Affirmative Action Plans Within The University System example essay topic

Affirmative Action as defined by the Meri am Webster's Dictionary is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women. In 1961 John F. Kennedy issued an executive order calling for Affirmative Action as a means to promote equal opportunity for racial minorities, in hiring by federal contractors. This was the first official use of the term by the Federal Government. Eight years later Nixon as President beefed up the Office of Federal Compliance Programs, which along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has become one of the governments two main enforcers of affirmative action policy. Such efforts have vastly expanded opportunities for American students of African decent. However they have also touched off complaints from many whites that American students of African decent are benefiting from reverse discrimination.

Under the equal opportunity act of 1972 most federal contractors, subcontractors, all state and government institutions (including universities) must initiate plans to increase the proportions of their female and minority employees until they are equal to the proportions existing in the available labor market. Affirmative action plans that establish racial quotas were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Regents of University of California vs. Bakke in 1978. This case arose when the medical school of the University of California at Davis twice rejected Allen Bakke's application while admitting members of racial minorities who had lower test scores. Bakke charged that the medical school's policy of setting aside 16 of the 100 positions for racial minorities was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In a complex 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ordered that Bakke be admitted. The court ruled that even though universities may consider race and ethnic origins as a factor in evaluating candidates for admission, they may not establish fixed racial quotas.

In 1984 the Supreme Court struck down a Richmond ordinance intended to quarntee Americans of African decent other minorities a greater share of the city's construction contracts. The decision not only threatened similar programs in 36 states, but also opened the 1 door to legal attacks against other racially based government schemes. A key component of the court ruling was the requirement that all government distinctions based on race be subject to "strict scrutiny. ' This means that public sector affirmative action programs are valid only if they serve the compelling state interest of redressing identified discrimination. Affirmative action has moved to the forefront of public debate in recent months with a proposed California ballot initiative that would end many race-based preference programs. education. Then on Thursday July 8, 1995, the California University System Board of Regents adopted a plan to dismantle affirmative action plans within the university system.

Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California system shall not use race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for admission to the University or any program of study. Republican Governor Pete Wilson, responded to White House Chief of Staff's Leon Panetta's contentions that the board of regents made a terrible mistake and that the Justice Department would begin a review of the billions of dollars that flow from the federal government into the states' universities, by claiming that the state will not be intimidated by the implicit threat of losing the huge largess in student aid and research funds that the university receives. The university would follow through with the dismantling of the programs because, they were wrong and unfair. There are however two unusual twists to the assault on affirmative action in the University of California system, that defy the stereotypes. First the race based preferences are being attacked by a black member of the board of regents and defended by Berkeley's Asian-American Chancellor.

Second the racial makeup here has extended the fault line in the debate to minority vs. minority, as well as black vs. white. On the other side of the coin are those who would prefer to do away with affirmative action. They assert that the successes Asian-Americans have achieved without being given preferential treatment, raises a question about the necessity of race-based programs as a remedy for overcoming historic prejudice. The same critics argue that affirmative action to aid historically disadvantaged black and Hispanic students, has become a new form of discrimination against Asian-Americans. Although Afro-Americans and Hispanic students are still underrepresented at Berkeley as measured by their share of the state's population.

I believe that if the goal of affirmative action is to move toward a more equal society, then the effect is to create a campus obsessed with racial and ethnic divisions. I even think that affirmative action in admissions contributes to a campus of racially divided dorms and friendships that make the benefits of diversity more theoretical than real.