• Does seniority play a role in affirmative action.
  • Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia
  • Affirmative Discrimination in Higher Education

The differences between affirmative action programs and equal opportunity legislation will be explained.

Have they been reaping the benefits of affirmation action.

Introduction Is affirmative action in higher education needed.

Finally the reactions of beneficiaries of affirmative action will be discussed....
Some who oppose race-conscious affirmative action heartily agree that this country still suffers from the cumulative effects of discrimination and that universities benefit from diversity. In spite of this, they do not see the need for continued race-conscious policies, arguing that we can achieve racial diversity without such measures. However, we still need policies that consider race as one of many factors in the admissions process, or at minimum, the option to use them when needed. Thus, my focus in this piece is on why we specifically need the flexibility to consider race as one of numerous factors in the admissions process (alongside class and other relevant attributes) and less on the broad legal rationale for affirmative action (historic discrimination or the diversity defense). These reasons include the need to use race- conscious policies when race-neutral policies do not result in sufficient diversity, the need for diversity throughout a college campus, and the need for relative equal status among students.

Beyond Affirmative Action - The Chronicle of Higher Education

In the Grutter and Fisher cases, the Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed the use of race-conscious admissions policies when race-neutral alternatives are insufficient. Over the years, there have been two primary rationales for affirmative action. The first is the need to compensate for the systemic disadvantages accumulated and experienced by people of color due to systemic and historic patterns of discrimination. The second is the need for universities to provide learning environments that facilitate the educational benefits of engaging with a racially diverse student body. Engagement with racial diversity is associated with numerous positive college outcomes, including critical thinking, leadership, team- work, reduction in bias, and overall college satisfaction.1 Since the Bakke case, the latter (the benefits of diversity) argument has been the prime justification for allowing race-conscious admissions policies. Regardless, the “diversity defense” is intertwined with the “historic discrimination” rationale, in that the educational benefits of diversity in the college environment are effective because most students grow up in segregated environments with little meaningful pre-college engagement with diversity.2


Affirmative action in education has faced ..

In theory, universities could employ affirmative action based on race and add class to the mix, but almost none do. Today, the main universities that pay attention to socioeconomic diversity are those that are banned (often by voter referendum) from employing race in admissions. To their credit, these universities want racial diversity, so they use socioeconomic status as a proxy and end up creating both racial and economic diversity.

Day, J. 2001. Retelling the Story of Affirmative Action: Reflections on a Decade of Federal Jurisprudence in the Public Workplace. California Law Review, 89:59.

Affirmative Action at Risk in Supreme ..

Day, J. 2001. Retelling the Story of Affirmative Action: Reflections on a Decade of Federal Jurisprudence in the Public Workplace. California Law Review, 89:59.

The Supreme Court on Affirmative Action in Higher Education

On Capitol Hill, efforts to eliminate affirmative action have been defeated. For instance, in the United States Senate, a bipartisan majority in 1998 soundly defeated (58–37) a proposal to ban the use of affirmative action in federal contracting. Around the same time, the House of Representatives, by a bipartisan vote of 249–171, defeated a proposal to prohibit the receipt of federal funds by any public higher education institution that has affirmative action programs in place. Voter referenda in California and Washington have dealt serious blows to efforts by public entities, including public universities, to put race-conscious programs in place. Voters in Houston, Texas, however, defeated a similar measure that would have banned the use of affirmative action in city contracting.

a case on affirmative action in education since the ..

On a slightly different front, an author recently conducted a survey of constitutional challenges to 49 remedial workplace affirmative action plans. These plans arose out of employment disputes wherein race-conscious practices were put into place to remedy the present effects of past discrimination. Approximately 40 percent of the plans withstood strict scrutiny, leading the author to conclude that 1) carefully crafted affirmative action plans can and do withstand strict scrutiny, and 2) commentators’ depiction of affirmative action as dead is at odds with the empirical evidence.

Why We Still Need Affirmative Action - Newsweek

Those claiming that affirmative action is dead ignore not only the aforementioned case law but also other significant additional developments both within and outside the courtroom. For instance, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena is an affirmative action case in the federal contracting context in which the Supreme Court in 1995 applied strict scrutiny to federal contracting for the first time. The diversity rationale was not at issue in this case. Many experts believed that Adarand would become another nail in the affirmative action coffin, and that strict scrutiny would prove “fatal in fact,” meaning that the new legal hurdle would be insurmountable in practice. To the contrary, the Adarand case itself was remanded to the lower court to determine whether the program could withstand strict scrutiny. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the program satisfied strict scrutiny, and was constitutional. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case again during the upcoming 2001–2002 term.