Essay on Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action

The five reports of school segregation separately went to local courts with no avail. The cases then appealed to the Supreme Court, where they were pooled under the title “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas”. (Good, 31, 32) (Davidson et al. 850)

Sixty-two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. The decision from the Plessy v. Ferguson case was lawfully denounced by the Brown v. Board of Education. The Brown case, which was initiated by the members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), served as a stimulus for challenging segregation in all areas of society, especially in public educational institutions. Among the support for the desegregation in school systems, there was a young yet compelling voice who was heard by numerous ears in the rural city in Farmville, Alabama. The virtuous and determined Barbara Johns, who was only a high school student then led her tiny, hovel-like school’s student body and the Farmville community to file a lawsuit in the hope of terminating the inequality in regards to the educational system.

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

This case involves the Plaintiff, Kelly Pryor, and the Defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, in a complex argument that involves racial discrimination under Title VI and the NCAA adoption of Proposition 16 as well as Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims. The court must carefully consider the claims Pryor has brought forth and determine if the discrimination of Proposition 16 was purposefully adopted by adding certain education requirement to ultimately hinder the amount of scholarships awarded to incoming black student athletes. Throughout this case analysis, I will weigh the different evidence presented from both parties and report the court’s reasoning for decisions made in Pryor v.

129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 505. This vague standard will undoubtedly spur more litigation as employers struggle to decipher what “a strong basis in evidence” exactly means. Furthermore, employers must now establish a Title VII claim against themselves before they can act.

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

Background: The University of California used racial quotas to reserve 16/100 seats for "Blacks, Chicanos, Asians, and American Indians." Bakke's scores were much higher than any members of these racial groups who were recently admitted. Bakke's application was rejected twice, so he sued the University. He argued that the University's policy violated the Constitution, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection clause.

The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found in the United States Code (Pub. L. 88-352) Volume 42.The basis of the act Title VII is to prevent employment discrimination against race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII prohibits an employer from both (i) discriminating against an employee on the basis of sex, and (ii) retaliating against an employee for complaining about prior discrimination or retaliation. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the purpose of the act is to enforce the

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

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that the question of whether racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal, and thus beyond the scope of the separate but equal doctrine, could be answered only by considering “the effect of segregation itself on public education.” Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sweat v. Painter (1950), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950), which recognized “intangible” inequalities between African American and all-white schools at the graduate

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

This inequality and unnecessary act called racism within many school systems can be dated back to 1896 to the Plessy V. Ferguson case which resulted in “separate facilities for education” and an “equal education” (Campbell). This case is what provided us with the term “separate but equal”, this meant that white and black children had to attend separate schools but would supposedly get an equal education. Another case addressing racism in education is the Cumming V. Richmond case in 1899. This case involved three black families who petitioned the court to allow their children to finish their high school education at a white high school, due to the closing of the local black high school which would integrate African Americans and whites under one facility (Campbell). Racial segregation and its unfairness even continued into the 1950’s with the Sweatt V. Painter case involving an African American, Homas Sweatt, who was being denied access to the University of Texas Law School because he was black (Campbell). All of this unfair treatment of separate but equal education continued until 1954 when one of the most popular and familiar cases to all of us occurred, “Brown V. Board of Education”. In this case a young girl from Kansas had to walk 21 blocks to the closet black only school when a

Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. The Labor Department report found less than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeal between 1990 and 1994. Discrimination was established in only six cases. The report found that, “Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant…. erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualifications.”(SF Chronicle, March 31, 1995) Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through

There are three applicants for the job offering. One applicant is a white male age 35 who has six years of on the job experience. The other three are an Asian female, black male, and white female. Two of these minority applicants have no practical experience and the other only a few years. In order for the company to meet the quota, the company must automatically reject the white male and only look at the other three applicants. The company now is no longer looking for good experienced employees; instead, they are trying to appear fair. This so called ?equal opportunity? is not what it says. This means that they provide ?equal opportunity for minorities.? They are now discriminating against majorities, which goes against the original initiative for civil rights.

According to “Civil Rights Act of 1964", under Title 7, there is the nation’s prime civil rights legislation, which is Civil Right Act of 1964, and the act prohibits employers from any kinds of discrimination toward applicants on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, and national origin. The act basically protects all the citizens from workplace discrimination and prove that the citizens should have same equal rights regardless their race, sex, or religion. Especially, the act is important because it is a fundamental policy that keep citizens safe in the