Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court has not provided an opinion on affirmative action in higher education since its 1978 ruling in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke. In that decision, the Supreme Court’s Justice Powell argued that a university “could take race into account as one among a number of factors in student admissions for the purposed of achieving student body diversity”. Since the time of this ruling, affirmative action programs with respect to student admissions, financial aid, and even faculty employment have been based primarily on achieving diversity.

Since the Bakke decision, affirmative action has been an increasingly contentious issue between those in favor of its use and those opposed to it. Those in favor of affirmative action typically use as their justification the fact that such programs remedy the present effects of past discrimination. They also argue that racial diversity is a positive for universities because it “contributes to the robust exchange of ideas”. Despite such justifications, many individuals remain staunchly opposed to affirmative action. They stand opposed to it because they believe that affirmative action favors less qualified individuals for admissions based on race or gender, qualities unconnected to educational benefit. A University of Georgia admissions policy that featured affirmative action was recently found unconstitutional because, “Not only did the court fi

. . .
re not penalized by being replaced by less qualified minority candidates solely because they are minorities. Because of these kinds of claims, courts have adopted a more narrow focus with respect to affirmative action. Instead of using broad criteria, courts now look at the nature and weight of evidence with respect to current impact of past discrimination. They now have a tendency to focus on an institution’s ability to remedy effects of past discrimination for that institution only, instead of using the broader focus of past court actions that considered systemic or social discrimination. As Ann d. Springer claims, “The battle is increasingly contentious; the only thing on which everyone agrees is that the Supreme Court must at some point clarify its view on affirmative action”. Until the High Court makes such a clarification, perhaps deontological and utilitarian ethics can provide some clarity on the issue. Deontology at its most simple form is a theory of duty. According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a deontological theory “denies in some way that the good or what is of value, always takes priority over the right or duty”. This ethical theory implies, for instance, that an absolute right should not be violated
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Affirmative Action, Justice Powell, Hopwood Texas, University Georgia, Bentham Mill, Supreme Court, Encyclopedia Philosophy, affirmative action, Florida Initiative, Californias Proposition, University Texas, past discrimination, utilitarian ethics, effects past discrimination, action programs, pleasure pain, race gender, effects past, student admissions, course action, action deontological, affirmative action programs, affirmative action education, remedy effects past, past discrimination remedied,
Approximate Word count = 1248
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)