Essay about Affirmative Action and Higher Education

Among the citizens of America affirmative action is a sensitive subject with some seeing it as a necessity to help those who have been repressed and others seeing it as reverse racism. Many Americans may also be conflicted about affirmative action, because it is such a complex issue. People fervently debate affirmative action, because it is a complex issue revolving around one’s own race, experiences, and desires.

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan asserted that their policy was designed to promote diversity and ensure “unique contributions to the character of the Law School” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The University of Michigan maintained that they did not employ racial quotas rather they systemically focused on improving diversity in each entering class. The University associated their policy to Regents of Uni. Cal. v. Bakke (1978) which addressed race in university admission decisions.

Recently the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave schools across the country a higher standard to abide by when using affirmative action when making admission decisions. This case was brought to attention by Abigail Fisher, a white women rejected by the University of Texas. The verdict was a tame one and ruled in favor of Fisher with admissions requiring ““no workable race-neutral alternatives” when a student’s acceptance status is determined. This avoided much debate compared to the capacity the Court has for changing the nation.

The first landmark ruling of affirmative action occurred on June 28, 1978 in the Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The case involved the UC Davis medical school that had two admissions pools. One was for standard applications and the other was specifically for minorities and economically disadvantaged students. Alan Bakke was a white applicant that was rejected twice despite having significantly better test scores than several minorities who were accepted into the program. He claimed that judging him by his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The court ruled that race was a legitimate factor for admissions but inflexible quotas were not. The court split five-four and although it made a very important ruling it still had not addressed many of the issues that had surfaced as a result of the case (Brunner).

The Court visited this topic in two separate cases: Grutter v Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger. Grutter examined admissions requirements for Michigan Law School, and Gratz examined Michigan undergraduate requirements. Once again, emphasis was placed on applying strict-scrutiny when race plays a factor in admissions. The court also established the need for “narrowly tailored” provisions when implementing such programs.

     The subject of affirmative action in college admissions has been hotly debated since its inception. Although affirmative action was originally supported by the vast majority, that same majority is now starting to wonder if there is a better way. Commonly asked questions include: “Is affirmative action still working?” and “Is there an alternative?” The answers to each of these questions will provide insurmountable evidence that affirmative action in college admissions no longer fulfills its intended purpose and that the only viable alternative is to focus more attention on primary schooling for the underprivileged.

Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of the statistics, however, shows

After you graduate from college, you will be putting in your application for a job that you went to college for. Even though you might be the most qualified for the job you still might not obtain the position. Affirmative Action sometimes causes this because companies have to hire a certain number of minorities relative to the size of the company. This means that if there are no minority citizens available, immigrants who aren’t even US citizens can take the position. This is why Affirmative Action should be readjusted, because it is helping immigrants instead of the people it was meant for, American citizens.

Two hundred years ago in America, being born of a certain race or gender predetermined one’s opportunities in life. African Americans were subjected to slavery and discrimination and women had very little liberty. In the present, the United States is much closer to equality, yet gender and race still play a role in life’s opportunities given the high frequency of affirmative action programs; they attempt to increase the representation of minorities on college campuses and in the office, regardless of virtue. Programs of affirmative action arouse controversy because some groups view affirmative action as a catalyst for reverse discrimination whilst other groups support affirmative action as a way to diversify society and compensate for past

The Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an “active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups…” This paper will discuss the history of affirmative action and its effects on education and the work force in our society. I will argue why affirmative action is necessary for minorities to gain equal opportunities educationally and economically and how affirmative action is morally required as reparation for past discrimination. I will also discuss why many people believe that affirmative action is a step in the wrong direction and point out several arguments as to why we should get rid of affirmative action and try to validate their claims.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, found that the admissions policy at the University of Michigan, which awarded points to applicants based on race, was flawed (O’Connor, 2003). The Supreme Court used the rules of evidence to ensure that fairness to all parties was occurring in the administration of the Affirmative Action law (Boss, 2015). The Supreme Court ruling endorsed Justice Powell in his statement, “not some specified percentage of a particular group [enrolled] merely because of its race or ethnic origin…that would be patently unconstitutional (O’Connor, 2003),” while at the same time agreeing that a specified percentage of diversity would promote learning outcomes and break down stereotypes (Boss, 2015). This doublethink used to make a landmark decision by the Supreme Court for the use of Affirmative Action in higher education admissions is what makes many people call this ruling into question (Boss,

Affirmative Action is a policy in the United States of America. It is in use to help minorities get equal treatment in admissions policies for big businesses and higher educational programs. In one way or another, this policy affects almost every person in America. It affects people directly, and most commonly, indirectly. When this policy affects people, it usually affects them in a negative way. When Affirmative Action first started, it was a descent policy, but with changes in society, it has become a policy that does more harm than good. Since this is what the policy currently does, Affirmative Action should be out of use for every application it has a function for. So, this policy should be out of every law book in America to

Evidently, it is in the best interest of policy makers and Universities to ponder ways to enrich diversity and exemplify a sense of equality; however, certain techniques that attempt to establish these characteristics are continually debated, such as affirmative action. Some people believe that diversity is nearly the same as a quota, and that “the fact is that it’s hard to see any practical difference between ‘diversity’ in practice and patently illegal race norming—putting minorities in a separate pool, judging them only against other members of the pool, and accepting a certain (even if indeterminate) number of them” (Clegg 379). Besides, one study conducted by the Inside HigherEd foundation, discovered that although it has been outlawed sine the 1978 Bakke decision, it is still “quite common at elite, selective institutions for minority applicants not to compete for admission against the larger applicant pool. Instead, they may compete only among those…within the same group” (Clegg 382).

Reverse discrimination turned out to be an issue, demonstrated by Allan Bakke, a white male that had been rejected two years in a row by the medical school in 1978. The University of California had separated admissions for minority groups and had set aside 16 out of 100 places for minority students as their goal for diversity. Mr. Bakke felt he

Affirmative action: these words bring to mind many different things to many different people. To some it is a leveler of the playing field and a right for past injustices, but to others it is a tool used to cause reverse discrimination and continues prejudices. Affirmative action was born into a time when our country was attempting to provide equality for all and was only intended to be a temporary measure to bring about this equality into areas where it had been lacking. Now almost forty years later this temporary measure known as affirmative action is still being used and has in the most part failed to bring about the equality it was supposed to. Instead, we have today a