Please boost your Plan to download papers
Pages 2 (502 words)
Affirmative Action refers to a federal agenda that was first used by Lyndon Johnson in his 1960 Executive Order 11246 that called on the federal government to take steps that would counteract historic discrimination of minorities with regards to their color, race, national…
In the event that such programs become preferential based on gender, race or ethnicity, affirmative action becomes controversial (Dale, 2005).
Originally, the Affirmative-Action legislation was intended to pressure institution including government institutions, schools, and contractors to comply with the non-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act, 1964 (Dale, 2005). The article required that schools and colleges take affirmative action to counteract the effects of past discriminations and encourage affirmative so as to achieve a diverse student body. Most importantly, the legislation was intended to forbid inflexible and rigid quotas for the employment of minorities and encourages contractors, schools and colleges to take good faith efforts to meet targets and goals for the employment minorities and women without discrimination (Dale, 2005).
Mr. Justice POWELL in his ruling on the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case concluded that, the use of racial quotas in a university’s admissions process is unconstitutional. In addition, it concluded that the use of affirmative actions in the selection of minority applicants was constitutional in certain circumstances (“Regents of University of California v. Bakke,” 1978).
This conclusion was based on the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 1964 that only those racial classifications that violates the Equal Protection Clause when employed by agencies of the state and the sate itself(“Regents of University of California v. Bakke,” 1978). The ruling was also based on the fact that while the goals of affirmative action are still compelling, the use of quotas in such programs is unnecessary in the achievement of such goals since it is, under the Equal Protection Clause, unnecessary. Additionally, the conclusion was based on the fact the petitioner could not furnish the court with sufficient proof that ...
Not exactly what you need?