Imagine waking up tomorrow and reading in the local paper that the government was giving tax breaks to minorities in order to prevent discrimination. Congress insists that the deductions will “help level the playing field” in American society, claiming that diversity is necessary in creating an ideal nation, but is this attempt to prevent disparities and racism not an act of inequality in itself? By putting this policy into place, the government is giving advantages to minorities without showing the same generosity to Caucasians of the same economic backgrounds. Protests would be taking place around the country as citizens argue that the plan violates their Constitutional right to equality. Yet this is exactly the type of scenario seen in universities across the country. Colleges use race as a large factor in admissions in order to create “optimal diversity” among the students. However, this attempt at variety often comes at the expense of white and Asian students. For these reasons, affirmative action policies in college admissions should be eliminated in the United States. Affirmative action policies were created to help level the playing field in American society. Supporters claim that these plans eliminate economic and social disparities to minorities, yet in doing so, they’ve only created more inequalities. Whites and Asians in poverty receive little to none of the opportunities provided to minorities of the same economic background (Messerli). The burden of equity has been placed upon those who were not fortunate enough to meet a certain school’s idea of “diversity” (Andre, Velasquez, and Mazur). The sole reason for a college’s selectivity is to determine whether or not a student has the credentials to attend that school.... ... middle of paper ... ...ions, Facing a New Test by Justices.” The New York Times. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. Messerli, Joe. “Affirmative Action.” BalancedPolitics.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. “Proposition 209.” The California Online Voter Guide.” California Voter Foundation, 1996. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Resmovits, Joy. “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Ruling Leaves Universities in Limbo.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 June 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Starkman, Ruth. “Confessions of an Application Reader: Lifting the Veil on the Holistic Process at the University of California, Berkeley.” The New York Times. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., 1 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013 U.S. Constitution. Amend. XIV. Section 1.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
"UNITED STATES v. JONES." Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School. 19 Nov. 2013 .
TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 January 2014.
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.
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a SAT score of 2300 to be considered for admission at a top school such as Yale and a white applicant might need a score of 2100, while an African American or Hispanic only needs a score of 1700. While affirmative action provides equality in the workplace, it has no place in the college admissions process and should, therefore, be abolished and replaced. This type of policy can be repealed completely, replaced with a college admissions process that favors first generation college applicants, or replaced with a policy based on an applicant’s socioeconomic status.
“Anyone interested in higher education should want to contemplate, on behalf of colleges and universities, students and faculty, alumni and paying parents, the fate of affirmative action(Chace, M William 20). The Oxford Dictionary states Affirmative Action is “an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.” In 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an Executive Order calling for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This is now known today as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC). Affirmative action policies would later be forced upon businesses and have also been instituted at many universities where minorities are given preferred admissions over non-minorities. An Example of this would be at the University of Michigan where applicants who represented racial or ethnic minorities were given 20 points towards admission out of a 150 point system where only 100 points were needed to gain admission. Trying to put the 20 points in perspective, applicants with perfect SAT scores only received 12 points toward admission. This system was later struck down by the Supreme Court, but another similar policy was upheld at the University of Michigan Law School. With how diverse our society is currently compared to years ago, it seems to compliment that the policies have indeed worked. But now, the policies are questioned by many as whether or not they moral, constitutional, and/or...
The purpose ofAffirmative Action is a simple one, it exists to level the playing field, so to speak, in the areas of hiring and college admissions based on characteristics that usually include race, sex, and/or ethnicity. A certain minority group or gender may be underrepresented in an arena, often employment or academia, in theory due to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. In such a circumstance, one school of thought maintains that unless this group is concretely helped to achieve a more substantial representation, it will have difficulty gaining the critical mass and acceptance in that role, even if overt discrimination against the group is eradicated. For this reason, more effort must be made to recruit persons from that background, train them, and lower the entrance requirements for them. (Goldman, 1976, p. 179) Proponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action is the best way to corre...
The government thinks that implementing affirmative action will repair inequality, but it cannot. In the midst of tying to promote equality, they are promoting discrimination. Discrimination is the violation of one’s human rights based on gender, sex, race, ethnicity and/or relation. President Johnson felt that blacks being free and able to go to the same school as Caucasians were not just enough for the past discrimination and turmoil the African Americans went through. Affirmative action was used as a cure to remedy lost times. Sandal made some valid points; he noted that th...
Minority groups are given different criteria to meet when applying to college. This is an attempt to compensate for the hardships many minority groups had to face in history. As examined by Hoover Institution’s Thomas Sowell this advantage benefits minority applicants from middle and upper class backgrounds. As a result of admissions using a zero sum game, which is where one person’s gain is another person’s loss, these preferences hurt some applicants who meet admission standards in unequal numbers (Sacks and Thiel). If this predilection were genuinely meant to redress disadvantages, it would not be given on the basis of ethnicity. Supporters of affirmative action claim that affirmative action advocates diversity. But if diversity were the goal, then
Get ready… Get set… Go! Students across America compete in a race for college admittance, however, some students are given a head start that some students don’t have access to. These head starts are economic and racial advantages. Why is it fair that some students get larger head starts than others, or none at all? The answer is: it’s not. When you’re born, you are automatically given an amount of privilege, whether it be racial or economic. Sometimes, you 're born with no privilege at all and have to work extra hard to cross the finish line at the same time as other students. The only way to level the playing field is affirmative action, a program put in place to break down barriers for minority students. Affirmative
Stevens J, Opinion of the Court, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) [1]
Discrimination is still a chronic global issue, and drastic inequalities still exist at the present time. Thus, the Affirmative Action Law is an important tool to many minorities most especially to women, and people of color, for the reason that this program provides an equality on educational, and professional opportunities for every qualified individual living in the United States. Without this program, a higher education would have been impossible for a “minority students” to attain. Additionally, without the Affirmative Action, a fair opportunity to have a higher-level career...
Thomas, Justice Clarance (2013) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. No. 11-345. U.S. Supreame Court. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.