meritocracy.

Discrimination and segregation have been inbred into America’s history from day one. Therefore, there have been many laws and bills passed to break down barriers between privileged whites and unfortunate minorities. Among these government actions are the 14th Amendment, Equal Pay Act, and the Civil Rights Acts. John F. Kennedy perhaps created one of the most heavily debated policies today, his Affirmative Action Policy. Affirmative action is defined as, “the practice of improving the educational and job opportunities of members of groups that have not been treated fairly in the past because of their race, sex, etc.” (“Definition of AFFIRMATIVE” 1). The definition itself is vague and open for a good deal of interpretation which causes much of today’s debates. The most recent interpretation of Affirmative Action came from the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin (UT of Austin). Fisher was a white individual who was denied acceptance into the university, and then filed a lawsuit against them. Fisher lost the case at the Supreme Court level in 2013, but the case returned in 2016 again with a much closer vote, so affirmative action is losing some of its power and will continue to be challenged for years to come, but is it worth the challenge (Kut.org 1)? Affirmative Action has served a vital role in the integration of race into universities and the workforce, but now it is outdated and an unnecessary requirement for schools and businesses.

“The American Council on Education (ACE) has a longstanding record of commitment to access to higher education for all qualified Americans and to the advancement of equal educational opportunity” (The Importance of Diversity in Higher Education) This dedication is considered in ACE's positions open strategy, its automatic exercises, and its livelihood polishes. It has been communicated over and over in resolutions by the ACE Board of Directors with respect to governmental policy regarding minorities in society, nondiscrimination, value, meet open door, and induction guidelines. The ACE is only one of the numerous aggregations that accept assorted qualities in universities.