Affirmative Action is defined as an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and woman (Merriam-Webster). Recently a landmark decision on a regarding affirmative action has being in the forefront; Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in which the United States Supreme Court banned the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. A white law school candidate in 1997 with a GPA of 3.8 trials the University of Michigan Law School use of race being the reason in the admissions process due to being denied as a student at Michigan Law. The decision in this court case was the University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our Fourteenth Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Maddison, 1787).
In our society today it is very sad but racism still occurs. If we banish Affirmative Action policies across the board we no longer protect woman, minorities and certain persons in specific socio-economic classes that would normally not get the benefit of the doubt since “odds” it seems are considerably stacked against them. In the case Grutter v. Bollinger it is said that Affirmative Action is no longer a he...
... middle of paper ...
...nstead of meeting percentages of each race our countries schools admissions and career opportunities can accept or hire the highest qualified student or person to excel in the workplace and universities. New data records can be made to prove all applicants who applied during the time of the application process or hiring process and each individual can be chosen off of the highest merit or meeting the job criteria with top performance. Martin Luther King Jr had a dream and stood up for what he believed. It took one man for a large percentage of our countries citizens to listen to his dream. As parents lets teach our children about his speech and how being “colorblind” can change the world. In our country we have the freedom to vote and make changes to the Affirmative Action policy. Together our society can stand up and stop racism, reverse racism and racial tension.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and stated that “all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark first recognized the doctrine of birthright citizenship. In this case, the defendant argued that because he was a citizen of the U.S. because he was born in California and had lived there for twenty-one years. The U.S. District Attorney argued that while Wong Kim Ark may have been born into the U.S., he was not subject to its jurisdiction since Worn Kim Ark, through his Chinese parents, were subject to the emperor of China. Not persuaded by this argument, the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to resident aliens are U.S. citizens, which created the concept of automatic birthright citizenship. This concept has been debated within the U.S. Supreme Court and in different levels of the judiciary system, but to this date there is no comprehensive approach on solving the ambiguity of what constitutes a ‘natural-born’
1. Our great country was founded upon a high set of principles, values, and laws. Many of these are easily seen when looking at the United States constitution. The first ten amendments are what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights. This is good and all, but until the fourteenth amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights only was applied to the Federal government. The 14th amendment has a clause that says, "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court ruled against “Total Incorporation”, but instead ruled in favor of “Selective Incorporation”. This meaning that the Supreme Court would define the constitutionality of the treatment of a citizen by the state.
Even though we have witnessed a portion of Black people rising up such as Barack Obama, Lebron James, there are still a lot of Blacks suffering from enfranchisement, torture, and double standard of law. Being a developed and powerful country, the issue of racism is worth noticing. The critical part of the issue is that law seems ineffective to protect poor Black people. That’s why so many Blacks are powerless when bullied by people like police or associations like Ku Klux Klan. So it is crucial to consolidate the law to keep Blacks’ personal rights from being violated. Besides, we need to stress the education of Blacks, especially those in poverty. One of the reasons why Blacks have been treated unequally to Whiles is because they did not contrite as much to the nation as Whites, and education inequality could partially account for this result. Being more powerful is more likely to be respected by others. Thus. Shrinking the gap of education quality between the Black community and White community could alleviating
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of United States addressed the issues related to citizenship of the country and their fundamental rights for equality. This amendment is regarded as one of the most significant clauses in the US constitution since it provides the definition for citizenship, deals with the rights of the US citizens, and defines the state’s obligations to protect the rights of its citizens. This amendment was passed in the year 1866 by the Congress following the Civil War. The primary goal of this amendment was to provide equal civil and legal rights to all US citizens, including the African Americans. The citizenship clause in this amendment attracted lot of attention and debates owing to its far-reaching impacts on the citizenship status of various communities and immigrants who are staying in the country. This amendment was an important part of the reconstruction program (NALEO, 1).
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, affirmative action is “an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and women.” However, despite its well-intentioned policies, it has been the source of much controversy over the years. Barbara Scott and Mary Ann Schwartz mention that “proponents of affirmative action argue that given that racism and discrimination are systemic problems, their solutions require institutional remedies such as those offered by affirmative action legislation” (298). Also, even though racism is no longer direct, indirect forms still exist in society and affirmative action helps direct. On the other hand, opponents to affirm...
Subconscious prejudices, self-segregation, political correctness, reverse discrimination, and ignorance all wade in the pool of opinions surrounding affirmative action and racial animosity. With racial tensions ever present in this country, one might question whether the problems can be solved by affirmative action.
Today there is considerable disagreement in the country over Affirmative Action with the American people. MSNBC reported a record low in support for Affirmative Action with 45% in support and 45% opposing (Muller, 2013). The affirmative action programs have afforded all genders and races, exempting white males, a sense of optimism and an avenue to get the opportunities they normally would not be eligible for. This advantage includes admission in colleges or hiring preferences with public and private jobs; although Affirmative Action has never required quotas the government has initiated a benefits program for the schools and companies that elect to be diversified. The advantages that are received by the minorities’ only take into account skin color, gender, disability, etc., are what is recognized as discriminatory factors. What is viewed as racism to the majority is that there ar...
I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Rodriguez that the approach of affirmative action based on race was misguided and that a race-blind approach to affirmative action would yield the desired objectives of equality among the American population. Race-based affirmative action results in biased favoritism which brings up a new form of discrimination in the name of alleviating it. It is because of this rising discrimination in university admissions that made me feel the full effect of the existing policies on affirmative action in the U.S.
According to Reshetnivov, affirmative action is the means of considering underrepresented characteristics, such as race, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, to determine admission into a university (Reshetnivov). Affirmative action policies were instituted not only to ensure diversity, but to right the wrong of decades of discrimination and to help minorities by giving them extra opportunities (Messerli). The policies were created after the Civil War when slavery was finally abolished. The term was first mentioned by President Kenne...
Constitution, namely the 14th Amendment in particular, can be interpreted for us to enforce stricter regulations on citizenship. If we take a look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the text reads specifically that “any born or naturalized in the United States…. are citizens of the United States…” (Elbel, Fred, 14thamendment.us/amendment: The Amendment). This ensures the rights of anyone born in the U.S. due course of the term ‘Jus Soli’. One thing to note, however, is that the interpretation of section 1 is ambiguous; those born here or naturalized are immediately deemed citizens. These definitions are very broad, and do not distinctly address our 21st century problems. What does it mean to be born here? What does it mean to be naturalized? I find that these terms are meant to define more long-term conventions than what they convey and what legally
Affirmative action came into law after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While it currently has less controversy than it has had in the past, it is still a sensitive topic. From its conception, affirmative action has been utilized as a tool to assist people in minority groups to develop academically, as well as professionally. While all members of minority groups have been the target audience for affirmative action, the group that has reaped the most benefits is white
Affirmative action or positive discrimination can be defined as providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against. This consists of preferential access to education, employment, health care, or social welfare. In employment, affirmative action may also be known as employment equity. Affirmative action requires that institutions increase hiring and promotion of candidates of mandated groups. (Rubenfeld, 1997, p. 429)
I read the Stem Diversity Awareness article as well as watched the Ted Talk where Jedidah Isler spoke about how students of color face racism as well as challenges that could impact their futures. I thought and agreed with everything Isler spoke about. I think it’s absolutely true that our society still excludes and distinguishes people of color. Isler mentioned how a man at their lunch table pushed all the dishes towards her and told her to basically make herself useful. It’s truly unfortunate that our society thinks things like this are appropriate and okay.