The Race Based Affirmative Action

Instead, the opposite appears to have happened. When the emphasis is placed on aiding people with certain skin colors or ethnic backgrounds, affirmative action sets the races further apart than before. Could this be just another form of segregation? The attempts at boosting minorities to the level of the others have grotesquely failed. To raise minorities the government has pushed down the majority group, fueling racial conflicts. In addition, lowering the bar for minorities for admission into jobs or schools has created a harmful atmosphere for them. Because some of them could not originally qualify on merit and skills, many face failure or extra hardship when they get ushered into their job or school. As Charles T. Canady said in his speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., "Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged" (43). Meanwhile the majorities receive punishment because of their lack of a specific skin tone or origin. "Entitlements by race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation-categories that in no way reflect merit-" Shelby Steele described, "are at the root of the great social evils in American life" (175). It is unfair to reward or turn away applicants because of something that is only theirs by ascribed means. When prospective college students or job applicants are considered, the competition should be solely based

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

Affirmative Action. For many Texas high school students, these two words haunt them. Their future, or at least their future at the University of Texas, depends on these words. For Abigail Noel Fisher, a 2008 graduate from Sugar Land, Texas, affirmative action and its race bias policies allegedly ruined her chances of getting into this prestigious state university. Fisher argues that race should not be a factor in college admissions processes, Fisher argues for equality. Equality in respect to race is in our constitution; it surrounds us everyday. In theory, race should be irrelevant in this day and age. Humanity has established that one race is not superior to another, so why should race matter at all in the college admissions process? Why should the University of Texas, or any other university, have that “check your race” box on their applications? Abigail Fisher, and every other person applying to the university, deserves as much opportunity as every other student of any race. When it comes to college, intelligence and character should be key to admission- not the color of the applicant’s skin. The University of Texas’ current affirmative action policy is an unfair college admissions process that the Supreme Court should ban so that admissions are based on intellectual ability in high school, national testing scores, extracurricular activities, and community service; this should be changed so that every person,

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

Politically speaking, the United States is a country founded on the principles of equality, one that strives to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally and have equal opportunities. Despite all of this, the United States is not predicated on equal outcomes and, as such, some people will naturally rise while others fall. To some, this may seem unfair, but the truth is that, guaranteeing equal outcomes for all people, would severely undermine the foundation on which the United States was built while also threatening its democracy since, to guarantee equal outcomes, some overriding governmental body would have to take the necessary steps to do so. Since affirmative action is a step toward guaranteeing equal outcomes – even when these outcomes should not be equal – it should be prohibited from having any place in the college admissions process. Instead, there should be more emphasis on guaranteeing equal opportunity, and this can be done by “strengthening public education…we must make certain that every child in public school can learn as much and go as far as his or her talents permit” (Summer, 2012, p. 3). Strengthening public education so that the standards are higher and there is a more rigorous curriculum would lift everybody up equally, and would therefore be more in step with American’s democratic ideals than admitting students into college simply based on

Not only does Affirmative action prevent discrimination, but also this legislation implemented by the national government can diversify and improve the overall well being of businesses and schools. Sometimes individuals of a minority group are rejected for a position or declined acceptance to a university not because they are inept, but due to outdated stereotypical assumptions that cause an employer or official to reconsider that person. The ideas behind affirmative action prevent unfair labeling from those whose

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.

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 various alternative forms of Affirmative Action all have received national attention. Yet, the country is divided on all of these issues, specifically how university admissions should assess issues of merit and diversity against national fundamental issues of diversity and fairness.

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.

     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.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

As a testament to the next discussion point of opportunities, especially within the realm of college admission, I have experienced firsthand the opportunities presented by affirmative action. As a low-income, first-generation college student, Virginia Tech had offered me a full scholarship based solely on merit and financial need. As a “minority” according to Virginia Tech, I had an