Final Claim Revised

Final Claim Revised - June 13, 2006 Prof. Uranga FINAL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
June 13, 2006 Prof. Uranga FINAL CLAIMS CLAIM Affirmative Action has been declared illegal or unconstitutional due to the following criteria: reverse discrimination, failure to meet a compelling governmental interest, and flawed implementation. VARIABLES Dependent Variable – Affirmative Action has been declared illegal or unconstitutional Independent Variable – due to the following criteria: reverse discrimination, failure to meet a compelling governmental interest, and flawed implementation. EXPECTATIONS I expect to find that Affirmative Action is illegal and unconstitutional because of the criteria: reverse discrimination, failure to meet a compelling governmental interest, and flawed implementation. EVIDENCE Evidence for + Affirmative Action has been under attack since it was instated and recently declared unconstitutional because of the following criteria: reverse discrimination, failure to meet a compelling governmental interest, and flawed implementation. Reverse discrimination describes discriminatory policies or acts that benefit sociopolitically non dominate groups, minorities and women, as oppose to the dominant groups. For example hiring black as oppose to whites just because the color of their skin. This is exactly what Affirmative Action does today, if blacks were mistreated in the past, and to give them preferential treatment is morally wrong. Many of the citizens today had no part in the unfair treatment, so why should they pay the price. The 13 th Amendment abolished slavery, and the 15 th and 19 th Amendments gave black and women the right to vote. Governmental interest was for racial diversity. The failure to adjust scores to improve the test’s predictive validity distorts the true scores of minorities, and indirectly everyone, as admissions is a zero sum game. (1) The flawed implementation of the Affirmative Action was the harmful affect it had on others. Bakke vs UC Regents was one of the first cases to decided that discrimination based on race preference was as offensive as the wrong it sought to remedy. In which they violated his right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
the California Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Powell found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against regular applicants. Powell however stated that universities could use race as a plus factor.” (2)
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/24/2008 for the course POLSC 1 taught by Professor Uranga during the Spring '05 term at Pasadena City College.

Page1 / 7

Final Claim Revised - June 13, 2006 Prof. Uranga FINAL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online