Affirmative action in his eyes not only discriminated against non-minority, but also gave way for failure due to the lack of proper schooling before post-secondary institutions for minorities. The term minority student means that students were disadvantaged and were underrepresented in America. Richard argues that the people who affirmative action was designed for were not benefiting because affirmative action was not
We have seen in the past four decades race-based affirmative action programs that have arisen and fitfully developed through judicial challenges. As in most case, the best of intentions do not always lead to positive outcomes. Nothing could be more apt in describing the perilous position we have bestowed upon millions of minority students who have been admitted to higher learning institutions under the auspices of diversity. As illustrated by the standardized test and GPA numbers in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the students admitted to the medical school of UC-Davis under their affirmative action policy were extraordinarily less qualified when compared to the student body as a whole. This not only unfairly displaced white and Asian students who would have otherwise been admitted to those spot on merit but also places those underperforming students in an environment in which they are destined to fail.
Is affirmative action still necessary for guaranteeing equal access to educational opportunities at elite universities and graduate schools? Should admissions decisions be based solely on academic criteria and merit? Key Words: affirmative action, Grutter V. Bollinger, and diversity. Grutter V. Bollinger Research Paper 3 Affirmative Action in Education Affirmative action was formed more than fifty years ago.
Like “c”, the quality of the students has diminished. Not only that think about the job professions were affirmative action have people that shouldn’t be qualified to take jobs like doctor and engineering and scientist because of affirmative
The Civil Rights Act led to Affirmative actions in which it ensured that victims of past discrimination would have an advantage in finding jobs, job promotions, and special consideration for admission to college and universities (Mullane, 1993, p. 237). However,
Thus, often without realizing it, the United States has practiced what, in effect, was white affirmative action on a highly generous and widespread basis, followed by a much more modest program of black affirmative action. By understanding this history, we can come to terms with the widening gap between blacks and whites noted by Lyndon Johnson and with the incapacity of many blacks to be able to make good this gap in the following four decades (Katznelson,
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), once known as the Lucretia Mott Amendment, was supposed to guarantee equal rights between men and women (The Learning Network). The ERA covered many issues that women faced during its time. Abortion rights were included so that women could choose whether or not they would have a child. The ERA included women in the military drafts as one of their topics to make sure that men and women both had the same obligations. When the Constitution was first being formed, it was stated that “All men are created equal”, but they forgot one vital piece of America —women (“Equal Rights Amendment”).
Affirmative action policies promote diversity in public spaces, which will prepare students for future after graduation. This is essential because the world has become rapidly diverse, especially in the United States. Furthermore, affirmative action provides an environment for minority students in which they can have more chances to overcome their handicaps and to compete equally. From many aspects, minorities still have many obstacles to excel in this society, especially due to their socioeconomic status. Proponents of affirmative action programs assert that non-minority students blame their failure on this policy.
After the Brown decision, many institutions of higher education began to desegregate, although the process was slow and uneven. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation further strengthened the legal basis for desegregation in higher education. While affirmative action has been a controversial topic, with some arguing that it is reverse discrimination, others argue that it is necessary to address historical inequalities and create a more diverse and inclusive society (History.com,
“Affirmative Action may not be a perfect system, but there should be no doubt that it has endangered many successes. It has opened the doors of America’s most elite educational institutions to minority students, granting them unprecedented opportunities” (Ogletree 12). Thanks to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson a policy that prohibits employment and education discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex is offered today to those who suffer from said discriminations (A Brief History). Affirmative action has opened abundant openings for minorities, allowing the cycle of going to college to be passed down generations and provided job opportunities that otherwise would not be considered by most. Affirmative
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
Due to Affirmative Action, institutions have to reach certain quotas to gain funding. However, once quotas are reached, there are many people of color who do not benefit. Timing is very important in whether or not a person of color can benefit from the government policy. Therefore, it benefits people by the situation and not as a whole. As diversity is very important to colleges and universities, their actions in the scholarship and admittance processes say otherwise.
Affirmative action has become obsolete in today’s society. Affirmative action is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons (Merriam-Webster, 2011). Today’s affirmative action will demoralize the very concepts that the policy was implemented to uphold: those of equality for all people regardless of color and discrimination. This policy supports racial multiplicity at the price of distinction, impartiality and experience; it also follows the line of reverse discrimination and sexual bias against white men (Reyna, Tucker, Korfmacher, & Henry, 2005).
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
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
