and not forcing unqualified applicants on schools, employers or those who award federal contracts “Affirmative action expands an applicant pool for coveted spots in the classroom, the workplace, and among those vying for federal, state, or local contracts. By examining the question of ‘qualifications,’ affirmative action includes those who might not ordinarily be included in college, the workplace, or among contractors.”
In his book, Urofsky focuses on the different kinds of legalities and case decisions involved in affirmative action over the years. While most affirmative action studies focus on racism, Urofsky focuses on gender primarily in the Supreme Court case Johnson v. Santa Clara. In this case women in the workforce won a significant victory where expanding access is concerned. Urofsky takes us through years of legal decisions involving affirmative action type cases, like women being refused to practice law in the 19th century or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which banned discrimination based on race, color or gender in employment, education and other areas. The author also points out that many whites argue affirmative action is harmful to them, especially considering they are not a party to discrimination. However, Urofsky provides the opinions of the head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Ira Glasser, and others, who argue ending discrimination also includes curtailing past advantages enjoyed only by whites. Daniel Maguire argues that a just citizen will not tolerate social injustice even if he is not an offender contributing to it “He owes a debt to legal justice by the very nature of social personhood. Here the guilt is the guilt of omission, the guilt of not have done enough, of not caring enough…In the matter of American racism, the white who would claim to be without such guilt is, in the phrase and spirit of the Apostle John, ‘a liar.’”
There are many in the literature w...