Tompkins V. Alabama State University: Case Study

In the reading “At the Elite Colleges” by Peter Schmidt the nature of admissions in top colleges was discussed in relation to class and race status. Schmidt states that affirmative action is often serving white populations of upper middle class females rather than those in minority races and ethnicities. This was a great relevant point, especially when considering why affirmative action was proposed and enacted in the first place. Affirmative action was created to serve those who are part of groups who had been quashed in some way by oppression. This stands in stark contrast. Colleges often make excuses for these undeserved admissions because, they are looking for future donors or are aiding an athlete. However, this is still inexcusable. On

All students, kindergarten through twelfth grade are protected under many various education laws, as well as their basic rights. Title IX is a landmark case from 1972 that removes the bias of gender discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance (Title IX, 1972). Title IX does not mean that each sex needs a football, basketball and dance team, it means that there needs to be three equal opportunities for each sex. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) was a more recent case of discrimination based on sex in relation to funding of a girl’s basketball team. In addition to Title IX, Section 1983 also upholds the civil rights provided by the Constitution, (42 USC 1983). Grove City College

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

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.

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.

Title: Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca and Cornell University et al., 839 F. Supp. 2d. 537 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

The road to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 74 (1954)), is littered with many Supreme Court cases that have battled for equality in education. The Fourteenth Amendment strengthened the legal rights of newly slaves and became the stomping ground for many Supreme Court decisions.

The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were

Two people stand in a room looking at a vibrant painting and receive a totally different image. This is something we all realize can happen. It is our different perspectives that make us valuable too each other. When trying to solve a problem or create a new idea, we need each other to bring forth considerations and concepts that would never occur otherwise. This concept is something most of us grasp in theory, yet it never ceases to confound and confuse us if someone draws a conclusion tangent from ours when presented with the same information. This situation lies at the heart of the argument over affirmative action. Policies that are viewed by some as righting past wrongs are viewed by

There are two recent lawsuits from 2003 that brought to the forefront college admissions using race; these include Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (Bowman, 2013). Both cases involve the University of Michigan. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court sided with the university stating that their admissions office can continue to use race-based initiatives in fostering an education benefit to the students (Bowman, 2013).

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

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.