Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Diversity in the education system
Affirmative action pros and cons
Diversity in the education system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Diversity in the education system
Affirmative action pros and cons
Diversity in the education system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.
Does the Constitution allow the government to use group classification to benefit the minorities who suffered discrimination historically? Affirmative action are programs used to replenish minorities that were historically discriminated, however has caused much debate. Some critics believe that affirmative action hinders the majority while benefitting the minorities, and testify it as unconstitutional praxis by the 14th amendment. Affirmative action has not broken any constitutional barriers, because it is a notion of equality to minorities from the majority. Affirmative action has been addressed to the Supreme Court in various cases, and has been ruled with mixed decisions.
Following the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, several efforts were made to combat the effects of systemic racism in society, one of which is known as Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action, as defined by social justice advocate Tim Wise, is “any race—or gender—conscious effort to hire, recruit, promote, train, or admit qualified women and people of color for educational, employment, or contracting opportunities.” Often, people assume that such programs give unqualified people of color jobs or admittance, simply due to race and therefore steal spaces from qualified white people. However, this is not the case. These programs seek out applicants that meet the criteria of the spots they are applying for and also work to benefit white women, people with disabilities, and even veterans.
Affirmative Action has lowered the standards of colleges and job requirements to help meet the requirements. Perazzo (2001) provides a good example of the lower standard, “At UCLA Law School in 1994, a black applicant with a college G.P.A. between 2.5 and 3.5, and an LSAT score between 60 and 90, had a 61 percent chance of admission. The corresponding rates for similarly qualified Asians and whites were 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively.” It is time to move the standards upward and allow all people to compete for college admission or jobs and use race or gender as a tiebreaker.
In the United States of America, affirmative action was established in the 1960’s in order to redress the disadvantages of minority and historically excluded groups. Specifically focusing on issues in education and the workforce, affirmative action aimed to make these public institutions more representative of the population that they served. However, while affirmative action was meant to level the playing field, some argued that it brought about reverse discrimination against those who were not disadvantaged in this nation. Opponents asserted that affirmative action policies favor one group over another based solely on race rather than qualifications. No matter the argument, the Supreme Court debated this issue and attempted to accommodate
Affirmative action advocates prioritize the issues of some minorities, such as African-American, Chicano and Latino face. As such, affirmative action fails to consider the fast rate at which Asian-American population is growing. According to the book “The Admission Dispute”, written by Sun, it states that "The system (affirmative action) did not foresee the surge of UC- qualified Asian Americans nor prepare a fair policy for the educational effort of any ethnic group"(Sun). The 1965 Act of Immigration led an unprecedented influx of immigrants from African, Mexico, and many more from Asia. Sun states that these immigrants are hardly treated as “Americans”.
9. One of the goals of affirmative action was to promote educational and vocational access for underprivileged minority groups. The idea behind the program was to counter the socioeconomic trends that had been historically developed in the United States. The benefits of affirmative action are that it promotes diversity, it can eliminate socioeconomic differences, stop stereotypes, helps people achieve their goals, and breaks the glass ceiling. The consequences of affirmative action are that it promotes discrimination in reverse, it continues to reinforce stereotypes, and it lessens the achievements that minority groups obtain because they are labeled as having received help.
The introduction of the idea of affirmative action was mainly sparked by former President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which enforced the Fourteenth Amendment that states that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1) The executive order enforced the idea that businesses will have non-discriminatory processes in hiring employees and that minority employees cannot be discriminated against in the workplace.
Nevertheless, while naysayers focus on the limited drawbacks of affirmative action, they fail to recognize the positive impacts this policy is facilitating. Affirmative action allows admissions officers to consider a student’s application in context with their background and upbringing. Stanford alumni Ben Kaufman agree that “there is absolutely no ‘reverse discrimination’ present when a child of Mexican immigrants with a 3.5 GPA who had to work two jobs through high school is offered admission over an incredibly comfortable kid like us with a 3.9; there's only recognition of vast differences in background and advantage.” Undoubtedly, it is even impractical to compare two applicants that hail from the same state. An African American student
As millions of students across the nation graduate high school, the majority choose to continue down the path of education and apply for college. Driven to get into the college of their choice, students meticulously compose their application to show off their greatest achievements and strengths as a person, hoping that their accomplishments edge out others applying. However, little do students know that not only do their achievements and strengths matter when it comes to admissions, but many states look at race when deciding who gets in and who doesn’t, an uncontrollable factor of people's lives which may dictate their futures. This component of college admissions is known as affirmative action. Established in 1960 as an outcome of the Civil
In the United States, we have long since shed our discriminatory views on specific ethnic groups, and we have tried to create ways to make higher education easier to access for these groups. This system of positive discrimination is known as Affirmative Action, and during the time it was originally issued it provided minorities with the opportunity to peruse an academic education. However, as time goes on this loses its original purpose as many universities accept anyone who is qualified and can afford tuition, and this causes admissions to accept minority students based simply on race. For example a rich African-American with a less qualifying academic record has the same chances of getting accepted as a poorer Spanish resident with a superior
According to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology when members of different races are mixed together the level of prejudice lowers (1). Affirmative Action does not just help minorities economically, but it helps them socially. When you increase the level of minorities at colleges people are able to live in a place for four years where different races are forced to work together. This will help create a world where everyone is equal, and we can get rid of prejudice because of race, creed, and gender. These things sound good, but Affirmative Action does not lower prejudice, and does not give more opportunities to low income
Affirmative action is one of the most controversial issues between scholars, academics, professionals, and in the forum of public opinion in general. It has been extended to all public services, education, as well as military and private workplace issues. Extreme diverse opinions have been raised throughout many years since the affirmative action took a place. I believe that the core issue might be that there is a general lack of familiarity among the general public what term affirmative action does actually mean. Affirmative action or positive discrimination is a program providing advantages for people of a minority group or who are seem to have been traditionally historically discriminated against.
Against Affirmative action, its not agreeing with what colleges are doing to the first class, middle class and the disadvantaged students. College is where you go to earn your degree and do what you want to be in life. What colleges are doing now is not accepting you for the knowledge that you have but for how you’ve got to the place you are at now, for example say you are trying to get in Harvard University and you are waiting for them to accept you, so then a girl who was discriminated wants to go Harvard as well to get her education, Now, say they accept her into their college and not you because she was discriminated against and you weren’t, so even though you have the knowledge and characteristics to attend that college, they still let
Minorities are found all over the world, and tend to be disadvantaged; Brown and Langer recognize this and address the attempts that have been made to equalize lives through affirmative action. The disadvantages around the world, along with the affirmation tactics, vary from place to place, but some of the main places analyzed in the article, “Does Affirmation Action Work”, are the United States, Malaysia, South Africa, and India. Through analyzing some of these places, Brown and Langer were able to identify some of the negative and positive aspects of affirmative action. One of the first things to consider is what affirmation actually does. It is intended to help readdress inequality, but unfortunately this process sometimes highlights