Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action was a temporary remedy that would last until there was a level playing field for all Americans. However, this was not the case; in the 1970s, there was a lot of backlash and arguments about affirmative action and how it was a form of reverse racism. The Bakke Case made the argument of reverse racism famous. “In 1978, a white male, had been rejected two years in a row by a medical school that had accepted less qualified minority applications- the school had a separate admissions policy for minorities and reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students” (Brunner & Rowen, 2014). From this, the Supreme Court made it illegal to have quota systems in affirmative action programs.

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

The revered civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, don’t discriminate people because of their race. This should hold true in all aspects of life. Every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, which is why affirmative action is inherently racist. Affirmative action refers to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of minorities and women in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities. It is responsible for colleges discriminating against Eastern Asians and whites and for employers hiring workers based off of skin color rather than skills or experience. People can’t change their race (except for former president of the Spokane N.A.A.C.P. chapter, Rachel Dolezal, apparently), yet many colleges and employers favor certain races over others by using quotas, or a fixed number of people of each race.

California's decision in 1996 to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United States. But in the four years since Californians passed Proposition 209, most states have agreed that killing affirmative action outright would deepen social inequality by denying minority citizens access to higher education. The half-dozen states that are actually thinking about abandoning race-sensitive

The questionable existence of affirmative action continues to create a pervasive tug of war between proponents and opponents of affirmative action. The cornerstone of affirmative action policies initiated from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unequal—ultimately forever changing the system of education in America. This groundbreaking decision served as a gateway, with the goal of “leveling the playing field” and remedying the grotesque American past rooted in harsh racial discrimination against non-white individuals, primarily of African American descent. As a result of swift implementation of affirmative action policies, cultural and racial diversity quickly diversified

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

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

There is no denying that the elimination of the process would drastically decrease the amount of minority applicants and the amount of diversity, but affirmative action is frankly discriminating against Asians. They often are disregarded and mistreated in the sense that their accomplishments are ignored. Because of the outstanding excellence of “Asian students on high school grades and pre-college aptitude tests, many colleges and universities, through unannounced policies, place these “minority students” at the back of the line” (Elder). It is extremely disappointing for these

Affirmative action was created to help end discrimination in the work place and in educational opportunities, but has given an unfair advantage to minority groups at the expense of more qualified individuals. Because employers and colleges must show that they are accepting a proportional amount of minorities in their application acceptance process, highly qualified

     At one time, affirmative action was a needed and legitimate policy. Segregation has existed way too much in the past and has left people out of jobs, out of certain areas of town, and schooling. We needed to make a law that would get rid of segregation, and help everybody assimilate or just live peacefully without discrimination. When a majority the southern where rebelling and would not allow African Americans in their stores, schools, etc,

Affirmative Action has been around for a very long time, as time progress so have the people of this nation. The people we were in the 50’s and 60’s are significantly different from who we are today. I think that Affirmative Action is a good contribution and should be kept around. When I think about all the great things that minorities can do I don’t see were any harm is being done.

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 should be abolished because the negatives from the program far outweigh the positives. The program is doing a lot of harm to American society instead of helping.

Affirmative action is actually dividing the country into two different racial categories: all minorities against the majority. This causes severe resentment towards those minorities who are less qualified yet are preferred because they feel sympathy or pity towards them. When trying to apply and qualify for scholarships an applicant will find that the majority of the scholarships are for minority or specific race only descendants. This disqualifies everyone who needs the scholarship, but was not born under a certain type of ancestry.

Affirmative action, particularly in the school setting, needs to dematerialize immediately. Attempting to solve certain types of discrimination has inversely created more discrimination to others. Quotas created to diversify student bodies and belief systems that come along with these students is constructing unforeseen problems. Focusing on creating a more diverse campus has actually created a lower standard of learning. “Ever since affirmative action has come into play, many organizations, particularly schools, businesses, and federally funded establishments, have been forced to lower their standards so that more blacks and certain group of minorities can be admitted to the university and get hired for a job” (Fischer). Affirmative action has taught minorities to look for easy access, and it’s diminishing the value of hard work to achieve success.