Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Outcomes of affirmative action
Affirmative action for the community
Outcomes of affirmative action
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Outcomes of affirmative action
Affirmative action for the community
Outcomes of affirmative action
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After carefully reviewing the oral argument and brief of case 14-191, Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, I was impressed how well the plaintiff attorney argued her defense during the trail. The litigations were as stated, in 2008, the UT Austin enrollment department wrongfully denied admission based upon the school considered race discrimination in its admission process because Fisher was a white female student, and because of her inadequate academic achievements. Fisher lawyer focus adequately on the highlight of the case by persuading the court that she would have gotten accepted into the university if she wasn’t stereotyped on such matters: race, top 10 percent student, grades, test scores which she refer to as personal achievement index. UT at Austin attorneys really didn’t have much leading factories to propose a concrete objective. In the argument Fisher attorney used the Justice Powell‘s example on Bakke system to support is statement.
Up and until this point in time, the court has generally ruled that promoting educational diversity is in fact a compelling state objective, but in today’s America, educational diversity has been established and is thriving. In this day and age, using race as a factor in college admissions is not needed. The Fourteenth amendment ensures the equal protection of the law to each and every citizen. We may not discriminate in order to promote
In “Net (Race) Neutral: An Essay on How GPA + (reweighted) SAT - Race = Diversity,” Christine Goodman illustrates the opposing viewpoints in regards to the racial discriminatory efforts by the college institutions to help diversify the incoming freshman class. With this, Goodman provides statistics and opinions of experts on the matter, which includes comparison of such discriminatory acts against other institutions. To begin, she brings up an enlightening, yet controversial court case decision: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013). This court case demonstrates significance to this topic because it counteracts a previous court case, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which, “upheld diversity as a compelling interest that would justify narrowly
The U.S. Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke was officially decided June 28, 1978. The case addressed the issue of use of affirmative action in university admissions processes. Affirmative action, also referred to as positive discrimination, was a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and was intended to ensure equal entry to educational institutions or employment entities to certain groups that “have historically suffered invidious discrimination” (Janda et al., 477). However, sometimes this method causes discrimination of other groups, through establishment of racial quotas. University of California employed the process of affirmative action and instituted racial quotas in its admissions
Hunter Johnson CRN 10774 Term Paper Political Actors are not just any elected officials, but they can be any organization, group, or person that has an influence on any political issue. In the Texas affirmative action case, many political actors are involved. Edward Blum runs a group who is working on ending affirmative action. He was along side Abigail Fisher helping her though this case. Another political actor was Justice Clarence Thomas.
The civil rights area of the 1960s is over. Affirmative action policies based on racial quotas or preferences have been struck down by the Supreme Court, yet states have an interest in college admission that are diverse and reflect their general population. The University of Texas finds itself defending policies intended to conform to recent court rulings yet merely mentioning race as a factor in a holistic review has drawn a challenge. The University of Texas process of admissions aligns with Gutter V Bollinger. The facts of this case are in keeping with previous court precedents.
Written Task 2 Racial profiling as defined by the National Institute of Justice is “a practice that targets people for suspicion of crime based on their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin” (National Institute of Justice). There are two different kinds of racial profiling according to the primary text. There is what can be called "Hard" profiling, that sees race as the only factor in assessing criminal suspiciousness.
I can attribute my enrollment at WSU as benefitting from affirmative action, which deemed me a minority simply after seeing my Spanish name on the application. I have even been awarded certain ethnic scholarships, simply because I marked a box, along with the assumptions my last name conveyed, proving just how much and how loud words or names can tell without actually saying a word. Passing allows me to conveniently
Hate crimes have been a long-lasting reality in the United States beginning in the nation’s history with eradicating Native American populations, slavery, and xenophobia. As a result, forty-five states have adopted hate crime laws to combat organized hate groups from preying upon the most vulnerable groups in society. Hate crime laws provide special protections to the groups that are most frequently targeted by hate crimes including African Americans, LGBT, Jews, and Muslims. Although there has been much debate over what groups should be protected by hate crime laws, evidently there are groups that have been historically targeted at a much higher rate than others. Hence why most states exclude other groups that are not in as much need for protections in hate crime legislation.
Another thing that places students of color at a disadvantage in college admissions is the persisting cultural bias in high-stakes testing. “High-stakes” tests are those that are tied to major consequences, such as admission to college, or even high school graduation. Fair education reform advocates have long been citing an extensive record of standardized testing concerns, many of which relate to racial bias and discrimination. As researcher and author Harold Berlak explains in the journal Rethinking Education: Standardized testing perpetuates institutionalized racism and contributes to the achievement gap between whites and minorities. For instance, the deeply embedded stereotype that African Americans perform poorly on standardized tests
Racial profiling has become a national issue starting in 2015 (“Racial”). Judging someone for their race has been a problem ever since a minority group has been noticed. Racial profiling has spread over all over the world. Racial profiling has been a problem through the years, if the human race can learn what racial profiling is, advantages of the profiling, and the disadvantages.
After a troublesome and torrid time, the black people or what so called slaves, were entering the 20th century with hope of not being discriminated after the slavery had been abolished in the late 19th century. The beginning of 20th century had overseen the stampede of worldwide immigrants to America as they seek for a better life. As for African-Americans, they were entering the phase where they found themselves almost identical with the past century despite the slavery being abolished. Though the abolishment of slavery was written in the 13th Amendment, some of the states still legalized it. They were still in the same position as they were before in some of the states in America.
According to the dominant theory the affirmative action was firstly introduced to deal with two types of social disruption in the 1960s as campus protests and urban riots in the North. However, this article is based on different theory as dominant theory's empirical evidence is limited. It examines the initial reason for advent of race-conscious affirmative action in 17 undergraduate institutions in the United States. And according to the research this article concludes that there were two waves that contributed to affirmative action: 1) first wave in the early 1960s introduced by northern college administrators 2) second wave in the late 1960s introduced as a response to the protests of campus-based students. This article will help me to establish the main reasons for introduction of race-conscious affirmative action in undergraduate
We are now living in a time of discrimination. I asked two questions later, but I would like to add another question and I want to talk about it and I hope to answer it or give the answer to the people. When will discrimination end?. Many people have suffered and are still at risk of racism or racial discrimination, so Racism is a doctrine based on discrimination between people according to their sexual origin and color.
Throughout many of the affirmative action legal cases, one of the main arguments from proponents is that it is necessary in order to right the wrongs of past racial discrimination. Some say that affirmative action is justified because even though white applicants may be more qualified, this is only because they did not face the same hardships as their minority counterparts (Rachels, Ethics, 1973). Many argue if we do not integrate disadvantaged minorities into mainstream social institutions, they will continue to suffer the discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries and that this is detrimental to not only the minorities but also society as a whole (Anderson, 2002, 1270–71). However, the debate has recently shifted to the benefits of diversity in the classroom which the Supreme Court has affirmed as being a positive thing