The Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action Policies

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

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

Affirmative Action is one of the many social issues facing America today. Affirmative action was signed into place in 1961 by President Kennedy and allows minority groups or people who face discrimination to become employed or get an education that is equal to that of a white male. Groups that Affirmative Action aims to help are women, blacks, Latinos, and people with disabilities. While these policies were signed to slowly rid the workforce and schools from discrimination, it hurts people who do not face discrimination, specifically whites. Many white men and women lose special opportunities to work or go to college because of certain standards that the Affirmative Action laws require. Universities and the military require a certain number of minorities in order to meet the standards and have a more diverse atmosphere. An example of this is the California V. Bakke supreme court case of 1978.

This figure is up from 35 percent in 1991. Affirmative action in hiring and higher education—an institutional remedy to structural discrimination and another key gain of the movement in the 1960s—continues to suffer defeats. The latest of these came in April of last year when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the practice in Michigan’s public universities. Between 2006—when the ban was passed—and 2012, African American enrollment at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor plummeted by 33 percent while overall student enrollment increased by 10 percent.

President John F. Kennedy made the first reference to “affirmative action” on March 6, 1961 when he issued Executive Order 10925 which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. The Executive Order also mandated that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. The efforts to establish affirmative action as a policy did not end with the death of President Kennedy. Kennedy’s successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, is considered a champion of civil rights and a proponent of diversity within the United States. In 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.

Affirmative action was put in place to give minority groups like African Americans, Latinos, and women, who were historically discriminated against in the past, special access to jobs and education. And I can understand the purpose of this several years ago; there were very little to no opportunities for these groups. Affirmative action provided programs to these groups that weren’t available otherwise. But in the 21st century, things are very different. Although racism is still an issue in our country, it’s nothing like it used to be. And there are far more opportunities

Supporters of affirmative action believe that the executive order has slowly closed the race gap when it comes to the demographics of colleges and universities. To defend affirmative action Justice Harry Blackman wrote “[To] get beyond racism, we must first take account of race” (Berdahl, 2000). Since 1994, black enrollment has doubled at colleges and universities. In 2013, African American students accounted for 16 percent of their student body, versus 11 percent in 1994 (McGill, 2014). Affirmative action has

Affirmative action - an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination. Is it helpful? Does it help minorities who need an additional push to become successful, or is just another form of discrimination? Although each party has great arguments, the setbacks that minorities face because of their economic status due to where they were born in life, which could affect the quality of their education, affirmative action is fair, as it only benefits for all people to have a chance of being successful.

local agencies from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education, public employment or public contracting” (NCSL). Eventually there was 7 other states that followed in the steps of California and have completely banned the use of Affirmative Action policies like Florida, , Michigan, and Washington (NY Times).

In the case of Bakke, affirmative action does not actually provide equal opportunity; it helps minorities at the cost of others. “…eliminating racial preferences would have increased the likelihood of admission for white undergraduate applicants from 25 percent to only 26.5 percent.” (Liu, 2002) For Bakke, the chances of being admitted are increased if affirmative action was not in place. For example, 60 percent black applicants who scored 1200-1249 on the SAT were accepted, compared to 19 percent of white applicants. For those who scored 1250-1299 on the SAT, 74 percent of blacks were accepted contrasting the 23 percent of white applicants accepted. Bakke was only allowed to be chosen from 84 spots versus a minority student who had all 100 spaces available to them. For many, that difference may not mean much at all, but those slim chances could have

Affirmative action is a question of morals, so I do believe the affirmative action programs should be based on race. Usually affirmative action defined the policy of giving opportunities to racial minority groups or women, not the economic weak.

Affirmative Action is meant to eliminate any barriers that prevents groups that are discriminated against from having equal opportunities within education or employment. Affirmative Action was used to enroll and hire African Americans and other minorities to ensure that they are increasingly becoming affiliated with institutions and different organizations/business. By doing so it allowed for there to be diversity and gives the impression of equal opportunities, but not necessarily equality. Affirmative Action in a sense lead to a domino effect which made it look more convincing that equality was in arms reach. First institutions started factoring in race to help increase the number of African Americans that were enrolled, then funding and

Today, affirmative action is trying to treat people equally by unequally treating others to solve the problem when in fact creating more problems. The synonyms for the term “affirmative action” is anti-discrimination, equals right policy, and fair treatment. However, does the term live up to its true meaning of equal opportunities? Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since President Johnson issued the Executive Order in 1965. As stated, the order would increase the numbers of minorities in jobs and schools nationwide. As a minority myself, I do not think the policy longer applies to today’s jobs and education systems, but instead does the complete opposite. Others will say, “the third fallacy is, affirmative action does not

Affirmative Action is known throughout the world. India, Canada, Nepal, and the United Kingdom all have a name for this policy. Canada calls it Employment Equity, India and Nepal call it Reservation, and the United Kingdom calls it Positive Discrimination. Now you might ask, what is Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action is a policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination especially in relation to employment or education.

Affirmative action is when college's choose somebody to join their colleges based on their race. This means that the kid that has the best college application could still not get into that college because of their race. Journalists all over the world try to argue the side of using or not using affirmative action. Affirmative Action should not be used in colleges because it is reverse discrimination, it sets up kids for failure, and it is biased.