Affirmative Action in America Essay Example for Free

Affirmative Action in America Essay Throughout the years, much of the public’s confusion over affirmative action lies in the manners it is defined, because the manner at which the concept is described usually becomes the basis that shapes public attitude. Affirmative action in the United States basically refers to policies that take ethnicity, race, and gender into consideration in an effort to encourage equal opportunity. The focus of such policy varies from employment and public contracting objectives to health and educational outreach programs. It is intended to promote public institutions, such as police forces, hospitals and universities to be more representative of the people they serve. The thrust towards affirmative action is twofold, which is the rectification as a result of involuntary, institutional, or blatant discrimination, and maximization of the advantages of diversity in every levels of society. Affirmative action continues to be one of the most conflict-ridden issues in the United States, remaining unsettled ever since the civil rights legislation in 1960s. Despite the fact that numerous efforts have been challenged to get to the bottom of the problem, none attempted to recognize the fundamental causes of the criticism against the policy. Therefore, in order to understand the future of affirmative action, one must be aware of its evolution, its resistance, and its application in the United States. Evolution of Affirmative Action Affirmative action in the United States started as a device to deal with the enduring discriminations among African-Americans in the 1960s. This particular phrase was initially applied to represent the country’s government policy in 1961 as a means of redressing inequalities that had persisted albeit the constitutional guarantees and civil rights laws (Brunner, 2007). Focusing particularly on jobs and education, affirmative action policies mandated that active measures be taken to make sure that African-Americans and other minorities benefited from equal opportunities for financial aid, scholarships, school admissions, career advancement, salary increase, and promotions that had been practically the whites’ exclusive province. Affirmative action was visualized from the start as a provisional remedy that would end once there was an identical playing field for every Americans. President Kennedys Executive Order 10925 of 1961 intended and mandated every government contracting agencies to practice affirmative action to make sure that black applicants were hired and that they were equally taken cared of throughout their employment, without considering their color, creed, race, or national origin. In 1964, the landmark legislation of Civil Rights Act was signed into law, which prohibits employment discrimination by large employers, regardless of their previous contracts with the government. President Johnson developed and enforced for the fist time the country’s affirmative action through the Executive Order 11246 of 1965, requiring every government contractors and subcontractors to observe affirmative action so as to expand employment opportunities for minorities. President Johnson amended Executive Order 11246 in 1967 to incorporate affirmative action for women. By this time, federal contractors were required to make good-faith endeavors to increase employment opportunities for minorities and women (Wilcher, 2003). The 1978 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 912 upheld the use of race as one aspect in selecting qualified applicants for admission. Concurrently, it also ruled illegal the practice of the University Medical School of setting aside 18 seats for minority students in every incoming class of 100 (Wilcher, 2003). The following year, a National Women’s Business Enterprise Policy was created by President Jimmy Carter through the issuance of Executive Order 12138, which further requires every agency to take affirmative action to support business enterprise of women. In the same year, the Supreme Court ruled in United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber, 444 U. S. 889 that race-conscious endeavors intended to abolish an evident racial disparity in an employers labor force ensuing from past discrimination are acceptable if they are impermanent and do not infringe the rights of other employees. The United States Supreme Court in 1987 ruled in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U. S. 616 that a serious under representation of minorities and women warranted the use of sex or race as one aspect in selecting amongst qualified applicants. Opposition to affirmative action has resulted to numerous legal challenges, starting with the United States Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in City of Richmond vs. J. A. Croson, which required local and states governments to draw on more comprehensive evidence of inequalities to validate the need for the programs. Immediately after that, Oregon and Michigan discontinued their affirmative procurement programs. In 1998, both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives prevented efforts to abolish particular programs of affirmative action. Amendments to eliminate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program sponsored through the Transportation Bill were rejected by both houses, and the upper house rejected an endeavor to abolish the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions programs supported through the Higher Education Act. Throughout these periods, the opinions of the Supreme Court justices in affirmative action cases have been generally divided partly because of conflicting political beliefs but moreover because the issue is basically so complicated. Rather than tackling the whole policy, the Court has approached majority of the cases in a piecemeal manner, focusing on its narrow features. But in 2003, the landmark case involving the affirmative action policies of University of Michigan, which became one of the most imperative rulings on the issue in 25 years, the Supreme Court finally and positively supported higher education’s right of affirmative action (Brunner, 2007). The Court held as constitutional the use of race, among other aspects, of the University of Michigan in its law school admissions program given that the program advanced a compelling interest in achieving an educational advantage that flows from the diversity of student body. In addition, the Court established that the law school’s program was narrowly tailored, flexible, and supported a holistic assessment of every applicant.